Why is Sharikov dead? The fate of “the Soviet Frankenstein” in Bulgakov’s A Dog’s Heart

ABSTRACT

Many critics have identified Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus as one of the literary predecessors of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novella A Dog’s Heart. However, a brief comparison of these two works has not yet gone beyond establishing their basic thematic and structural similarities; the roots of these similarities lie in the Promethean myth and in the conventions of the science-fiction genre. This article investigates the changing relationship between Shelley’s and Bulgakov’s creators and creations through the prism of class struggle. In particular, the author examines how and why Bulgakov justifies what Shelley does not – the destruction of the creature by his creator. Having contextualized both works in their time and place, the study discusses Bulgakov’s strategy for modifying Shelley’s portrayal of class conflict in the Soviet setting. The first two parts of the discussion compare the two experimental beings in terms of their identity and behaviour and the two scientists in terms of their responsibility and accountability. The last part shows how Bulgakov’s use of an animal character – the dog Sharik – not only motivates Preobrazhenskii’s victory over Sharikov, but also highlights this victory’s moral incertitude by revealing the mechanisms of a narrative that validates class and species violence.

RÉSUMÉ

Un grand nombre de critiques ont identifié Frankenstein ou le Prométhée moderne, le roman de Mary Shelley comme un des prédécesseurs littéraires de la nouvelle de Mikhaïl Boulgakov, Cœur de chien. Cependant, une brève comparaison de ces deux ouvrages n’est pas encore allée au-delà de l’élaboration de leurs similarités thématiques et structurelles fondamentales; les origines de ces similarités se trouvent dans le mythe prométhéen et dans les conventions de la science-fiction. L’article examine la relation changeante entre les créateurs et les créations de Shelley et de Boulgakov à travers le prisme de la lutte des classes. En particulier, l’auteur examine comment, et pourquoi, Boulgakov justifie la destruction de la créature par son créateur, ce que Shelley ne justifie pas. L’article met les deux ouvrages dans le contexte de leur époque et de leur lieu, ensuite il discute de la stratégie employée par Boulgakov pour adapter la représentation de Shelley de la classe et du conflit, dans le contexte soviétique. Les deux premières parties de la discussion comparent les deux êtres expérimentaux sous l’angle de leur identité et de leur conduite, et les deux scientifiques sous l’angle de leur responsabilité. La dernière partie montre comment l’utilisation de Boulgakov d’un personnage animal – le chien Charik – non seulement entraîne la victoire de Preobrajenski sur Charikov, mais également elle met l’accent sur l’incertitude morale de cette victoire en révélant les mécanismes d’un récit qui valide la violence de la classe et de l’espèce.

KEYWORDS:

• Mary Shelley
• Mikhail Bulgakov
• Frankenstein
• A Dog’s Heart
• class
• speciesism

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Alexander Zholkovsky for sustaining my interest in the topic. An earlier version of this essay was presented at a panel on Mikhail Bulgakov at the 2012 American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages Annual Meeting in Seattle. I want to thank my fellow panellists (Christopher Carr and Zachary Johnson), the panel chair (Brian Johnson), and the audience for their helpful comments. I am grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions about the focus and the direction of this essay. I thank my husband, Matthew Dame, for his continuous support and practical advice. Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the CSP/RCS editorial team, Bradley Smith, and, especially, to Eva Plach, who has seen my paper through countless revisions and whose insights have been indispensable in shaping my writing.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Simons, Animal Rights, 7.

2. Bernard, Introduction, 103.

3. Derrida, Given Time: I, 143.

4. Some of these scholars include Andrianova, “Narrating Animal Trauma”; Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy”; Fusso, “Failures of Transformation”; Gomel, “Gods like Men”; Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse”; Haynes, From Faust to Strangelove; Laursen, Toxic Voices; LeBlanc, “Feeding a Poor Dog”; Mondry, Political Animals; Proffer, Bulgakov; Shaw, Animal Fable; Zholkovsky, “Duet in Three Movements”; Zhukov, “Sobach'e serdtse russkogo Frankenshteina.” Other frequently mentioned intertexts are “the Christian and Faustian traditions,” “the literature of talking dogs,” Blok, Gogol, Gorky, Maiakovskii, and Dostoevsky. See Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy,” 497; Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 395; Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse,” 29; Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 210–11; Iablokov, “Bespokoinoe ‘Sobach'e serdtse’,” 170–1, 175, 176; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 205–6; Zholkovsky, Inventsii, 32; Ziolkowski, “Talking Dogs,” 114–17.

