Compliments of Cathy: Do you think Dead Souls has a plot? Does a novel need a plot to have a greater significance or meaning? If so, what is it about a cohesive story line that allows for readers to extract meaning from it? If not, what are the elements of a story (specifically Dead Souls) that make it meaningful?
And please consider the concept of the “picaresque novel” as you wonder aloud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picaresque.
BUT you also need to offer 100-200 words on the split class format-plusses and minuses-thoughts-and what is the proper balance between teaching and learning, between listening and speaking. Do we all need a monitor to stay on task? Why have class at all? (maybe more than 200 words!)
For more on Gogol’s laughter through tears check out Charlie Chaplin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiyPgtYiGxI&feature=related
My biggest reaction when I was reading Dead Souls was surprise at the apparent lack of plot, so I guess I’d have to say I don’t think it has a plot. It has themes, maybe, about what people value, and what defines Russia and sets Russians apart, but–so far, anyway–there’s nothing resembling a normal plot with stages of development and climax and denouement. I think Gogol saw the novel form as a vehicle for the ideas he wanted to convey, and he didn’t worry too much about making it a conventional novel. I found this somewhat refreshing after reading all the short stories we read, which were so strictly plot-based. While any one of the chapters of Dead Souls could have been a short story, the succession of them made it more like a travel log, capturing the atmosphere of Russia in the 19th century, with all its social hierarchies and strange relationships, without wasting time on a plot frame. Dead Souls doesn’t have much to compel the reader toward the end, I found, but it’s certainly interesting along the way.
In regard to class format, I prefer the small-group discussion format, although I do think it’s important to have time for the professor to talk and explain background and highlight important details. Possibly Professor Beyer could alternate between groups, doing a more lecture-style class with one group while the other group has more of a discussion, especially since the books we’re reading from now on will last for more than one or two class periods, so it won’t be much of an imbalance. Also, this probably isn’t practical, but I like the idea of dividing the class into sections, so each section has maybe a two-hour meeting once a week. Again, since we’re reading longer books now, it would be feasible to meet less frequently but for longer.
I agree with Emma that Dead Souls does not have a plot. Chichikov arrives in the town and goes about getting souls from local landowners, and that’s about it. I don’t think a novel needs a plot to be meaningful or significant; I am rarely moved by the plot development in a novel, either by the moment of crisis or the crafty ending. I am drawn to well-developed characters and I remember the quotes that I find true in the broader world – books can be meaningful without the action of a plot. Gogol describes his characters at length, and although his long descriptions tell the reader more about what the character isn’t than what he is, they are still full and hilarious characters. The contrast between Sobakevich and Pylushkin emphasizes broader truths about how landowners treat their serfs. Coming back to our earliest blog post, Dead Souls is enjoyable to read and can be appreciated as art. I love reading that a man had a tailcoat “with presumptions to fashion” (3) and that Gogol compares Plyushkin’s eyes to suspicious mice looking for a cat (116). Gogol writes about an anti-hero and his adventures in society, and this sense of a picaresque novel might be the best way to reveal the flaws and absurdity of aspects of that society. It might be hard to satirize tradition in a traditional plot progression.
I liked the split class format primarily because it was a smaller group; I felt like everyone in the room was able to participate more fully, and that we were able to focus more on specific points. In the larger class it often feels that people bring up many interesting points that we don’t end up talking about. The split group doesn’t necessarily need to be between the Russian and non-Russian speakers, but it was helpful to have a smaller group and a more relaxed atmosphere. I think speaking and listening have still been relatively balanced in the larger class, but the discussion in the smaller groups was more focused with fewer people. Looking into balancing teaching versus collaboration might be more apt; I don’t think teaching and learning are opposites. It is helpful to my engagement with the text to hear about the author and Russia in that time period, but I think the majority of the class is best spent in discussion. I don’t think we need a “monitor” to stay on task, but it is helpful when someone guides the discussion and asks questions to move beyond a more basic interaction with the text. Class discussion brings up new ideas and perspectives that I wouldn’t otherwise consider and enriches my experience reading these novels. I was struck when Luis made the connection between Gogol and magical realism, and that prompted me to research the idea further, helping me to connect with Gogol in a new way.
