Latest / Christians Reading Classics / The Heart of a Dog - Mikhail Bulgakov with Vika Pechersky

Transcript

The Heart of a Dog - Mikhail Bulgakov with Vika Pechersky · Christians Reading Classics

• 0:05
  SPEAKER_01: 100 years ago, in the year 1925, J.K.
• 0:09
  SPEAKER_01: Chesterton published The Everlasting Man, A.
• 0:12
  SPEAKER_01: A.
• 0:12
  SPEAKER_01: Milne just published his first Winnie the Pooh story, and in America, F.
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_01: Scott Fitzgerald published The Great Gatsby.
• 0:20
  SPEAKER_01: Meanwhile, in Russia, the brilliant satirist and novelist Mikhail Bulgakov published perhaps his most biting book, Heart of a Dog.
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_01: In this book, he unabashedly critiques the new regime and everything it stood for.
• 0:36
  SPEAKER_01: 1925 was just one year after the death of Lenin, and eight years after the revolution that had brought the Bolsheviks to power under Lenin's leadership.
• 0:46
  SPEAKER_01: The critique of the regime in the book was so scandalous.
• 0:50
  SPEAKER_01: Publication was forbidden until 1987.
• 0:54
  SPEAKER_01: I myself remember reading it shortly after as an early elementary schooler.
• 0:59
  SPEAKER_01: It seemed hilarious at the time.
• 1:02
  SPEAKER_01: The humor seems darker now as an adult.
• 1:06
  SPEAKER_01: I'm going to read an excerpt that essentially utilizes the broken windows theory, applying it Russia style to Galoshus stand.
• 1:17
  SPEAKER_01: Here's what one character says.
• 1:20
  SPEAKER_01: Here are the facts for you the code track and the stand for Galoshus in our house.
• 1:25
  SPEAKER_01: That's interesting.
• 1:27
  SPEAKER_01: Such rat Galoshius.
• 1:29
  SPEAKER_01: Galoshus aren't the main thing, thought the dog, but he's an outstanding personage.
• 1:33
  SPEAKER_01: No question of that.
• 1:35
  SPEAKER_01: There you are, the stand for Galoshus.
• 1:37
  SPEAKER_01: I have lived in this house since 1903.
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_01: And throughout all these years, until March 1917, there was not a single instance, and I underlined this with a red pencil, not a single instance of even one pair of galoshes missing from our front hall, with the door always unlocked.
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_01: And remember, there are 12 apartments here, and I have patience.
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_01: Well, one fine day in March of 1917, all the galoshes disappeared, including two pairs of mine.
• 2:09
  SPEAKER_01: Also three canes, a coat, and the porter's samovar.
• 2:14
  SPEAKER_01: And from that day on, the stand for galoshes ceased to exist.
• 2:18
  SPEAKER_01: My dear friend, I won't even mention the steam heat.
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_01: I won't.
• 2:23
  SPEAKER_01: Let's forget it.
• 2:24
  SPEAKER_01: When there's a social revolution, there's no s there's no need for steam heat.
• 2:29
  SPEAKER_01: But I ask you why, when this whole business started, did everyone begin to go up the marble staircase in muddy galosh and felt boots?
• 2:38
  SPEAKER_01: Why is it necessary to this day to lock up the galoshes and even to post a soldier to make sure no one steals them?
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_01: Why was the rug removed from the front stairway?
• 2:48
  SPEAKER_01: Does Karl Marx forbid rugs on the stairs?
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_01: Does he say anywhere in his writings that the second entrance of the Kalabuhov house on Prechestanka must be boarded up and people must go around the house and enter through the backyard?
• 3:03
  SPEAKER_01: Who needs this?
• 3:04
  SPEAKER_01: Why can't the proletarian leave his galoshes downstairs instead of tracking up the marble?
• 3:12
  SPEAKER_01: Welcome to Christians Reading Classics, a podcast from Mere Orthodoxy.
• 3:17
  SPEAKER_01: I am Nadia Williams, and today it is a delight to speak about Heart of a Dog with a fellow immigrant, theologian, writer, and connoisseur of Russian literature, Vika Pichersky.
• 3:28
  SPEAKER_01: Thank you for being here.
• 3:29
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, I I love it.
• 3:31
  SPEAKER_01: Thank you for inviting me.
• 3:32
  SPEAKER_01: So this season of the podcast focuses on literary classics with an anniversary this year.
• 3:38
  SPEAKER_01: So I want to open with a somewhat more abstract question before we get to Bolgakov in particular.
• 3:44
  SPEAKER_01: What would you say is a classic?
• 3:46
  SPEAKER_01: Is it enough that we're still reading this book a hundred years after publication?
• 3:50
  SPEAKER_01: Or are there other criteria you would add?
• 3:54
  SPEAKER_00: Um well, classic, of course, means timeless.
• 3:58
  SPEAKER_00: Um classic books transcend time and people find them relevant despite the time and space difference.
• 4:06
  SPEAKER_00: Um classic books, I think, capture truth that that remains true even after hundreds or even thousands of years.
• 4:15
  SPEAKER_00: And so um so also I think reading classics um is an experience.
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_00: And so I believe a book becomes classic when people continue wanting to experience it, to relive the events of the plot, um, re-encounter the characters, fall in love with them, laugh and cry with them, etc.
