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
The start of the book Dead Souls is a bit misleading. The novel begins with Chichikov entering a pastoral town with the absurd and esoteric idea of buying “Dead Souls”. The reader gets enthralled with this scam and hopes for mystery, death, and amusement from the events to follow. Instead the reader gets insight into various characters of the Russian countryside, a social commentary on serfdom and a satire on the bureaucratic court system of Russia. Unfortunately, there is little gripping action to the novel and the characters are hardly redeeming. Despite such criticism, the overall value of the novel is perceived in its humor, the rich characterizations, and the keen insight into Russian life. Indeed, the character of Chichikov is a brute man manipulating the system for personal gain. He is as complicated as Russian society itself. On one hand he is a smooth, well-dressed and socially elite man but beneath this façade he has the dark desire to buy and own dead souls. This contradiction makes his character enticing and keeps the reader involved. So like Lermontovs interpretation of the Byronic hero, Gogol has reinterpreted the picaresque characters of Spanish literature. Gogol created Chichikov to have a venue for social critique of the arbitrary class system in Russia. Chichikov transcends societal roles as he attempts attain dead souls. Through the use of the absurd, the plot becomes irrelevant and the interest lies in the social commentary as seen through the both humorous and vengeful Chichikov.
As much as the book’s length and tangents can be criticized, it’s difficult to say there’s no plot. My translation uses “plot” to describe Chichikov’s scheme, and as tedious as it is to follow Chichikov from property to property, though, there is a sense of a path to an end–buying souls for a purpose we only learn in the very end. There are complicating conflicts, and even though their resolutions are often unclear, incomplete, or simply spoiled by the narrator, there is a plot, which kept my interest long enough.
Like I mentioned in my post on the Overcoat/Nose, I think Gogol is a master of painting interesting characters, who lead us to the “moral” (at least the purpose) of his story. Chichikov’s character, resolve, and purpose change little if at all throughout the tale, yet in the final chapter, Gogol deems “this man” worthy of examination. Interestingly, though, it seemed that it was the society and corrupted bureaucracy surrounding the protagonist, and not the protagonist himself, however picaresque, which seemed to be what Gogol wanted us to examine most.
In addition to societal criticism, Gogol also brings forth some interesting philosophical, even agnostic questions: What is a dead person’s (soul’s) memory but a name, a few syllables written on a deed or history book, or a story half-fabricated about his character, especially if there is no God? …Or, is Chichikov supposed to be a perverted symbol of a Christ-figure bargaining for our souls to be used for good?
The first part of Dead Souls resembles an intricate, long, character sketch, but not a story with a strong, if any, plot. Gogol has a tendency to over-introduce characters. He digresses into long stories about Manilov, Korobochka, Nozdryov, Plyushkin, Selifan, and Petrushka but neglects to say much about the hero, Chichikov, until the last few pages. He hints, however, that there are two more parts to the story, and he and Chichikov have “many a road to travel together hand in hand.” So the first part of Dead Souls can be viewed as a haphazard story that serves to introduce the character, Chichikov, for the rest of the book.
Think of it like Dickens, on steroids. In Dickens’ stories, it is usually the colorful cast of characters, not the plot, who are remembered. The difference between Dickens’ characters and Gogol’s, however, is stark. Dickens creates characters to enhance his plot—their personalities serve some sort of purpose. Gogol’s characters, however, can stand on their own. Captain Kpeikin, for example, serves no purpose (as is evident from his amputated arm), yet pages are devoted to his story.
Gogol reconciles his tendency to digress away from the plot (if we can call it that) by saying that “readers ought not to be indignant with the author if the characters who have appeared so far are not to their liking: it is Chickikov’s fault, he is full master here, and wherever he decides to go, we much drag ourselves after him.”
And, as we follow our master, Chichikov, we are slowly and painfully dragged away from his actual journey and into individual character sketches. I would be wary, however, as Jennifer and Casey did, to label these digressions as social criticism, or anything more than comedic. From what we know about Gogol (and his letters with Belinsky,) what looks like social criticism may be no more than Gogol trying out the role of the devil’s advocate.
