A review by biolexicon
Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol

1.0

I really like Russian classics, so my disappointment was even more disappointing since it came from high hopes. Dead Souls had all the tedious details of a Russian classic (which normally build up to a complex picture) but none of the precision and clarity of focus. It was just a mess.
I'm beginning to realize that sometimes contradictions in literature are misinterpreted as "interesting depth". I think this was the case for Dead Souls. The writing was messy and childish. There was no ending for cryin' out loud. He didn't plan it to end ambiguously, he burned the ending in a fit of psychosis.
I decided to check this book out because I'd read an interesting review on it. This isn't the first time this has happened, so what's going on? There's so much interesting content in reviews and intros, where is *that* coming from? It doesn't seem to be related to these awful novels. I'm starting to think that intros and reviews are an opportunity for thought-provoking writers to say something intelligent and make their mark. NOT discuss what actually goes on in the book. I think I'm going to learn my lesson and read books by these authors, I think I'll have better luck.