• 4:36
  SPEAKER_00: So for me, a classic book is is is a book that um has the truth um and conveys the truth that remains true, but also something that we want to experience over and over and over again.
• 4:52
  SPEAKER_01: I like that.
• 4:52
  SPEAKER_01: So you mentioned the experience.
• 4:54
  SPEAKER_01: So reading books is not a passive endeavor.
• 4:57
  SPEAKER_01: We think of it as passive, but no, it's an experience and a relationship.
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_01: I really like that you brought out the relationship aspect of it.
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_01: And how we relate to a book, the the notion of falling in love with characters.
• 5:12
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, well, that's I at least that's why I want to uh reread some of the books that I consider classic, is is um is that you just fall in love with characters.
• 5:22
  SPEAKER_00: And um and there's certain things that you find to be true and you relate to despite the fact that maybe the true book was written, you know, thousands of years ago, even sometimes, uh, but certainly hundreds of years ago.
• 5:34
  SPEAKER_00: And um, yeah, for me, um a classical book is is that kind of window into a timeless truths, but also um personal experiences that are somehow tied to, you know, space and time.
• 5:49
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_01: So space and time, these are these are important.
• 5:53
  SPEAKER_01: So this brings us to the question of classics and translation, because we're talking today about a book that the vast majority of our listeners would probably only read in translation.
• 6:03
  SPEAKER_01: So I worry sometimes that classics and translation are more difficult to appreciate because you know, jokes or cultural references get lost.
• 6:13
  SPEAKER_01: So, what advice would you give someone who is approaching Russian literature in translation for the first time?
• 6:20
  SPEAKER_01: Like, are there particular books you would recommend as really good gateways to ease in?
• 6:26
  SPEAKER_00: Well, yeah, I mean, it it is hard.
• 6:29
  SPEAKER_00: Um, Volgakov, for example, is really funny.
• 6:32
  SPEAKER_00: Um, and his humor is really tied to particular times and realities of early Soviet period, you know, the songs they sing, the way people talk.
• 6:42
  SPEAKER_00: Um, I think you and I may be reading it in Russian and laugh because we we know people like that, or we've experienced Soviet propaganda, we've met these low-level officials with inflated sense of importance who are completely incompetent.
• 6:58
  SPEAKER_00: And and, you know, you know, look how ridiculous, you know, they come across, or just how absurd so many things were in, you know, Soviet Russia.
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_00: And and so, yeah, translation is hard, but also, but not even humor, I would say that that besides translating humor, which is hard, um, there are certain phrases um that are not funny but rather terrifying.
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_00: Um, and they lose that that that uh that sense of you know how awful they are in translation.
• 7:28
  SPEAKER_00: For example, there's this uh piece, uh there's this um place in the heart of the dog where Sharikov, um who's the main character, um, you know, um describes his first day at work.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_00: He got a position at the Moscow Animal Services, and his job was to get rid of stray cats.
• 7:51
  SPEAKER_00: And uh and so when Professor asks him, What did you do?
• 7:55
  SPEAKER_00: He said, in the translation, it says, We choked them and we choked them.
• 8:00
  SPEAKER_00: And in Russian, um, it it's it's like um it says, I mean, it's just so awful.
• 8:10
  SPEAKER_00: It's grim and it's uh and it's not trying.
• 8:13
  SPEAKER_00: I I when I read it in English, I felt like, well, it doesn't sound as terrible and grim and macabre as it is in, you know, when you read it in Russian.
• 8:22
  SPEAKER_00: So, so yeah, it is um translation is hard.
• 8:25
  SPEAKER_00: And I would say probably reading some secondary literature along with uh classics is helpful in that regard because it can help you with like what the names might mean, you know, because a lot of Russian authors choose names for their characters that have special meaning and kind of point a little bit to their to their um to the to the uh character, or some of the terms might uh be helpful.
• 8:49
  SPEAKER_00: And so secondary literature um I would say is helpful when reading uh classics in translation.
• 8:56
  SPEAKER_00: Um, but also I you know, I I think maybe Bulgakov is not the first person I would say um, I mean, I think of a first, not the first Russian um writer I think of.
• 9:09
  SPEAKER_00: I think Gogol would be a great first introduction introduction to Russian literature because he's um he's funny um and um very absurd, a little bit surrealist at times.
• 9:21
  SPEAKER_00: And and so um, yes, he describes the kind of the absurdity of uh 1800 Russia, but um, but I think his his l his uh style in literature is a little bit more translatable.
• 9:34
  SPEAKER_00: Um yeah.
• 9:36
  SPEAKER_01: I like that.
• 9:37
  SPEAKER_01: These are good suggestions, and with Gogol also, because you get short stories, and perhaps it's easier to like appreciate a short story that's absurd and snappy as opposed to, I don't know, a thousand-word-long novel, which that's right.
• 9:53
  SPEAKER_01: Well, definitely Russians really liked.
• 9:55
  SPEAKER_00: I I was gonna say definitely don't start with Dostoevsky.
• 10:00
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, yeah.
• 10:01
  SPEAKER_01: Although I know you hold a special place in your heart for Dostoevsky.
• 10:05
  SPEAKER_00: I I do, I do, and I did uh a little bit of a deep dive and uh still sort of probably there.
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_00: I went a little bit to the deep end, and I I'm afraid I'm kind of staying there so far and not coming back.
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_00: But yeah, I I do find him fascinating.