In my opinion, the need for a plot actually detracts from how meaningful a text can be. A plot is a device that is used to hold a readers’ attention without actually having any substance itself. Authors can show that they are clever through the intricacy of their plots, but they cannot really convey anything that is meaningful to life through plot. There is no plot in life; our lives do not lead to some climax in an orderly fashion, in fact our lives are filled with repetitions of often senseless routines and other things that are not usually interesting to discuss in a novel. The genius of Dead Souls is that it does not have a plot, yet it manages to keep your attention while discussing everyday occurrences. Things happen, but Chichikov does not seem to be getting anywhere; he is just going around buying dead souls from anyone that has them, doing the same thing over and over again. Gogol is able to captivate attention by being humorous, and by making a wide variety of witty observations about life and people. I like how he makes strange and original connections between seemingly unrelated things. Like when he described the ball by comparing all the nobles and dignified officials to flies darting around a sugar loaf. I also enjoyed the narrator’s woe over Plyushkin’s loss of humanity and many other little parts of the story. There is just so much imagination and variety in the text itself, without the use of a plot, that you find yourself drawn in anyway.
I feel that discussion and instructor input are equally important to the class. Although our class definitely has the ability to discuss these books on our own, it is very helpful to have someone to guide the discussion and give necessary background information. And even though we have the ability as a class to discuss these books on our own, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will discuss them on our own without the instructor present. The only minor problem we have had is the size of the class; everyone seems to have good points to make in discussion and often there is not enough time for everyone to contribute. If we are to split the class in two, I feel that the two classes would have to be at different times. If this cannot be scheduled satisfactorily for everyone, then one big class is the best option.
I have a different perspective from Emma, Hillary, and Erik in that I think that Dead Souls does indeed possess a plot it is merely a sparse one. I would consider a “plotless” novel something akin to W.S. Burrough’s Naked Lunch – vignettes that convey a message yet are without any overarching story line. To say that Gogol does not utilize a plot would be a failure to recognize that we as readers are intrigued by the pace and the motives that Chichikov harbors that compels him to collect dead souls. Dead Souls has a plot it is just very far away from the focal point of the novel, and much like Lazarillo de Tormes the strength of the novel is drawn from the accuracy of its depictions in contrast with the sporadic events, which monopolize the novelist’s energies. As Lazarillo notes the pervasive avarice of 16th century Spain, Gogol captures the hierarchical absurdities that exist in provincial life in 19th century Russia via Chichikov’s deference directed to the most prominent landowners all the way down to the postmaster, which corresponds to his own desire of acquiring dead souls. Dead Souls is meaningful due to its meditations on the perplexity of human psychology in terms of its individualized reactions to the oddities that crop up in small Russian towns.
I liked the split-class idea and I think as long as each group is started off in discussion properly and then monitored from time to time to make sure the theme of the day has not been lost this could be an extremely successful method in allowing for each person to voice the extent of their ideas about the works that were read in a time efficient manner. In a giant group it’s hard to let each member of the class give their own perspective on the same theme or idea in the text, yet when the size of the class is reduced each point can be examined to its fullest capacity.
I would say that Dead Souls has a plot although a relatively threadbare one that is often left subordinate to the situations in which our hero, Chichikov, finds himself. Pevear in the introduction makes much of the distinction between a novel and a poem and I believe this (in conjunction with the work’s incompleteness) is where it is easy to say that there is no plot. For in a poem or an epic the action tends to be episodic and the plot, the overarching progression of the tale, is secondary. The plot of this tale is Chichikov’s quest to acquire Dead Souls in order to enrich himself and perhaps more, but like in The Nose and Overcoat the plot stands alone. It doesn’t need any further embellishment out of its sheer strangeness, but Gogol’s ambiguous descriptions and queer images make up the rest of the volume. That said, I don’t believe there is a complete story line in this first part – the semi-climactic departure of Chichikov leaves us with nothing, but a question of what next, which from what I understand was a relatively impossible story line. As far as its picaresque qualities – Gogol has a knack for highlighting the mundane and extraordinary rudeness of everyday life and Chichikov himself seems no gentleman in the more noble aspect of the word.
