Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    A Dog's Heart
    A Dog's Heart
    A Dog's Heart
    Audiobook3 hours

    A Dog's Heart

    Written by Mikhail Bulgakov

    Narrated by Roy McMillan

    4.5/5

    ()

    Switch to ebook

    About this audiobook

    When a respected surgeon decides to transplant human body parts into a stray dog, he creates a monster – drunken, profligate, aggressive and selfish. It seems the worst aspects of the donor have been transplanted as well. As his previously well-regulated home descends into riotous chaos, the doctor realises he will have to try to reverse the operation; but the dog isn’t so keen... Wild, uproarious and deliriously comic, Bulgakov’s short novel is at once a comment on the problems of 1920s Russia and a lasting satire on human nature.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherNaxos Audiobooks
    Release dateNov 1, 2010
    ISBN9781843794035
    Author

    Mikhail Bulgakov

    Mikhail Bulgakov was born in 1891 in Kiev, in present-day Ukraine. He first trained in medicine but gave up his profession as a doctor to pursue writing. He started working on The Master and Margarita in 1928 but due to censorship it was not published until 1966, more than twenty-five years after Bulgakov’s death.

    More audiobooks from Mikhail Bulgakov

    Related to A Dog's Heart

    Related audiobooks

    Classics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Dark Tales

      Dec 2, 2021

      Dark Tales
      6 min read

    • Article

      The Escaped Jaguar

      May 9, 2019

      The Escaped Jaguar
      5 min read

    • Article

      The Pearl Pavilion

      May 10, 2022

      The Pearl Pavilion
      6 min read

    • Article

      Two Poems

      Nov 1, 2019

      I think I could turn and live with animals—Whitman O Walt you were wrong, they aren’t placid or self-containedI just watched a spoonbill make carpaccio out of a frog& crocodiles dining on wildebeests trying to cross the Maro River It’s wrong to say O

      2 min read

    • Article

      The Nightmare

      Jun 9, 2022

      The Nightmare
      7 min read

    • Article

      SCARS On The SOUL

      Jan 12, 2020

      I’m standing in a fiercely lit changing room, waiting for Joao-from-Portugal to bring me smaller jeans and a bigger top. I used to think ‘Joao’ was a totally exotic name until I visited Lisbon and realised that every second man in Portugal is called

      2 min read

    • Article

      Excerpts From The Works Of The 2024 Whiting Award Winners

      Apr 10, 2024

      The 2024 Whiting Award winners were announced Wednesday night. Below are excerpts from their work.

      19 min read

    • Article

      Sweet Sorrow

      Aug 19, 2019

      Sweet Sorrow
      8 min read

    • Article

      The Art Of Secretion

      May 5, 2022

      The Art Of Secretion
      8 min read

    • Article

      People Are Strange

      Oct 13, 2019

      People Are Strange
      5 min read

    • Article

      Lol

      Dec 2, 2020

      Lol
      3 min read

    • Article

      Longer on Moon

      Sep 22, 2022

      Longer on Moon
      19 min read

    • Article

      All Of Us Here

      Jun 4, 2020

      All Of Us Here
      6 min read

    • Article

      Chop-chop

      Feb 6, 2020

      Chop-chop
      6 min read

    • Article

      No-go Britain!

      Apr 11, 2024

      BACK in February, Conservative MP PAUL SCULLY ruffled more than a few Liberal Elite feathers by referring to various culturally diverse districts in Britain as ‘no-go areas’. The member for Sutton and Cheam was rabidly set upon by the snowflake Loony

      11 min read

    • Article

      Sin

      Sep 3, 2019

      By the last week of April, the parking lot’s long chainlink fence already bristles with its hundreds of attachments: coiled wire, duct tape, butterfly clips, boat hooks, coat hangers, pellets of industrial glue, nylon strips, braided strings, and wha

      29 min read

    • Article

      Cul-de-Sac

      Dec 1, 2021

      That old rage for order: how my father drove a square mouthed mower over-and-back, over-and-back, each row of neatly trimmed grass cut just like he told his barber: boy’s short, regular. O pioneer, taming this joke bit of prairie, no bindweed or dog

      5 min read

    • Article

      How To Be A Real Man

      Jun 1, 2020

      How To Be A Real Man
      3 min read

    • Article

      Second Chances

      Jun 3, 2022

      Second Chances
      3 min read

    • Article

      The Education of Mrs. R.

      Sep 6, 2022

      An adolescent shriek woke her. Cockerels, she thought, cockerels, with a wry twist to the word. She lay in the dark listening. There was no use in covering her head; the screaming still came through. The soloist was suddenly submerged in the chorus.