• 10:21
  SPEAKER_00: Um, I've read his letters, and I have to say that when you read his letters as opposed to his um his novels, you you sort of encounter a a real person, um the author, and uh it it really kind of uh an interesting experience than reading his novels after sort of um trying to understand him as a person.
• 10:45
  SPEAKER_01: That's good advice.
• 10:47
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, we forget sometimes that authors are people too, yeah.
• 10:50
  SPEAKER_01: Although with Bolgakov, it's almost like he blends in himself because he's a medical doctor by training, which I guess brings us to Heart of a Dog, which also has a medical doctor um at the heart of the plot.
• 11:06
  SPEAKER_01: So, what sort of a book is the heart of a dog?
• 11:10
  SPEAKER_01: Like how would you describe it to someone who might not have read it before?
• 11:15
  SPEAKER_00: Um, yeah, um, I think in terms of genre, um, Bulgakov, I think, had uh sort of his own uh genre, I would say.
• 11:27
  SPEAKER_00: Um it's not your typical science fiction, although it has an uh almost all his uh books contain some element of science because he was a physician, like you said.
• 11:38
  SPEAKER_00: Um it's not a dystopian fiction necessarily because he uh really describes the reality of Soviet Russia fairly realistically.
• 11:47
  SPEAKER_00: It was just this grim, you know, it was just this awful at times.
• 11:52
  SPEAKER_00: And so um, and also um, yeah, um, yeah, so somebody I've read um called it magical realism.
• 12:01
  SPEAKER_00: And I would maybe change it slightly to mystical realism.
• 12:05
  SPEAKER_00: I think, I think he's uh this is a good description of his genre.
• 12:10
  SPEAKER_00: Um almost all his stories um have an element of fantasy or even mysticism, but also read as a realistic fiction.
• 12:19
  SPEAKER_00: And in that sense, he's very he has a very unique style of mixing satire, I mean huge uh mysticism and realistic fiction.
• 12:30
  SPEAKER_01: I like that.
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_01: And uh his most famous novel perhaps is Master and Margarita, which very much again leans on that mysticism where um in that particular novel the premise of the plot is the devil is coming to visit Moscow.
• 12:45
  SPEAKER_01: Maybe that's chaos, chaos and shoes, as you would expect.
• 12:49
  SPEAKER_01: But um, in the heart of a dog, it's a little more subtle, although there is this um sci-fi element at the heart of it.
• 12:58
  SPEAKER_01: So without excessively spoiling the ending, what is happening here?
• 13:01
  SPEAKER_01: Like who are the key characters and key themes we're dealing with?
• 13:06
  SPEAKER_00: Um, well, to set the scene first, um, is the novel or novella takes place in the 1920s, uh, Moscow, Soviet Russia.
• 13:16
  SPEAKER_00: And um 1920s were sort of special times in many ways.
• 13:21
  SPEAKER_00: Soviet Union was just established in 1922, so very recent.
• 13:26
  SPEAKER_00: And like you said, Lenin died just recently, and um and also economically, Soviets didn't introduce their disastrous five-year plan economy uh yet.
• 13:40
  SPEAKER_00: And they had what's called new economic policy or NEP, and um which allowed small businesses to operate somewhat freely.
• 13:48
  SPEAKER_00: And so it was time when also avant-garde art flourished in art and cinema in in Russia.
• 13:56
  SPEAKER_00: So there was some remnants of free economy, um free arts and science a little bit.
• 14:03
  SPEAKER_00: And uh so yeah, so the 1920s again is just this kind of time when when some remains of freedom uh were there.
• 14:12
  SPEAKER_00: Um and and and so you can sort of sense that um, you know, because Professor Um was a scientist, and so he was able to practice freely during the novella.
• 14:26
  SPEAKER_00: And and the story takes place in the large apartment of Professor Pryabrajensky, um, who is a physician scientist.
• 14:34
  SPEAKER_00: Um, his apartment comprised of seven rooms, which became an important point of contention in the story.
• 14:41
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, he's a gerontologist and a surgeon.
• 14:44
  SPEAKER_00: He's studying human brain and hormonal glands for the purpose of rejuvenation.
• 14:49
  SPEAKER_00: Um, he develops a medical procedure of transplanting animal hormonal glands in uh and other eternal organs to human um to humans in order to reverse aging.
• 15:02
  SPEAKER_00: So um our our professor, our main one of the main characters, is an intellectual.
• 15:07
  SPEAKER_00: He's a scientist, he's a rationalist, um, but also the one who sort of leads an aristocratic lifestyle.
• 15:16
  SPEAKER_00: So so that that's sort of um, I would say, I don't know if you would agree, that's that's in the uh sort of a good summary of who Professor um was.
• 15:28
  SPEAKER_00: And the other characters um he loves opera.
• 15:31
  SPEAKER_01: Like we're constantly like he's always humming opera, and there's this like reminder.
• 15:35
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, whenever Aida is playing, like yeah, that's right.
• 15:39
  SPEAKER_00: He loves opera, he loves fine dining, um, sort of he just uh enjoys the finer things in life, right?
• 15:46
  SPEAKER_00: Um and then there's uh there's there are other characters uh who live and work um you know around him uh in the apartment.
• 15:56
  SPEAKER_00: And there's an his assistants, a young physician named Dr.
• 16:00
  SPEAKER_00: Bermenthal.