As for class, the split class is kinda fun…it certainly can be helpful in the Russian/non-Russian split, but that split does remove some different perspectives. On the whole, I’m comfortable with student led discussion – it’s certainly less intimidating. We don’t need a monitor to stay on task although one is helpful to keep us finding new things to talk about. Why have class? I dunno, it brings us together and gives us some structure. It’s hard to function in complete anarchy.
I’m going to be a rebel and talk about the class issue first. Although it was cool to be split along language lines, this was not necessarily productive since we didn’t get the Russian version of the first page of The Overcoat until more than halfway through the class. Also, I think that splitting the class in that way makes a division between the people who care about Russia and the people who care about literature, which I found to be very striking in our discussion. We talked more about the setting and Russian things than the actual story and any analysis. I agree with Erik’s last sentence and I find, like Patrick, that having an instructor in the room to guide the discussion is helpful in promoting the development of fresh and original insights. The fresh insights are why we should have class. I’m constantly amazed at the things people come up with that I could never cook up in my own little noggin.
“A plot is all the events in a story particularly rendered toward the achievement of some particular artistic or emotional effect or general theme.”- Wikipedia
I can’t judge just yet whether or not Dead Souls has a plot. So far, the only elements of traditional plot that I have encountered are exposition and rising action. I’d like to assume that the next reading will contain the climax, falling action, and denouement, but with Gogol, I feel like no assumption may be made safely. However, according to Wikipedia (see above quotation), those are not critical to plot. I feel like a work certainly doesn’t require these standard elements in order to convey a message or have an emotional effect. As long as a work accomplishes this, it has meaning.
So although I’m leaning toward Dead Souls having a plot, I don’t think the cohesive story is the sole aspect that allows a reader to extract meaning from a work. This is certainly true for many works that I have read, but I find that Dead Souls relies upon descriptions of people, places, and things, turns of phrase, and individual words to convey its message. I agree that Dead Souls is indeed a picaresque novel. It so far fits very neatly into the description with which you provided us. Therefore, I think Gogol uses his wit rather than the actual events themselves to deliver his message that (I think…) deals with the corrupt nature of Russian landowner society. I will keep you updated on what exactly this message is once I begin figuring it out.
I would have to agree along the lines of that the plot distracts and that there is no plot present in Dead Souls. I didn’t see the normals trends of a plot like Emma stated, so far everything is just clumped together rather like short stories. I really enjoyed the part when Chichikov stays over at the lady’s house and tries to buy her dead souls but she says that they might be worth more than he is offering. I found it funny and I remember it clearly even though it doesn’t add to a certain plot. Gogol uses this book to get his ideas out on paper, whether it maybe criticizing something about Russia or just poking fun at how people react, Gogol for me writes this book in a non-traditional sense which makes it likeable.
I liked the class division but I don’t know how I feel about the way it was divided up. I liked it because I felt comfortable with the people there since I knew them compared to when its a bigger class I feel like I’m on my toes on making sure all my comments make sense 100% of the time. It was good to have a monitor to have us all speak in this small group and tackle us with more questions or comments about what had occurred. Having class gives us a chance to talk and discuss everything at the moment and you can develop new ideas as you go along, while with the post they have to be ideas without the contact and influence of others.
I think Dead Souls has a plot. It’s bare-bones, but it’s there. If we are on that subject though, it does not seem strong enough to really pull the reader in – there are other elements for that. Instead, I felt pulled in (after a little while) by the author’s constant observations on Russian social culture and his bizarre descriptions of characters and places – mostly the former.
Going off what has been mentioned before, Gogol is strongly aware of being an author writing in Russian, and so his narrative is interspersed with comments about writing, about life in Russia, about ‘certain Russian characters,’ etc. But nothing is so potent as when he writes the following on page 109, really affirming his opinion of the Russian language as equal or above other Europeans: ‘A knowledge of hearts and a wise comprehension of life resound in the word of the Briton; like a nimble fop the short-lived word of the Frenchman flashes and scatters; whimsically does the German contrive his lead, intelligent word, not accessible to all; but there is no word so sweeping, so pert, so bursting from beneath the very heart, so ebullient and vibrant with life, as an aptly spoken Russian word.’