I hope there wasnt a word limit…
Generally, exciting plots or captivating plots are what we like to see. Plots to most movies and books can be summed up in a paragraph. We like stories with plots because we can pull these little summaries out like pennies and give one away without thinking about it. There is a plot to Gogol’s Dead Souls. However it never is truly concluded, and the missing chapters and ending of Gogol’s work remain mysteries. I do think Gogol did not concern himself too much with writing a story with characters, but rather characters with a complementary story. Had Dead Souls been a great captivating story we would remember the storyline rather than the characters of it. And I think that was the main reason Gogol wrote in this manner: to make his readers look at his characters; thus the significance of Dead Souls.
We are given much information about many characters through Gogol’s ‘digressions’. Chichikov becomes someone who we know all the little quirks about, even he is always mediocre in appearance. Perhaps this is why Gogol destroyed the end of Dead Souls. Maybe he couldn’t put an end to his characters.
I think it is still a bit of a stretch to call Dead Souls devoid of plot. It can be agreed upon that the main character is Chichikov, and that he has a definite motivation throughout the story: to fortify his position in society through the acquisition of souls dead in reality but very much alive on paper. It’s not as if Gogol abandons Chichikov in the middle of the story. If anything, I found the plot to be just plain weak. Maybe it’s not Gogol’s fault that we’re going so hard on him. Maybe it’s the fact that most works of literature from which we expect to draw meaning have at the very least a compelling storyline, and that he just wanted to freestyle for a little bit. What makes a compelling storyline then? You’ve got to have some attachment to what’s going on. In a story focusing so much on the progression of one character – and this is certainly not true for all novels, but it is in this one – I personally expected to sympathize more with Chichikov’s cause. It wasn’t so much the barrage of characters and ultimately useless background information that sucked the life out of this story for me, but it was the extent to which I didn’t care what happened to Chichikov and his soul-stealing scheme. I was surprised at how exceedingly angry he became, and so quickly, at the widow Korobotchka, and at the same time how exceedingly long he put up with the antics of that slimebag Nozdrev. What redeeming value does Gogol impart to us by detailing these interactions? The whole operation was a low-life scam to begin with. I don’t think a story needs meaning per se, that it can be art for art’s sake, but do us the courtesy of not dragging it into a novel. I think Gogol got us good.
Dead Souls has a plot—not a conventional one, with beginning, development, climax, and resolution, but characters perform actions in a reasonable sequence, and that’s enough of a plot for me. Besides, exciting action and complicated twists are not what makes great literature great (by those criteria, Danielle Steel novels and Japanese manga could be considered literature). Since we’ve established that although there is a plot, there isn’t much of one, what interests me is why Gogol created Chichikov and tossed him into Russia’s back country on this strange mission, and why we “drag ourselves after him”—at the end, as Chichikov continues on in his search and the narrator concludes his lofty, emotional, beautiful, and completely unforeseen tribute to Rus, what has been said? What is Chichikov’s character, what does he evoke in Russian society, and what does he reflect about Russia (human nature?) as a whole? I have little idea, of course, but I think the answer lies partly in something Jennifer wrote in the first post: Chichikov is “as complicated as Russian society itself.” He’s not a virtuous man, not a scoundrel; though Gogol settles on the title of “acquirer,” perhaps this word only haphazardly serves to sum up the character of a man. After painstakingly combing through his entire history down to the minutest detail, what do we really know about Chichikov? What categories can we possibly box him into? Is he, like the other characters, merely a caricature?…and are they, indeed, caricatures?—what do they represent that it profound and enduring in Russian culture, in this conglomeration of people and ideas and actions and environments that has our narrator so breathlessly moved at the end of the novel? (Can it really all just be satire, as has been suggested?) I wish I had something definitive to say, but Gogol has thoroughly stumped me. He leaves us, finally, with “our hero” galloping through the provinces and the narrator evoking Mother Russia, whose gallop mirrors our Chichikov’s: “Rus, where are you racing to? Give answer! She gives no answer.” Two complicated figures rushing off to unknown purpose, from unknown origin, of unknown character. I don’t think Dead Souls can be written off as simply a picaresque novel.
