Heart of a Dog (Mark Cooper)

Mark Cooper

March 10, 2016

Banned Book: Heart of a Dog

Prof. Lynda Goldstein

 

 

Under the Hexagon

 

In “Heart of a Dog” Mikhail Bulgakov lampoons the Soviet attempts to reinvent mankind. But even a figure as large as Bulgakov doesn’t write in a vacuum chamber. In this paper I will explore the socio-political culture surrounding the banning of “Heart of a Dog” and Bulgakov setting himself at odds with the new order of the Soviet Union. The first order of business is setting the stage upon which this book was born.

First English edition of “Heart of a Dog”

first edition

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/TheHeartOfADog.jpg/220px-TheHeartOfADog.jpg

Bulgakov wrote “Heart of a Dog” in 1925 in the Soviet Union. This is also the time and place he set the story taking place within its pages. A time period after the Russian Civil War (for more information see here: Russian Civil War) and before “The man of steel” Stalin launched into his purges(for more information see here: Stalin and his purges). This was a world where a new science was beginning to flourish, the science of eugenics with the greatest minds of the Soviet Union attempting to redefine mankind itself. (Howell 545-546) A world with a meticulous fixation on personal hygiene as a marker of progressiveness and cultured-ness. (Hoffmann 18) This was also a world with a flourishing if not confused literary scene. “The literary scene in Moscow of the 1920s was characterized by the dynamic coexistence of diverse literary movements.” (Shilova 107). This is the world Bulgakov was working in, but to more concisely understand this work two major subjects will need to be broached, Soviet eugenics and Soviet censorship.

As mentioned above eugenics was the new hip science of the 1920s Soviet Union. This is not to be confused with the eugenics of the Nazis in years to come. The Soviets were attempting to create a new kind of person for the new world driven by communism that they were envisioning. (Howell 546) The New Soviet Man is best described as “one who would be psychologically, physically, and culturally at home in the radically different society envisioned by communism.” (Howell 546) This point is crucial to understanding what Bulgakov was doing with “Heart of a Dog” since his is a story of science and culture gone wrong in the creation of a new man of a different stripe. But who were the scientists working on these eugenics programs of the 1920s? The answer ties in directly with the main character Bulgakov created in this book. “The founding fathers of the Russian eugenics movement were biologists of the prerevolutionary generation, trained in Europe and dedicated to fundamental research in Mendelian and population genetics.” (Howell 547) This is the very image that Bulgakov drew upon in his creating the protagonist Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. While these scientists were trying to improve humanity in a physical sense there was another angle being worked, namely the attempt to change human nature. This is best embodied as the new Soviet fixation on hygiene. This fixation is best summed up as “…they also sought to improve and uplift workers and peasants for their own sake, and because cleanliness and neatness corresponded to aesthetic ideals of what a socialist society should look like”. (Hoffmann 18) Does any part of this ideal seem slightly at odds with a character who is a dog? Could this doggy character being shoved into such a clean and orderly world be why this book got banned? Before progressing with this inquiry one must be made aware of how and why things were banned in the Soviet Union.

The “how” of banning was a very straight forward process by all accounts. The Soviet government had a singular idea of what art should and should not be. “To avoid any kind of double or hidden meaning, equivoques, misunderstanding of the contents of the art works the socialist realism was declared the one and only acceptable style and method of all arts in the Soviet Union.” (Sinitsyna) (for more information about socialist realism: Socialist Realism)This quotation taken from Olga Sinitsyna lays out in plain language how the Soviet government and by extension its censorship apparatus viewed the world. The rationale that the average Soviet censor used to make his or her determination is a bit more complex and convoluted than a checklist of reasons. According to Olga Sinitsyna main reasons for banning were “political reasons, political unreliability, mentioning an unreliable person, prohibited subject matter, pornography, and themes, subjects, facts, events which caused or might have caused undesirable thoughts, associations, or illusions not in favor of the Soviet state.” (Sinitsyna) This list obviously presents some problems for any would be censor due to the level of ambiguity at play here leaving quite a lot to personal choice. So, when a censor decided to drop the hammer (and sickle) what exactly did he or she do? Stamped it with a hexagon and relegated it to the “special stack” according to Olga Sinitsyna.(Sinitsyna) The “special stack” mentioned was in effect the nether world from whence it would never see the light of day again. With the political and cultural scaffolding in place it is time to turn to the actual work in question itself.