Concerning class arrangements, I have no strong feelings regarding large or small groups. I think small groups are definitely better for bringing involved discussion to pass, but large groups tend to involve more exchange of ideas (somewhat). In terms of teaching-versus-learning, teaching is a kind of hyper-learning in that one is forced to articulate knowledge accurately for others, which is beyond the simple intake of information involved in learning. So for us to participate in class discussion by leading is certainly effective; nonetheless, I acknowledge that a professor has insight we no doubt lack from which we will inevitably benefit.
In my opinion, the lack of plot in Gogol’s “Dead Souls” enhances it’s main point – social criticism in Russia at that time period. Instead of focusing on sequence of events, the reader is forced to zero in on class relations and Russian custom. From extreme description of food and dress to careful examination of social customs, Gogol playfully pokes fun at aspects of Russian culture. He also seems to boast the understanding that only Russians can have of this culture, remarking that “[c]ountless are the nuances and subleties of our address” (46). This plotless tale imbued with humor and personality has already given me a much greater understanding of the Russian character of this time period.
I really enjoyed the splitting of the class. It felt much more intimate and facilitated more natural and cohesive conversation, partially because it was not difficult to get a word in. However, if we are to split I would personally like to continually change the groups. I think that would be an interesting way to get to know our classmates better. I think that a monitor is necessary, but should not play a pivotal role in the discussion. One solution to the problem of both “classes” wanting Professor Beyer’s insight would be to start class all together and talk about historical context, etc. and then split into groups to discuss.
Although Chichikov’s experiences can be interpreted and have meaning separately, I think that as a whole Dead Souls has at least some semblance of a plot. In some instances, the plot is obvious such as the party at the governor’s mansion, which actually sets off all of the other stories in the first six chapters directly and indirectly. Also, the stories are much more obviously connected to one another than Gogol’s collections of short stories. I do not believe that the plot was actually all that important however except in the comparison between Chichikov’s different experiences. Each of the characters that Gogol describes is so incredibly unique, but the actual flair of their personalities is made much more obvious, when juxtaposed with the characters immediately preceding and following them. Plyushkin seems so much more ridiculous and sad, because he followed the rich and greedy Sobakevich in the story. However, for Gogol, the plot of Dead Souls seems to be not very important. Gogol is able to capture the attention of the reader with his language and does not need to rely on a cookie-cutter plot in order to enrapture his reader. I believe that Gogol’s ability to create such incredibly imagery that an overall plot may not even be needed is one of the greater testaments to his abilities.
As far as the split classes go, I really like the idea of looking over the Russian text. Even I, in first-year Russian, could at least easily see that something is missing, when you read Gogol in English. Also, the smaller class sizes allows for a lot more involvement. I felt that we got a lot done in the class, despite the fact that no teacher was in the classroom to keep us on task for the majority of the discussion. However, having a monitor does add at least some structure to the class and helps to even out the amount each student discusses. Having someone, who can step in and keep us on task when needed, definitely helped to move the discussions along. Finally, we should have class, because no one is perfect. More people discussing a novel leads to more and more valuable insight
It’s always bothered me when people complain about a lack of plot. I’ve never understood how that claim is legitimate. Of course “Dead Souls” has plot — it’s telling a story: Chichikov is traveling around trying to collect dead souls, and he visits people in succession. That’s as much action as I need for a “plot.” I think in a lot of ways, readers look at the plot and the actions of the story to entertain them. The worry I have here is that if a reader focuses too much on plot alone, the literature becomes largely superficial. However, stories often accused of lacking plot (or more accurately, lacking a classical conception of plot) still have much to offer, as “Dead Souls” appears to comment on many aspects of Russian society. My favorite aspect of “Dead Souls,” which adds the most value to it, are Gogol’s own authorial interjections.
I really liked splitting the class into smaller sections. I felt like I was able to have a much more productive conversation about the stories, and I felt like I gained a great deal of insight. I think that a monitor or instructor certainly has a great deal to add to the conversation, but after Thursday’s discussion I certainly don’t think a monitor sitting there holding our hands and walking us through literary conversation is necessary. I agree with Phoebe’s ideas of rotating class groups and holding a joint session at the beginning to review historical context or other items of importance. Class is certainly necessary for literature classes as a source of knowledge about the literature we might not be able to gain otherwise and also as a mixing pot of ideas. Hearing everyone else’s ideas really contributes to my understanding of a work, and I feel like Thursday’s split class was extremely successful in that respect.