This novel is incredible on so many different levels. Of course it has a plot, but the plot isn’t really a point. The point is the brilliant character sketches that round out each and every character, no matter how insignificant. Do we really need a plot when each character has their own vignette? I thought it was a relief to read something that you didn’t have to worry about following some convoluted line or thinking that you might have missed some essential truth to figuring out the story. Gogol doesn’t have any answers, and he’s not pretending that he does. In fact, nobody has any answers for what Russia is (and if they do they’re lying), so we might as well appreciate that for once a novel can step back and enjoy the human being, and not have him go on any pointless and pretentious quest for the meaning of life.
That’s not to say that this novel is devoid of any meaning. Like we mentioned in class the other day, every time Gogol approaches a serious topic, he immediately leaves it, and for me this behavior was especially frustrating in this book. I was actually pretty surprised that he went on as long as he did with Chichikov inventing the lives of peasants, reminding us that in behind each meaningless “dead soul” there’s a real person. And I think that’s what was so great overall, that no character was left without some note on one of his habits or quirks or personality traits, reminding us that in life there are no flat characters, only people we don’t want to deal with. Most frustrating, however, is how brilliant the last paragraph of the work is, because you just want Gogol to go on and explain further what he means, and where he thinks Russia is going. But again, he stops because what is there to say? Russia still continues to be so fascinating today because we still can’t go back and answer that question, nor can we answer it looking into our own future.
Dead Souls has a definitive plot but this plot is supplanted, and even overridden, by a heavy critique of Russian society that serves as Gogol’s main message in the book. Because of this, the plot of Dead Souls is not, and does not have to be, as exciting as in many other novels where the plot serves as the main point of the story and, therefore, authors strive to create a perfect plot to entertain readers with.
Dead Souls could definitely be put into the genre of a picaresque novel. Chichikov was driven by wit in gaining his wealth and at the same time Gogol was highly satirical to make the point that Chichikov, along with the rest of Russian society, was corrupt. Gogol employs hyperbole to critique Russian society by exaggerating the politeness and etiquette displayed among the townspeople. He shows the inefficiency of the state through the sale of the dead souls since their deaths are not reported and the censures never updated.
However, his critique is made complete in the final chapter of the book in which he fully describes Chichikov and his background, finally showing the readers what a dishonorable man he is. Here, Gogol turns the critique to Russian society through the readers of his book when he says that “the hard thing is that…they might have been pleased with this same hero…if the author had not looked deeply into his soul” (248). He purposely ends the book with the character analysis that normally begins books so that readers form opinions of Chichikov based on his dealings with the corrupt town society and townspeople and their opinions of him. In this manner, readers could gain a favorable view of Chichikov even though he is blatantly involved in illegal actions, which readers choose to overlook because of the townspeople respect for him.
I think that it is part of Gogol’s goal to not have a particularly compelling plot. This way, he forces us to focus on the characters. In stories with fast, twisting plot lines, we often become so concerned with what the final ending will be that we forget about the characters that the story concerns. Rather than remember a character for his temperament or his appearance, we remember him only for how he has contributed to the advancement of the plot. After that, he is of no real concern to us. But if we try to do that with “Dead Souls,” we soon realize that we have nothing to grab on to. By focusing only on the plot, the story begins to feel tedious and drawn out. We must relax, become less plot hungry, and simply accept Gogol’s tangents in order to enjoy the book.
Whether or not we feel that “Dead Souls” is an effective social critique, we must recognize it as a wonderful social snapshot. The vivid, lengthy character descriptions leave us with real people the likes of which we have not seen in anything else we have read so far this term. They may not always be particularly interesting, or seem to have much of a purpose, but that is how life actually is. Life is not a seamless rollercoaster of a plot where everything comes together in the end – everyday occurrences are mostly boring and simple and loose ends are often left untied. It is really only the individual people that we get to meet and know along the way that make life interesting for us.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the novel has a plot. There has to be a plot in any story in order for it to make any sort of sense. Though the events in “Dead Souls” are straightforward and often mundane, they clearly follow a sequential order, and at times one event directly leads into another. What sets this story apart from many others, however, is the type of plot that it has. As many others have previously posted, the plot is not all that compelling and certainly not action packed. Clearly, pure events do not drive the plot. Of course, Chichikov’s plan to buy dead souls initiates events. However, as time goes on, dialogue and character development become the driving forces behind the plot.