Soviet Censor Stamp

censorstamp

http://gpib.livejournal.com/42771.html

For this paper the 1990 Avril Pyman translation of “Heart of a Dog” is being used as reference. This portion of the paper will be devoted threefold to the content of “heart of a Dog”, the literary merits it has, and the merits upon which it was likely banned. At its heart “Heart of a Dog” is the story of a renowned scientist and an experiment gone horribly wrong.

The story is set in the post-revolutionary Moscow of the 1920s. In the dead of winter a stray dog looking for scraps is scalded with boiling water by a chef outside a restaurant. The dog is found, fed, and given a name (Sharik – roughly meaning “ball”) by the bourgeois professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. After arriving at the flat Philip Philipovich shares with his assistant Dr. Bormenthal and two servants (Zina and Darya) Sharik begins to settle into being the professor’s pet. But things are not as quaint as they seem and the professor has a clever experiment in mind for poor Sharik which he hopes will improve upon mankind. The professor uses the testes and pituitary gland of a drunken reprobate named Klim Chugunkin (a name we will be coming back to in the “why this was banned” section) to replace those of the dog Sharik. At this point the experiment succeeds beyond all expectations with the former dog Sharik becoming a full-fledged man. The man-dog soon runs amok in the flat and predictably drives everyone mad. This is best exemplified by the quote given by Philip Philipovich about a necktie “Take that obscenity off your neck. You … ought … you just take a look at yourself in the mirror and see what kind of figure you cut! Some sort of clown. And don’t throw your cigarette butts on the floor — for the hundredth time. I don’t want to hear one more swearword in this flat — ever! Don’t spit! There is the spittoon. Don’t make a mess in the lavatory. Do not even talk to Zina any more. “ (Bulgakov 39) Eventually Sharik (now going by the human name Sharikov) lands a job with the city catching and strangling stray cats for fur coats. Sharik’s behavior gets progressively worse and worse with each passing day culminating in him getting kicked out of the flat all together. Eventually Sharikov attempts to return, with a revolver, to the flat after having reported the professor to the Soviet interior police (which failed since the professor is well connected in the government). At this point the professor and Bormental have had enough and opt to reverse to procedure and jump on and subdue Sharikov. Eventually it is noticed that Sharikov hasn’t been at his cat strangling job for several days and suspicion of murder starts to circulate. The police show up with a warrant demanding that the professor produce Sharikov. At this point the professor produces one Sharik, happy mutt of a dog. The professor gives the police an explanation that the re-transformation into a dog is natural and that the experiment was a failure. With this synopsis mind let’s move on to this books literary merits and demerits if one is a Soviet censor.