As of now I do not believe that Dead Souls has a plot. Nor do I think that a plot is necessary for a piece of literature in order to bear greater meaning. Whether or not a plot is needed for a text to bear significance depends on every individuals opinion on what in a work makes it important and universal. In a story without plot, as in Dead Souls the need for bending description into a coherent storyline would for example take away the significance this text has for historians investigating village life or ways of thinking and presenting in 19th century Russia.
My thoughts on splitting the class: In order to make the course more interactive and engaging for every student splitting it up, even at the cost of a less enlightened discussion (as Prof. Beyer can point our attention relations we had previously been ignorant of) is worth it. Everybody can engage in the discussion and there is more opportunity for questions and explanation of the ideas of classmates, if they are not understood. At the same time the class will not be as efficient the themes discussed will not be those that Prof. Beyer might deem to be most significant. I propose that we meet once a week in the full class and split up the other time.
At this point in the reading, it is hard to say for certain that Dead Souls does not have a plot. I can say that if it does, I do not yet know what that plot is. A cohesive plot is not yet apparent to me, but we cannot yet rule out the possibility of one. So far, the novel seems to be a series of mostly unrelated stories connected by the character of Chichikov. Chichikov’s presence in each of the stories, combined with his quest for “dead souls”, is so far the only thru-line in this novel. In the end, Gogol could easily tie everything together and make this into a complex, interconnected novel.
I do not believe that a novel needs to have a cohesive story line or plot in order to convey a greater message. The very fact that a story is hard to follow or seems to have no plot could be a large part of the greater message of the novel. A fragmented novel could be poking fun at a fragmented society, or at the disunity of the ruling class. However, I do think that a clear plot and cohesive story usually helps a novel make a greater statement and have a larger impact. With a clear plot and a coherent story, a novel can draw the reader in more than a short story or an essay can. The length of a novel allows the author greater character development and the ability to more completely construct the world of the novel (which is often quite similar to our own). In a short story, we readers have to assume a fair amount of our personal experience onto the characters in the story and into the constructed world in order to flesh out what the author does not have space to explain. The author has no control over this process, and thus different readers can have very different readings and impression from the same short story. A novel is a much more self-contained world. The author’s narrative carries more power in a novel than in a short story. The author is able to shut out most of the reader’s tendency to assume archetypes and personal experience onto the story. In Dead Souls, which we’ve been told is a picaresque novel, Chichikov is playing a part of a rouge or scoundrel. In a short story, we would not have much more information than this and would have to assume general roguish qualities upon Chichikov in order to make him into a real character. In the novel, Gogol is able to provide this additional information for us, and is thus able to better control the reader’s perception of Chichikov.
As for the split class… I liked that format better than the large all-class discussion. I did not like the way in which we separated, however I would be surprised if we separated based on Russian language ability every time, which is why I am still in favor of splitting the class. The large group is really too big for a good discussion, however I do think that we should come together as an entire class some of the time; maybe once every two weeks. I know that despite you (Beyer) not being there for most of the discussion, we still had a very good discussion. We covered both of the stories, and talked for almost the entire time (there were maybe 10 minutes of extra time). The obvious downside to split format is that we get much less influence and insight from you (Beyer). You make good points and bring up ideas that we would probably never think of. However, with any decision there will be downsides, and I know how you dislike indecision, so I come down resolutely on the side of splitting class (just hopefully with different people each time).