Since dialogue and character development drive the plot, we can begin to look at “Dead Souls” as a picaresque novel. Clearly, Gogol is satirizing Russian society; Chichikov plays the role of the rogue hero who takes advantage of the corrupt peasant system in Russia. The extensive character development manages to satirize the different characters that Chichikov meets; through the dialogue the characters appear more and more ridiculous. For example, Chichikov describes Sobakevitch as a bear who resembles the furniture in his house. In the end, Gogol clearly critiques a horrible system that regards peasants as mere property. Chichikov is not meant to be a hero; his actions are corrupt and unjustifiable. Rather, he serves as Gogol’s tool for poking fun at Russian society. Gogol demonstrates the absurdity of the Russian peasant system by having Chichikov exploit it in such a ridiculous manner.
I agree with some of the above posts that Dead Souls does have a plot, but that the plot is not what is meant to convey the message of the novel. If the plot were main essence of the novel, it could easily be greatly shortened. It could be a simple short story in which a man tries at first successfully to build up fortune and fame through cheating his way into a government hand out, but is then discovered and forced to abandon his plot and flee.
However, in many ways this novel uses the same techniques used in the Overcoat and the Nose to reveal the absurdity of Russian society. It does so by creating a realistic Russia that is only different in that it includes greatly exaggerated characters and the incredulous idea that anyone would try to buy dead souls and nearly get away with it. The characters that Chichikov tries to buy souls from are all exaggerated caricatures that represent how ridiculous landowners can be. Manilov is a very simple and stupid man (he has been reading the same book for 2 years) who loves and blindly trusts Chicikov after only knowing him very briefly because of his loneliness. Madam Korobotchka does not see the buying of dead souls as morally questionable or macabre but is only concerned about whether or not she is being cheated. Plushkin is so cheap that he does not provide decent clothes for himself, has only one pair of boots for his house serfs, and indifferently allows his serfs to starve. The upper class people of the town as a whole love Chichikov
The only characters that in fact seem normal are the peasants and lower class characters represented throughout the novel. There is no peasant in the story how exhibits abnormal behavior, and Selifan and Petrushka seemed to me to be the only completely normal main characters. They do their jobs as they are told, and yet they take the chance to have fun going out drinking when their master is passed out drunk. While Gogol did in fact show himself to have very conservative views, I still read this novel as a criticism of the superficial and stupid landowning classes of Russia, and the fact that these people are able to do anything they want with their peasants on a whim.
On the subject of how this novel is related to a picaresque novel, I think that it definitely borrows heavily from this genre as it satires the Russian upper class through the wanderings of a man trying to gain success by manipulating the system. While Chichikov can be seen as a rogue, he is certainly not a low class hero that one should emulate.
“Dead Souls” has a plot for similar reasons that have been already mentioned in the previous blog posts. The story begins and ends and various actions throughout a time period finally bring us to the end of the story. Enough said about the existence of a plot.
The real question is why did Gogol write this story in the first place if the plot (which does in fact exist) is so damn boring? I found myself laughing out loud at some of the dialogue in the story and appreciated some of Gogol’s insights about Russian society, though none of the enjoyable parts of the story were part of the plot line; his tangents were the most crucial content of the whole book.
Gogol wrote this story to the reader. Every digression had the type of reader in mind (most likely of the Russian elite) and constantly played on the thoughts that the reader might be thinking (most likely Russian elitist thoughts.) In this context, Gogol’s social observations are prudent stabs at the status quo of Russian society. He points out how humorous and ironic the conventional display of Russian “patriotism” is (the incessant use of bad French, constantly comparing their society to the west, building a dacha in order to be closer to the Russian countryside, etc.) and also lays heavy commentary on the social roles that members that society play (the dialogue between the two women was a crystal clear look into the trivial talk of bored housewives and their fickle manner.)