5. For more on the Promethean myth in Frankenstein, see Bloom, “Frankenstein”; Franssen, “Prometheus Through the Ages,” 103–13; Goldberg, “Moral and Myth,” 30–2; Hindle, Mary Shelley, 23–7; Holquist, Dialogism, 94–5; Hustis, “Responsible Creativity”; Walling, Mary Shelley, 44–8; Ziolkowski, “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth.”

6. The fact that Bulgakov uses the subtitle “A Monstrous Story” (“Chudovishchnaia istoriia”) for his novella suggests his acknowledgment of Shelley’s “monstrous” intertexts.

7. For more on Soviet society during NEP, see Fitzpatrick, Rabinowitch, and Stites, Russia in the Era of NEP; Brovkin, Russia after Lenin; Milne, Mikhail Bulgakov, 60–8. For more on Soviet science during NEP, see Howell, “Eugenics, Rejuvenation,” 545–9; Milne, Mikhail Bulgakov, 62.

8. For more on Frankenstein as a response to the French revolution, see Botting, “Reflections of Excess”; Žižek, In Defense, 75–81. Andrew Smith also argues that Frankenstein’s Gothic form “can be read as responding to the revolutionary turmoil in Europe during this period.” Smith, “Introduction,” 5. For more on Frankenstein’s political contexts, see Craciun, “Frankenstein’s Politics”; Hindle, Mary Shelley, 37–9.

9. For more on Frankenstein as a quintessentially Romantic hero, see Bloom, “Frankenstein”; Guerrini, “Animal Experiments”; Hogle, “Romantic Contexts”; Holquist, Dialogism, 90–1; Knellwolf, “Geographic Boundaries”; Ziolkowski, “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth.”

10. For more on Preobrazhenskii’s experiment as an allegory satirizing the Russian revolution and the new Soviet man, see Berliner, “‘Gods We Were’,” 109; Doyle, “Bulgakov’s Satirical View”; Drews-Sylla, “Human Dog Oleg Kulik”; Glenny, “Introduction,” viii–ix; Gomel, “Gods like Men,” 361; Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse”; Milne, Mikhail Bulgakov, 63–7; Proffer, Bulgakov, 131–3; Wright, Mikhail Bulgakov, 62–3; Zholkovsky, “Duet in Three Movements,” 183–5, 189.

11. See Holquist, Dialogism, 97; Kiely, “Frankenstein,” 26; Walling, Mary Shelley, 35; Ziolkowski, “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth,” 40–4.

12. See Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy,” 495–6; Goscilo, “Point of View”; Howell, “Eugenics, Rejuvenation,” 550; Milne, Mikhail Bulgakov, 65.

13. This ending is also a departure from Bulgakov’s earlier science fiction novella, The Fatal Eggs (1925), in which the scientist Persikov dies at the hands of the angry mob, as well as from H.G. Wells’ science fiction novel The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896), in which the sadistic scientist is killed by his abused creations. For more on Doctor Moreau’s intertexts in Bulgakov, see Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse,” 29; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 212–14; Milne, Mikhail Bulgakov, 62; Piotrovskii, “Povest' M. Bulgakova,” 67; Proffer, Bulgakov, 125; Rydel, “Bulgakov and H.G. Wells”; Shaw, Animal Fable, 125. For more on Frankenstein’s intertexts in Wells, see Baldick, In Frankenstein’s Shadow, 153–6; Lehman, “Motherless Child”; Stiles, “Literature in ‘Mind’”.

14. For more on class conflict in Shelley, see Hindle, Mary Shelley, 37–9; Moretti, Signs Taken for Wonders; O’Flinn, “Production and Reproduction”; Žižek, In Defense, 73–8. For more on class conflict in Bulgakov, see Berliner, “‘Gods We Were’,” 109; Doyle, “Bulgakov’s Satirical View,” 476–81; Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 210–14; Laursen, “Bad Words,” 492–4; LeBlanc, “Feeding a Poor Dog,” 67; Proffer, Bulgakov, 131–3, 75–6; Shaw, Animal Fable, 127–8, 133–4; Wright, Mikhail Bulgakov, 61–2.