      13 min read

    • Article

      Six Sonnets

      Jan 1, 2021

      Goldenrod, I could say, you know, everybody wants somethingfrom me, but, well, everybody wants something and nobody wantsnothing from me, goldenrod, towhead, beast. Goldenrod, you packthe meadows like gold-plated sardines. I have heart palpitationsbu

      3 min read

    • Article

      Five Poems

      May 1, 2022

      If I call myself unlovable, I am, practically; if I say itenough times: unlovable. Then, like practical magic, I’m hollow as old garlic; I’m distance-skinned.I’m a long, mean package, a terror-dyke, a nag, a squinting, slut-spun hag—it’s easy, really

      5 min read

    • Article

      Five Poems

      Jan 1, 2024

      I would have booked her departureby overnight express buther leaving was by slow trainmaking all the stops. Another woman over 1,001 nights expressed byunfinished stories her silent plea—More time.Pulling out all the stops sheconjured until a king’s

      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for A Dog's Heart

    4.5/5

    144 ratings37 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      It's 1925 Moscow, and a world-famous surgeon has adopted a stray dog. The first part of the story is told from the dog's point of view, as he gets used to his new, and luxurious, surroundings. Gradually, the dog comes to realize that the surgeon has an agenda. The second part of the story is a series of case notes, which describe what the doctor has done; implant glands from a human into the dog. The third part of the story describes the utter chaos that erupts when the dog lives, and turns into the nogoodnik that was his donor. There are a number of very sharp comments in the book that got the novel suppressed in 1925, and would have made it impossible to publish at all scant few years later. But the sheer love of the Russian language and expressions utilized here make this totally hilarious. Poligraph Poligraphovich (the dog-turned-human) is a wonderful and exasperating character, and one that bears comparison to Bulgakov's immortal Behemoth (the more so since Behemoth is depicted as being human in one part of The Master and Margarita). It is worth noting that Bulgakov was a doctor by training, and there's strong evidence it influenced this story. Definitely recommended.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      There is a photograph of me sitting in a gutter in Paris reading this novel. I am rather skinny in the photo. What isn't conveyed is that I was losing my mind. I was abroad and it was a mistake. There was considerable business requiring my immediate attention back home.

      There I was. All was resolved upon my return. I think about the novel periodically, especially given the currency of Bulgakov in certain circles.

      It would be pithy to suppose that this portal concerning transformation was crucial in my own adjustment of status. It wasn't, but that's life.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      Great novella! It was a great comedy, until it got sad. Loved the comment on human nature towards the end, and especially loved how they solved the problem of Sharikov. I didn't think any of that would end well.I had been putting off reading Heart of a Dog for years, as I loved Master and Margarita so much that I knew anything else by Bulgakov would be disappointing. This is just a novella, and isn't nearly as ambitious, but it's still a pretty funny story that reflects the time period in which it was written very well.I read the Grove Press edition, which... I think was translated and typeset in 1968. It would have benefited from the same type of treatment as the annotated Master and Margarita, or even a few footnotes that pointed out historical or cultural references. Having just read a little bit about early 20th century Russian history, I picked up on some of it, but exactly how Bulgakov was lampooning the times would have been great.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      very interesting book. Easy to read and deep meanings, so you can choice how to read it.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      As much a piece of early 20th century science fiction as it is a critique of the early Soviet system. Bulgakov's novella has wonderfully light prose, in comparison to so many Russian authors of this era, and his writing shines. Yet whilst it's all very nice and easy to read the story did disappoint me by not being more forceful in its criticisms. Similarly, it's always a positive when a story doesn't outstay its welcome and drag on and on; however A Dog's Heart felt a little too short for its own good. I'm sure much more could have been made of the story had Bulgakov wished. For instance, the characters could have been further developed and the setting mined for greater satire (perhaps this would have happened if the story hadn't been seized before publication?).The result is the novella feels a tiny bit insubstantial. It's very enjoyable and quite an amusing read, but it's one which lacks that little something extra required to really dazzle.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      Sharp, engaging, somewhat surrealistic satire, but definitely not the same as Bulgakov's masterwork, "The Master and Margarita."

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      This is really funny. Not quite on the level of Master and Margarita, but still pretty good.

      A Soviet-era doctor, a cross between Pavlov, Lysenko, and Frankenstein, takes in a stray dog and transplants some 'vital human organs' into him. Much to his surprise, the dog begins to transform into a human being. The dog turns out to be a perfect scoundrel, tears up the furniture, swears a lot, hates manners, and promptly joins the animal control section of the local Communist Party, where he kills cats.

      There is some deeper satire here about the whole Soviet apparatus, and their attempts to transform humanity, and all that. But this is really funny. I can imagine the original Russian is even better.