I’d have to say that, if Dead Souls did not have a plot, then Chichikov would not be doing the same one thing (namely, buying dead souls) for the first 130 or so pages of the book. Gogol, it seems from our other readings, is okay with setting up a scenario just to watch it play out through his pen (i.e. The Nose), but this simply cannot survive into the length of a novel. Rather, I’d like to propose an idea, it being that we can only think of Dead Souls as possibly plot-less because we do not as yet understand Chichikov’s actions. In other words, Gogol has not explained what the dead souls will be used for, and because of this we default in our minds to thinking that he is without motive. But, just as it is possible (though rarely done) to place one’s thesis for an essay at the very end, thereby relying on an inductive development of ideas rather that the usual deductive route, I don’t think it is impossible to say that Gogol pushes his plot toward the end of the story, and we simply have not been able to realize it yet. With this argument, I would have to side with Erik on the debate about the usefulness of plot. It is not that it isn’t useful, but because we so often equate literary works with their plots in an exclusive manner, it is hard to keep in mind that, like all literary devices, plot is simply a medium through which the author can develop his thoughts and characters in a way that continues to pique the reader’s interest. That being said, it needn’t always be the prime force of a story, despite what our literary tradition tells us. I am a believer in plot, however; too often twists in a storyline display a moment (or more) of genius on the part of the artist.
As for the split group: I didn’t like it so much. One of the things that I have enjoyed about the class so far is that there are so many opinions in the room, and perhaps this can be detracting in the sense that it means less personal attention, but at the same time more perspectives bring a more thorough understanding of what we’re working on. And these perspective are what keep me thinking in class; instead of feeling the need to spurt out all the time, as maybe I would in a smaller class, the group when in one piece delivers many ideas, and allows me time to pick one or a few of these ideas and dwell on them for a moment. That we are bigger than past years is probably hard to adjust to, but from my perspective, it is not bad. Also, I don’t like not having a professor at all times, because that means that there might be some tidbit, some Russian word, or some cultural or historical lesson that the professor would have otherwise contributed to our discussion.
I think it is clear that Dead Souls has a premise and inciting event on which the narrative is based (Chichikov arrives in a new town and tries to buy dead souls), but so far, I, like my other classmates, have not yet encountered a detailed event-based story like we’ve seen in some of the pieces we’ve read thus far. I also feel that, especially in this text, plot is not necessary to find meaning. Gogol provides beautifully constructed descriptions of the townspeople and astute social commentaries through his writing. After reading many of the above posts, I feel as if I side with the general attitude of the class in determining that it is Gogol’s ability to convincingly and intriguingly describe his characters, with said characters providing the thrust of the narration.
In regards to the class format issue—the depth and breadth of knowledge my classmates have provided in the larger classes has always impressed me, and I feel as if the same range of experience is not achievable in smaller class discussions (obviously). However, I feel that it is important to establish a class dialogue in which students are not struggling to contribute their first comment. When class leaves the realm of stating one’s opinion and enters a real discussion with a back-and-forth, we really learn the most from the text and from each other. I think a professor is necessary to that dialogue—not only to constructively guide the discussion, but also to provide a voice of scholarly knowledge and experience.
I am not of the opinion that a story needs to have a plot to be successful. The prototype novel — with set up, conflict, climax, and resolution — has been done time and time again. The lasting impression of a novel is usually not the basic events that happen one after the other, but instead the way the story is told or the characters that are introduced. I have so far found Gogol’s work to be wildly entertaining, and to me that is enough to make it a positive contribution to the literary canon. What makes a novel “worthwhile” or “good” literature? I think some of the most important qualities are that a work is engaging and in some way new. The facts of the novel: that there is a man named Chichikov and he is visiting various and sundry personages of the local community is nothing in and of itself revolutionary. However, Gogol’s unique satirical writing style makes Dead Souls a captivating read.
In relation to the picaresque tradition, Dead Souls certainly has the quality of the unlikely hero. The first time I heard Gogol refer to Chichikov as our beloved *hero* I was quite startled. Chichikov is fat, obsequious, and generally unappealing, despite the constant assertions from other characters of his amiability. In general there is nothing in his personality or appearance that would make him a likely heroic figure, and yet his motives and adventures are the focus of this story.
I had no problems with the way class discussion was organized thus far in the semester. It was obvious that the class size was large and that the level of participation was not equally distributed, but the level of discussion was still high and it seemed like a productive environment. Therefore I will say that I have no qualms with the former system, however, having the other day’s class in smaller groups definitely has its advantages. Conversation was much more open, and it seemed like more of a steady flow than previous contributions, which had a feeling of fragmentation and individualistic focus. We may have reverted to a more casual rhetoric in the absence of a formal mediator, but I don’t think the level of conversation experienced any significant decrease in quality. However, having someone so familiar with the texts, cultural background, and linguistic aspects of these works is an invaluable and irreplaceable resource.