What are the merits of “Heart of a Dog”? What is it about this book that makes it a classic in the minds of many? Many have praised this book for criticizing the Soviet Union. As presented by Irina Shilova “They range from Ellendia Proffer’s view of it as a political allegory of the Russian Revolution to Leslie Milne’s interpretation of it as a hilarious comedy on everyday life in post-Revolutionary Russia, when stuffy intellectuals come home to find vulgar mobs in their own apartments as a result of the nationalization of private property.” (Shilova 108) Others have praised this books tackling of attempts to change human nature. An interesting and noteworthy interpretation of this books literary merits comes from Eric Laursen who reads this book as an attack on the alteration of human nature. As he states in his periodical article “”Heart of a Dog” is instead an attack on two “modem Prometheuses,” each of whom tries to create a human being with “good” words. Comrade Shvonder believes that he can create Homo-Sovieticus and free humankind, and Professor Preobrazhensky, the “hater of the proletariat “, believes that he can civilize the freed vulgarian and regain control of a world now filled with “bad words.”” (Laursen 492). What else about this book has endeared it to a less academic audience though? Let us turn some attention to some of the most known quotations from this work. Bulgakov is a very quotable author and “Heart of a Dog” lends itself well to quoting. One gem from this book that appeals to human kindness is this part of a much larger exchange between Philp Philipovich and Dr. Bormenthal. “”By kindness. The only way to deal with a living being…They are quite wrong to think that terror will help them. No, Sir, no, indeed, it won’t help at all — be it white, red or even brown! Terror has a totally paralysing[sic] effect on the nervous system.” (Bulgakov 9) This quote about political terror and using kindness instead is a them I think most people can understand regardless of culture and age. Later in the book when the dog-man Sharikov is fully cognizant we get a very interesting and clever take on the animals’ feelings about animal testing. “Did I ask to have that operation?” The man’s voice rose to an indignant bark. “A fine business! They go and grab hold of an animal, slit his head open with a knife, and then they can’t face up to the result”. (Bulgakov 39) This might be one of the few times an author has written about this matter from the animals point of view which is certainly something of literary merit. So with these literary merits in mind what grounds could a Soviet censor possibly have to ban this? Admittedly I have had to speculate on the grounds for banning since the actual reasons the censor used 91 years ago in a country not known for political transparency are not exactly forthcoming in English or Russian. Firstly, lets go back to that “Chugunkin” fellow mentioned earlier. This is an interesting little stab at the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. My limited Russian skills tells me that the name “Chugunkin” derives from the Russian word Chugun, or cast iron. This is Russian language word play at the expense of Josef Stalin for the name Stalin derives from the Russian word for steel or stal’. Needless to say making fun of murderous tyrants is generally a poor choice and this is almost certainly one of the reasons this book was banned. After all who would want to be the censor who let that one get under the radar? But there are more reasons this book got the hexagon stamp. For all the progress the Soviets were projecting Philip Philipovich straight out says “It is impossible at one and the same time to sweep the tram lines and to organise the fate of a lot of Spanish ragamuffins. No one can do that, Doctor, and still less people who are roughly two hundred years behind Europe in their general development and are still none too sure how to button up their own trousers!” (Bulgakov 20) But Philip Philipovich’s criticisms of the Soviet system hardly ends there, he soon follows with “Why have they removed the carpet from the main staircase? Did Karl Marx forbid us to carpet our staircases? Is it written anywhere in Karl Marx that the 2nd staircase entrance to the Kalabukhov house on Prechistenka Street should be boarded up so that all the inhabitants should have to go round the back through the tradesmen’s entrance?” (Bulgakov 20) This kind of open criticism and mockery of Communism would clearly fall under the idea of being politically unacceptable as pointed out in the section of this paper devoted to common reasons for banning. Another reason this likely ended up on the wrong side of a censor was it giving a very barbaric job to the dog-man Sharikov, one might call him a form of “animal control agent” for the state but Bulgakov puts it more gruesomely. “On it was printed: “The presenter of this, Comrade Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov, is truly employed as head of the sub-department for the control of stray animals (cats, etc.) in the precincts of the city of Moscow in the department of M. K. Kh.”.”So,” pronounced Philip Philipovich glumly. “Who got you the job? But I suppose I can guess.” “Yes, of course, Shvonder,” replied Sharikov. “May I ask you — how comes it that you smell so singularly repulsive?” Sharikov sniffed at his jacket with some anxiety. “Well, what can you do about it? It does smell … as everyone knows … of the job. Yesterday we were strangling cats, strangling ’em one after another…”(Bulgakov 62) Yes, the dog-man has a job as a professional cat strangler for the Soviet state and he smells of it (cross reference the Soviet obsession with cleanliness above). I’m not entirely sure which section of the “reasons to censor” this would fall under but it certainly would raise an eyebrow to a censor with a mindset set on the USSR looking “good”. So it seems easy to see why this book got stamped with the censorship hexagon given it does not portray the Soviet state favorably and the main protagonist is a bourgeois who bears little love of the USSR. Was it fair to ban the book on these grounds? Was it just another example of the USSR’s heavy handed control over all art? It is cliché but I would suggest reading the full novel for yourself and decide.

Read original text here

 

 

Bibliography

Bulgakov, Mikhail. The Heart of a Dog. Moscow: Raduga, 1990. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. <http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/29r.pdf>.

Hoffmann, David L. Stalinist Values: The Cultural Norms of Soviet Modernity, 1917-1941. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2003. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Howell, Yvonne. “Eugenics, Rejuvenation, and Bulgakov’s Journey into the Heart of Dogness.” Slavic Review 65, no. 3 (August 2006): 544-562.

Laursen, Eric. “Bad Words Are Not Allowed!: Language And Transformation In Mikhail Bulgakov’s “Heart Of A Dog”.”Slavic & East European Journal 51.3 (2007): 491-513. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

Shilova, Irina. “REFLECTIONS OF SOVIET REALITY IN “HEART OF A DOG” AS BULGAKOV’S WAY OF DISCUSSION WITH THE PROLETARIAN WRITERS”. New Zealand Slavonic Journal 39 (2005): 107–120. Web…

Sinitsyna, Olga. “Censorship in the Soviet Union and Its Cultural and Professional Results for Arts and Art Libraries.” 64th IFLA General Conference. Arts and Children’s Literature Department, M. I. Rudomino All Russia State Library for Foreign Literature. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

This entry was posted in Anti-Establishment, Politically Explicit. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply