Monsters of Russian Literature

[Tatyana Buzina]

I do not argue with the statement that Preobrazhenskii can be viewed as a monster. The question, for me, is different: was this perception intended from the outset?

Preobrazhenskii's experiments started out on a dog which would be universally considered, at least at that time, a legitimate subject for a medical or any scientific experiment. Experiments on animals are still widely conducted, and despite protests, are not likely to stop in many areas of research. During Bulgakov's time, animal rights were non-existent, and Preobrazhenskii's actions were nothing out of the ordinary. The surgeries Preobrazhenskii carried out otherwise were welcomed by his clientele, as far as I remember. His aims were also typical for scientists in fiction: to better the creation, as it were. To clarify what I mean: Later, a character in Shvarts's "Everyday Miracle" comments on turning a bear into a human being (which is perceived as a cruel act): "chelovek iz mertvogo kamnia delaet statuiu i raduetsia, kogda rabota udalas'. A poprobui iz zhivogo sdelat' eshche bolee zhivoe - vot eto rabota!" (Correct me if I am mistaken, but as far as I know, Shvarts, unlike Bulgakov, was not a medical doctor.) In Shvarts's play, the bear turns out to be a very decent human being and, as such, he retains his humanity regardless of any magic. Preobrazhenskii attempts to do just the same, "sdelat' iz zhivogo eshche bolee zhivoe," and he denies Sharikov his autonomy because he perceives the failure of his attempt. Preobrazhenskii plays God, and, just as God wiped out humankind almost entirely in the Flood, so did Preobrazhenskii with Sharikov the human being. I agree, it can be viewed as morally reprehensible, but again, who does Bulgakov intend us to side with?

I think it has been recently discussed on this very list that the attitudes towards Preobrazhenskii and Sharikov have been changing recently from the overall sympathy to the Professor to a more compassionate or understanding opinion of Sharikov. The question for me, again, is what Bulgakov's intentions were. I'd brought in Shelley precisely because she and Bulgakov exhibited drastically different attitudes to the creations of their creations. Frankenstein clearly lacks compassion and love for the creature he himself brought into being which led to the subsequent events of the novel. Shelley is prepared to see the human in the monster, and to blame Frankenstein for the lack of humanity towards his own creation. Bulgakov, as I think, from the very outset depicts Sharikov as a sub-human being who was a much better dog than he was a human. Preobrazhenskii, unlike Frankenstein, doesn't renege on his responsibility for his creation and it is out of his feeling of responsibility AND disgust that he ends up returning Sharikov to his original state. I doubt any final agreement on the matter can/should be reached here, but it's an interesting topic to debate.

I apologize for the rant, it's just that it was the subject of discussion with a few scientist friends of mine, and I just couldn't resist. I always liked the cartoon by Gary Larson "Young Frankenstein stays after school." He has to write on the board "I will not play in God's domain." 

Regards,
Tatyana

>I believe, Preobrazhenskii's monstrocity is not about his search for
>innovation, but about his thinking that he can, in fact, has the right to
>make experiments on human/living beings, changing them according to his
>ideas of what they should be like just to see what comes out of it and, when
>things do not go the right way, denying them their autonomy (for Sharikov,
>though really a melkaya mraz', is now autonomous) and in fact, depriving
>them of their human (however unpleasant) soul and existence.
>
>e.g.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
>[mailto:SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of Tatyana Buzina
>Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:10 AM
>To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Monsters of Russian Literature
>
>
>Preobrazhenskii is your average scientist (well, not so average, but that's
>beside the point) who does things first and considers their implications
>later if ever. Their standard defense is that if you stop to consider
>possible moral implications of an experiment before you carry it out it will
>spell the death of science. I've heard that argument more times than I care
>to count. If Preobrazhenskii is a monster so is the larger part of modern
>scientists. A sad thought, really. On the other hand, Preobrazhenskii is
>another character in the line that goes back to Mary Shelley and earlier
>even though there's a a major difference between Preobrazhenskii and
>Frankenstein: Frankenstein's monster at least has some potential for good
>and his fall from grace and goodness is a longer and more convoluted story.
>At least Shelley gave her monster a chance, Bulgakov never did that for
>Sharikov. He seems to have been biologically determined to be a monster.
>This opens up a large field for thoughts none of which are too pleasant
>regardless of whom we're thinking about. No one comes out a snow white
>including Bulgakov himself, which is a very sad thought as well.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Tatyana V. Buzina,
Associate Professor, Chair,
Dpt. of European Languages,
Institute for Linguistics,
Russian State U for the Humanities

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------