      Master and Margarita is still my favorite Bulgakov, but this is fine, too.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      It'd be fun to compare this to Kafka's Metamorphosis! Prague vs. Moscow. Bulgakov's book is riotous satire. Probably most of it went flying right by me. But for a picture of Soviet urban life in 1925, this book is fresh and vivid. Perhaps the fact that the antagonist was a transformed dog gave Bulgakov license to express bold criticism that otherwise would have been too dangerous. Grand fun and great political satire, whatever the logic behind it!

      1 person found this helpful

    • 5/5
      Hilarious! Rivetting speaker and a delightful story. Pairs well with Dr. Frankenstein.
    • 3/5
      The first 5 chapters held my attention very well but the last 5 started to drag on a bit more than I would have liked. It was still a good listen though.
    • 2/5
      Narration is a total failure. I heard narrated by single performer and I couldn't stop listening. Shame that such a masterpiece of literature is being maimed like this by amateurs.
    • 5/5
      Even better than the Master and Margarita, if that's possible.
    • 5/5
      What a cracker!! If you love something g unpredictable then give it a shot!!
    • 5/5
      This book is a gem!

      First, there is the description of the changing world: the aristocracy and the intellectuals are about to be dissolved into a new, Bolshevik society, and this transition is superbly described by the author, with humor and wit.

      In parallel, there is a scientific transformation of a dog into a human. Or so is the plan... as the transformation, even if successful in shape, it is not successful in essence. The former dog- current man, although fit for the Bolshevik society ( he is found fit to work in a state run institution ), is really a horror when compared with the requirements of the previous world in terms of what civilization and manners are to be considered... so he needs to be undone...

      I loved the writing style and the dialogues, the narration from the perspective of the dog, in the beginning and later how creative the description of his transformation into a human is... there are quite powerful visuals and funny events.

