Bulgakov was a true Russian genius, but one who lacked the "politically correct" postures of other less talented soviet hacks. As a result, his works were nearly unknown in his lifetime. But gradually, his books have been published and translated and with each book his stature grows. Bulgakov may stand with Myakovsky, Mandelstam, Akmatova, Shostakovitch and Malevich as the greatest artistic minds to come from the Soviet Union.
The Heart of a Dog is a great book, perhaps not as multifaceted as Bulgakov's masterpiece, Master and Margarita, but brilliant nonetheless. The book seems perhaps a combination of Gogol's The Nose, and Kafka's Metamorphosis. Sharik - a perfectly normal stray dog is adopted by a famous scientist who transplants the testes and pituitary gland of criminal. Sharik gradually develops into a lewd, drunken cur of a man who is fabulously successful in the new Soviet society.
As Joanna Daneman says in a previous review, Bulgakov's theatrical background is highly visible in this work. Each chapter is crafted like a distinct scene...the comedy is often extremely broad. Sharik is as pointed and broad a caricature of The New Soviet Man...as seen from it's dark underbelly. Many of the scenes are almost broad slapstick. And yet, the humor, while broad, is also quite bitter. It is obvious that Bulgakov saw the deterioration of his society and was deeply disturbed by it.
Bulgakov's disdain of the Proletariat is a bit disturbing to an American. After all, we are the country of the common man. And there is a hidden "snobbery" in the work, which can be a bit hard to take. But so much of the book is dead on...and it is extremely funny. Heart of a Dog is an enjoyable and important addition to the growing Bulgakov oeuvre.

Mikhail Bulgakov, best known for his brilliant novel "The Master and Margarita" was steeped in the theatrical craft. When his books were censored, he wrote a wild, heartfelt letter to authorities in Soviet Russia, asking that, if they were not to be allowed to publish his work, would they then assign him to work in theater, even as a lowly stagehand. In one of Stalin's capricious moves, Bulgakov was, indeed, assigned to work as an assistant director at a Moscow theater.

Meanwhile, Bulgakov continued to amass what must be one of the world's great hordes of literary work unpublished in the lifetime of an author. "Heart of a Dog" is probably his most viciously anti-Soviet, anti-Proletariat work, and it reads like a cross between Orwell's "Animal Farm" and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" but with Bulgakov's intense sarcasm and humor thrown in. The book is so dramatic, it's almost impossible to read it without seeing it run like a film or play behind your eyes as you read it.

A professor (whose Russian name is a play on the scientist Pavlov) adopts a mongrel dog. The dog Sharik (Fido, Rover...) is grateful! His life on the street has been hard, he's been kicked, scalded with hot water and he is starving. The professor feeds him well. Ah, he's gaining weight and healing up. What a nice man! A god, even, well, to a dog. But wait a minute! The professor, noted surgeon that he is, is preparing to operate. He seizes the dog....

And then we see the results of the professor's cruel experiment. A dog gets a human brain portion and begins to develop as a human. But he isn't a nice friendly, tail-wagging human. Oh, no. He's low, a cur, yes, a dog of a man who chases cats uncontrollably, pinches women's bottoms and drinks like a fish (oops mixed metaphor there.) He demands to be registered and get papers like a human being in Soviet society. And the authorities are anxious, even rabid to assist him. Sharikov takes a first name and patronymic that is so inappropriate, so hysterically funny that you have to laugh out loud. Then he gets a prominent job as a purge director, eliminating those counter-revolutionary cats from Moscow's pure Communist society. That is, until the professor cooks up a plot.

This is a gem of a book. Bulgakov shares Orwell's deep hatred of totalitarianism, but unlike the delicate satire of Orwell, Bulgakov writes with massive belly laughs of deeply sarcastic humor and over-the-top jokes. He's a dramatist at heart, and this book shows his theatrical thinking, where exaggerated movement and stage props play as much a role in exposition as dialog.

This is a true small masterpiece and should appeal to just about anyone. It would be a very good book for a high school or college literature study. It is really wonderful, and prepares the reader for Bulgakov's wildly out of control masterpiece "Master and Margarita." Don't miss this book for anything!

