Part 1: Chapters 1-3

[Thomas]

Dead Souls is a funny book, but as the title suggests, there is also something dark about it. Gogol (or Gogol's narrator) begins the book with descriptions of mediocrity. The britzka is small, of the sort driven by "middling" gentlemen. Chichikov is described as neither handsome nor bad looking, neither fat nor thin, neither young nor old. The muzhiks are interested in a wheel on his carriage, ignoring Chichikov entirely.

Who is this Chchikov? He seems to come out of the mists from nowhere as a "visiting gentleman." He seems pleasant enough, but everything about him is strangely vague. Is there a reason he has no particular history or context? And why the persistent mediocrity and banality?

Is this the narrator's perspective perhaps? Which makes me wonder who the narrator is -- there are a number of blatant intrusions into the story by the narrator, and his descriptions are often so florid and weird that maybe it's the narrator and his agenda that we should be concerned with.

Already in the novel there are comical episodes, some almost slapstick in nature. How would you characterize the humor in the book?

And why all of these little obsessions? (Thanks, Susan!)

[Jan]

Gogol is mocking “gentlemen of the middling sort” while also poking a more good-natured sort of fun at his colleagues of the soul-buying type. Everyone is a fool. It will be interesting to see what this dead soul business really amounts to, and to see how sinister our hero is (or is he?).

[Mike]

I would characterize the humor as observational and assuming the narrator is Russian self-deprecating.

I am thinking Chichikov might be collecting these dead souls in order to move up in society. We are told a few times that someone’s ranking in this society is related to the number of people they have. Having people on paper could be a cheaper way of moving up in society. (This my first time reading this and I know nothing about the book or author so I can be completely wrong.)

[Thomas]

Jan wrote: "Gogol is mocking “gentlemen of the middling sort” while also poking a more good-natured sort of fun at his colleagues of the soul-buying type. Everyone is a fool. "

That's a good observation. The fact that everyone is a fool, or a grotesque of sorts, makes me look for a control character, someone who is "normal". If this is a social critique, I would expect there to be one, but so far I don't see who it could be. Even the narrator seems a bit off.

[Thomas]

It might be worth noting that Gogol envisioned Dead Souls to be a three volume work somewhat in line with Dante's Divine Comedy. (Gogol was himself a religious person, and toward the end of his life a radical one.)

[[deleted user]]

I thought I would read the first three chapters, at least. I have the Constance Garnett translation.

Thoughts on Chapter One:

No spoilers, but longish. (view spoiler)[

The beginning of a book has always been important to me. “A rather pretty little chaise on springs, such as bachelors…” (p5). What an extraordinarily apt opening for this book!

The dominant value of many of the characters seems to be appearances. Well, here we have “a … pretty little chaise.” But note, it’s only “rather pretty.” The middling sort of pretty as Jan posted about.

It’s “little.” All these characters seem to live little, rather limited lives.

It’s a “chaise.”

I looked up “chaise” on Britannica.com “…FRENCH {!!!!} … originally a closed, two-wheeled, one-passenger … carriage OF FRENCH ORIGIN”

Upper class Russians during this period so valued French. There probably existed a sturdy Russian carriage of some type, but our “hero” is in a French-style chaise.

“originally closed, one-passenger” I haven’t come to a determination yet as to how emotionally closed the characters might be, but “one-passenger” strikes me as perfect. There’s an awful lot of “me, me, me” in the book thus far. “bachelors” … by definition they aren’t sharing their lives with anyone.

I thought, too, that the “springs’ was a nice touch. As the springs are there to mitigate the bumps in the road, Tchitchikov tries to make less rough his own road through life.

(hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Chapter One, continued. No spoilers.

(view spoiler)[
"His arrival in the town created no sensation whatever" and the conversation of the peasants quoted was a complete nothing burger. There was no PURPOSE to their conversation. It was as though they were just going through the FORM of having a conversation.

The "outer facade of the hotel" seems to have been described in detail only to reinforce the concept that it's the outer facade/ the appearances that are valued. There seems to be no other purpose in describing the building.

"pictures which have been imported into Russia" (p7) Too much culture has been imported into Russia. They pictures, the language, the clothing styles. Where are the examples of a vibrant, authentic Russian culture? Is it dead? Or dormant?

The sad, decrepit state of the town. "The pavement [which enables better connections between people and places in the town] was everywhere in a bad state"(p9).

The town park... [to refresh one's soul} 'consisted of skimpy and drooping trees, supported by props...very handsomely painted green" (p9). The appearance of green. What's propping up this society?
(hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Chapter One, continued. No spoilers. (view spoiler)[

The selfishness of Tchitchikov. In walking about the town, Tch has come across a poster which interested him. A poster is MEANT for many people to see. Tch tore it off in order that he might read it carefully after returning home. HIS wants. George Harrison, again. “I, Me, Mine.”

There’s an abundance of sugary flattery. And flies. What are flies attracted to? Sweets and dead bodies. Tchi is at the governor’s home. “Black coats flitted about one by one or in groups, here and there, like flies flitting about a sparkling sugar-loaf on a hot July day…” (p12).

Perhaps the hoi-polloi are dead souls, too.