      The book is quite tragic actually, but it is narrated more in a humorous voice, which I find quite difficult to do. But that is one of the reasons why Bulgakov was such a great writer.
    • 3/5
      An interesting piece of fiction, but incredibly unscientific. Good to read if you have spare time with nothing else to do.
    • 4/5
      The comedic aspects of the book kept me hooked, on top of the comedy there was the heavy commentary of communist Russia, which Bulgakov does brilliantly in his novels. The short novel keeps the audience engaged and shares the insights of Bulgakov's world and overall a great experience.
    • 4/5
      A strangely compelling tale about a starving Moscow street dog metamorphized into something resembling a human, at least in the essential respects of human biology. Unruly to begin with, the dog soon develops into a creature displaying an amplified capacity for uncouth and selfish behaviors. This, we are led to believe, is the result of the human glands that were sewn into him having being taken from a drunkard. But a question asked here (and there are many interpretations of this work) is: would the dog have been different if the glands had been taken from a 'Spinoza' level human being? Despite the professor’s best efforts to cultivate him into a decent Bourgoise citizen, the former dog takes on the ethics of a working class Proletarian, fueled by Bolshevik ideals, seemingly bound by no aesthetic, and basically intent on survival in a bureaucracy-driven world. All of this provides fuel for interpretations of this work as a satire of Bolshevism, set against the old-world order and affectations of the Bourgeoisie. "They're dogs, anyway," the book seems to cry. If that be the case, then perhaps the Bourgeoisie are all cats. . . whom the transformed creature continued to hate savagely.While the dilemma of the professor's household in dealing with his creation is comical and revealing, this reader confesses to having no dog in the hunt. . . Fun and gracefully short.
    • 3/5
      Some parts are really nice, such as the beginning when the thoughts of the dog are presented and the diary of the assistant doctor. But a lot of the story seems directionless. The events are absurd rather than satirical. For a real satire the connections with the real world should have been elaborated more in detail.
    • 4/5
      My favourite kind of satire is not laugh-out-loud funny; it's unsettling, and disturbing, and beautifully weird. Bulgakov brings it, with this short and vicious fable about a dog who is implanted with the genitals and pituitary gland of a deceased convict, transforming him into a bestial hybrid. It's like reading an early-Soviet Chris Morris script – in fact, what this book made me think of more than anything was this creepy sketch from Blue Jam. Bulgakov seems to offer a similarly discomfiting blend of verbal dexterity, incisiveness, shock value, and utter disregard for the negative repercussions of his work, which in Bulgakov's case could have been of the most severe kind.I wonder if I would have got as much out of this if I hadn't read it soon after finishing a big history of the Russian Revolution, whose hypocrisies are so unerringly skewered here. The extravagantly detailed and gory scene in which the dog is operated on brings home the nature of the Soviet ‘experiment’ (which its leaders really did see in explicitly scientific terms) in a visceral new way. And the characters are no simple allegories; the doctor, Preobrazhensky (perhaps partly modelled on Pavlov), may in some way symbolise the Bolshevik leaders in that scene, but at other times he is a sympathetic model of liberal Tsarist Russia. Writing after waves of Red Terror and White Terror had bled the countryside, Bulgakov gives his learned protagonist a pointed speech on the subject of ‘kindness to animals’, which is, he says,‘The only possible way to deal with a living creature. Terror's useless for dealing with an animal, whatever level of development it might be at. I've always said that, I still say it and I always will. They're wrong to think that terror will do them any good. No sir, no sir, it won't, no matter what colour it is: white, red or even brown!’The man-hound himself, Sharikov, with his barking voice and rough hair, is an unforgettable creation – the joke being that his appalling manners and rock-bottom intelligence win him an enthusiastic welcome in the Party. He ends up as head of a sub-department and possible member of the Cheka secret police. (His name, Sharikov, comes from the stereotypical Russian dog's name ‘Sharik’; it thus means something like Roverson or McFido.)Ultimately, the gruesome experiment does not work, and Preobrazhensky's reflection on it all again takes on the most direct political connotations.‘Science does not yet know any way of turning animals into human beings. This was my attempt, but an unsuccessful one, as you can see. He spoke for a while and then began to revert to his original primitive condition.’As a comment on the uprising of a people – He spoke for a while and then began to revert to his original primitive condition – I found this breathtaking in its curt derision. The target, of course, is not the people themselves, but their mendacious leaders. No wonder the Soviets banned the book on sight in 1925, and it wasn't actually published, anywhere, until 1987 (just ten years before that Blue Jam sketch was broadcast!).There are several translations of this available, and not being a Russian reader, I compared a few of them before I ordered my copy. Unfortunately, I got confused by all the different Amazon "Look Inside" tabs I had open at the same time, and ordered the wrong one. I ended up with Andrew Bromfield's version published by Penguin, which, OK, is perfectly serviceable. Here's an example of it, from the first few pages, moving from the dog's internal monologue to a description of a nearby typist: Wasn't getting in his way, was I? Not going to eat the entire National Economic Council into ruin if I have a rummage in the rubbish tip, am I? Rotten stingy swine! Just take a look at that fat ugly mug of his some time: wider across than it is long. A real brazen-faced thief. […] The dry blizzard witch rattled the gates and swiped her broomstick across the young woman's ear. Tossed her skirt up to her knees, exposing the cream stockings and a narrow strip of badly laundered underwear, choked off her words and smothered the dog in snow.The only part of this that doesn't work is the ‘dry blizzard witch’, clearly a little personification in the original Russian which just seems confusing in this translation. Otherwise it reads OK, and as it was done in 2007 it should at least benefit from more recent scholarship than the other two I looked at. Vintage publish the Michael Glenny version from 1968, which I prefer in many ways (this is actually the one I meant to buy):What harm was I doing him, anyway? I'm not robbing the National Economic Council's food supply if I go foraging in their dustbins, am I? Greedy pig! Just take a look at his ugly mug – it's almost fatter than he is. Hard-faced crook. […] The terrible snowstorm howled around the doorway, buffeting the girl's ears. It blew her skirt up to her knees, showing her fawn stockings and a little strip of badly washed lace underwear, drowned her words and covered the dog in snow.‘Fatter than he is’ seems wrong, based on the other two, but dropping the witch business and just talking about a ‘terrible snowstorm’ makes for a much more natural-sounding English style. Meanwhile in the US, the most common translation seems to be the Mirra Ginsburg one published by Grove Press, which in my opinion is rather poor.What harm did I do him? Would the People's Economic Soviet get any poorer if I rooted in the garbage heap? The greedy brute! Take a look at that mug of his sometimes—it's wider than it's long. A crook with a brass jowl. […] The wind, that raging witch, rattled the gate and boxed the young lady on the ear with its broom. It blew up her skirt above her knees, baring the cream-colored stockings and a narrow strip of the poorly laundered lace panties. It drowned out her words and swept across the dog.‘The wind, that raging witch’ is a decent solution to the personification problem. But to my ear, this has several other problems. ‘Sometimes’ should surely read ‘sometime’; ‘up’ should be placed after ‘her skirt’, not before; and ‘a crook with a brass jowl’ is just dreadful.Anyway, your mileage may vary. But whichever translation you pick, find a way to get your canines into this, pronto.
    • 5/5
      Read this some time ago, and thought it was great. Although I think I perhaps missed some of the apparently biting social commentary on the times (my knowledge of Soviet history is nothing to boast about, really), it still made for a nice little fable, and would make for a great short film, I think.
    • 4/5
      One of my least favorite clichés in science fiction is man going "too far" with scientific advancement, with some new technology or process causing unintended horrors. Oryx & Crake, Jurassic Park, Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang, and of course The Island of Dr. Moreau (as well as many others) tell stories of artificial biological manipulation going terribly wrong, and the foolish message each of the works contains always rubbed me the wrong way. Despite having the same tired "scientist doing something because he can without thinking of whether he should" idea, Heart of a Dog isn't dragged down by it, as Bulgakov puts meaning into the story beyond just an author railing against new things.