15. Even though Sharikov is not technically a member of the proletariat or of the Communist Party, he is viewed as a favourable addition to the Soviet state because of his low-class origins. For more on Sharikov’s lack of the proletarian work ethic, see Iablokov, “Bespokoinoe ‘Sobach'e serdtse’,” 174–5.

16. Moretti, Signs Taken for Wonders, 85–90.

17. Shelley, Frankenstein, 77, 117. For more on performative violence as protest, see Rhodes, Voice of Violence. For more on the role of society in creating a monster, see Hammond, “Monsters of Modernity,” 193–5; Hindle, Mary Shelley, 31; Pon, “‘Passages’,” 154–5; Žižek, In Defense, 78–9.

18. For more on the Promethean myth as “a key to the anxieties and hopes of the society that recognizes itself in the mythic model,” see Ziolkowski, Sin of Knowledge, 72. For more on the Promethean myth in modernity, see Franssen, “Prometheus Through the Ages”; Hustis, “Responsible Creativity.” For more on the use of the Promethean myth to portray the Russian proletariat in early Soviet posters, see Bonnell, Iconography of Power, 33–4.

19. For example, Rydel suggests that Preobrazhenskii “does not deserve to die” because he “is never cruel and usually kind – except when dealing with proletarians and bureaucrats.” Rydel, “Bulgakov and H.G. Wells,” 307. The positive view of Preobrazhenskii may stem from the fact that some scholars consider him “the spokesman for Bulgakov’s opinions” or “an autobiographical spokesman for [Bulgakov’s] political and social satire.” Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse,” 27–8; Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy,” 494. Other scholars, myself included, argue that Bulgakov distances himself from Preobrazhenskii. For more on the negative perception of Preobrazhenskii, see Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 396–7; Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 214, 223–5; Laursen, Toxic Voices, 37–42; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 215–25; Piotrovskii, “Povest' M. Bulgakova”; Zholkovsky, “Duet in Three Movements,” 187, 189.

20. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 106–7. For more on Preobrazhenskii’s violence as a reflection of his time, see Doyle, “Bulgakov’s Satirical View,” 477, 479; Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 214; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 222–5.

21. For more on Preobrazhenskii’s moral ambiguity, see Berliner, “‘Gods We Were’,” 109; Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy,” 504–5; Haynes, From Faust to Strangelove, 245; Le Fleming, “Bulgakov’s Use,” 41; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 212–16; Piotrovskii, “Povest' M. Bulgakova,” 64.

22. See Holquist, “Violent Russia”; Ryan, “Sacralization.”

23. For more on the political violence in early Soviet Russia, see Geifman, “Origins”. For more on the Soviet perceptions of class conflict during NEP, see Fitzpatrick, “Problem of Class Identity.”

24. In fact, some scholars do not view Preobrazhenskii’s reverse surgery as a crime because it is perpetrated against such a negative character as Sharikov. For example, Proffer argues that “the only actual crime in the book is Sharikov’s false denunciation. Klim, the criminal, was already dead, and at the end the operation is simply reversed – no one is really killed.” Proffer, Bulgakov, 603. Likewise, Graham calls the reverse surgery “a happy ending”; Goscilo refers to “the Professor’s mysterious ‘crime’” as “a blessing”; and Iablokov identifies it as a “civil action meant to save the world […] from ‘sharikovshchina’.” Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse,” 30; Goscilo, “Point of View,” 289; Iablokov, “Bespokoinoe ‘Sobach'e serdtse’,” 172.

25. Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 223. Goscilo gives an example of this perspective by stating that Sharikov is “insupportable by everyone’s standards.” Goscilo, “Point of View,” 288. Likewise, Graham and Iablokov justify Preobrazhenskii’s behaviour by respectively calling Sharikov “an inferior creature of unplumbable ‘poshlust’” and comparing Sharikov (and his donor Klim) to “a beast.” Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse,” 30; Iablokov, “Bespokoinoe ‘Sobach'e serdtse’,” 173.

