A Goodreads user
asked:
I want to read this book but I have some reservations about its integrity. You know, it was a part of a bigger project of Gogol's. Could anybody tell if it ends up logically? Because I don't want to read a book undone, like Kafka's The Castle. I'm waiting for your respond, thanks in advance.
To answer questions about
Dead Souls,
please sign up.
Б. Ачболд
Honestly, if you are having this discussion then you don't deserve to read Gogol.
Brent Ranalli
Part 1 ends satisfyingly and logically enough (though telling only part of what is obviously a larger story). But English translations generally go on to include what exists of Part 2, which adds new plot elements, themes, & characters and then trails off in fragments. Be warned.
Iobel
The ending will not be a full stop, because of the missing parts. A certain conclusion is never reached.
But don't let that keep you away from the book. It's a piece of the finest literature, I promise. Too bad the author went all h.a.m. and burnt the second part of the manuscript... TWICE :))))))
But don't let that keep you away from the book. It's a piece of the finest literature, I promise. Too bad the author went all h.a.m. and burnt the second part of the manuscript... TWICE :))))))
lvq
I read Dead Souls right after The Castle and yes, I was left with the same discontent.
Sean
At first I read it as a Vonnegut type book, where the gaps were intentionally removed. But there's a sense he removed some to write something better. Its frustrating.
You know what? Its worth a read even if you're confounded by it. You can feel the curvature of the whole thing, even through the missing parts, if you get into the right swing of it. It will leave you very undone, but its a fun experience playing golf and wondering where he should have landed!
You know what? Its worth a read even if you're confounded by it. You can feel the curvature of the whole thing, even through the missing parts, if you get into the right swing of it. It will leave you very undone, but its a fun experience playing golf and wondering where he should have landed!
Jon Nakapalau
I kind of liked the way it ended: it seemed to me that the logic of the ending was foreshadowed by the very concept of the book.
Sadiasubhani
Ahh I don't know y I chose it....better to choose another book
Dan-Constantin Gitman
Actually, you can understand how it ends, even there are missing parts. There are, of course, some puzzling things, but this doesn't ruin the pleasure of reading it. But then, this is just my opinion.
Maria Chiper
I just finished this book, and i hate the fact that i started it, because as The Castle (wich i liked more, despite we don't know the end of the book) it ends very unlogically, many parts of the novel are missing, and some of phrases aren't completed...
BUT, i really liked the first chapter and it could be more than just this, if everything was fine with the end and the text in general.
BUT, i really liked the first chapter and it could be more than just this, if everything was fine with the end and the text in general.
Sandy Tessier
Dead Souls is by Gogol. When I read Namesake the main character is named Gogol after the Russian writer Nikolai Gogol. So, I decided that I should read Dead Souls. Well, the plot is a circuitous route through a non-story to a non-climax onto finish with a non-ending. The plot centers around Chichikov, an enigmatic stranger and conniving schemer, who buys deceased serfs' names from their landlords' poll tax lists hoping to mortgage them for-profit and to reinvent himself as a likable gentleman.
I am not alone in being confused and befuddled by this classic work. According to Goodreads; Nicolai Gogol was a master of the spoof. The American students of today are not the only readers who have been confused by him.
I am not alone in being confused and befuddled by this classic work. According to Goodreads; Nicolai Gogol was a master of the spoof. The American students of today are not the only readers who have been confused by him.
Erelyis
Gogol had plans for part 2 and part 3.
Basically, the plot of part 2 was something like that:
Chichikov was sent to jail and here his redemption path starts. As you may know, Gogol in "Dead Souls" wanted to show, that russian mentality is wide and very deep, very deep inside lies the genius. Chichikov is a smart man, but what did he do? He used his smartness for evil, for himself. In part 2 he would have went through "Purgatory" (Siberia) and would have cleansed himself cleansed of evil, egoism.
Part 3 was the final part of this trilogy (who would have thought), there Gogol wanted to show us Chichikov and many other characters we know in new light, make them virtuous, make them our subjects to imitation. For example, Plushkin in part 3 could have became a virtuous wanderer, who helped the poor and weak.
I hope, it helped you (the one who reads it) at least a little bit, King. Stay safe and read books!
Basically, the plot of part 2 was something like that:
Chichikov was sent to jail and here his redemption path starts. As you may know, Gogol in "Dead Souls" wanted to show, that russian mentality is wide and very deep, very deep inside lies the genius. Chichikov is a smart man, but what did he do? He used his smartness for evil, for himself. In part 2 he would have went through "Purgatory" (Siberia) and would have cleansed himself cleansed of evil, egoism.
Part 3 was the final part of this trilogy (who would have thought), there Gogol wanted to show us Chichikov and many other characters we know in new light, make them virtuous, make them our subjects to imitation. For example, Plushkin in part 3 could have became a virtuous wanderer, who helped the poor and weak.
I hope, it helped you (the one who reads it) at least a little bit, King. Stay safe and read books!
Al Maki
I find the first volume delightful and complete in itself and the ending perfect. I looked at the second and didn't find it interesting.
But, for me, Gogol is an analyst of Russian society and mores, a satirist, not a deep delver into personal issues like guilt and redemption, the content of volume two.
But, for me, Gogol is an analyst of Russian society and mores, a satirist, not a deep delver into personal issues like guilt and redemption, the content of volume two.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more