• 16:01
  SPEAKER_00: Um uh professor also has a cook, an older lady, and a young uh lady Zina, who works as a household.
• 16:09
  SPEAKER_00: So that sort of comprises um, well, almost comprises the household of Professor.
• 16:15
  SPEAKER_00: And of course, there's um the subject of the story, uh Sharikov, um uh a dog that becomes human as a result of Professor's experiment.
• 16:25
  SPEAKER_00: Um so yeah, so there's this sci-fi part right there.
• 16:30
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, the dog.
• 16:32
  SPEAKER_01: So we start, in fact, it's it's really fascinating when you're opening this book.
• 16:36
  SPEAKER_01: You begin with this long perspective on uh the Soviet Union from the pers from the dog that's just kind of reflecting.
• 16:44
  SPEAKER_00: That's right.
• 16:45
  SPEAKER_00: The story starts um from the perspective of a homeless dog um that that lives on the streets of of Russia, and how hard it is to get food, and how uh sort of um how how the Soviets lack a sense of generosity towards uh you know fellow uh living beings, in this case a dog, um, and and what they eat and how sort of dehumanizing, right?
• 17:13
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, the way Shadikov describes the reality is is just how dehumanizing that that new regime is for not just dogs, forget about dogs for for humans, really.
• 17:25
  SPEAKER_00: Um so yeah.
• 17:28
  SPEAKER_00: Um the um the Go ahead.
• 17:31
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, the other I I'll just mention one more important character in the story, um, and that is Schwonder.
• 17:38
  SPEAKER_00: Uh he is the he's one of new tenants in the in the building, in the apartment building where Professor resides.
• 17:45
  SPEAKER_00: And he is an elected chairman of the House Committee.
• 17:49
  SPEAKER_00: Uh that's his uh sort of official title.
• 17:52
  SPEAKER_00: And of course, this title is entirely self-appointed and arbitrary.
• 17:57
  SPEAKER_00: And that is a reality of new Soviet Russia that Bulgakov absolutely criticizes mercilessly in the heart of the dog, sort of this the new Soviet uh reality, the people who, you know, like usurp power and just make these titles out of thin air and really lack uh substance.
• 18:16
  SPEAKER_00: And um, yeah.
• 18:18
  SPEAKER_00: So that's that's another important uh character in the story that that that I think um symbolizes a lot of um Bulgakov's discontent with uh the new political order of Russia.
• 18:33
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, the incompetence.
• 18:34
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, absolutely.
• 18:35
  SPEAKER_00: The incompetence and an inflated sense of importance, you know, which which I think um we like probably I've we've experienced certainly living in the Soviet Union.
• 18:49
  SPEAKER_01: Oh yeah.
• 18:50
  SPEAKER_01: I was thinking, like reading, rereading this uh for the first time in a couple of years, and thinking like the professor's complaints about the house, how like this beautiful apartment house is going into ruin.
• 19:03
  SPEAKER_01: So in the Russian term, Ratrucha has almost like those spiritual connotations, like it's just cosmic ruin.
• 19:11
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, and it's also it's it's sort of like it's it's decomposing, it's like the decomposing body, right?
• 19:17
  SPEAKER_00: It's dead and it's just it's continues to decompose, and that's precisely what how sort of uh you get a sense um of the reality of Russian life at that time or Soviet new Soviet regime is just like this decomposing of the dead body.
• 19:36
  SPEAKER_00: Um it is really grim.
• 19:39
  SPEAKER_00: And so, in a lot of ways, it is kind of has a sense of dystopian.
• 19:42
  SPEAKER_00: But but the sad part is that it was very much real.
• 19:45
  SPEAKER_00: It's not a it's not a fictional dystopia, it it's it was very much real.
• 19:51
  SPEAKER_01: I remember um, of course, for me as a child in Russia in the 1980s, growing up in Leningrad, now St.
• 19:58
  SPEAKER_01: Petersburg, and we lived in an apartment building that was kind of like the one Volgakov describes.
• 20:04
  SPEAKER_01: It was built uh right before 1900, and it was this like really old style, like distinguished uh apartment building.
• 20:15
  SPEAKER_01: And um at some point during my childhood, uh so the apartment building had this courtyard in the middle that was really lovely.
• 20:26
  SPEAKER_01: And at some point during my childhood, um, for some reason, like a bunch of tractors arrived and dug up the courtyard and just left it, like this big hole in the middle, and they never did anything with it.
• 20:38
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, and just it just stayed there, this gaping hole.
• 20:42
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 20:42
  SPEAKER_01: Um like for no reason at all.
• 20:45
  SPEAKER_01: And I just think of that like when I hear words like Razrucha, that sort of decomposing, like here it is.
• 20:51
  SPEAKER_01: Like, what was the point of doing this?
• 20:53
  SPEAKER_01: Just none.
• 20:55
  SPEAKER_00: I know, right?
• 20:55
  SPEAKER_00: And this is this kind of absurdity was just such a perennial part of our lives, you know.
• 21:02
  SPEAKER_00: And and and I think Bulgakov just captures this so well um in his novels.
• 21:09
  SPEAKER_00: And honestly, um, I was, I mean, I um am quite surprised and actually in awe that you've read it so early in your life.
• 21:18
  SPEAKER_00: I I my first encounter with Bulgakov was through the movie because uh Soviets actually made a pretty good movie um based on the heart of a dog.