Bulgakov established himself as one of the most talented comic writers from Russia - if not one of the most talented, period. This, one of his early works, showcases his love of satirical farce, focusing this time on the attempt to reform that which needs no reformation.

The story is simple enough on the outside: A doctor takes in a wounded stray dog, gives it a prissy name, and treats it to a life of luxury. Then, when the dog least expects it, the doctor turns around and implants a human pituitary gland and pair of testicles in him. Gradually, the dog develops into a monstrous... human?! Exactly.

This is not a book to be taken at face value. It's vaguely funny if you know nothing about Russian (esp. Soviet) history, and *hilarious* if you've done your homework. Bulgakov's rousing, snide commentary on the controlling government he despised was extremely controversial when it was first written, but nonetheless an invaluable addition to the world's literature.

As an aside, get the Mirra Ginsburg English translation, which is arguably the best one available--the Michael Glenny translation reads like a translation, and sacrifices some of the comedic affect of the story.

Andrey Platonov was right in the middle of revolution. He was one of those who made it happen. And he wrote about what he knew and what he saw. He did not make it big but he was very good.

Words fail me in praising this. Simply put, it is one of the most over-looked, classic texts of the 20th C. Platonov writes in a style that combines a dreamy, surreal sensibility of the world with a hard, trenchant, unflinching look at the characters who inhabit it. My copy of this is dog-eared, full of notes and underlines- aspiring writers take note- Platonov is a writer who is to be studied, as much for his subtlety and lyrical elegance as his tough-skinned presentation of ruined lives; people trying to craft some order and peace from a world, and largely doomed to fail.

I'm being a bit too romantic, too hyperbolic. I probably shouldn't have attempted this. But I want to put my two cents in as concerns this work, because I love it. It is a marvelous book.

This is one of those novels you will return to, repeatedly, like a cure. I can't think of any other work that so profoundly illuminates man's alienation- from self, from others, from nature, from meaning. Every thinking, waking person should own this.

This is perhaps the best novella ever written; everyone should read it. Dostoyevsky's writing is evocative and powerful, both in that it evokes feelings and in that these feelings are feelings that you will always find yourself sharing. You will shudder at the degree to which you resemble the petty, unhappy narrator of this little book--at the degree to which you are tortured by the everpresent gaze of popular culture and of yourself, and the degree to which to find that spite and irrationality pervade your everyday modes of thought.

What makes Dostoyevsky unique among 19th-century authors is his connection to philosophical debates; his critique of the Enlightenment is perhaps one of the most powerful expressions of what contemporary thinkers refer to as "the crisis of modernity."

But unlike the vast body of existentialist, marxist, and post-structuralist writing that has proliferated during this century, Notes from Underground's critique wields intense emotional power. Against the background of humanistic faith in progress and reason, the narrator finds himself mired in his own spite and squalidity, and in his own self-hatred he comes to view all humanity cynically.

Dostoyevsky's critique of the Enlightenment is devastating. The narrator stares at the statement "2+2=4" and then rejects it, questioning whether it really matters anyway. For Dostoyevsky, like Foucault, power is a productive relation--power always produces resistance. As such, all utopian schemas of rationalization are bound to carry the seeds of their own defeat. Humans, Dostoyevsky tells us, will always find new ways to express their stupidity and irrationality.

Central to this book is Dostoyevsky's explosion of the public/private dichotomy. The progress of Enlightenment humanism (represented by a reference to Kant's notion of 'the lofty and the beautiful') situates the individual as a cog in a rational social machinery, but this rationalization totally fails to extend into the private sphere--the Underground. The utter squalidity of the narrator's private life is horrifying because the reader always feels that she can relate to the narrator's tortured feelings. Here lies the disturbing power of Dostoyevsky's work.

On the other hand, from a philosophical point of view, Dostoyevsky's focus on the private sphere becomes a source of optimism. Dostoyevsky's politicization of the private opens up new spaces for political agonivity: the narrator uses the Underground as a space of spiteful critique, but the Underground can also enable personal emancipation from the contingent roles coerced by the technical imperatives of rationalized society.

Quick read? I finished Crime and Punishment and thought I'd zip through Notes like a snack before going on to the Brothers Karamozov, afterall, it's barely over 100 pages. Quick read? Think again.