On page 14, the thin man is mortgaging his serfs… Why? The “round fat man has a house at the end of town bought in the name of his wife”…Why? I wondered whether buying the house in his wife’s name gave him a financial advantage. Can he somehow avoid taxes? What is he doing that the thin man isn’t? Is the round fat man acting strictly in his own self-interest at a cost to his town?

(hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Chapter One, continued. No spoilers. (view spoiler)[

What a revealing scene. Tch meets Manilov (“very civil and affable”) and Sobakevitch who begged his pardon [probably in French} for having stepped on Tch’s foot. They sit down to play whist. A highly structured, rule-bound card game. {Aside: I LOVE playing whist.}

“They sat down together at green table {I think back to the “green” park} and did not get up before supper. All conversation ceased entirely, as is always the case when people give themselves up {What great wording: People give themselves up.} … When people give themselves up to an important occupation.”

Is Tch getting to know any of these people? Are they sharing any humanity one with another? No, they are almost mindlessly following the proscribed rules and playing the game. Hours of their lives thus spent.

Loved the silver snuff box. “at the bottom of which they noticed two violets put there for the sake of the scent.” But, I think, NO. The violets are not going to out-scent the snuff. (My grandfather used snuff. Coppenhagen Wintergreeen.) The violets, I think, are strictly for show.

And finally, Tch raises his real purpose. “he … inquired how many souls of peasants each of them possessed and in what condition their estates were… AND ONLY AFTERWARDS inquired their Christian name and father’s name.” (p. 15). He’ll be able to thus use the proper name-form when speaking with them… but it’s been revealed his primary interest in in the souls of peasants.

(hide spoiler)]

[Chris]

I just got the book from my library system, so am just through chap 1 and part of chap two. Have to admit the first thing that comes to mind about Chichikov is "what a sycophant he is! And why does he feel the need to suck up to these people. Do they have more status than he and thus his will elevate due to association??

I was struck by the conversation he has with Manilov and his wife when he finally arrives at their estate. It so reminded me of the cordial etiquette type dialogue found in Jane Austen's works.

[Bigollo]

Adelle wrote: "Chapter One, continued. No spoilers.


"His arrival in the town created no sensation whatever" and the conversation of the peasants quoted was a complete nothing burger. There was no PURPOSE to the..."

You wrote,

"...and the conversation of the peasants quoted was a complete nothing burger. There was no PURPOSE to their conversation. It was as though they were just going through the FORM of having a conversation."

Yet, we, readers, learn something from the peasants' conversation; maybe not immediately but a bit later on if we remember the passage. The main character -- Our Hero, let's call him that way following Gogol, is not as rich enough as he might seem. Or maybe he's very desperate and hence sloppy in some spots despite the appearance of being observant and careful fellow? To set forth traveling in a britzka on a dubious wheel? On long Russian roads of the early 19th century?

Also, for me personally, that peasants' conversation is like -- Aha, Gogol's in his element. Instead of just an adjective, or a metaphor for that matter, we get a mini story describing a simple action or an object.

More of those mini/micro stories are still to come. Since I am reading the poem not the first time, I have labels for them. The labels consist usually of one word. We have read another one already, I call it FLIES.

[Roger]

Our hero may not be rich now, but after he finishes his project he will officially own hundreds of serfs, and that means he will be rich, right?

[Bigollo]

Roger wrote: "Our hero may not be rich now, but after he finishes his project he will officially own hundreds of serfs, and that means he will be rich, right?"

Well, officially -- in some papers -- yes, but how will he use those facts in his financial needs, or pay taxes on those serfs for that matter?
I guess we shall read and see..

[Thomas]

Chris wrote: "Have to admit the first thing that comes to mind about Chichikov is "what a sycophant he is! And why does he feel the need to suck up to these people. Do they have more status than he and thus his will elevate due to association??"

I think so, and I wonder if Chichikov's need for elevation has any relation to his middling status. Maybe he is a mediocre man who aspires to greatness not by being great but by buying it. By buying souls no less.

[Thomas]

Bigollo wrote: "More of those mini/micro stories are still to come. Since I am reading the poem not the first time, I have labels for them. The labels consist usually of one word. We have read another one already, I call it FLIES. ."

I love these little stories -- the flies, followed by the disquisition on thin and fat men. It's a good reminder that Gogol thought of Dead Souls as a poem first.

[Jan]

I don’t understand how this could be considered a poem…..help!

[Thomas]

It doesn't survive most translations, but Gogol subtitled Dead Souls "Poema". (Pevear and Volokhonsky, or their editors, decided to print the reverse: "Dead Souls, A Novel" but clearly Gogol did not think of it that way.) There are indications that he thought of Dead Souls as an epic poem because he felt the conventional novel form was too rigid. I think this can be seen in his metaphorical flights, like the one that Bigollo mentioned about the party-goers described as flies buzzing around a sugar loaf. Isn't there something vaguely Homeric about this technique?

[[deleted user]]

Bigollo wrote @ 11: "Yet, we, readers, learn something from the peasants' conversation; maybe not immediately but a bit later on if we remember the passage..."