• 21:29
  SPEAKER_00: And uh so I first watched the movie before I read it, and I read it as an adult uh much later in life, and in fact, as a Christian reading it already.
• 21:37
  SPEAKER_00: Um and um and I um I'm thinking, oh shoot.
• 21:45
  SPEAKER_00: I'm thinking, um, I lost my train of thought a little bit, but um, but what I was trying to say is is I think Bulgakov's um the depiction of uh uh reality of Russian uh Soviet.
• 22:00
  SPEAKER_00: At least uh reality was was surprising to me as as a reader, I would say, because because I thought, how in the world did he write this in, you know, in Stalinist, in Stalin's Russia?
• 22:11
  SPEAKER_00: And of course, how much courage, you know, it took to write something and depict it so realistically that to this day I'm in awe, honestly.
• 22:21
  SPEAKER_00: Um he wasn't published, obviously, for the longest time, uh, and and his books were published way after his uh death.
• 22:30
  SPEAKER_00: But still, I I just find it um fascinating that a writer uh like um like Mulgakov was able to survive in Soviet Russia and um and be so honest.
• 22:43
  SPEAKER_00: I think the honesty that he brings to um you know his his uh description of Russian life is fascinating.
• 22:51
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, Soviet life, I should bring, I should say.
• 22:54
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I was thinking about that as well, just um that he somehow managed to survive.
• 23:01
  SPEAKER_01: Yes, like so many uh so many others like him did not.
• 23:04
  SPEAKER_01: So many of those dissidents did earn a one-way ticket to the gulags or executions.
• 23:12
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, during the purge, like in the 30s, things were not uh easy for writers, especially.
• 23:18
  SPEAKER_01: It seems like artists were disproportionately represented among these executions and pursuits.
• 23:25
  SPEAKER_00: And I have a theory why he survived.
• 23:29
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, I want to hear.
• 23:43
  SPEAKER_00: And and I think that's probably my my theory is that is that Stalin just had a good laugh and said, Okay, fine, keep him, but just don't publish him.
• 23:52
  SPEAKER_00: He's funny.
• 23:53
  SPEAKER_00: So that that's uh that's my um that's how I make sense of it.
• 23:57
  SPEAKER_00: Um but yeah, this is just um it's fascinating.
• 24:03
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, it is.
• 24:04
  SPEAKER_01: And I was thinking also about Professor Prebražensky, because we get this moment in time.
• 24:09
  SPEAKER_01: Here's this professor, this researcher, who is uh for the moment, here we are in mid-20s, for the moment he is untouchable.
• 24:17
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 24:17
  SPEAKER_01: But I was thinking, and of course, the novel doesn't give us the rest of his life.
• 24:21
  SPEAKER_01: What happened to this man, say like a decade later?
• 24:26
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, because you're right, because in the in the book, there's this line where, you know, um someone from Schwander's group uh just just openly point blank says, you don't love Bolsheviks.
• 24:43
  SPEAKER_00: And he says, Yes, I don't.
• 24:46
  SPEAKER_00: I do not love Bolsheviks.
• 24:48
  SPEAKER_00: And that is just an open, um, you know, there's a direct uh question and he answers it honestly and directly that yes, I don't love them.
• 24:55
  SPEAKER_00: And I think for that alone, he could probably would have, I mean, people were sent to Gulag for lesser things than this for sure.
• 25:02
  SPEAKER_00: And so yeah.
• 25:03
  SPEAKER_01: Oh yeah.
• 25:03
  SPEAKER_00: So yeah, you're right.
• 25:04
  SPEAKER_00: Uh Priobrozinski would probably not last uh longer.
• 25:09
  SPEAKER_00: Um, yeah, because you because the the um the the the set is um, I mean the 30s are not there yet.
• 25:18
  SPEAKER_00: But but you can sense in the book where you know the terror that that that Soviets bring uh is already there, but not to the fullest extent that we see in the in the 1930s for sure.
• 25:34
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 25:35
  SPEAKER_01: So let's talk about the dog, the character who's kind of who drives the plot.
• 25:40
  SPEAKER_01: This is the heart of a dog.
• 25:42
  SPEAKER_01: So we start out with this like homeless street dog who is just, you know, a mutt, uh, Sharik, which is a typical like dog dog name.
• 25:53
  SPEAKER_01: And the professor brings him in, feeds him really nice Soviet sausage.
• 25:58
  SPEAKER_01: And by really nice, what I mean is the sort of stuff that he makes it clear to the um to Zina, it's like, do not eat this sausage that I got for the dog.
• 26:07
  SPEAKER_00: That's right.
• 26:12
  SPEAKER_01: So he brings this dog, makes friends with him, and then we have this complex operation that turns the dog into a man.
• 26:25
  SPEAKER_01: What sort of a man?
• 26:26
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that um that I think is is is a great plot story, um, because that's precisely the question.
• 26:34
  SPEAKER_00: What kind of a man will would that be, or will will that be?
• 26:38
  SPEAKER_00: And I have to say, um uh so in the story, uh we have a dog um that is very much alive, and then we have uh a man who just died, and so uh professor needed, so to speak, a dead body.
• 26:54
  SPEAKER_00: Um, and so he uh transplants some of the um some of the organs of that dead man into Sharikov, and Sharikov uh, you know, surprisingly, and they didn't expect it.