So, yes there is a plot, no, it is neither important nor interesting, but yes, the book is both important and interesting … sometimes.
I think we’ve already established that there is a plot, however insignificant, in this story. I think it’s also been determined that what the story lacks is a resolution (which may be an unfair criticism, since it appears Gogol did not initially mean for the story to stand alone). My question is: who cares? For me, the most important aspect of a story is it’s plot. I have always preferred an interesting and suspenseful plot to intriguing characters, beautiful writing, or powerful themes. But pretty early in this story I became aware that if I was reading this story for it’s plot I would not find what I was looking for (of course it didn’t require much intelligence on my part to figure that out, as Professor Beyer told us that pretty explicitly). Still, I was able to enjoy Dead Souls for the characters, specifically their absurdity, if nothing else.
I found Nozdryov the most hilarious: Wanting to gamble so much that he would not deal on any other terms, asking for a handicap in a game he suggests, and then blatantly cheating. Also, his uncontrollable lying at the end of the story both to the investigators and Chichikov. He alone made the story worth reading. Add in a someone so miserly he won’t buy himself clothing, a man so pessimistic he won’t admit anyone in the town is anything other than a crook, and townspeople that conclude that Chichikov may either be a captain who has lost both an arm and a leg, or the return of Napoleon (in their defense, he did apparently look like Napoleon from the side). Perhaps I’m too easily entertained, but I found it entertaining without considering the plot. I think it does well in the name of a picaresque novel, and as I read it, couldn’t help but be reminded of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which I also greatly enjoyed.
PS: Throughout my our reading of Gogol, I was constantly reminded of one of my all time favorite books: A Confederacy of Dunces, which is an absolutely brilliant read for anyone who gets enjoyment out of cleverly written stories about completely absurd characters (It won a Pulitzer!)
I find that although there is no conventional plot to this novel, it is easy to see where a work does not need to have a strong plot to be enjoyable or a great product. Gogol’s characterization, imagery, use of humor, and sense of both irony and comedic timing, if you will, make this work notable despite the absence of what one might think vital- a plot. I frequently find myself enjoying works that are predictable or have weak/overused plot lines because of the style of the writer, my relationship with the characters, or how much I am able to relate to aspects of the novel. Gogol certainly engages the reader and ALMOST makes one forget that the story is, essentially, going nowhere.
On the note of souls, I have been trying to find a link between the dead souls bought and sold in the novel and the concept of the merit of the soul as discussed by various characters. Some associate a soul with a person who has unique abilities and talents, others with only dust and bones, some with their monetary worth and others simply how they could serve them best. The market of souls has never had a good association for anyone’s character and I am still puzzling over exactly what Gogol wants the reader to take away from his “hero’s” pursuits.
I think, much like Casey, that it would be hard to refute the fact that this novel does have a plot, no matter how convoluted. Still, however, I believe that the plot, although driven by a rather clever scheme, merely served as the skeleton about which Gogol was able to paint the many characters and episodes and give his many authorial musings that make the text so wonderful. Being a very systematic writer, I do not believe that Gogol would be able to express all he wished to say if the story had simply been plot intensive. From the text one can clearly grasp that Gogol as a narrator and writer is rather conscious of his work (after all, this was the man that bought up all the copies of his book of short stories in Petersburg so to burn them before anyone else could purchase a copy). Like I maintained in my post concerning “The Overcoat” I again merely believe he is toying with the reader on these multiple occasions. I am confident in my belief that he knows exactly the effect that his contributions will have on the reader in combination with the plot, for he was very conscious about everything in his works. However, unlike Thomas Mann’s interjection of worry that he may be boring the reader in his “Dr. Faustus” (at which point I wholeheartedly agreed and then put the book down forever) I found Gogol’s descriptive and/or philosophical interjections almost always entertaining. The many episodes dotting the overarching plotline served not only to fill out the more minor and more descriptive details of the storyline, which would have otherwise been absent, but also allowed Gogol to caricature the Russia in which he lived in a rather humorous and subversive manner.
