Heart of a Dog

Set in the early Soviet period, the story takes place in the winter of 1924. Moscow is under post-revolutionary transformation, with Bolshevik leadership shaping daily life and science. The narrative uses the year to anchor debates about eugenics, medical experimentation, and the state's reach into private lives. The time frame highlights the tensions between scientific curiosity and political ideology.

The narrative unfolds in central Moscow during a harsh winter of 1924. Its seven-room apartment and surrounding streets reflect the era's urban mix of scientific ambition and political upheaval. The city is depicted as a center of both everyday life and the intense pressures of post-revolutionary society. The setting emphasizes the contrast between a household’s private experiments and the wider Soviet bureaucracy.

🧬 Science & Ethics

Dr. Preobrazhensky’s radical experiment raises questions about the moral limits of science. The operation that grafts human organs into a dog stages a chilling collision between medicine and eugenics. The story examines whether the pursuit of progress can justify dehumanizing acts, and what responsibility scientists owe to their subjects. The consequences ripple through the household and society as the line between human and animal blurs.

🪞 Identity & Transformation

Sharik’s metamorphosis from dog to man—and his later regression—explores what makes someone human. Etiquette, culture, and power struggles shape the transformed creature into a provocative mirror of society. The satire hinges on how nurture and environment mold behavior when biology is altered. The ending suggests memory and identity linger beyond physical form.

🏛️ Power & Society

The story places science within the orbit of state and bureaucratic authority, from housing committees to the Cheka. Officials and elites are shown manipulating systems to control even radical experiments and their outcomes. The tension between individual ambition and collective ideology drives the plot’s conflict. The tale critiques how political power can instrumentalize science for social engineering.