• 27:08
  SPEAKER_00: This is this is the result of experiment that they did not expect, and that Sharikov or the Shatik, the dog, uh turns into human and very rapidly.
• 27:18
  SPEAKER_00: And and so um the question then becomes okay, what kind of human being is it?
• 27:24
  SPEAKER_00: We did not expect it to, uh you know, we did not expect the dog to uh turn into human, but there it is.
• 27:31
  SPEAKER_00: Now it's a human being, and and what kind of human being is it?
• 27:34
  SPEAKER_00: And I think what um what becomes clear uh as the story progresses is um is that um that human being um is not a very good one, let's just put it this way.
• 27:46
  SPEAKER_00: And primarily because the man who died, a young man who died, uh was an alcoholic.
• 27:52
  SPEAKER_00: Um he um uh had some convictions, had some problems with police, he was um uneducated, not just in the sense that he didn't have a proper education, but he didn't have any structured education in his life that would actually uh nurture his um virtues, so to speak, you know, and instead he took he completely gave in to his vices and sort of lived that kind of life of unrestrained vice.
• 28:22
  SPEAKER_00: Um, and so uh the question then becomes uh what kind of person will Sharikov become?
• 28:29
  SPEAKER_00: Um, and as the story progresses, it becomes clear that that person is not gonna be a good one.
• 28:36
  SPEAKER_00: Um, some of so the same vices that we see in sort of the dead man appear again in Sharikov, and uh no amount of sort of restraint or or uh training or or education on the part of professor is gonna change that.
• 28:55
  SPEAKER_00: So so yeah, there's some kind of um sense that um well I would say I think Bulgakov really intended that to show the limitation of science and the limitation of human uh person in in the in the in the in um in Priabrazensky or in the professor who is unable to turn the animal into um a good person.
• 29:24
  SPEAKER_00: And uh and finally Priabrozhensky or Professor Priabrozhensky um admits his uh defeat that he is unable to turn him into a proper human being.
• 29:36
  SPEAKER_00: So yeah, yeah, it's um it's it's interesting that I feel I feel like yes, this question is uh what um what uh what makes a a human, right?
• 29:50
  SPEAKER_00: I mean this this this part raises the question, what makes us human?
• 29:56
  SPEAKER_00: But also I feel like uh this book raises uh a question on a deeper level, what makes a human being good?
• 30:04
  SPEAKER_00: And um, and can can we manufacture, so to speak, a good human um using science in the sense.
• 30:13
  SPEAKER_00: So so so a different level of the question then, can science produce good human beings?
• 30:19
  SPEAKER_00: And I think um I think the book um almost gives us um a very straightforward answer.
• 30:27
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 30:27
  SPEAKER_00: I I think I think the book explores the limit of science, the limit of us human beings to maybe, you know, um imagine ourselves as somewhat, you know, uh gods creating other beings, you know, and and and there's a limit to it.
• 30:46
  SPEAKER_00: And um, I think Bulgakov uh really does well to show that no, um we can't to some extent.
• 30:55
  SPEAKER_00: We are limited in that capacity.
• 30:56
  SPEAKER_00: But also I would say there's an there's a political element there too, because because Sharikov becomes somewhat friends with Schwander, who is this you know, impersonation of new uh Soviet social order, and and Schwander is also trying to turn um Sharikov into a good Soviet uh man.
• 31:17
  SPEAKER_00: And so the question then uh can uh a certain political order, in this case a godless, a Soviet one, uh make a good human being.
• 31:28
  SPEAKER_00: And I think again, um uh Bulgakov just levels his critique there that that Soviet uh system, or at this uh at least the way he saw it then, cannot produce uh you know good society or good human beings.
• 31:46
  SPEAKER_00: And so that there um there's just uh a lot of questions I think that that Bulgakov is raising.
• 31:52
  SPEAKER_00: Um, that starts with what kind of human being is Sharikov now that he is uh no longer a dog.
• 32:00
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 32:01
  SPEAKER_01: I was remembering that scene where the professor just kind of sadly admits it's like, you know, he was such a good dog.
• 32:08
  SPEAKER_00: Yes, and I turned him into a terrible human being.
• 32:12
  SPEAKER_00: I think that's exactly what he says that that that I completely failed because he was a perfectly fine dog.
• 32:20
  SPEAKER_00: It was a good dog.
• 32:21
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, and I turned him into a terrible human being.
• 32:24
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 32:25
  SPEAKER_01: That's uh the failure of science.
• 32:27
  SPEAKER_01: That's right.
• 32:28
  SPEAKER_01: Even the most brilliant scientists.
• 32:29
  SPEAKER_01: But the whole idea of also playing God, it's funny because um Bolgakov does want us to notice that closely.
• 32:36
  SPEAKER_01: And the the dog refers to um the scient to the professor as Boschistwood, like this divinity.
• 32:44
  SPEAKER_01: That's right.
• 32:45
  SPEAKER_00: Yes, and I think um it's it's it's you're exactly right.
• 32:50
  SPEAKER_00: I think Bolgakov absolutely points, and so there's a there's a uh there's this gentle critique, I think, of of scientific sort of worldview that Bulgakov um, you know, levels that that that uh scientists do sometimes think of themselves as a little bit of you know divinity that we can sort of do.
• 33:10
  SPEAKER_00: There's this positivity in there, you know, thinking that they can do so much, you know.