So far it doesn’t seem like the story has a plot; it’s a narration of Chichikov’s adventures as he moves around the new town. After professor Beyer pointed out that Gogol often uses verbal diarrhea, I began to feel Gogol’s amusement as he writes his large chunks of descriptions, whereas before I would try to read them carefully to try to find motifs and significance and give myself a headache. Nevertheless, the diarrhea still gives the reader a vivid, though perhaps caricturized impression of 19th century Russia.
While I agree that a plot is not necessary for a story to have meaning, it would be useful and make the analytical process much easier. Where as most stories use the plot to guide the reader to a specific understanding.
I liked the way the class was split last Thursday. I have very limited literature experience, but most of my classmates seem to have a lot of experience, and we had a pretty good discussion going on. However, I do like it better when there a professor is present to nudge us in the right direction. I think we sometimes get caught up in unimportant details. As for the future, would we keep the same groups, or would we change every time? I did not feel like there was a need to split into Russian and non-Russian groups. Besides Pat Ford I doubt many of us have learned enough Russian to understand the Russian text – the way you explained Gogol’s writing still would have been comprehensible to both groups.
Though the plot of Dead Souls is definitely not typical, I don’t think you can say that it lacks one. Though there is little to no continuity of other characters from chapter to chapter, we do indeed see a progression in our main character, Chichikov. This style of writing, where a protagonist encounters these characters that are just meant to serve as a foil, revealing the nature of the protagonist, is a very powerful way to get into the head of the character in front of you. It reminded me of Don Quixote in that way. I would not go so far as to say that it is didactic, but there is significance in getting the opportunity to reenact in one’s own mind the thought processes of another. This othering (the ability to peer into the life of someone else, in the Hegelian sense) is what gives us our sense of identity and compass.
As for the class, I really like having it split up – it’s just way too big when we’re all together, and what results is a more stagnated discussion. I want people to have room to argue and flesh things out, but the larger class size is only conducive to making tangential points one after the other just so each student can get his or her word in. I would, though, really appreciate to have Professor Beyer there. Perhaps, what we can do is split Tuesdays up, and then come together as a group on Thursdays once we have already become invested in the book because we were responsible for our own discussion earlier in the week.
Up to this point, the Dead Souls lacks a storyline. I don’t exactly see the book as separate short stories as Luis wrote, but rather as separate entries in and in-depth diary written by Chichikov, narrated by a different person, which I think is what makes Dead Souls a picaresque novel. Basically we are reading the adventures of Chichikov, our hero, depicted in great detail. At many points in the book it does sound like the narrator is describing a sort of main character of a short story, as Nozdryov in chapter 5 and the “nice wench” in chapter 6, and in my view, this makes the story seem all the more personal; the descriptions, sometimes lengthy and not too exciting, correspond to the characters, events, places that stood out to Chichikov, and about which Chichikov obviously though the most.
The split class format was something different. For it to be most effective, I think the professor needs to be present. Although our group was good at providing different opinions and analyses on the literature, we were not able to really make a connection between our thoughts and ideas, and that is where the professor would have been most helpful. It is great hearing the input by other students because it helps me, whether I agree or disagree, by giving me different perspectives and ways of going about the text, which in turn allows me to better understand things I saw as important in the text, and other things I might have not even noticed while reading. I also think we should have a split class one day and a full class the other.
