Talk:Dead Souls

message: "Although the novel ends in mid-sentence (like Sterne's Sentimental Journey), it is usually regarded as complete in the extant form.[1]" — the citation for this is incredibly weak - it's someone else's citation of one argument, and i'm not convinced that proves it's 'usually regarded'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.67.215 (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I want to revise this, to make it more about the characters themselves, as it's obviously taken from some commentary on Gogol and, frankly, it's ridiculous. AllenHansen (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous poster needs to back up his assertion that the novel is not a satire  (he also needs to sign his posts).  To me it is a great satire, with the double irony that Chichikov never realizes that his own soul is dead, or that his petty con game mirrors the great national evil of serfdom.CharlesTheBold (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The preceding unsigned comment is currently my all-time-fave talk page comment. I'm going to be laughing at "almost supernatural pomposity" for the next week! CAVincent (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters section 

message: I noticed that throughout this article, the main character's name is spelled either Tchitchikoff or Chichikov. Speaking no Russian, I don't know which is correct (or more in keeping with Wikipedia's standards for Russian-to-English transliteration); perhaps someone who does speak the language can help out on this question. In the version of this novel that I read, it's spelled Chichikov. Isaiah (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed it to Chichikov, since that is what was used in all but two places. PerlKnitter (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of Chichikov

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dead Souls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130127154312/http://www.penguinclassics.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140448078,00.html to http://www.penguinclassics.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140448078,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article doesn't explain how a novel in two parts can be a trilogy and how the story of the second part is known if Gogol destroyed it. 2A07:A880:4601:1052:2D42:BF7F:4F48:5C5B (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and I came to this talk page with the exact same question(s)! Turns out, Gogol intended to write a trilogy (or at least claimed this intent), of which Dead Souls would have been the first part. However, he burned the manuscript for part two and died shortly afterwards. It isn't entirely clear (at least to me) if that manuscript was complete, near-complete, or what, but (as I understand it) he discussed the manuscript as well as its destruction with others, and a few pieces of drafts survived the fire and still exist. I tried clarifying and adding a couple sources. Really, the subject of a possible trilogy should be in the body of the article (and probably in more detail) but I don't see an obvious spot for it without substantial reworking. Hopefully, editors who are both more industrious and more knowledgeable on the subject than I will eventually get around to this. CAVincent (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilogy in two parts?