Imagine being locked in a very small room with a verbose, insane, brilliant, jaded, before-his-times, clerk-come-philosopher....with a wicked sense of humor, and a toothache that's lasted a month. Pleasant company....are you searching for the door yet?

For the first hour, he's going to rant about his philosophy of revenge, the pointlessness of his life, his superiority, his failure, oh yeah, and his tooth. FOr the second half of the book, he's going to tell you a tale, with the title "Apropos of the Wet Snow". Because of course, there's wet snow outside on the ground.

I will leave you with this encouragement. If you can get through this book, you will appreciate Doestoevsky more, understand Crime and Punishment better, and probably enjoy a good laugh more than once.

Notes from the Underground is not light reading, but it is well worth the effort. And the translation by Pevear, including the translators notes at the back, is excellent.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Notes from Underground" is an existential classic. This book, like many of Dostoevsky's works, intertwines the notions of literature and philosophy, probing the depths of aesthetic contemplation through philosophy. Dostoevsky, used this manuscript as a testing or training ground for later ideas he would explore in his groundbreaking and notorious books such as "Crime and Punishment,""Brothers Karamazov," and "the Idiot." Also central to the theme of the writing one will enciounter many notions of autonomy, or freedom of the individual. The main character, "the Underground man," performs many absurd actions, often in spite of his own self. However, this deals with the notion as Sartre later expressed, is it better for the individual to choose for him or herself and be wrongs sometimes or once in a while, then to have others choose for oneself? The protagonist, is continuously struggling, with himself and the existential burden of constructing and being soley responsible for ones own existence, for owns own counciousness. "Notes from Underground" is a magnificent, psychological exploration, into the mind of the individual, free, autonomous and choosing completley for oneself, which is anything but an easy matter.

My friend was given this book as a gift for her daughters, aged 2 1/2. Since she's in constant motion with her twins, she asked me to post this review. One of the girls was rather uninterested, and unaffected, by the story, but the second one was nothing short of traumatized by the images depicted in this story, particularly of the Clay Boy devouring a horse, with its rider and cart. She has had nightmares ever since and constantly asks her mother "Is the Clay Boy outside our house?" and "Will the horse be OK?" The illustrations are wonderfully done, but they are a bit too lifelike for those too young to understand. I think this book is much more appropriate for children who are at least four or five.

Clayboy is a favorite of mine and the children in my early childhood special education classroom. Clay Boy comes to life saying "I'm here! I'm hungry!" The story concludes with the raveneous boy getting his "just desserts"! Mirra does a wonderful job of finding just the right word to go with the actions. Read with expression, this book is sure to please even those children who find books and stories "boring"!

.

What is it about most traditional East European folk tales? They nearly always have a sinister, sometimes scary story line. "Clay Boy" is no exception.

The concept of a clay boy that comes to life is very reminiscent of Pinocchio. An elderly couple known as Grandpa and Grandma are lonely now that their children have grown up. The clay boy is to become their child substitute.

There is one big problem when he comes alive. He is insatiably hungry. He eats and eats, and he grows and grows until he ate all the food in the house. "More More" he cries.

Now things get a little macabre. He's seen gulping down whole live chickens, and then the geese, cat and dog are consumed. Then it's Grandma and Grandpa's turn to be on the menu.

By now, Clay Boy is of giant proportions. In one bite, he eats a man, a wagon, a horse and a load of hay. GULP!

He is still unsatisfied, after swallowing everybody in the village.

But then, he meets his match.

A very cunning goat (check out the face on this Billy) offers to jump straight into Clay Boy's mouth, but on one condition: Clay Boy has to close his eyes.

The goat took a great leap straight at the big fat belly. Clay Boy broke into a hundred pieces and all the people and animals that he had swallowed tumbled out. The goat was the hero of the village and had his horns painted gold. Such rejoicing!

No explicit moral is given in this story. But what does this folk tale tell us? Will insatiable greed and endless consumption lead only to annihilation?

There is also a modern message here. Now that most of us live far removed from our parent's homes, perhaps we should spend more time with our folks so they don't get lonely. And for Grandma and Grandpa, they should accept that their children have grown up, and should not try to find substitutes for this loss.

The last page brings this home. The role of Grandparents is to instil and pass on their wisdom to their grandchildren. The best way to do this is to be a story- teller for the young ones and ideally, pass on the stories that you heard from your parents and grandparents.