26. Several scholars attempt ‘an animal reading’ of A Dog’s Heart, which focuses on the voice of Bulgakov’s animal character and its role in subverting Preobrazhenskii’s righteous image. See Andrianova, “Narrating Animal Trauma”; Fudge, “At the Heart”; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’”; Mortensen, “Whether Man or Beast.”

27. Fudge argues that “[t]o experiment on animals […] is to place the human in a God-like position.” Fudge, “Calling Creatures,” 92. Also, see Vint, “Animals and Animality,” 86–8.

28. Shelley, Frankenstein, 37, 38; Moretti, Signs Taken for Wonders, 85.

29. Nelson, “Hearth for a Dog,” 134. For more on early Soviet experiments with dogs, see Drews-Sylla, “Human Dog Oleg Kulik,” 237–8; Mondry, Political Animals, 336–9.

30. Costlow and Nelson, “Introduction,” 11.

31. For more on Sharikov’s hybridity, see Mondry, Political Animals, 343–4; Mortensen, “Whether Man or Beast,” 231.

32. For more on Sharikov’s failure as the new Soviet man, see Berliner, “‘Gods We Were’,” 109; Doyle, “Bulgakov’s Satirical View”; Drews-Sylla, “Human Dog Oleg Kulik,” 241–2; Glenny, “Introduction,” viii–ix; Graham, “Bulgakov’s Sobach'e serdtse”; Howell, “Eugenics, Rejuvenation”; Proffer, Bulgakov, 131–3; Zholkovsky, “Duet in Three Movements,” 183–5, 189.

33. Shelley, Frankenstein, 79–86.

34. Ibid., 102. For more on the effects of books on the monster’s education, see Holquist, Dialogism, 95–9.

35. Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 391.

36. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 63.

37. Ibid., 93–4.

38. Tishkina, “Rechevaia kharakteristika,” 179–80; Laursen, “Bad Words,” 491. Shvonder eventually calls Sharikov “a fraud” for stealing “seven roubles from the committee allegedly to buy textbooks at the co-op store.” Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 111.

39. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 73–4.

40. Ibid., 92, 93. For more on Shvonder’s support of Sharikov’s claims, see Laursen, Toxic Voices, 41, 43–4.

41. An example of this view is found in Proffer. While she does acknowledge Preobrazhenskii’s “privileged” position and “the injustice of life,” she quickly dismisses this angle by concluding that “the narrator does not wish to pursue this theme” and suggesting that “those who mention these things are always negative characters.” Proffer, Bulgakov, 132. For more on Preobrazhenskii’s “language hygiene and ‘culturedness’” as an expression of his power and elitism, see Laursen, Toxic Voices, 38–40.

42. Shelley, Frankenstein, 96, 77–8.

43. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 99, 119.

44. Ibid., 73.

45. Zholkovsky discusses the parodic nature of Sharikov’s complaints based on his literary predecessor Smerdiakov from Dostoevskii’s Brothers Karamazov. Zholkovsky, Inventsii, 32–44.

46. The negative view of Preobrazhenskii’s economic privilege is also advanced by Laursen, who argues that for Bulgakov, “a love for comfortable apartments and material luxury signals a worsening of the human character.” Laursen, Toxic Voices, 134. Also, see Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 396–7; Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 213.

47. Shelley, Frankenstein, 101, 102.

48. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 92.

49. Ibid., 91.

50. Ibid., 93, 94.

51. Ibid., 73.

52. Ibid., 76.

53. Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 391.

54. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 106.

55. Ibid., 105, 108.

56. Ibid., 104.

57. Ibid., 107. Emphasis is mine.

58. Ibid., 103.

59. Ibid., 104. Laursen also argues that Bulgakov’s portrayal of Preobrazhenskii “constitutes an exposure of intellectuals supported by the Soviet state as beasts clothed in civilized discourse, interested only in their own needs and detesting the dirty masses who have invaded their hermetic spaces.” Laursen, Toxic Voices, 39.

60. LeBlanc, “Feeding a Poor Dog,” 75.

61. For more on the colonial discourse in Frankenstein, see Brantlinger, ”Race and Frankenstein”; Malchow, “Frankenstein’s Monster”; Pon, “‘Passages’,” 151–4; Spivak, “Three Women’s Texts,” 254–9; Young, Black Frankenstein.