      In this Frankenstein story the subject of the experiment is a dog whose experience living on the streets of Moscow was probably my favorite piece of writing in the book- you feel the poverty and corruption, and general terribleness of life in Soviet Russia at that time. Taken in by the famous scientist Philip Philipovich to be a subject of an experiment and named Sharikov, the dog gets to see how the wealthy live, in stark contrast to his life before. It's not all easy for the good doctor, though, as a housing committee is pressuring him to give up some of his spacious apartments. To maintain his luxuries Philipovich acts as a mad-scientist for hire, performing rejuvenation procedures on high officials, willing to do whatever it takes to enable his client’s vices and thereby maintain his own comfort in a Moscow where comfort is getting harder and harder to afford. There is no spirit of communism in this Russia- those who are well-off take action to keep what they have, and those who aren’t well-off try to exert pressure to take from those who have a disproportionate amount. One is more equitable, neither is pure hearted.

      Philipovich attempts a daring operation that has the unintended result of turning the stray dog into a man by implanting testicles and the pituitary gland- man being nothing but a lusting beast. The resulting "man" is a brute, though he couldn't very well be a saint in the Moscow of this era- everything is poverty and the struggle to survive for the poor, and corruption for the rich. Still, he's even more reprehensible than most, developing some of the absolutely worst features of a human, to the extent that eventually Philipovich and his assistant reverse the procedure.

      Everything in this short book reveals the doomed nature of the soviet state, from the living conditions of the populace to the corrupted bureaucracy. The transformation of Sharikov seems to be more than a tale of the follies of eugenics, he seems symbolic of the creation of the soviet state: educated men create it without thinking through all the consequences, and then are surprised by its failure due to the base instincts of man. Even the small things are an indictment of communism, such as the scene where Philipovich laments that the revolution has brought changes like the loss of minor comforts- carpeting on the stairs, flowers in the hall, the courtesy to take your dirty shoes off when you go into someone’s apartment- the absence of which doesn’t hurt anyone. I'm not suggesting that Philipovich is supposed to be purely sympathetic, here, but Bulgakov puts a lot of anti-communist ideas in his mouth and doesn't have anyone refute them. The resolution suggests that the only way for the educated men to become healthy again is to do away with their creation, and, while the end is a disturbing scene, it seems the best out of a lot of bad possibilities.