• 33:15
  SPEAKER_00: And um yeah, and uh and Bulgakov um uh does point out to that, except I would just uh make a note that um the translation doesn't translate that word that you said bajestvo uh very well.
• 33:33
  SPEAKER_00: Uh that's another um aspect of translation, and uh especially if you're the older one, uh the translator uses the word godhead instead of divinity.
• 33:43
  SPEAKER_00: And I don't think that's quite the right connotation.
• 33:46
  SPEAKER_00: I think I think the word that translates better is the divinity.
• 33:50
  SPEAKER_00: Um, yeah, the dog refers to professor as the as the some sort of divinity that just has incredible powers um rather than you know a godhead or triune god, you know.
• 34:04
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 34:05
  SPEAKER_01: Well, so as Christians um and as people who are living in the year 2025, like how do we read this novel now and what about it might be particularly relatable right now?
• 34:18
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that's that's a good question.
• 34:20
  SPEAKER_00: I think what what maybe um, yeah, like I said, I I I started reading it already as a Christian.
• 34:27
  SPEAKER_00: Um and and I think some of the things that um were sort of were brought to my attention, which I don't think I would understand if I were not uh if I if I weren't Christian, let's just put it this way, or religious, I don't think I would pick up some of the connotations like what we just talked about, sort of the the the the divinity part, you know, where where um you know Bulgakov sort of chastises science as uh taking place of God sort of uh almost um in our society.
• 34:59
  SPEAKER_00: Um but I think also um as a Christian I could appreciate um again Bulga's um coming to terms with our limitations as human beings, what we can and cannot do, what is actually uh what is good and not good.
• 35:19
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, just because uh professor could turn a dog into human beings, I know this is a science fiction part, but maybe that's not far from the truth, right?
• 35:30
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, just because he could do it doesn't make it good.
• 35:34
  SPEAKER_00: It uh it doesn't mean uh he should, and he he comes to that realization.
• 35:40
  SPEAKER_00: And I think uh especially in chapter eight, where he says, you know, that um that that that human race takes care of itself and we don't need to meddle with it.
• 35:52
  SPEAKER_00: Um and uh we just shouldn't meddle with nature in that sense, that we should leave it as it is and it will take care of itself.
• 36:00
  SPEAKER_00: And and so this uh this recognition that we as human beings are not all powerful in that sense, and there are certain things that we should not do.
• 36:09
  SPEAKER_00: Um, I find it uh I find it interesting and and really um um well um as a Christian I I I could read it and nod my head and said, yes, absolutely we should not.
• 36:22
  SPEAKER_00: Um but also and and so that goes into the whole sort of uh, you know, um, I don't know if Bulgakov had a sense of you know transhumanism and stuff like that, but certainly to some extent you can read it as a chastisement of sort of any transhumanist um uh sort of impulses that we can make better human beings or we can improve um ourselves dramatically by means of science or some other um methods.
• 36:57
  SPEAKER_00: I think also um there there is that kind of element that maybe maybe we shouldn't, and and uh maybe we uh should uh accept some of our limitations as as as well I'm not saying good, but as something that is um just is just is just a fact of who we are and we work with what we have and we and the whole purpose is not to turn an animal into human being, but to become good human beings.
• 37:29
  SPEAKER_00: And and that is maybe where we have to really focus our attention rather than maybe finding, you know, uh like like Priyabrozensky, for example, he tried to find ways to reverse aging so people could live longer or eternally maybe, who knows?
• 37:46
  SPEAKER_00: Uh but instead the question should be can we become good?
• 37:51
  SPEAKER_00: Can can human beings be good rather than you know live forever or have um healthy bodies?
• 37:59
  SPEAKER_00: So yeah, yeah, these are those are the questions, or at least the thoughts that I had while reading it and then rereading it again.
• 38:07
  SPEAKER_00: Um yeah, thinking about as Christians, how do we um engage with Bogakov's Navala, which is actually more pertinent to our times that that you know we might first think.
• 38:23
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, and even like the obsession with research into anti-aging, I was reminded, so the millionaire uh we've all probably seen on in the news who um infuses his son's blood to like stay really young.
• 38:38
  SPEAKER_01: So like crazy, yeah, crazy things some people do just to stay young.
• 38:42
  SPEAKER_01: And the whole point of like, well, what does it do to you as a person?
• 38:46
  SPEAKER_01: It doesn't actually this doesn't create virtues.
• 38:50
  SPEAKER_01: You can't just manifest virtues.
• 38:52
  SPEAKER_01: It's a process that's not scientific.
• 38:55
  SPEAKER_00: That's right, that's right.
• 38:56
  SPEAKER_00: And and um and and it just but I think as the book points out, it becomes a far more important question, right?
• 39:05
  SPEAKER_00: Um, because this person that the the Sharikov, this new human being that that emerges is so terrible that it just cancels all the value of that scientific um discovery.
• 39:21
  SPEAKER_00: And and pre- and Professor Priyabražensky, he um he feels that his this uh this uh new thing that he discovered is absolutely worthless.
• 39:33
  SPEAKER_00: And I think that's exactly what he says.
• 39:35
  SPEAKER_00: It's of no value practically, and so we j I just I don't think I'm gonna publish about it, I'm not gonna talk about it.
• 39:43
  SPEAKER_00: It's just it just no has no value precisely because the new human being is not good, and that's and that becomes um not good, not in not that he's not healthy or you know, but in in the sense of precisely uh a virtuous person, and um, and he's not.