Thanks for the heads-up, Biggollo. I'll watch for that in coming chapters. :-)

"On long Russian roads of the early 19th century?"

Yes, something to consider. Now that you mention that, I remember the rough roads out to my grandparents' home when I was a child.

[[deleted user]]

Chapter Two. What an “agreeable” chapter! A surfeit of agreeableness. Agreeable = amiable. Affable. Charming. Manners. Charming = “most worthy” Agreeable (“we played cards all night”) = “most worthy” Amiable = “estimable” No spoilers. (view spoiler)[

Reading for the sake of the process only. That’s what the peasants’ conversation had seemed to me. Here, too, there seems to be no purpose, only form.

“reading books, over the subject of which he did not trouble himself… he read everything with equal attention… and the devil knows what it might sometimes mean… His reading was for the most part done in a recumbent position… He slept without undressing” (p 18-19).

People’s lives without goals or purpose. Well, Tch does seem to have a purpose. Perhaps that is why he is more active. How worthy his goal is might be questioned.

How symbolically sad: “The Temple of solitary meditation near a pond covered green with scum… Nowhere was there a growing tree…” It would seem no one comes there to meditate. They simply put up the sign. Manilov never even drove out to his fields. He smoked his pipe with refinement and agreed to what his peasant worker suggested. He daydreams and speaks of how nice it would be to have this or that improvement…”nothing but words”

How much of Manilov’s marriage is mere form? “Open your little mouth” “In short, they were CALLED happy.” (p25). Were they? Or did they merely have the proper signs whilst their actual relationship was so stagnant as to be covered with pond scum?

The maladroit attempt to give their sons pretentious names.

More agreeableness and more comfort and more pleasantness and more comfort.

Finally Tch brings up his purpose, asks directions, and drives away.

Manilov watches then gave himself up to delightful meditation on the bliss of life fishing with a friend and discussing agreeable subjects.

(hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Thomas wrote, I wonder if Chichikov's need for elevation has any relation to his middling status. Maybe he is a mediocre man who aspires to greatness not by being great but by buying it. By buying souls no less."

Very possibly. But also, according to the narrator, a Russian trait.

" It is characteristic of the Russian that he has a great passion for making the acquaintance of anyone who's ever so little higher in rank, and a nodding acquaintance with a count or a Prince is more precious to him than the closest friendship of ordinary human beings."

[Kathy]

Mike wrote: "I am thinking Chichikov might be collecting these dead souls in order to move up in society. ..."

I hadn't thought of that (but I noticed Roger did as well)--and it makes some sense of an otherwise seemingly senseless offer. Interestingly, the driving suspense at this point, if you could call it that, is the question of why Chichikov wants to buy "dead souls." At least, it's what's making me read on...


That little scene between Chichikov and Korobochka, in which he becomes so frustrated with her for being reluctant to sell him her dead souls, was very telling. Of course she's suspicious! What he's asking makes no sense! But at the same time, we get his interior monologue, which seems to indicate not that he's trying to take advantage of her but that he genuinely sees no down side to her to accepting his offer. This made me wonder whether Gogol was trying to make a point that people get too stuck in their ways to take advantage of a good opportunity when one is presented. The reader can certainly sympathize with Korobochka's reaction!

[[deleted user]]

Thoughts on Chapter 3 , Part A. No spoilers (view spoiler)[

“The[dappled gray] trace-horse…was extremely sly and only made a show of pulling, while the bay in the shifts and the other trace-horse … called the Assessor because it had been purchased from some tax assessor, worked with all their hearts …” (39). Selifan, lashed at the laggard with his whip. “you German pantaloon!” “you damned Bonaparte!”

I thought Gogal introduced quite a bit here. The subject of taxes and tax collections is brought to our attention again. It does seem taxes are an aspect of this book. How they are assessed, How fair or unfair they might be.

To me it seemed that the dappled gray … a trace horse meant to lead, but only making a show of it … symbolizes the upper classes… Manilov, for instance, ostensibly leading the household, though in actuality his peasants make the suggestions and do the work… the bay symbolized the peasants doing the work … albeit horse and peasant often do the work only under the threat of the whip. Tch to Stlifan: “I will give you a thrashing that will teach you to have a chat with a good man” (p. 42).

Something is revealed of class attitudes. Earlier in this book we have seen the proper people emulating foreigners through their proper use of the French language and proper manners, and the Germans were praised somewhere for their rationality. But here is Selifan, a peasant. An uncultured Russian, if you will.. He disparages his horses, insulting them as French and German.

The narrator has said that had he been listening Tch could have learned things about himself thru Selifan’s observations. Selifan says to the horses, “You think you will hide your conduct.” Isn’t that what Tch has been doing?

We see more of Tch revealed here, too. Tch has looked around observantly and has deemed his social station superior to the old woman's. She had offered to rub his back or tickle his toes to make him more comfortable and to help him sleep better. She would have treated him with the care she had given her husband. The following morning, after Tch had enjoyed a night of hospitality in her home, she mentions to him “My back keeps aching and my leg … is painful too.”

Tch does not offer her a back rub or a leg rub. He dismisses her complaints as no concern of his. “That will pass, that will pass, ma’am.

