Bulgakov

[Jekaterina]

Have you read some of his work?
What's your opinion?

I've read Master and Margarita twice, the heart of a dog and the theatrical novel.

I like that his books make you fly over the pages to see what happens next as well as think a great deal about the meaning of every single move of every single thing and person.

Especially Master and Margarita and The heart of a dog are so full of symbols, hidden and less hidden meanings! It's great and with every page you find new things.
Master and Margarita was actually also one of the few books I found a lot of essays with so many different angles on the novel.

[Scheherazade]

I read Master and Margarita a few months ago and I really enjoyed it. It is the only Bulgakov I have read (and probably the only 20th C Russian book) and I would like to read his other works when I have time.

There has been a discussion on it as well: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12896&highlight=bulgakov

Welcome to the Forum! :)

[Koa]

I want to re-read it very soon cos I didnt enjoy it much... master and margarita, that is.
I actually started it twice, but I didnt find it exciting, too many people flying and such...though I loved it when it tells the story of the 2 of them (vague memory)... I want to see if now, with more knowledge on the cultural background, I appreciate it more...

I also read Heart of a Dog, which was quite ingenious, though again I wouldnt put it up with my favourite things ever...

[Jekaterina]

Thanks for the link.
It's very interesting.

I share the oppinion on the Satan not being the bad seed, but being the one who punishes the greediness and hypocrisy, so therefore he's sort of the fallen, decadent "angel", fulfilling God's work...
That doubles the causes for forbidding it. One being the communistic party is shown as a very pathetic crowd and the second being the religious symbols, which were forbidden in the soviet regime.
It's interesting, that the Satan here is the Leader Satan whereas the Mephisto in Faust is just one of many. So there might be also one explanation for the difference of this Satan.
He's as filthy and decadent as all the others, but he's also bearing a certain responsibility, a kind of police man job, which he enjoys very much.

But the biggest difference is, that Mephisto looks at human life despisingly, calling it ridiculous and worthless.
Voland on the other hand is looking at the world with a little grin on his face. He despises most of the people too, but he seems to like life.

The way the author just matter of factly throws in some very ironic and despising phrases about the literaly circle and some of the leaders. It's phantastic. somehow light, but in it's sadness very, very heavy (after realizing, that so many things he said, are so true!)

It's also a critisism on the herd nature of human beings. The way they all headlessly fallow somebody. So the only good characters in that novel are the master and his Margarita.

I must say, I also LOVED Begemot! He's so sweet yet of course also scruffy. But he really does some very funny things.

It's also nice to read, that love, true love, is the only unspoiled thing in the world. It's the only thing, that lets the hopeless hope, the only thing that rescues those who seem to be lost for their lifetime.

There are so many things to discuss about that novel. One usually doesn't know where to start and which direction to hit. That among others is of course also the charm of it...

[BSturdy]

Hello Scheherazade - been away for a while, hope you are well.

This has got my interest in Bulgakov too.

[Scheherazade]

Hi BSturdy! Nice to see you back! I am doing well, still on the Forum as you see! :p

Master and Margarita is a really good book. It is not the kind of book I would usually go for (the fantasy elements) but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Let us know what you think if/when you read it!

[BSturdy]

Master and Margarita is a really good book. It is not the kind of book I would usually go for (the fantasy elements) but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Let us know what you think if/when you read it![/QUOTE]

I will - have a good weekend

[Koa]

as already posted in the Russian Lit. thread...

I'm trying to read again Master and Margarita, and just as the other time(s) I just can't concentrate on it. There's something in it that makes my mind wander instead of paying attention to the words...especially in the Pontius Pilatus chapter, It's the 3rd time I read it in my life, and every time I find it kinda tedious... I think I just don't understand Bulgakov...

[Marek]

Master and Margarita is such a great book, I just love it. I wish I could read it for the first time again... Here is one of my favorite passages:

" - Are you writers? Asked the woman in return.
- Indubitably, replied Kroviev with dignity.
- Where are your membership cards? The woman repeated.
(...)
- But look here - if you wanted to make sure that Dostoevsky was a writer, would you really ask him for his membership card? Why, you only have take five pages of one of his novels and you won't need a membership card to convince you that the man is a writer..."

It shows the absurdity of communist regime and bureaucracy in general...

[Koa]

After the Pontius Pilatus part it does get more involving... I wish I could appreciate that damn chapter...:rolleyes:

[Koa]

I struggled and got the chapter where the Master tells his story, which I remembered I had loved the first time I read it (infact I had written some enthusiastic comments on the page!). Though it flowed much better than the previous chapters, it didn't thrill me as much as the first time...
Then I went on and still found it hard to keep my attention focused... I wonder if the translation is to blame... anyway I still don't get the whole thing....