There is no doubt that Dead Souls is witty, entertaining and intellectually stimulating. Gogol juxtaposes long descriptions of houses and settings with comic descriptions of noblemen with short quips and questions about very deep meaningful philosophical questions. One of the most thought provoking scenes is Chichikov ridiculous fight with Sobakevich over the price of the dead souls. I sat in the library chuckling over the ridiculousness of the idea of charging 100 roubles for a simple name on a sheet of paper, but as Gogol continues to describe Sobakevich’s ledger as a very precise, descriptive list, I began to wonder, what really the price of these lives is. During their lives they meant something to Sobakevich and what happens when they die? At one point Gogol comments the Chichikov begins to call the “dead souls” “non-existent souls,” alluding to some form of remorse or at least he makes a distinction between the dead and non-existence.
One part of the plot development is watching different characters reactions to Chichikov and his “dead souls.” The reader is always shocked to find the next seller or the next town’s person. Through his interactions with these different characters, we see Chichikov’s character development. Perhaps I enjoy observing the human condition more than others and find this a suitable plot for Dead Souls. However no matter what book I read, be it one with a cohesive story line or not, what I look for is the development and representation of the human condition. One way that traditional plot lines do this is by showing the way actions and conflict challenge a person’s notion of self and their role in society. What Gogol does here is greatly reduce the conflict and more truly exposes the absurdity of life.
I will not repeat what previous posts have capably said, that Dead Souls does have a plot, though not an especially compelling one, and that the characters are more important. I am interested in the “social commentary” that many people have brought up, implying that the novel is almost an excuse for a social critique. I have a hard time seeing Dead Souls that way: it’s just too funny. Humor always seems to trump “social commentary” for Gogol, and it seems to me that his appreciation for the absurd must far outweigh his indignation over corruption and incompetence. It even seems fully possible that Gogol’s aim was social commentary, but he just got sidetracked every page by some amusing individual, always more interesting than generalizations. Take, for instance, this passage at the end of Chapter 7:
“..the inn was enveloped in deep sleep; only in one little window was there still light, where lived some lieutenant, come from Ryazan, a great lover of boots by the look of it, because he had already ordered four pairs made and was ceaselessly trying on a fifth. Several times he had gone over to his bed with the intention of flinging them off and lying down, but he simply could not: the boots were indeed well made, and for a long time still he kept raising his foot and examining the smart and admirable turn of the heel.”
Aside from having no possible relation to the plot, this passage has not real place in a social critique of Russia. What would Gogol want to be critiquing, the excessive love of boots in the Russian military? There seems to be no great social ill calling out for reform here, just a brilliant capturing of a moment of foolishness and banality. Foolishness and banality, of course, are appropriate subjects for social commentary, but this particular incident is simply not social enough, or egregious, and it is told with pure delight in its absurdity. This, I think, is what substitutes for plot in the novel: Gogol’s fascination with the absurd, a fascination at its root without ulterior motive.
It’s too flattering to call Gogol a social critique when he criticizes everything. Gogol’s intention was “to show all of Rus’ at least from one side.” He wanted to uncover inequity, contradiction, and absurdity in Russian society. But social critiques do this because they believe they have an audience who will appreciate their stance. How could Gogol have appealed to any audience, when he seems to detest everyone, from the highest ranking general to the upper-class leech to the content middle-class land-owner to the downright dumb peasants? He failed to make any lasting sentimental connection between his reader (me) and his poem. Perhaps the subtle despair in humanity that arises through his characters was what sent Gogol over the edge.
As far as plot goes, it existed, but in the first half it was so mathematically laid out (visit someone, get dead souls, visit neighbor, get dead souls…) and cumbersome the poem may have been better without any plot at all. Gogol is a master at descriptions and his humor is wonderfully witty and dry, which is exactly what I like. Yet I still could not appreciate his character sketches without any sort of direction. In his tangents he doesn’t know when to stop and how to hold a reader’s interest, which makes the humor moot, and the plot dreary, dragging, and useless.
