Customer Reviews

The House of the Dead

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

House of the Dead is not a general account of imprisonment and system of law of Russia, ala Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, but is a much more personal account of the author's own experiences. There is no attempt to overplay or dramatize personal suffering, though there was probably ample reason for the author to do so. Instead, the author focuses more on his fellow inmates: their personalities, their culture, their way of life and way of thinking. The effect is immeasurable, and makes the House of the Dead one of the most potent, moving pieces of literature ever written. The convicts that Dostoyevsky describes seem to come alive -- their descriptions are so complete and realistic that its almost as if they're reading the book with you. This method of describing imprisonment defies conventiality, but Dostoyevsky pulls it off easily. By knowing the convicts, you feel for them, you understand them, and you walk away knowing and loving humanity just a bit more.

A great aspect of the book is that you can pick it up at almost any spot, so long as you know the general plot. I can't tell you how many times I've picked the book up and flipped straight to the first chapter describing the hospital, and read simply that alone. When Dostoyevsky tells of the dead convict, little more than a husk or a shell of a man who couldn't even stand the weight of his clothes or his wooden crucifix, being dragged off routinely with his heavy fetters still on, one can hardly help but grimace. And when another convict yells, inexplicably, "He had a mother too!" you start to sympathize for these convicts: the filthiest, most degenerate human beings you can imagine.

Its a story of love for humanity, of resurrection from despair, and of a man's final reconciliation with his own life.

Dostoevsky's The House of the Dead is an account of life in a Siberian prison, drawing heavily from its author's own imprisonment for sedition. The narrator is nominally serving time for murdering his wife out of jealousy, but Dostoevsky makes very little effort to maintain the artifice that the narrator is anyone other than himself, as the narrator even refers to himself as a political prisoner on a couple of occasions. The novel consists mainly of a series of anecdotes relating such things as the staging of a prison play, the memories of some convicts of the crimes that landed them in prison, and the attempted escape of two of the prisoners, all interspersed among observations of more day-to-day affairs like prison food and corporal punishment.

A number of the stories are very interesting, and overall Dostoevsky paints an impressive picture of prison life as a whole. Though it's clear that his experience in prison was a brutal one, the reader never feels as though Dostoevsky is overplaying the prisoners' suffering, which makes it seem all the more authentic. However, I'd have to say this sort of narrative doesn't really play into Dostoevsky's overall strength as an author. Dostoevsky's best works generally have a strong and coherent (though in some cases somewhat melodramatic) plot that develops more or less linearly throughout the novel; The House of the Dead, on the other hand, is hardly more than a series of related roughly-15-page short stories and so inevitably lacks the suspense of much of Dostoevsky's other work. For the same reason, none of the characters get especially well developed--the reader is left with a lot of interesting character sketches, none of which get fleshed out.

As such, it's sort of unfair to compare The House of the Dead with many of Dostoevsky's best known works, since the format doesn't allow Dostoevsky to show some of the strengths he shows elsewhere. Taken in isolation, though, it's a fine account of life in the Siberian prisons of the mid-19th century, and it mixes the elements of a documentary with those of a novel well enough to ultimately be a very interesting and enjoyable work.

This book examines to what extent a man will go to keep his humanity. Among feters and prison walls, a different sort of society emerges. How is a caged man different from a caged animal? Does a prison truely change a man for the better? This is a great book.

What an intense look at life in a Siberian prison. This is one of Dostoevsky's great works, though all of his works are great in my opinion, but this ranks right up there with Crime and Punishment and the Brothers Karamazov. Beautifully written and intriguing from the first page! A classic page-turner for sure!

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The House of the Dead" is one of the most powerful narratives about life in prison. A quasi-autobiographical work, the writer used the days he spent in Siberia prison to create powerful moments of sadness, fear and hope. Not many were able to be released from there, but he was one of them, and with this work he reminds everyone what it is about to be a political prisoner.

"The House of the Dead" may not be one of best works from this Russian writer, who produced masterpieces such as "Crime an Punishment" and "The Brothers Karamazov", but still it is a vivid account of hard times. Many scenes are unforgettable, and resonate to the condition that many people live today around the world - think of the soup that the prisoners have in the first part of the book, for instance.

Dostoyevsky manages to create a living portray of many people who are forced to share the same place at the same time, however much they can't stand each other. He is able to bring to life both human beings and animals. His description of his meeting with a dog can bring tears to the eyes of the most tough reader.

David McDuff's translation is superb, and so is Penguin Classics edition. The book is complemented by notes on the text and a excellent introduction. However, as happens to many books in this collection, it is advisable to read the introduction after reading the novel, because it may have spoilers.

I'm only 19, but I know this will be my favorite book forever. It takes you inside the darker places that exist inside the psyche of every human, and makes the renewed hope brought by deep suffering shine through.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky is well-known for his novels and novellas, of which some of the best ever written flowed from his pen. This book, however, is an entirely different animal. Though ostensibly a work of fiction, The House of the Dead is actually a thinly-veiled autobiographical narrative. Dostoyevsky, who endured four years of hard labor in a Siberian prison -- after getting the "silent treatment" is isolation for eight months and facing a firing squad, in a death shroud, only to have his sentence commuted to the aforementioned punishment at the last minute -- created this book as a sort of memoir of his experiences. The book's Introduction sets up a fictional character to tell the story -- it was Dostoyevsky's intent to have the notes "written by a stranger" and to have his personality completely eliminated (one suspects for reasons not entirely related to literary conduciveness) -- but we see the emperor through his clothes. Since this is not really a work of fiction, then, it is not surprising that there is absolutely no plot to speak of, no linear development, no climax, and no resolution. It is, basically, a series of anecdotes -- the more interesting things that Dostoyevsky saw while in prison. Indeed, an alternate title that I have seen for the book is much more fitting (and revealing): Notes From a Dead House.