62. Mortensen, “Whether Man or Beast,” 230.

63. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 91; Mortensen, “Whether Man or Beast,” 230.

64. Walling, Mary Shelley, 39; Hindle, Mary Shelley, 29. For more on the importance of the monster’s voice, see Žižek, In Defense, 78–9.

65. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 107.

66. For more on Bormental’s violence against Sharikov, see Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 222–4.

67. For example, Iablokov compares Sharikov to a “predator-‘wolf’” and uses the terms “murderer and executioner” to describe Sharikov’s essence. Iablokov, “Bespokoinoe ‘Sobach'e serdtse’,” 176.

68. The tendency to take Preobrazhenskii’s words at face value is seen from the comment by Rydel, who argues that “kindness is an important rule of Preobrazhensky’s life” and that “Preobrazhensky practices what he preaches.” Rydel, “Bulgakov and H.G. Wells,” 307.

69. Shelley, Frankenstein, 41.

70. Ibid., 39.

71. For more on Preobrazhenskii’s “accidental discovery,” see Iablokov, “Bespokoinoe ‘Sobach'e serdtse’,” 170–2.

72. Kiely, “Frankenstein,” 21. Preobrazhenskii makes a similar mistake by choosing a low-class criminal for his experiment. See Mondry, “Beyond Scientific Transformation,” 2.

73. For more on Frankenstein’s failure of responsibility, see Hammond, “Monsters of Modernity”; Hustis, “Responsible Creativity.”

74. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 105.

75. Ibid., 106.

76. Bloom, “Frankenstein,” 614. Also, see Walling, Mary Shelley, 45–6.

77. Holquist, Dialogism, 103. For more on Frankenstein’s literal perception of the monster, see Holquist, Dialogism, 102–4.

78. Ziolkowski also suggests that “[i]f Victor Frankenstein had not been overcome by his initial disgust, if he had responded to his creature with love and understanding, it might have become an instrument of good rather than evil.” Ziolkowski, “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth,” 43.

79. For more about Preobrazhenskii’s mistreatment of Sharikov, see Zhukov, “Sobach'e serdtse russkogo Frankenshteina.”

80. See Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 214, 225; Laursen, Toxic Voices, 39; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 213.

81. For more on the parallels between Preobrazhenskii and Sharikov, see Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy,” 501–3; Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 219–22; Shaw, Animal Fable, 132–3; Zholkovsky, “Duet in Three Movements,” 185, 188–9. Conversely, Iablokov argues against drawing parallels between Preobrazhenskii and Sharikov, calling this interpretation “sacrilegious.” Iablokov, “Bespokoinoe ‘Sobach'e serdtse’,” 176.

82. For more on the aesthetic perceptions of animality in Frankenstein, see Heymans, Animality in British Romanticism, 118–33.

83. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 108.

84. For more on reasons behind Bulgakov’s choice of a canine narrator, see Goscilo, “Point of View,” 286; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 203–7; Mondry, “Beyond Scientific Transformation”; Mondry, Political Animals, 351; Wright, “Animals and Animal Imagery,” 227–8.

85. As Bruce Shaw aptly observes, “Sharik is a true outcast, belonging to neither class because he is a dog.” Shaw, Animal Fable, 130.

86. Bulgakov, “Zapiski na manzhetakh,” 220. For a connection between Bulgakov and Sharik, see Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 209–10; Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 396–7.

87. For more on animals as Others, see Armbruster, “What Do We Want,” 19–20.

88. Mondry, Political Animals, 18. An example of a human’s identification with a dog is found in Maiakovskii’s poetry. For more on Bulgakov’s intertextual dialogue with Maiakovskii, see Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 393–5; Mondry, Political Animals, 333–6; Zholkovsky, “Duet in Three Movements,” 183.

89. For more on the male nature of science portrayed by a female author, see Easlea, Fathering the Unthinkable, 22; Lehman, “Motherless Child”.

90. For more on feminist criticism of Shelley, see Gilbert and Gubar, “Horror’s Twin”; Hodges, “Frankenstein”; Hoeveler, Gothic Feminism, 158–83; Mellor, “Possessing Nature”; Pon, “‘Passages’”; Randel, “Frankenstein”; Rose, “Custody Battles”; Wright, “Female Gothic.”