      Bulgakov gives the story of a scientist trying "to force the pace and lift the veil" of nature much more depth than a screed against scientific advancement, he makes it symbolic of the entirety of the Russian Revolution and the resulting state. Science fiction fans (of which I am one) oftentimes like to think that the genre uses its trappings to say something about society and the world- unfortunately, works of science fiction rarely do something so interesting. Heart of a Dog, however, does. It's amazing that Bulgakov got away with such a satire, but I'm glad he did.
    • 2/5
      "Heart of a Dog" is a much less ambitious book than "The Master and Margarita." It satirizes a smaller swathe of Russian society and seems a prisoner of its own circular plot structure. It also has a less multi-dimensional cast and a more single-themed, malicious humor.When Dr. Phillipovich defends himself against the housing committee that seeks to distribute his seven room apartment to various working class citizens, the book is at its comical best. Shvonder and his earnest and uneducated comrades make an excellent target for Bulgakov's wit; but, the balance of the novella (after the rather slow fifty page warm up) pits the Dog/Man against the refined doctors and their easily scandalized domestic help, which is repetitive and unrewarding. The humor value of the Dr. turning different colors in fits of apopleptic rage diminishes almost page by page. It would be worth reading this book if you intend to compare it to other stories of animal-human metamorphosis or promothean/homunculus narratives. I can't recommend it for a stand alone reading. Bulgakov's "Margarita" is more worth a reader's time.
    • 4/5
      A satirical, sometimes hysterical, take on Soviet life in general, and medical experimentation in particular, in 1925 Moscow.Professor Preobrazhensky has been implanting monkey glands into aging clients who seek "rejuvenation", but his aims go beyond improving the sex lives of middle-aged Party officials or their unhappy wives. We are meant to think he’s bent on improving the whole human race with his radical techniques. When he rescues a starving, injured street dog and treats him to the good life, we are privy to brief glimpses of things from the dog Sharik's point of view. Ultimately, Sharik becomes the subject of a very ambitious experiment, in which human testicles and a human pituitary gland are implanted in the dog. The result is beyond anything even the Professor might have expected: a dog slowly but indubitably turning into a man---a very unpleasant man with characteristics of the arrogant, crass and hedonistic drunkard he "inherited" these traits from. (Allusions to Stalin may be inferred or implied.) We get a lot of the bureaucratic folderol and idiocy of low level Party wannabes, and a side-splitting cat-chasing episode which brings about total chaos in the form of broken crockery, ruptured plumbing and way too much attention drawn to the Professor and his "monster", who disappears only to return as one of those Party functionaries himself, with a job and a title and a license to kill…cats. A heated discussion between the Professor and his assistant ensues---WHAT is to be done? The creature is insufferable, and now he’s officially entitled to occupancy of a nice chunk of the Professor’s hard-fought-for 7-room flat. Well, if this is your sort of romp, you’ll have to read it to learn how it all comes out. It won’t take over-long, and you’ll probably figure it out for yourself.
    • 4/5
      Has Bulgakov's patented sense of humor. A little heavy on the sci fi for me but like many great Russian novels, weaves a subtle critique of government and society. And like Bulgakov, a critique of man and his needs and behavior. A must read for Bulgakov fans or science fiction.
    • 4/5
      I always find satires the most enjoyable when it’s simply fun to read, rather or not I know what the underlying subject is. The novella, “The Heart of a Dog”, is humorous, a bit outrageous, made me look up what a pituitary gland is (don’t ask me to explain it), and of course, gave a glance into the complexities of then Russian life. Completed in 1925, it was not published in the Soviet Union until 1987, due to censorship. ‘Heart’ is an easy, fast read, if not for the educational pauses of my choosing, as I picked up bits of nuances of the Russian life then. Here are some samples: - That horsemeat in sausages is acceptable, sold by the Moscow State Food Store. - That ‘Dustmen’ is the lowest form of proletarian life. - A lover keeps a typist in silk stockings but “he won’t just want to make the usual sort of love to her, he’ll make her do it the French way”. (Hmm, what is that exactly?) - That Co-op is a ‘filthy store’, unfit for the gentleman that the Professor is. - That the Professor is despised for using 7 rooms for himself (not entirely true since the cook and the housekeeper also lives there, and his business is operated from there as well), during a time when Moscow did not have sufficient housing. - ‘Comrades’ has entered into daily salutation, which is rejected by the Professor, who prefers ‘Mister’, which in return, is rejected by the ‘Comrades’, which Sharikov barked, “I’m not mister – all the ‘misters’ are in Paris!”- Communism means the equal division of property where Sharikov has an ‘entitlement of thirty-seven square feet’ in the apartment. With communism, males and females are touted as equals, even though they never really are (and one can easily argue they still aren’t). Mr. Bulgakov blended in touches of this:- From the Dog, Sharik, “You’ve a good lunch under your belt, haven’t you, you’re a world-famous figure thanks to male sex glands.” - In a conversation between the Professor and the 4 members of the House Committee: “’Firstly, we’re not gentlemen, ‘ the youngest of them, with a face like a peach, said finally. ‘Secondly,’ Philip Philipovich interrupted him, ‘are you a man or a woman?’ The four were silent again and their mouths dropped open. This time the shock-haired young man pulled himself together. ‘What difference does it make, comrade?’ he asked proudly. ‘I’m a woman,’ confessed the peach-like youth, who was wearing a leather jerkin, and blushed heavily.”Lastly, with the transplants of the human testes (and the pituitary gland) into Sharik, I’ll forever have a new image in my mind, the next time I hear the derogatory “Grow a pair” or “ball-busting” type of slams.P.S. Note Mr. Bulgakov’s explicit use of ‘dog’ vs. ‘man’ and ‘Sharik’ vs. ‘Sharikov’ when he wants the reader to think of the character in the form of a dog vs. a man in the book.Some quotes:I simply laughed at this ‘you’re such an idiot’ speech from the Professor to Sharikov:“But she slapped me across the mouth,’ whined Sharikov, ‘She can’t go doing that to me!”“She slapped you because you pinched her on the bosom, ’shouted Bormenthal, knocking over a glass. ‘You stand there and…”“You belong to the lowest possible stage of development,’ Philip Philipovich shouted him down. ‘You are still in the formative stage. You are intellectually weak, all your actions are purely bestial. Yet you allow yourself in the presence of two university-educated men to offer advice, with quite intolerable familiarity, on a cosmic scale and of quite cosmic stupidity, on the redistribution of wealth… and at the same time you eat toothpaste…” This resonated with me, as it mirrors the concept of ‘problem solving’ that an engineers do. What problem are we trying to solve? In this case, it’s simply wrong to mess with nature.“I quite agree with you. This, doctor, is what happens, when a researcher, instead of keeping in step with nature, tries to force the pace and lift the veil. Result – Sharikov……..”“I would perform the most difficult feat of my whole career by transplanting Spinoza’s, or anyone else’s pituitary and turning a dog into a highly intelligent being. But what in heaven’s name for? That’s the point. Will you kindly tell me why one has to manufacture artificial Spinozas when some pleasant woman may produce a real one any day of the week?”“Theoretically the experiment was interesting…… But what is its practical value?”