This book certainly does not rank in the upper tier of Dostoyevsky's work: all of his long novels are acknowledged masterpieces. With that said, it should also be noted that this book is also an acknowledged classic. As a book relating the prison experience to the masses (of which there are many), it is rather fine. The book reads much like a documentary -- which, of course, is what it basically is. Unlike many other prison books, we don't see such exciting elements as dashing escapes and noble, heroic prisoners. This is the real thing. It is also remarkable how infrequently Dostoyevsky gets on his soapbox: this is not a polemic against prisons, a tome about being a "victim of society", or a tract for prison reform -- it is not even an admirable psychological portrait of an enthralled criminal. Indeed, the book, as it goes, is quite remarkable for its uniqueness. Those who like to read books of this kind -- criminologists, say -- will find much to like here and will also probably find it to be quite unique. It is also a treasure for Dostoyevsky readers, who will find much material that enlivens the author himself. Readers new to the author, however, should start with one of his great novels.

As you can guess from the title, this book tends to the grimmer side of life. Bsed on Dostoyevsky's personal experiences as a prisoner for some political scheme or other, one can see his genius at human observation. The impersonal style, and the grey feeling you get delivers the truly mundane and painful existence of a prison in the 19th century. Lacking are the heroic escapes, the outlaw with a heart of gold, and other typically American themes (cff the Green Mile). This book is a series of subtle observations, and truly meant for those with a psychological outlook.

Reading the House of the Dead is essential to understanding Dostoyevsky. While his novels are far more elaborate and well developed in a literary sense, this book is important because it is based on his actual experience. It does contain the seed of philosophy and analysis of human nature that drives much of his other works and this is written in a manifest manner. This book is relatively plot less but the characters and scenes are well developed and often it strikes awe in the reader. Being so easy to read, straight forward, and all together interesting I suggest this book highly to those who want an introduction to Dostoyevsky.

We have to remember a few things when reading this book. It is probably true that upon original release that Dostoyevsky did not want to use his own name in the book and he also wanted to make the book readable to his public. What's more is we have to realize the time and place. Russia was still basically feudal during the 1850's and nobility were treated far differently than peasant classes. Understanding this brings a whole new dimension to this work. Dostoyevsky, it seems, tries to show how most of the criminals behave like some bizarre mirror of Russian society. And of course the theme of adaptation is developed throughout.

This is one of the more important Dostoyevsky works. It is important to understand both the person and the thinker that Dostoyevsky was. It also is a great background on the time and place of Russia, the setting of most of his work. Beyond this it presents some interesting ideas and is certainly an interesting record of prison life in the 19th century. I can understand why many would say that this is not one of his best works and on many point I certainly agree. However, this book is still very compelling and absolutely interesting. Given that reading this is not a massive investment of time that his novels generally are this is a certain must read. I rate this book highly and if you give it a chance I surmise you will too.

-- Ted Murena

This work is somewhat of an anomaly among the works of Dostoyevsky. Though he presents it as the discovered memoirs of a member of the Russian nobility sentenced as a type two(for murdering his wife) prisoner to Siberia, it is in reality a loosely disguised autobiography of Dostoyevsky's own four year experience in the Czarist prison system.

Having read accounts of the Soviet era gulags before reading House of the Dead, my first impression was the relative "comfort" of life in the Siberian prison camps of the Russian old regime. This in itself says volumes, for Dostoyevsky takes pains to try and demonstrate the utter inhumanity of the prison system he knew, never realizing the depths of cruelty to which it would sink in the generations to come. To take but one example, prisoners in Dostoyevsky's experience were allowed to earn a pittance for their labor in the camps, which they could apply to small purchases, and rich prisoners could even hire their own cooks and servants and bring in their own food. Though prisoners were certainly used for labor, this was done mainly for the self-sustainment of the prison itself and the immediate community, and not, as in Soviet times, to exploit mines and forests.

Though this is an autobiography presented as a book of memoirs of another, I found it oddly impersonal. Impersonal in the sense that its narrator, Alexander Petrovich, presents his vision of prison life while little is revealed about his own sentiments or the changes the prisoner experience has on his own personality. However, the story is still rich in the detail of its main characters. It was also fascinating to read of how prison life, though it dehumanizes a human, in no way squashes our lesser instincts: our vanity for one thing. We also get a unique view on how prisoners of noble status (and Dostoevsky was a minor noble) were treated in the Russian prison system. This facet of the novel in fact is the only place where the feelings of the narrator really come into play.

The House of the Dead is not a novel. Though the characters are well developed there is no real plot. It is a varied portrait of prison life, and in fact sections of the book could be read entirely separately or out of sequence without much inconveniece. What this work is is a great portrayal of prison life in imperial Russia, and useful especially to juxtapose with 20th century accounts of imprisonment, notably in the Soviet Union but not necessarily so. You be the judge if we have advanced in our humanity or only in our capacity for cruelty.