91. Fudge writes, “Only an analysis that pays attention to the animal will recognize that what is being held up for scrutiny in The Heart of a Dog is not only homo sovieticus, but homo sapiens more generally.” Fudge, “At the Heart,” 20.

92. Drews-Sylla uses this language to describe Pavlov’s and Preobrazhenskii’s similar attitudes to their experimental objects. Drews-Sylla, “Human Dog Oleg Kulik,” 238, 240–1.

93. Fudge, “At the Heart,” 20.

94. Haber also argues that “the narrative strategy minimizes the horror of the operation itself, […] thus preventing the reader this time from directly witnessing the bloody goings-on.” Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 224.

95. McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 207. For more on the use of language to express an animal’s ability to communicate, see Andrianova, “Narrating Animal Trauma,” 8–10.

96. For more on this function in other animal protagonists, see Ziolkowski, “Talking Dogs,” 120.

97. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 40.

98. For more on Preobrazhenskii’s use of the power of food for control, see Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 395–6; LeBlanc, “Feeding a Poor Dog,” 68. For more on the demonic connotations of food in A Dog’s Heart, see Zholkovsky, “Duet in Three Movements,” 188–9.

99. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 50.

100. For more on Preobrazhenskii’s surgical violence, see Doyle, “Bulgakov’s Satirical View,” 477; Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 391; Goscilo, “Point of View,” 285; Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 215; Laursen, Toxic Voices, 37; Proffer, Bulgakov, 127.

101. As Giorgio Agamben argues, “the total humanization of the animal coincides with the total animalization of man.” Agamben, Open, 77. For more on the fluidity of human and animal transformations in Bulgakov, see Le Fleming, “Bulgakov’s Use,” 34–5; Wright, “Animals and Animal Imagery,” 227.

102. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 122.

103. For more on the loss of human–animal companionship in modernity, see Berger, About Looking, 3–28.

104. Costlow and Nelson, “Introduction,” 7. A similar conclusion is reached by Mondry, who suggests that Bulgakov tries to “return the dog and the man to the paradise from which they were both expelled when they were one.” Mondry, “Beyond Scientific Transformation,” 9. Also, see Goscilo, “Point of View,” 290; Wright, “Animals and Animal Imagery,” 227–8. Further support for the dog’s reconciliatory role in Bulgakov is found in his later novel Master and Margarita, in which Pontius Pilate finds solace in his canine companion.

105. For more on narrative challenges in describing and interpreting animal pain and trauma, see Andrianova, “Narrating Animal Trauma.”

106. Ibid., 7.

107. For the possibility of another surgery for Sharik, see Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 396; McDowell, “‘I ona byla chelovekom’,” 221; Mondry, Political Animals, 348–51. For Preobrazhenskii’s failure to change, see Laursen, “Bad Words,” 510–11.

108. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 125. For more on the use of Verdi’s opera Aida in A Dog’s Heart, see Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy,” 499; Fusso, “Failures of Transformation,” 388, 396; Mondry, Political Animals, 344–5.

109. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 46.

110. Burgin, “Bulgakov’s Early Tragedy,” 504.

111. Zholkovsky, Inventsii, 44.

112. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 120.

113. See Haber, Mikhail Bulgakov, 223–4; Holquist, “Violent Russia”; Ryan, “Sacralization.”

114. Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart, 17.

115. Bulgakov’s addition of Sharik suggests that the actual tragic hero of the Soviet narrative is no longer an outwardly shocking non-human with intimations of animality, as is the case in Frankenstein, but a stray animal with a history of abuse.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Natalia Dame

Natalia Dame is a Dornsife Preceptor Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow at the University of Southern California. She received her PhD in Slavic Languages and Literatures from the University of Southern California in August 2016. Her book project, “Angels of Vengeance: The Martyr-Heroine and the Crisis of the Russian Realist Novel,” examines the destabilizing effect of the revolutionary martyr-heroine on literary portrayals of women in late nineteenth-century Russian fiction. She has published articles on music and women in Tolstoy and on the Russian intertexts in Nabokov’s Lolita. Her other scholarly interests include visual studies, gender, and second language acquisition.