    • 4/5
      Heart of a Dog was recommended to me by a Russian and is an off the wall story of a stray dog metamorphosed into a dog-man that falls in with the sleazy local communists. They redistribute other peoples property to themselves which is O.K. until they try to redistribute the dog-man owner's flat which is going too far.
    • 4/5
      In “Heart of a Dog” Bulgakov displays both fantastic imagination and biting political satire, and as this book was also written in post-revolutionary Russia but suppressed and not published until decades later, it reminds me of his masterpiece “The Master and the Margarita”, albeit much shorter.The novella grabs you at the outset by being narrated from a stray dog’s perspective. He’s taken in and given shelter by a nice doctor, only to discover that the doctor has ulterior motives. The dog sees a collection of patients being brought in for very odd treatments, such as monkey ovary transplants. The doctor is tampering with nature, and soon begins an experiment on the dog which forms the basis for the rest of the story.There is a lyricism and playfulness in Bulgakov’s writing which is a joy to read, as in this passage: “Ducking her head, the young lady threw herself into attack, broke through the gates, and out into the street; the blizzard began to spin and spin her around, push her this way and that, till she became a column of swirling snow and disappeared.” Examples abound. While doing the operation on the dog, the doctor is described as a “satiated vampire”; later the dog is described to be swearing “tenderly and melodiously, his tongue twisting over the obscenities”. Aside from the humor, what is the message of this story? Bulgakov is reacting to two elements of the modern world (c. 1925) that he was aghast over. The first is communism, or “divide everything” as he puts it in the book, the taking of socialism to such an extreme that people like doctors who truly are of more value to society are levelized with the rest of humanity, and in that way devalued. This was certainly seen in Russia, as well as decades later in China during the Cultural Revolution with disastrous results. He also pokes fun at communism as removing the distinction between the sexes; on a couple of tongue-in-cheek occasions he has women mistaken for men.The other movement he reacts to is eugenics, the belief that a better human race could be created by controlling the breeding of “undesirables”. Sound insane? Lest we forget, this was a worldwide movement at this time, including a strong base in America. It was taken to an extreme by the Nazis in the middle of the century and went from controlling breeding to outright extermination of “lesser” peoples.If you think about it, these movements are diametric opposites: the first, communism, espousing that every person’s contribution to society is equal, and that all possessions should be divided up; the second, eugenics, that the race is so varied that “undesirables” should be weeded out of the gene pool, and that a better human race could be created scientifically. In “Heart of a Dog” Bulgakov illustrates that both sides are wrong: the first robs those who would advance humanity and creates a mob; the second tampers with nature. He mocks both, saying to just leave well enough alone. How right he was.Quotes:On not tampering with nature:“Certainly it might be possible to graft the hypophysis of Spinoza or some such devil, and turn a dog into a highly advanced human. But what in hell for? Tell me, please, why is it necessary to manufacture Spinozas artificially when any peasant woman can produce them at any time? … Doctor the human race takes care of this by itself, and every year, in the course of its evolution, it creates dozens of outstanding geniuses who adorn the earth, stubbornly selecting them out of the mass of scum.”On communism, capturing the argument ‘for’:“One man spreads himself out in seven rooms and has forty pairs of pants, and another hangs around garbage dumps, looking for something to eat.”And ‘against’:“You are a creature just in the process of formation, with a feeble intellect. All your actions are the actions of an animal. Yet you permit yourself to speak with utterly insufferable impudence in the presence of two people with a university education – to offer advice on a cosmic scale and of equally cosmic stupidity on how to divide everything…”
    • 4/5
      Reminded me of Candide with the lively writing style. Wonderful book, as funny and animated as any more modern fiction.
    • 4/5
      Rating: 4*of fiveThe Publisher Says: A new edition of Bulgakov’s fantastical precursor to The Master and Margarita, part of Melville House’s reissue of the Bulgakov backlist in Michael Glenny’s celebrated translations.A key work of early modernism, this is the superbly comic story of a Soviet scientist and a scroungy Moscow mongrel named Sharik. Attempting a medical first, the scientist transplants the glands of a petty criminal into the dog and, with that, turns a distinctly worryingly human animal loose on the city. The new, lecherous, vulgar, Engels-spouting Sharik soon finds his niche in governmental bureaucracy as the official in charge of purging the city of cats. A Frankenstein fable that’s as funny as it is terrifying, The Heart of a Dog has also been read as a fierce parable of the Russian Revolution. It was rejected for publication by the censors in 1925, and circulated in samizdat for years until Michael Glenny translated it into English in 1968—long before it was allowed to be officially published in the Soviet Union. That happened only in 1987, although till this day the book remains one of Mikhail Bulgakov’s most controversial novels in his native country. My Review: Anyone who's ever read The Master and Margarita already knows that Bulgakov is a rebel, an anarchist, and damn good and funny with it. His thoughts were, based on the novels I've read, contrarian in the extreme as well as profoundly sensitive to practical concerns:“The rule apparently is – once a social revolution takes place there’s no need to stoke the boiler. But I ask you: why, when this whole business started, should everybody suddenly start clumping up and down the marble staircase in dirty galoshes and felt boots? Why must we now keep our galoshes under lock and key? And put a soldier on guard over them to prevent them from being stolen? Why has the carpet been removed from the front staircase? Did Marx forbid people to keep their staircases carpeted? Did Karl Marx say anywhere that the front door of No. 2 Kalabukhov House in Prechistenka Street must be boarded up so that people have to go round and come in by the back door? What good does it do anybody? Why can’t the proletarians leave their galoshes downstairs instead of dirtying the staircase?’‘But the proletarians don’t have any galoshes, Philip Philipovich,’ stammered the doctor.” And the simple truth about revolution that probably contributed heavily to the book's suppression in the Soviet era:“People who think you can use terror are quite wrong. No, no, terror is useless, whatever its colour – white, red or even brown! Terror completely paralyses the nervous system.” He saw the terror around him, saw the results, and distilled a response into a short phrase. That's writing that's a joy to read.But we can't leave revolutionary-era Moscow without hearing from the eponymous heart-haver. Early in the book, we're told the sad tale of an unwanted dog whose people-savvy beats that of most of the humans I've ever met:Eyes mean a lot. Like a barometer. They tell you everything-they tell you who has a heart of stone, who would poke the toe of his boot in your ribs as soon as look at you-and who’s afraid of you. The cowards – they’re the ones whose ankles I like to snap at. If they’re scared, I go for them. Serve them right..grrr..bow-wow…” All hail Michael Glenny, of blessed memory since dying in 1990. Without him, Bulgakov's banned and suppressed works might remain out of the English-speaker's reach.
    • 5/5
      Finished this with tears in my eyes at 1:54 in the morning, and anxiously awaiting my lecture on it tomorrow afternoon. It's THAT good.