Note, too. The old woman offers him some home-made wine. “That’s not amiss, ma’am. We will have a drop of home-made wine too” (p 48). !!! Color me shocked. Back at Manilov’s place, Tch had claimed that he didn’t drink! Ah, that’s probably because Manilov “ranks” higher, so Tch wanted to project a character of a non—drinker. Here at the old woman’s, he’s ever so much more casual. None of that “You first, you first” here with the old woman. No, indeed. Yes, I’ll have wine and more pancakes.

The narrator: “It must be said that if we in Russia have not caught up with foreigners in other things, we have far outstripped them in the knowledge of how to behave. All the shades and subtleties of our manners cannot be counted. .. there are among us persons so clever that they can talk to a landowner with two hundred souls quite differently from the way in which they speak to one with three hundred … “ It’s an indictment, I think.



(hide spoiler)]

[Roger]

Adelle wrote: "Thomas wrote, I wonder if Chichikov's need for elevation has any relation to his middling status. Maybe he is a mediocre man who aspires to greatness not by being great but by buying it. By buying ..."

I think it's a characteristic of everyone else, too.

[[deleted user]]

Roger wrote: "I think it's a characteristic of everyone else, too."...

"I agree, Roger," said Adelle agreeably. ;-)

Are you enjoying the book? I'm liking it more than I had thought I would.

[[deleted user]]

Thoughts on Chapter 3 , Part B. No spoilers (view spoiler)[

Tch HELPS HIMSELF to more wine. He then asks her how many souls she has. Only afterwards does he ask her her names. Business first with her. THEN he will go through the forms of using her name. Note, he doesn’t use her surname. She doesn’t rank above him. He addresses her casually as “Nastasya Petrovna.” Says his own dear mother was “Nastasya Petrovna.” I don’t believe him. I think he’s read his hostess, weighed her 80 soul-estate, and decided to worm his way into her softer side … if she has one. She’s a pretty sharp operator. But, if Tch’s mother was named Nastasya Petrovna!?! Why… there’s a bit of an emotional connection, n’est pas?

See? That’s the kind of “shades and subtleties of manners” the narrator had spoken of. Brilliant! Our man Tch knows what he’s about. He tells her he’s NOT a tax assessor for sure?? He knows she does business and he tells her he’s traveling on business. Now let’s get down to brass tacks. “Have any of your peasants died?”

I like her. She knows exactly how many. 18. She regrets their lost labor …”I have no one to shoe my horses.” Tch brushes off her troubles. His social standing doesn’t require that he pretend to care. “It is all God’s will, ma’am…. Let me have them” (p 50). Mmmm. Not Will you sell them to me, but the imperative “Let me have them.” He would never have spoken to Manilov that way.

She’s an eminently practical woman. “But why?” And, “Are you trying to cheat me?” If Tch has found a use for them, maybe she can use them as well. She had to pay the assessor 50 rubles and presents for them. If her dead peasants are worth something, SHE should be the one to profit from their deaths. She’s already paid the taxes.

Like Kathy (post #21) I wondered at Tch’s anger. Again, can you imagine such an outburst against Manilov? “At this point Tchitchikov was completely driven out of all patience, he banged his chair upon the floor in his anger and consigned her to the devil” (p 54).

Like Kathy, I think he’s frustrated she doesn’t see the advantage of her doing as he wants her to. I think there’s an aspect of “I’m better than you so do as I say.” I think, too, as Bigollo suggested, that Tch may be a bit desperate. What else could explain what seems an absolute overreaction to the old woman not selling.

Tch had earlier accused the old woman of a sin. “You are taking a little sin upon your soul, ma’am, you didn’t sell it for twelve roubles” (p 52). Tch now sins himself. :He says he’s acting from simple Christian humanity to help her. He lies some more: “I take government contracts too” CASUALLY. Somehow that casual lie strikes me as worse than the calculated lie. It just rolls easily off his tongue. “This was a lie though quite a casual one, uttered with no ulterior motive …” (p 54).


Although the old woman regretted the loss of labor of her dead souls, she had also known them as individuals. I was struck by this. She “knew them all by heart” and knew them by name.

And then at the close of the chapter I enjoyed the girl. She doesn’t know her right hand from her left. Her legs are grubby. And she is “highly delighted at having had a ride on the box’ (p 60). A real emotion at a real experience..

(hide spoiler)]

[Roger]

Adelle wrote: "Roger wrote: "I think it's a characteristic of everyone else, too."...

"I agree, Roger," said Adelle agreeably. ;-)

Are you enjoying the book? I'm liking it more than I had thought I would."

Oh yes. I'm eager to see how our hero makes use of all his dead souls.

[Sam]

I don't see a sycophant. I see a con man. Some game he's running, i don't know what, but he's buying up souls! I can't help but make the connection to Goethe's Faust. Dr. Faust has sold his soul. Is Chichikov the Devil? I am sure Gogol would be familiar with Faust. He's taking the reverse position of not the selling of a soul, but the buying of them, in multitudes. It's got to be a devilish con.

And then emblazoned for me is watching the snot from the kid at the tip of his nose dropping into the soup. What a picture.