[Koa]

*strongly tempted to give up with M&M but stubbornly going on*

[Koa]

I have almost finished it (Master&Margarita that is) after one mont of struggling...and I still don't get all the fuss about it... can anyone enlighten me please? Explain me what's so wonderful in all that...

[Idril]

I was just reading this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061225/ennew_afp/afpentertainmentrussia_061225190417). It says the orthodox church condemned him for writing Master and Margarita which they consider to be a satanic bible. Really?! http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/IdrilCelebrindal/gobsmack.gif That's overreacting just a tad, isn't it or is there more to it than just the novel? Where there other things in his life that made him look satanic? I've never heard this criticism about him before and granted my knowledge of him is limited but there's never been anything in any of the biographies I've read of him that even hints at this particular predilection?

[Silv]

My knowledge of Bulgakov is extremely limited, but something interesting to note: Even books like Harry Potter are considered by some orthodox people to be evil and advocates of Satanism (namely the wizardry and "dark magic" etc.). Now whether or not his works really reflect this I can't comment. All I'm saying is that it's not surprising something like this should come up since it's possible and in fact a very common scenario.

[Turk]

Orthodox Church is a really harsh and conversational church. Many Orthodox pastor and cardinal known as their leadership in massacres and genocides. Such as Bulgarian Church in 1870's or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makarios

And Bulgakov. A satanist? Yeah and i am Daedalus.

[Silv]

Exactly. They're often extremely critical, harsh, and suspicious. When I was a kid I had this friend of mine whose orthodox-mother had forbidden him to read Harry Potter because of its possible links with Satanism. Crazy, but it happens. More prevalent than one would think.

[Taliesin]

Satanism isn't really as black as it's painted. We've got a Satanist friend (actually, a Satanist priest) who explained his religion to us. It doesn't consist of eating babies and vandalism - that is one of the things they oppose, actually.
The main principle - do what you want but take responsibility for it.
And some others too, but that's the main thing.


But Bulgakov doesn't seem like a Satanist to us. But We are hardly an expert. Is there a satanist here among us who could make things more clear.

[Idril]

It doesn't consist of eating babies and vandalism - that is one of the things they oppose, actually.



Do they oppose the eating babies thing or the just the vandalism? ;) :lol:

I don't really care what Bulgakov's religious affiliation is, I'd just never heard anything about that before. Having read Master and Margarita it's hard to see how it can interpreted as a Satanic bible but I certainly do understand the reactionary tendencies of some churches so I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised. The Orthodox church wouldn't have had much pull during Soviet times though, right, so it probably wasn't a criticism that was much of an issue for him during his lifetime?

[Silv]

I believe it's a misconception and a mix-up with other cultist organizations who tend to display those "black" attributes much more often. Satanism speaks out against the church, is what it does. Other cultists are much worse, yet the church fails to mention them. But when it comes to Satanism, the church is in the vanguard, ready to trample Satanism (probably because Satanism directly attacks the church's values). While Satanism is horrible, I have to say that comparatively it is not that bad - one of the "dark but not as dark" cults.

Here's a screenie of their elements, taken from "The Satanic Bible" (written by one of their own popes): http://download.yousendit.com/DB74A9BD14C2C420

Just thought it may interest some of you and add a bit to our discussion. Note: I'm not advocating Satanism, nor am I saying that they're a "good and pure" lot, I'm merely stating my thoughts on the topic.

Also another intriguing tidbit: Satanism focuses a lot on the gratification of the senses and desires. I'm not sure if any of you are familiar, but it shares some characteristics with the historic Greek religion where they worshiped Dionysus (aka Bacchus).

That said, I agree with Taliesin in that we're hardly qualified to comment on how satanic Bulgakov is or could be - we're getting into a "blind leading the blind" situation. Let's not go there.

[Mad Organist]

The Orthodox church wouldn't have had much pull during Soviet times though, right, so it probably wasn't a criticism that was much of an issue for him during his lifetime?

The Master and Margarita wasn't published until after Bulgakov's death.

Having read Master and Margarita, I don't think that it espouses Satanism; Bulgakov seems to be using Satan as a tool to show the ridiculousness of Soviet oppression.

[Idril]

The Master and Margarita wasn't published until after Bulgakov's death.



I had forgotten about that for a moment, thank you for reminding me. I was curious though to know if there as any other aspect to his writings or life to deserve the title Satanist because like most people, I can't really see any even remote basis for it from just Master and Margarita.

[stlukesguild]

My feelings gleaned from reading Master and Margarita (and mind you it was a few years ago) was that Bulgakov was just as satirical and mocking of Soviet style atheism (remember the train track scene?) as he was of traditional organized religion. I suppose any reinterpretation of religious texts that do not follow the orthodox interpretation are open to criticism. Not merely Bulgakov, but certainly Kazantzakis... even Milton or Dante (Such audacity! Placing Popes in hell and some girl you were hot for to the immediate right of the holy Virgin!) But a Satanic Bible? Certainly there are much better candidates out there? Perhaps we might start with DeSade?