The idea of dead souls interested me, and I think Gogol could have used some of his ink on this idea instead of detailing the pipes, chibouk, swords, guns, daggers, barrel-organ and tobacco pouch, and all their costs that Nozdryov had in his mansion. It’s interesting that the serfs are shown as lazy drunks who take advantage of their master, or fools that don’t know diddly-squat. They become more useful after death, when Tchitchikov can use their names to buy himself a dream that will never happen. Christians, as these Russians probably were, believe a soul never dies, but moves onto heaven or hell. So how are these souls dead? My favorite mention of souls is chapter X, “they saw that the prosecutor was a soulless corpse. It was only then they recognized with regret that he really had a soul, though he had always been too modest to show it.”
The problem with the average readership, as with average moviegoers and other non-scholars who engage with any kind of art form, is that they demand storybook clarity in order for something to be “good”. In a sense, clarity, point, plot (continue down the list with other major literary devices) are usually necessary, but not always. If there is a distinct purpose in deviating from the average mode of comprehension, then it is acceptable, if not (in my opinion) that much more worthwhile. Gogol deviates with a distinct purpose here. It is clear, to me anyway, that the plot and the social commentary are one in the same. This text sears with sarcasm, and it achieves this through probably the most realistic take on Russian society we have yet to see in this course. None of these characters seem overly contrived to me. As with the detailed descriptions of setting, similar in fashion to English novels of the same time period, the details have a natural (not in the ‘naturalistic’ sense, but in the ‘easy’ way) tone, like they were, on the one hand, just being described. But every detail included is a tiny pinprick, in a way, while at the same time. While this is also a humorous book, to be sure, the function of humor must be probed – to what end does it pursue, and why is it present? It probably isn’t just for giggles. How does Gogol achieve this comedic effect? By striking just the right tone between reasonable and ridiculous. The unexpected combination of this, which is particularly fruitful in both satire and the picaresque tradition. As soon as I refreshed my memory about picaresque novels it all suddenly became clear that there is a readily applicable genre for it (phew!). So with all that said, humor/change in perspective is key.
And as for the dead souls…Casey’s comment about an inverted Christ figure is particularly interesting to me. It’s definitely worth considering. Why write and entitle a novel about “dead souls” if you truly view them as worthless and expendable? Could even the most extreme devil’s advocate seriously go that far? Even Swift couldn’t take himself that seriously, I don’t believe.
Dead Souls does, of course, have a plot, which contains a traceable series of events that occur throughout the novel. That this series of events is not the most important aspect of the book is incidental, as a novel contains many parts of which the plot is only one. For me, the element of Dead Souls that makes the book compelling is precisely how outlandish the characters and the events it contains are. Indeed, Gogol seems at times to border on rampant nihilism in describing his pastoral Russian town. Certainly Chichikov believes in little aside from money, and the other characters each possess a similar vice, resulting in some thoroughly ridiculous shenanigans that I had to remind myself at times were taking place over the bodies and ownership of dead serfs. The comment that Chichikov might be Napoleon in disguise, that Napoleon could be the anti-Christ, and most of all that his name is an Apocalyptic cipher (I presume Apollyon, the Greek name for the destroyer-angel) is random to such a degree that I can’t help but wonder about the theory’s origin. Chichikov does not wreak a path of destruction through the novel; certainly he is immoral, but to call him the harbinger of doom seems decidedly unfair. Whether Gogol intended social critique seems like the interesting discussion. His setting and characterization seem rife with criticism at first glance, and he seems to establish an elaborate commentary on Russian society and personalities from the start. I have begun to reconsider this conclusion, however, after reading some of these posts and considering precisely how absurd every aspect of the novel is.
We’ve already established that Dead Souls has a plot. My problem is that I think even if Gogol didn’t intend for his stories to have any sort of impact, or social commentary, they do. If some part of literature illuminates some aspect of society and provides some form of social commentary, why does it matter if that’s what the author intended? That piece of literature has a purpose. It enlightens us about something. We can find meaning in it. This is not the greatest example, but-cell phones weren’t invented for us to use as clocks. But we do anyway. So what? So what if we find meaning in Gogol’s stories that he didn’t necessarily intend? Perhaps he was writing about characters and settings he knew well, and even if he didn’t realize he was mocking them (which I’m not sure I buy, but that’s another story). Sometimes others find meaning in your writing that you can’t find yourself because you’re too close to it.