A good story but in my opinion ther's nothing special about the pictures.

My mom bought a copy of this book...about 20 years ago. She got it because it reminded me of a sampler she had made depicting chicks in front of a blazing sun. It was one of my top fives as a kid. When I found it again here, I was beside myself. It arrived speedily, and in perfect shape at that. This virtual thrift shopping is a good substitue for the real thing!

A great political dystopia written in 1924, We lays the foundation for Brave New World and 1984 and remains shocking and relevant. The story follows a mathematician named D-503 who lives in a bleak totalitarian society. When a comely resistance leader named I-330 seduces D-503, he accidentally discovers his soul, his unique individual identity, and is nearly driven insane by the revelation. The story contains several wonderful philosophical debates about the nature of freedom, art, and government. Written in a highly poetic, sometimes challenging prose style. Not surprisingly, this novel never got published in the USSR and Zamyatin was eventually exiled because of it. That which gives us comfort induces stasis; only things that make us uncomfortable challenge us to change and grow.

Zamyatin's WE, like Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, is a classic science-fiction novel that unmasks the chilling realities of the erosion of individuality. What makes Zamyatin's account more compelling, however, is that he wrote the novel from within the fledgeling Socialist state of 1920's Russia (it wasn't even published there until 1988). Therefore, Zamyatin can lay claim to a firsthand understanding of the fallacies of the Soviet collective unlike the eccentric British intellectuals Orwell and Huxley. Although Zamyatin's language, at times, is a bit peculiar by nature, this Twentieth Century Classics translation is perhaps the easiest to understand, as the translator shied away from word use that would not register smoothly in the mind of a contemporary English reader. If you have read Brave New World or 1984, you will certainly want to compliment them by reading this excellent masterpiece in 20th century European literature!

This novel (the edition I read was a translation from the Russian by Mirra Ginsberg in 1972) is an excellent satire by Yevgeny Zamiatin (or, Zamyatin). Reading it, I find it remarkable that Zamiatin was not sent to Siberia or executed in one of the many purges occurring in the Soviet Union at that time. Apparently, the book was never published in the Soviet Union. It appeared first in English in 1924 (and obviously had a major influence in the development of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four") and then in Czech in 1927. The Soviet authorities began to put pressure on the author through the Writers' Union and, probably due to the help of Maxim Gorky, Zamiatin was allowed to leave for Paris in 1931 (he died in Paris in 1937). The story is an extrapolation of a totalitarian world. The population of Earth that have survived a 200-years war find themselves members of a single state (the One State) where imagination is considered a disease. In this society the individual does not count, only the multitude. The central character is D-503 (all the inhabitants are numbers in this State), a mathematician who is building a space ship to bring their "perfect" world and culture to others. The whole novel consists of D-503's journal. However, D-503 soon meets I-330, a woman who shows him that there are numbers in the One State that feel that the State is in error and are striving for a new revolution. He begins to have strong feelings for her. He thinks he is ill but he can't help himself. And, he must keep his feelings hidden from the Guardians, the One State's "protectors." What a terrific "read." I highly recommend it (as well as "1984" and "Brave New World"). As can be seen in the comments by the other reviewers, "We" is a great book to discuss: with respect to politics, history, science fiction, or literature.

I really enjoyed reading this story to my students and working with activities that went along with the book. For example miming the action words in the book, drawing, and writing a book report. This is wonderful story about a chick and a duck who hatch at the same time and become friends. The chick imitates the duck until the duck goes for a swim. However, the chick attempts to swim, but can't and is rescued by the duck. The Chick realizes that it is ok not to do everything the duck does. The duck can go for a swim with out him. The moral of the story, sometimes it is perfectly ok to imitate, but at other times be yourself, do your own things and have your own ideas.

This book is great for showing how chicks and ducks are the same, and different, in an entertaining way. It is an emergent reader book, that uses repetition and predictability to help young readers along. My Kindergarten class really loves this book. I've seen it in Big Book format, but can't find it here. Oh, well! Buy this one if you don't have it.

Ashleigh favorite part was when the chick sank. It makes me feel like I can save my friend. Ashley liked the part when the duckling dug a hole. I liked the illustrations.