[Thomas]

Sam wrote: "Is Chichikov the Devil? ."

An interesting question. When he becomes exasperated with Korobochka he wishes the devil on her, which gets her attention because she had a dream of the devil and is "extraordinarily frightened" of him. Chichikov says he is only exercising "Christian loving-kindess" in trying to buy her dead souls. Then he dangles government contracts in front of her, and she gets even more interested.

A very peculiar Mephistopheles! Still an interesting possibility though, and it makes me wonder what Chichikov has to offer in exchange.

[Thomas]

Kathy wrote: "Mike wrote: "I am thinking Chichikov might be collecting these dead souls in order to move up in society. ..."

I hadn't thought of that (but I noticed Roger did as well)--and it makes some sense o..."

There is a hint of this in Chapter 3 where the narrator is talking about the forms of address that Russians use and how they change depending on the social standing of the person addressed.

...there are such sages among us as will speak quite differently to landowner with two hundred souls than to one with three hundred...I ask you to look at him as he sits among his subordinates... A Prometheus, decidedly a Prometheus! ...In society or at a party, if everyone is of low rank, Prometheus simply remains Prometheus, but if there is someone a bit above him, Prometheus will undergo suc a metamorphosis as even Ovid could not invent: a fly, less than a fly, he self-annhililates into a grain of sand!

And then the narrator shows Chichikov asking Korobochka how many souls she has on her estate, and how many have died. (Eighteen she says, one of whom apparently died of spontaneous combustion, like a drummer from Spinal Tap... which i find hilarious, but I'm dating myself.)

[Bigollo]

Jan wrote: "I don’t understand how this could be considered a poem…..help!"

Yes, as Thomas already mentioned, Gogol sub-titled Dead Souls a poem. Actually, if I remember right -- A Poem in Prose. In the Soviet Union era, the poem was in the high school curriculum, but that was long time ago (for me -- the high school, I mean). There was also another piece of trivia, connected to this. A. Pushkin published his Eugine Onegin with the sub-title 'A Novel in Verse'. Later, Gogol, Pushkin's admirer and probably friend, sub-titled his opus 'A Poem in Prose', sort of playing along in reverse, I think.
Or maybe the sub-title was just 'A Poem'. And the readers later noticed the parallel to A Novel in Verse and dubbed it A Poem in Prose. It's kind of cool, anyways. It reflects the poetic character of the text right on!

[Gary]

I think it's easy, and tempting, to think of Gogol's dead souls as spiritual entities, but I don't think that's what Gogol intends. In feudal Russia, as you likely know, "soul" was simply a synonym for "serf". Dead souls = dead serfs. Gogol is writing plainly and directly; indeed, ordinariness and simplicity was his trademark. Chichikov is no devil, and for him buying dead souls/serfs is a mercenary transaction. There's something it for him that's worth more to him than the taxes he'll have to pay on his purchased dead souls/serfs.

[Bigollo]

Gary wrote: "..I think it's easy, and tempting, to think of Gogol's dead souls as spiritual entities, but I don't think that's what Gogol intends. In feudal Russia, as you likely know, "soul" was simply a synonym for "serf". Dead souls = dead serfs.."

In this economic, serfdom context, yes, "Dead souls = dead serfs".
And maybe that's all Gogol intends. But the terms are not entirely identical. As it often happens, the author intends one thing but what comes out happens to be much bigger.
Some readers question, who are really dead souls (or happen to be portraited as such) in the book? Or to put it other way, which characters' souls are essentially dead? Here, the overlap between serf and soul terms ends and we, readers, may think of souls in a broader way.
Gogol himself may have not thought it that way, of course. He's just a poet, sings of what he sees and feels. :)

[Gary]

Bigollo wrote: "As it often happens, the author intends one thing but what comes out happens to be much bigger."

I agree. Interpretations should, however, be connected to the text in some meaningful way. Not every interpretation is legit if not based on the text. (My remark here is a general one, and not a criticism of any specific comment in this discussion.)

[Sam]

I must admit that in my reading up till now, "souls" meant "souls" in our contemporary usage. I could go as far as "souls of dead serfs," but still souls.
Now I must translate NG's meaning in his time. That changes everything. I shall go back and reread or at least skim the first three chapters.
It makes a very different book, though I still see our "hero" as a con man. I don't know yet what his game is, but surely he is hiding another person under the guise of a sycophantic stranger.

[Rhonda]

While I am very glad to be reading Dead Souls with the group now, I admit that I have avoided it mostly because of Gogol's intensity: even the name of it put me off and who cannot help but see the contrast or inconsistency in the title of Dead Souls? One is tempted to dismiss this as unimportant because there is, after all, no such thing. How can a soul be dead...or is it just another example of Russian contrasts of which Gogol's writing is so surfeited? It is along the line of pagan Christianity, but then others would argue that this is just a way of describing the Russian character. Russians seem to laud the contrasts in their lives.
I confess that I learned a great deal from Pevear's introduction, including the background of the story of where Gogol got the idea for the book, the requirement of the vodka makers/ farmers who were required to have 100 peasants and so purchased the names of the dead ones to pass muster for the government inspectors.