Well, to start out clear, for your sake (so that you know what I’ll say,) and mine (so that I don’t ramble on,) no. Significance does not require plot. Plot is, of course, simply a convention; it makes significance easier. It permits our thoughts, our ideas to organize themselves into a beginning, middle, and end. It also permits the author to hide a small, well-known and oft-repeated message into a story. There are obviously exceptions to this (some great literature, for example,) but settings and characters and conflicts many times hide the significance of the story, as we get caught up in imagery and competition between protagonists and antagonists.
I should have started this by defining what I mean by “significance.” I take it that we are all talking about some sort of message or idea which somehow influences the external: either reality or perception of reality. But do we really think that in order for a book to be significant it must have a beginning, middle, and end? Taking the argument to its natural conclusion, is no expository literature “significant?” What about the Koran? Or the Torah / Old Testament? And, barring the Gospels and Revelation, much of the New Testament? This isn’t limited to religious texts. I would also say that Dead Souls, while not organized into a neat package that allows for easy analysis, is significant. And how about much of Joyce’s work? Finnegan’s Wake may be unreadable, but it sure is significant.
We could of course get dragged into a conversation about a work’s intrinsic value versus its worldly influence, and the arguments on both sides are well known. Some would say that we should look at a work for the work’s sake, because external influence could depend much on the author’s reputation, the social climate, and the individual reader. That’s all good enough, but who thinks any work doesn’t depend on those things? In order for a book to be considered significant or influential, it must always rely on social climate and reader reactions, and usually on the author’s reputation, too. So works in themselves are meaningless. Significance can only be given to it by external forces, not by plot. If plot helps you to find significance, great. But this is far from universal.
Since the question regarding the plot of “Dead Souls” has already been deeply explored, I wish to expound upon the significance of Gogol’s subtitle: “A Poem.” Despite being a series of prose character sketches, “Dead Souls” contains poetic devices and qualities, yet does it fit in the category of “poetry”? I believe there is intention behind this ambiguous classification.
Divided into two parts, each with separate chapters, the work does not immediately strike one as the prototypical “poem.” The structure of the book does seem to make sense with the knowledge of Gogol’s experience with short fiction. One could almost call this a “short story anthology,” except we would all admit that this does not do the work justice: there is a unifying thread within each component of “Dead Souls,” and this is our conception of “plot.” When we think about the events and rationales in the “novel,” we must consider the individual happenings that surround Chichikov, and this “collection” of smaller plot units seem to me to be influential in the categorizing of the work. If the fusing of smaller plots generates something greater than the smaller plots added together (1+1=3), you have a solid entity, or a “novel.” If the smaller plots add up, but do not form a different structure through combination, then it appears that this type of literature would be closer to a short fiction anthology with shared characters (1+1=2). But what about a “poem”?
I think that Gogol certainly incorporates poetic devices in “Dead Souls.” He uses extended metaphors, or conceits, in his writing; in the first chapter he writes excessively about the “flies in summer” that symbolize the people at “the Governor’s evening party,” saying, “Black tail-coats flitted and scurried about, singly and in clusters, here and there, just as flies scurry about on a gleaming white sugarloaf on a hot summer day in July, while an aged housekeeper breaks and divides it into glittering lumps before an open window, and the children, all gathered round, look on, their curious eyes following the movements of her coarsened hands raising the mallet…there in thick clusters. Sated by the riches of summer, which any event sets out tasty dishes at every turn, they have decidedly not flown here for the purpose of eating…then turn about and again fly off, and again fly back in fresh, importunate squadrons” (12 – 13). Gogol continues his metaphor for sentences, and then returns to the present, but this easy and smooth transport to a different moment, a moment beautifully depicted, rich in symbolism, and full of crisp imagery, clearly reveals the poetic aspect of “Dead Souls.” Gogol wishes the reader to mull the question over, but close inspection of the language and course of the narrative show that “Dead Souls” is not just a poem, not just a novel, not just a series of short fiction, but something that surpasses concrete classification, making it totally cool.