Right off the bat, I should clarify that I don’t think literature, even novels, requires a plot for significant meaning: such is often the idea behind poetry (Gogol calls Dead Souls a narrative poem), stream-of-consciousness writing, surrealist and absurdist fiction, etc. A cohesive story line, in my opinion, allows the reader to orient him- or herself within the events, and organize the writing accordingly, in a content hierarchy, series, or other structure that evokes the principles of a story and its telling. That sounded very abstract, since it needed to apply to so many forms of literature, but basically I mean that a plot helps decide what is essential (rising action), the matter (tension, conflict), most important (climax), and salvageable or recoverable (denouement, falling action) from a story’s situation. When a reader is missing these guidelines, he or she easily becomes lost in the tangle of equally- or impartially-valued circumstances, left trying to extract abstraction from uniformity or, in other words, a spike of importance from a flat plane of equal or non-significance. To this end, a plotless novel’s key elements become, more explicitly than ever: the characters, tone, mood, voice/style, and actual written-ness of the work. From my point of view, such an emphasis works in Gogol’s favor, since his picaresque Chichikov, and particularly this persona’s decisions, actions, and attitudes (to nonchalantly buy up dead souls!), are melded with the cool, collected tone; delighted then slightly unsettled mood; and sarcastic, not-quite-omniscient narration, forging an almost amorphous impression of Russian life. Which all stands in stark relief, of course, to the impertinent conception and treatment of “dead souls”—a serious matter that really should, if only the ‘right’ author would write it, have been elevated to the conflict or problem position of an entire plot-arc. Dead Souls is heightened as social satire because it cannot and does not decide whether one thing should be more important than another, mimicking an apparently Russian impulse toward apathy, ennui, subtle amusement, and (Gogol’s own preoccupation with) irreverence. Although sometimes slow-going, this novel is wonderful in its imitation, both literal and figurative, of that which it criticizes.
I don’t always feel the need for a monitor, but generally, in order that a class be meaningful, it requires an instructor. Considering the alien nature, for many of us literary students, of this material, a teacher would be helpful and invaluable in directing our attention to both critically and contextually important elements in a work of literature. I’m taking this class, instead of reading these books on my own, because a professor can guide me to better insight about the content and quality of their writing. Although I liked the smaller groups, something is sacrificed in validity and compatibility: most students in this environment, myself included, will simply voice their readings of the material, at which other students can agree, disagree, or agree to disagree; these attitudes would be wonderful if we were qualified to stake and able to support them intensively, except that 1. there is some sort of educated, professional consensus about every story, with which we are normally put into contact only by a professor, that either confirms or allows usually just a small number of interpretations from among competing opinions, and 2. there is never any significant reconciliation, without an instructor, between at-odds groups—we don’t typically attack our peers’ ideas, or defend our own, vigorously and holistically unless a teacher asks us to do so, even though this is almost invariably a constructive experience for both parties involved. I cannot necessarily see a solution in my observations, but believe that attending both professorless (less stressful, more open and often discussion) and professorful meetings would be optimal.
You dont need plots to make good literature. Look at Joyce’s Ulysses. There is a plot to Gogol’s Dead Soul’s but it is little more than a framework through which Gogol can most expressively parade his weird, idiosyncratic characters. Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and many of the other more “serious” writers can benefit with a plot as they try to preach a didactic moralism that goes hand in hand with having a plot development and ultimate conclusion. Gogol does not need one however. His literature is of a different type than other writers. He delights in life, in the weirdness and the muck of it, and that for him takes priority in his writing. Chichikov is no hero, nor is he an anti-hero. We get absolutley no cues about how we should perceive him, we get no cues about how we should perceive anyone in the book. The characters are simply there.
With cohesive story lines however, we know just how we should feel about characters and can observe their interactions. The art of the cohesive storyline author is in a point-counterpoint of characters who manifest different elements. For instance Dosty’s Brothers K – every character has a personality that is very rigid and interacts very tellingly with other characters. Through this manner, weaved through a plot, the author ultimately imparts his message.
Personally, right now, I really like Gogol’s style a lot more.
As for the class being split up into groups, I think it was easier to discuss with only 7 people sitting around a table, however, without a teacher and guide to our discussion we could only get so far. We need someone experienced with the literature to point out the nuances and insights that we will miss on our first read. Why have class at all is a more philosophical question that brings up many headscratchers. I think we have class so to refine our inherent intelligence and knowledge. We’re all smart kids, we could all easily read the books and think about them on our own time but we would always be limited to our own singular perspectives. The point of class is to broaden the perspective and see literature from angles we didnt see the first time around. This is the same value as having a teacher for the class, in so that they can reveal things we missed, and challenge what we take for granted.