Then again, there is the jest concerning these empty people who actually refer to "dead souls" when they, themselves, may be the real dead souls. Nabokov is said to refer to these characters as "bloated dead souls," an embodiment of "poshlost" or a character which is pretending to be something when it knows itself to be devoid of those qualities. The Russian word is said to be untranslatable, but "banality" appears to come close, perhaps "empty posturing."
It is fascinating watching all of these characters created in some sort of pretense of importance. So why are they in any way funny when we read about them? I tend to think they are not well-fleshed characters but empty shells of men and women, albeit with characterizations rather than characters.
Pevear explains an interesting distinction in the difference in the two common words for 'peasant," the more possibly derogatory tone given to "muzhik." In the first chapter, we see two muzhiks making remarks of the britzka. They even make banal conversation...and it's funny, but in a peculiar way. It is not like we are laughing at real people, in a sense. Still, you cannot take the conversation seriously, but one understands it as a real conversation. It is a fascinating contrast which sets the scene of the entire book.
Additionally, there is a seller of hot punch with a red copper samovar...and yet it appears as if the seller himself might better appear as a bearded samovar! Gogol gives us example after example of his humor.

Gogol insists that this is a poem and not a novel because, as he says in A Guidebook of Literature for Russian Youth, the novel as a genre is "too static." He requires characters to be brought up and dropped according to the author's whim with incidents not necessarily related to the hero's fate. His poem requires movement, allowing the author greater movement of time and place and action.
It takes one a while to appreciate all of these things which Gogol portrays because, well, they aren't that funny to someone unwilling to indulge in the Russian experience. We keep looking for the meaning and perhaps we have to not only step back a bit from the action in order to see the panorama, but we also have to be willing, like Dante, to be led into discovery. Still one can hazard a guess as to why the third part was never even outlined. What would a Russian paradise even look like, especially to Gogol?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote, "Interpretations should, however, be connected to the text in some meaningful way. Not every interpretation is legit if not based on the text."

Yet who, other than the reader, can determine whether or how his own interpretation is legit?

Unlike the reader described in Chapter 2 who simply read whatever was in front of him. every good reader, engages with what he reads ... yes, he reads the text... What is meaningful to one reader may not be meaningful to another.
What does the reader draw from that text?

The next reader may legitimately see the book very differently.

[Bigollo]

Yet by this token there is nothing wrong with that reader's from Chapter 2 reading style too. If he enjoys reading that way, that's fine, that's his business. But then the term 'legitimate' is of no use here. No need for it. It seems to me the term 'legit' is born within a community, and that community determines what is legit and what not. In other words 'legitimacy' is not applicable to a reader but to a community. We need to share our interpretation with others for it to be determined legit or not. If one reader likes his/her interpretation but nobody else does, then fine, (s)he may cherish his/her interpretation and doesn't need adjectives like legit or not legit.
Sorry, too many words. I guess what I want to say is it is not correct to say that the reader himself solely determines whether or how his own interpretation is legit.
And that's what we do here -- we exchange our interpretations.
Different communities may have very different domains of legitimacy.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote, “I think it's easy, and tempting, to think of Gogol's dead souls as spiritual entities, but I don't think that's what Gogol intends .”


Mmm. Might it not have been … more appropriate … less judgmental... for you to have posted that YOU think (and why) that Gogol simply meant his souls as serfs, without denigrating others who think differently by labeling their thinking “easy and tempting”? Doesn’t that seem hurtful? I found it hurtful. Moreover, I don't agree with your statement.


It seems to me that the readers engaging with the work are, like Teddy Roosevelt wrote, “in the arena.” It seems to me that that is what an author actually wants: Readers that engage with his writing.


Gary wrote, “Interpretations should, however, be connected to the text in some meaningful way [Who is to determine what is meaningful?} .

Not every interpretation is legit if not based on the text. (My remark here is a general one, and not a criticism of any specific comment in this discussion.)”{Then why make the comment?}


I see absolutely no reason for “legitimacy” of interpretation to even come up. Should a reader see a passage differently than another, fine, that reader can point out how he or she sees it. And why. There could be a back and forth.

But to simply dismiss the interpretations of other readers here strikes me as inappropriate. And hurtful.


1) When I was taking teaching courses, there was a class on reading. We discussed at length the sentence “The red barn stood there.” Dark red? Faded red? Large barn? Small barn. Well-kept barn? Old barn falling apart? There are at least two red barns—legitimately so: the red barn the author is thinking of, and the red barn that the reader thinks of drawn from the reader’s own life experiences. It’s a joint exercise between the writer and the reader.


2) I remember when I first read Stanley Rosen’s _Plato’s Republic: A Study_. It’s the book that taught me to read closely. To try to pick up on any small clues in the author’s writing.

Plato begins his _Republic_ : "I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon, son of Ariston."

Mr. Rosen begins, “The theme of descent plays an important role in the dramatic structure of the _Republic_. To note only the obvious, Socrates and Glaucon descend from Athens to the Piraeus at the very beginning of the dialogue; Book Seven begins with a descent from the sunlight into the cave of shadows that represents the sub-political nature of the human soul; the dialogue closes with an account of the descent of Er into Hades. Mr. Rosen drew much from his reading of Plato. There are musings on the descent of society. He writes at length on ‘the soul of the city.”