• 40:06
  SPEAKER_00: And so that becomes clear that the most important thing about Shadakov is not that he um is a marvel of science that we can now turn um you know a dog into human being, but um the most important uh thing about Shadikov is that he's just um he's not a very good person.
• 40:27
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 40:28
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 40:30
  SPEAKER_01: So what is the purpose of fiction, especially for Bulgakov?
• 40:34
  SPEAKER_01: Like, write why tell this message in a novel?
• 40:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, and I think that is um, I think a perennial question, isn't it?
• 40:45
  SPEAKER_00: And I think um fiction is just such a great um medium of um you know communicating that idea rather than just maybe stating it as, you know, as an argument as some kind of logical argument.
• 41:02
  SPEAKER_00: He creates this thought experiment uh in the form of fiction story um about um a dog that became human, uh, where you know the answers um you know beg themselves almost, um, and you don't need to argue them so so strongly.
• 41:23
  SPEAKER_00: And and so it's just a a better uh I think a better way of communicating some of the truths that that that he finds, you know, uh compelling in this new um Soviet reality that he was observing around himself, yeah, around himself and just um that he was immersed in.
• 41:45
  SPEAKER_00: Um yeah, fiction I think is just um not well, yes, it is more convincing, I feel like, and it and it's a better way of communicating some truths, oftentimes that would be harder to argue in, let's say, a debate, uh logical debate or whatnot, or philosophical debate.
• 42:03
  SPEAKER_00: Because I mean, Bulgakov is quite philosophical in this um this book.
• 42:08
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 42:10
  SPEAKER_00: Um, also, I I think fiction, um, yeah, like fiction uh sort of draws our imagination, right?
• 42:19
  SPEAKER_00: And again, um and and for that reason it it's it's a good uh mode of uh communication, is just that we um we get to experience it, like I said, in a way that um that is a little bit different.
• 42:33
  SPEAKER_00: And I think and I think uh Volgakov certainly creates this uh story in which we can immerse ourselves and that we can be part of it um and and and um sort of understand where he what he wants to say through his fiction that way.
• 42:53
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I was thinking about uh your point earlier in our conversation that uh fiction gives us characters we can fall in love with.
• 43:00
  SPEAKER_01: And in this particular story, it's so easy to fall in love with the dog at the beginning.
• 43:04
  SPEAKER_01: Like he's so sweet, he's lovable, he is ridiculously silly.
• 43:08
  SPEAKER_01: Like he's he's a dog, and then he is transformed into this awful human.
• 43:16
  SPEAKER_00: So it really works on our own fictions, that's right, that's right, and um and and also but but also um it affects well it works on that level because and and this is where I might be speaking from my own experiences, because we know people like that from the Soviet experience.
• 43:35
  SPEAKER_00: We might even have relatives who are this way, you know, who are alcoholics, who uh have no moral values, who who steal, who, you know, and and so on and so forth.
• 43:48
  SPEAKER_00: And so, and so we know people like that, and we might have people in our families who are like that.
• 43:55
  SPEAKER_00: And so, and so by by creating that kind of you know image.
• 44:00
  SPEAKER_00: Of Sharikov, or at least of what he becomes, he really is not um paying a picture painting a picture of some fantastical human beings.
• 44:09
  SPEAKER_00: No, those human beings actually exist in our society in Soviet society, in our families.
• 44:16
  SPEAKER_00: We see them, we work with them, we live with them.
• 44:18
  SPEAKER_00: And uh, and yeah, and so that um that sense of that this is very real and believable because it's true, you know, people like this exist.
• 44:29
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 44:31
  SPEAKER_01: Well, as we conclude, I have a final question for you.
• 44:35
  SPEAKER_01: What classic book, whether fiction or nonfiction, do you wish you had written and why?
• 44:44
  SPEAKER_00: Well, I I don't pretend to write a classic book, but um, but here's uh some um idea that that I had uh while reading Dostoevsky, and particularly reading Brothers Karamazov recently.
• 44:59
  SPEAKER_00: You know, I have teenage kids, and so a lot of my sort of daily life is wrapped around, you know, issues that that um teenagers deal with.
• 45:08
  SPEAKER_00: But as I was reading um Dostoevsky, um, Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, I was really um kind of um, I had this idea of what would um a manual for youth ministry would be from the point of view of Alosha.
• 45:28
  SPEAKER_00: And Alosha spent so much time with young people, uh, with uh students from uh a school, a local school, and he developed this bond with them.
• 45:39
  SPEAKER_00: And uh yeah, and he is the youth minister right there in the novel.
• 45:44
  SPEAKER_00: And um, and so yeah, I I thought, well, wouldn't that be fun to write a book, a manual to student ministry from the point of view of Alosha Karamazov?
• 45:54
  SPEAKER_00: So that that's the kind of book, kind of a fun idea.
• 45:58
  SPEAKER_00: Um, I was sort of thinking.
• 45:59
  SPEAKER_00: I don't think it will be classic or it's classic by any means, but it it it's probably if I were, I mean, that's probably the last uh the latest sort of my um book idea that I have in my head.
• 46:12
  SPEAKER_01: I love it.
• 46:13
  SPEAKER_01: Well, thank you so much, Vika.
• 46:16
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, thank you, Nadia.
• 46:17
  SPEAKER_00: That was that was lovely.