Name: Heart of a Dog
ISBN: 9780802150592

Mikhail Bulgakov

A biting political satire about a canine who becomes a Soviet Commissar in charge of eliminaing vagrant quadrupeds

Heart of a Dog

The book is very witty and solemn enough to provoke one's mind without bashing its idea; like a good friend. It is a fantastic decision to show corruption using the depiction of an anthropomorphic character.

Anugerah

What a great piece of political satire!

The book is very witty and solemn enough to provoke one's mind without bashing its idea; like a good friend. It is a fantastic decision to show corruption using the depiction of an anthropomorphic character.

Sammy

genius genius genius!!! satirists will always have a special place in my heart. 

being able to criticise such complex, serious topics in a humorous way is truly an art—an art that bulgakov beautifully mastered. 

"he who does not hurry manages to get everywhere," yeaaahhhh, says the man who impulsively created a monster (arguably)…

Omar AlHashmi

Well this is my first time tackling Russian Literature, and let's just say that it won't be my last. I have started to realize my love for satirical books. Pynchon gave me the first taste into the world of satire and how deeply layered and complex the books are. Bulgakov just gave me a second taste and I am loving it. It is such a difficult genre to like since it is unlike everything else. The real meat and content is the underlying details of the book. Stuff that should be inferred rather than having them hand fed to you. I guess that is why I am enjoying this genre, which reflects also in my taste in obscure movies. 

Now about the book. The story revolves around a brilliant scientist who has gone through with an experiment that turned out wrong. Completely wrong I should say. Turning a dog into a human being, while still having all the experiences and memories of the dog. Bulgakov certainly pulls us into philosophical questioning. What is the soul? How is that connected to our memories and action? Can it be moved? All of these fly through your head as you read the book. The story just never lets you down. The ending is also very very satisfying and something I did not expect. It had me thinking for a while to imagine the journey the dog has been through. Even though it was a small novel it still felt like a lot. All in all, I loved the book and will be looking forward to reading more satirical books. I also look forward to delving more into Russian Literature, as the setting was quite intriguing. 5/5

Simon Elliott Stegall

As with most satire, I enjoyed it for what it was but ultimately found it a bit forgettable.

The Heart of a Dog

Brianna Best

Richard Pipes

Looks at the decay of the tsarist empire and the causes of the Revolution, discusses the aims of the Bolshevik party, and recounts the major events of the conflict

A Concise History of the Russian Revolution

Bill Nagel

A fine, relatively concise history of the period between 1905 (the first Russian revolution) and 1924 (Lenin's death) for anyone who doesn't want to commit to the two weightier tomes (totaling 1,300 pages) from which this is drawn. Pipes is a fine scholar and a clear and compelling writer and the book flows smoothly. However, it's marred by his clear, nay outspoken, ideological and political bias(es), which are on full display in the introductory and concluding chapters. Unlike, say, some of the more measured and objective British Russia scholars (Hosking, Service, Figes, etc.), Pipes wears his Reaganite Cold Warrior feelings on his sleeve. Pipes hates intellectuals (a slightly odd position for a Harvard academic). He also hates the Enlightenment. He hates Trotsky. He contends that the USSR bears joint responsibility with Nazi Germany for World War II. In fact, he insists that it would have been impossible for Hitler and Mussolini to come to power had it not been for the 1917 Russian Revolution (which he refuses to characterize as an actual 'revolution', preferring coup d'etat). But Pipes really, really, REALLY hates Lenin. The pages can barely contain his seemingly bottomless loathing for Lenin. Pipes finds nothing at all about Lenin to praise other than his ruthlessness.

Admirably, Pipes manages to avoid editorializing (except about Lenin) for long stretches. As with the works of Thomas Sowell, two types of readers will enjoy this book most: those who can separate the partisan bloviating from the history and assume that the former does not taint the latter, and those who share Pipes' biases and Weltanschauung. I'm in the former category, but am now off to read Robert Service's Lenin bio to see how well that stance holds up.