It’s a marvelous book. It taught me to read closely, and to pay attention to what was "said" that wasn't obviously "said."

Bigollo wrote: We need to share our interpretation with others for it to be determined legit or not.”


We do not. We share to allow others to see what we think. And we read the comments of others to find out how others might see the book. Did they “see” things we didn’t? From there, we can re-examine and perhaps re-evaluate our own interpretation. But to share our interpretation with others for it to be determined legit or not”???

Never.

[Tamara]

Gary wrote: "I think it's easy, and tempting, to think of Gogol's dead souls as spiritual entities, but I don't think that's what Gogol intends. In feudal Russia, as you likely know, "soul" was simply a synonym for "serf"..."

I’m reading a translation by Andrew MacAndrew, a copy I’ve had for more years than I can remember. In the Translator’s Note, MacAndrew says:

The word souls appearing in the title of this book means serfs. Under serfdom, which survived in Russia until 1861, the peasants were attached to the land. In fact, the status of an estate and of its owner was measured in souls rather than in acres: thus we see, in the very first page of the narrative, that Chichikov, the main character, drove a carriage which put him into the “hundred-soul bracket” . . .

MacAndrew goes on to say that although the squire was exempt from paying taxes, he was responsible for collecting the taxes paid by his peasants and forwarding the taxes according to the number of male serfs who were alive when the last census was taken. A census was taken every few years, and if a serf happened to die in between one census and the next, the landowner was responsible for paying the tax until the death was recorded in the subsequent census. Mortgages could be obtained from the government based on the number of serfs.

I'm guessing Chichikov is buying up deeds for dead serfs because he wants to get a mortgage or some sort of loan.

[Thomas]

Adelle wrote: "Gary wrote, “I think it's easy, and tempting, to think of Gogol's dead souls as spiritual entities, but I don't think that's what Gogol intends .”


Mmm. Might it not have been … more appropriate …..."

My take on this is that "legitimacy" is based on authority. I think you're right not to accept others' opinion as authority, but we do have an authority here -- Gogol himself. And as far as this group goes, there is no other authority.

Gary summed it up well: "Not every interpretation is legit if not based on the text." Which is why in this group we discourage the use of secondary, interpretive sources. The text is authoritative and nothing else. Which doesn't mean that we can't discuss our own interpretations, which are all legitimate, as long as they are backed up by the text. The text is what confers that legitimacy. Historical context, biographical information, psychological analyses of the author, expert opinions (such as that of Stanley Rosen, who is great) -- all these might yield significant information, but they don't amount to a hill of beans if the text doesn't back up the interpretation.

My two kopecks...

[Thomas]

Tamara wrote: "I'm guessing Chichikov is buying up deeds for dead serfs because he wants to get a mortgage or some sort of loan."

In Chapter 4, Nozdryov insists that Chichikov tell him what he wants with dead souls, and (view spoiler)[ he tells him that he wants to marry a woman whose parents require that he own at least 300 souls. (hide spoiler)] which is along the same lines. Souls are a commodity and the number owned is a measure of wealth.

But Gogol plays on the double meaning of "soul" in a marvelously inventive way throughout the book. The question "What is a soul?" will be with us for a while. I think it is one of the great charms of the book.

[[deleted user]]

Thomas wrote: "@ 40
.."

Mmm. Thought about what you wrote, Thomas. I still see it differently than you. I’ll tell you why. At length. Because that’s my way.

You wrote, “but we do have an authority here -- Gogol himself. And as far as this group goes, there is no other authority.

You wrote, “Gary summed it up well: "Not every interpretation is legit if not based on the text." Which is why in this group we discourage the use of secondary, interpretive sources. The text is authoritative and nothing else. Which doesn't mean that we can't discuss our own interpretations, which are all legitimate, as long as they are backed up by the text. The text is what confers that legitimacy. Historical context, biographical information, psychological analyses of the author, expert opinions (such as that of Stanley Rosen, who is great) -- all these might yield significant information, but they don't amount to a hill of beans if the text doesn't back up the interpretation”

1-- I don’t see anyone reading _Dead Souls_ here using secondary sources. But note, almost every book we have read here comes with an introduction and often analysis of experts. Further note, I have been with this group for years and plenty of people have posted information from secondary sources---Great Courses, online background information, etc. Why is it now verboten?


I went back and reread the group membership intro: “This is a group to read and discuss those books generally referred to as “the classics” or “the Western canon.” Books which have shaped Western thought over the years; books which Robert Hutchins, in his essay for the Great Books of the Western World series, considered important works in “The Great Conversation.”

As one participant noted, "the goal of this group is to make reading the classics an enjoyable and enlightening but non-threatening process..”

I see.

Is there a sub-intro to the group somewhere giving restrictions? Has the purpose of the group changed from what it was when Everyman founded the group? Is the goal no longer “to make reading the classics an enjoyable but non-threatening process”? Must we all now be on guard against wrongthink?