      In this short novel, written in the mid 1920's in Soviet Russia and not published until the 80's, Bulgakov manages a few different levels of awareness. The surface level is a moderately comedic story about a scientist that transplants a human's brain into a dog's body, at which point the dog (Sharikov) begins to become progressively "human". The human-like creature, though, still has dog tendencies (chasing after cats in the small apartment, etc) which create the funny scenes.

      On a deeper level, though, Bulgakov pens a scatching critique of Soviet Russian society. He knows that Sharikov is lacking what makes a human being, well, a human: a heart. Not the physical surgeon la-dee-da heart, but the moral heart that tells you when something's right or wrong. Not-so-coincidentally, pulling a few various pieces together reveals that Bulgakov thought that this was what the Soviets were repressing in the population--morals, good choices, individually, all sorts of "heart"-related concepts.

      Essentially, it's Sharikov's lack of morals and feelings that make us realize how very important these qualities are in humans to make us who we are.

      To pack just that bit of extra punch to the story, we receive the dog's perspective in both the beginning AND the end of the novel. In the beginning we keep in mind the innocent dog's expressions and interpreations of the human world around him. They are undoubtedly endearing passages. After going through the whole novel, once Sharikov the dog/human undergoes his transformation and loses his narrative voice, we again at the end are permitted a short glimpse at the dog's thoughts. THIS is what made me cry. The loss of innocence. Or, perhaps, the regaining of it after all that had been said and done.

      I give this my highest marks and fondest love !!