Saturday, October 20, 2007

A Dog’s Heart (aka Heart of a Dog)


The only reason that Mikhail Bulgakov was not liquidated by Joseph Stalin is that he wrote a play, Days of the Turbins (based on his novel White Guards), that Stalin happened to enjoy immensely. It is said that Stalin saw the play on at least seven occasions. While you read “A Dog’s Heart” (written in 1925, but not published in Russia until 1987) you will be astounded by the fact that upon the discovery of his typed manuscript by the OGPU, Bulgakov was not tortured in the Lubyanka, put in a train headed for the gulag archipelago, and then “eliminated”. This is because the tale is a biting, and blatant, satire of the Soviet Union in the1920’s, exposing the absurdities of a social experiment going horribly wrong. Set in crowded Moscow, the story begins with one of Russia’s greatest scientists, Philipp Philoppovich Preobrazhensky, taking in a stray dog. However, the motive is not an altruistic sense of concern for welfare of the dog, but rather a desire to conduct a radical experiment.
Into the dog are transplanted the testicles and pituitary gland of a recently deceased human (who turns out to have been a criminal). The dog then begins a gradual transformation until eventually it is recognisably “human” – it walks on two legs, is capable of speech, has human-like facial features and is given a new name: Sharikov. Soon Sharikov unleashes his terrible “personality” upon the Scientist’s household in particular and the city of Moscow in general. It can be read on many levels – as a comment on the futility of attempting to artificially bring socialism to “backward” Russia; as a cautionary morality tale; as a wonderful piece of science-fiction writing; or simply as a hilarious short story about a drinking, swearing, womanising human/dog hybrid. Whatever your take, you are sure to be delighted by Bulgakov, one of the greatest, and oft neglected, writers of the twentieth century.


Review by Michael Scutti

A dog's heart: A monstrous story. Fiction, Mikhail Bulgakov

Orwell’s Victory




Since Orwell's death in 1950 his legacy has become twisted and contradictory. People of all political persuasions have either attempted to 'win' him for their side or to 'expose' him as a charlatan. Was Orwell a homophobe? Why was his attitude towards women so negative? Was he a (shudder) Trotskyist? And what about "The List"? These questions and more are examined, and indeed answered, as Hitchens masterfully navigates the reader through the maze of (mis)interpretations of Orwell's considerable literary output. The book is clearly and logically constructed, with chapters on "Orwell and the Left", "Orwell and the Right", "Orwell and the Feminists" and so on. Hitchens maintains that while Orwell was by no means infallible, he possessed the entirely honourable quality of constantly evaluating his own beliefs and prejudices. What emerges is a picture of a remarkably honest, perceptive and consistent man in a world displaying precisely the opposite qualities.

Review by Michael Scutti

Orwell’s Victory, by Christopher Hitchens 823.912 ORW