Moreover, isn’t Gary himself citing the ” Historical context, biographical information, psychological analyses of the author, expert opinions” when he states that with Gogol, “ordinariness and simplicity was his trademark.” Did he draw that from his own reading or is that the take of some “expert.” Why should other readers accept that as the controlling opinion?

Perhaps other readers see Gogol as writing complex stories meant to make us think.

Sam sees “a con man.” Gogol never so states in the text. Others say “everyone is a fool.” Gogol never so states. Some see souls as meaning more than simply serfs. All these readers drew their interpretations from their reading of the text. I mean, Mein Gott! I pretty much pedantically post the text upon which my thoughts originated.

I think, too, that we should bear in mind that this is declared by Gogol himself to be a poem. A Poem! “A verbal composition designed to convey experiences, ideas, or emotions in a vivid and imaginative way… through SUGGESTIVE powers and BY THE USE of … meter, METAPHOR, and rhyme” (online definition).

2-- You wrote, “but we do have an authority here -- Gogol himself. And as far as this group goes, there is no other authority.

Gogol is dead. Has been for years. Unless he wrote some Russian equivalent of The Federalist Papers to explain the whys and wherefores of _Dead Souls_, then the ultimate responsibility for meaning comes down to the reader.


I thought this group SHARED their thoughts – that others could disagree, but they weren’t informed that their thinking was illegitimate.


And Rhonda, excellent post @ 35.

[Emil]

Adelle wrote:
"Gogol is dead...."

I'm going to have to disagree with you there...

On an (un)related note:

If you have any genetic, biometric and health data, as well as personal data revealing racial and ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or ideological convictions of any dead friend or relative, do not hesitate to contact me. I am buying the data with cash or bitcoin.

I assure you, you are not doing anything illegal. In legal terms, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act no longer apply to identifiable data that relate to a person once they have died.

Not sure how I'll use the data, have to finish Dead Souls first.

[Thomas]

Adelle,

What I said was that we discourage the use of secondary sources. They're not "verboten", especially in threads that deal with historical, background, and interpretive sources.

It's extremely difficult for me as a moderator to maintain this, and impossible for me to enforce it, but it's the way Everyman set up the group and it's the way we've chosen to continue it.

Of course everyone has their own opinions. For example, Sam might be right, or he might be wrong about Chichikov. Gogol doesn't have to literally say that Chichikov is a con man, but if there are things in the book that Sam can point to as evidence (and there are) then his opinion has weight. If he says that Chichikov is a con man because Professor X said so in the introduction, I hope Sam can produce Professor X so that Professor X can point to the evidence for that in the text.

I hope that makes sense.

[Thomas]

Emil wrote: "

Not sure how I'll use the data, have to finish Dead Souls first. "

LOL, but yes... let's stick to Dead Souls if we can, puleeeeze.

[[deleted user]]

Emil wrote: "...."

I'm going to have to disagree with you there...

On an (un)related note:

If you have any genetic, biometric and health data, as well as personal data revealing ..."

Ah, sorbet served as a palate cleanser. Nice.

[[deleted user]]

Thomas wrote: "It's extremely difficult for me as a moderator

..."

Yes, no doubt.

I'm sending you a private message.

Letting _Dead Souls_ discussions go.

[Rhonda]

Adelle wrote: "And Rhonda, excellent post @ 35.."

Thank you kindly. Despite the fact that the history of Russia may be considered a secondary source, it is perhaps important to remember that Russia did not have a regular census, which might otherwise be presumed. For example, there was a seventh official census in 1815 and there was the eight which was taken in 1833. The serf had to pay his own tax, but it was the landowner's responsibility for collecting it. No one could predict how often a census would be taken.
It is significant, since serfs were tied to the land, that the landowner remained responsible for the tax on the dead serfs until they could be stricken from the rolls at the next census. Landowners might be stuck paying for dead serfs for an indeterminate amount of time.
It was also possible for the landowner to mortgage some of the (dead or living) peasants to the government to obtain cash. Hence the counting of dead serfs was significant in two ways: there was a way in which the dead serf was valuable to the landowner, and, at the same time, the dead serf could be a strain on the landowner who had to keep paying the tax on them. This provides a subtle reason why someone else might wish to purchase these dead serfs, but also a reason why a landowner might want to sell them.

[Chris]

Sam wrote: I don't see a sycophant. I see a con man. Some game he's running, i don't know what, but he's buying up souls!

Ok, I see that. When I made that comment, he had not started trying to collect the dead souls as of yet. But again it appeared he was doing to it to raise his status as the number of people you have working for you indicates a level of affluence.

[Sam]

@various comments
I think Adele definitely uses Rosen as a secondary source. She has let the discussion go, however, so that should not be hurtful to her.
For staying with the text or taking individual interpretations without being anchored in the text, the reasoning would be clearer if I take an extreme that "Dead Souls" means "Angels in Heaven judging who shall pass The Gates". This personal interpretation would not be legitimate, it is unrelated to the text except in my own mind.

I accept that Gogol means "serf" not "soul". I don't see him using a double meaning.
My taking Chichikov comes entirely from the text and my own experience with con men, and how they operate. They gain the mark by their own confidence in the transaction.