[Idril]

But a Satanic Bible? Certainly there are much better candidates out there? Perhaps we might start with DeSade?

Well, exactly! And it certainly doesn't seem to merit the destruction of a museum. It's so clearly satirical, anyone with a sense of humour can see that...oh wait, we're talking about religious fundementalist aren't we...never mind. :rolleyes: :p

[Taliesin]

We have been told that Wilde and Twain (and, ironically, quite a number of medieval popes) can be considered as Satanists from their views.
Not very sure about "Tom Sawyer", but "Portrait of Dorian Gray" seems closer to the Satanic values than "Master and Margarita", for example.

We can think of possible interpretations why "Master and Margarita " could be considered satanic, but they are all very so-so - it seems more probable that it is not.
For example, look, Master is humble, is he not?
But humility, especially if you are a genius, is considered to be a bad thing in Satanism.
And there are other such things in that book - We think it is a non-Satanic book.


Do they oppose the eating babies thing or the just the vandalism?

A satanist who doesn't eat babies is investing into future.:p

Heil Santa!

[vili]

Just a note on the term Satanism (I know next to nothing about Bulgakov -- not that I would know much about Satanism, either). The term is used interchangeably for a large number of things, ranging from the Church of Satan and occult Satanism (two actual religious movements) to simply calling everything non-Judeo-Islamic-Christian Satanist, following the infinite tolerance towards difference that we human beings tend to display... :p

In any case, I would imagine the church's condemnation of Bulgakov therefore to be more on the grounds of being "non-Christian", rather than being part of some really organized Satanistic religion. I may, of course, be mistaken here.

[Comrade Ahab]

Idril,

i noticed you mentioned that you've read a few of Bulgakov's biographies. I've been searching for the definitive one, could you suggest it? It would be much appreciated. Or anyone else for that matter.

[Yelena]

Exactly. They're often extremely critical, harsh, and suspicious. When I was a kid I had this friend of mine whose orthodox-mother had forbidden him to read Harry Potter because of its possible links with Satanism. Crazy, but it happens. More prevalent than one would think.

I was very surprised to hear that. After living in an Orthodox country for more than 15 years, I can assure you that none of that is actually true. Not that I'm calling you a liar, no.
I admit that there are some "crazy" people in every religious group that very often "cross the line" of common sense, but we shouldn't judge the whole church by the experience we had with a few of its representatives, should we?
Bulgakov isn't a satanist. The fact that Orthodox church proclaimed him to be one, can also mean that the Soviet government "wanted" him to be considered a satanist, thus, an outcast.

[Woland]

The charges of Bulgakov being a satanist probably stem from the orthodox church labeling Master and Margarita as The Gospel According to Satan.

Edit. oops need didnt see the link in the OP

[Yelena]

A very good guess, Woland ( a very interesting coincidence it is!!!)

[Woland]

Yes quite a coincidence indeed :D

But how sad he doesnt have a monument, the guy is a treasure imo.

[Yelena]

Indeed. I assume you like Bulgakov's novel then. I would recommend you to watch the newest movie-version of "Master and Margarita" (Russian production, I'd think there's one in translation too). It stars the leading actors. Honestly, the cast and the producers did a very good job.

[Boris239]

I haven't seen the series myself but I've heard very different opinions about it. I like the director very much- "Idiot" and "heart of the dog" are brilliant, but "M&M" is even more diffcult than Dostoevsky.
One of my friends told me that young actors aren't very good.
I honestly don't think about Voland as old and pretty fat Basilashvili, who is, of course, a great actor, but not a Voland type. And Abdulov would be a great Koroviev in youth but now I'm not sure

[Yelena]

Hm...interesting opinion. I agree that the young actors weren't that good, but Abdulov and Basilashvili did very good. THere's something positive about Oleg Basilashvili even when he plays evil guys. The actor who played Master was that "master -type" and of coarse Margarita looked just like I imagined her after reading a book.

[Boris239]

Well, Basilashvili is a great actor, but have you really imagined Voland looking like that?
And I wouldn't call Voland evil, although it sounds funny when you discuss evilness of the devil

[Yelena]

Well, maybe not that charming....but...you know how they pick good-looking actors for the Drakula roles? Same here, evil things often look attractive...maybe its ment to be that way..or maybe its film makers' trick... (as to as you called it "evilness of the evil" ,Boris....i was talking about good looking actors playing evil characters- since you mentioned Oleg Basilashvili-sorry i wasnt that clear...you seem to have a good sense of humour, Boris.)

[Idril]

The fact that Orthodox church proclaimed him to be one, can also mean that the Soviet government "wanted" him to be considered a satanist, thus, an outcast.

I want to understand what point you're making here, are you saying the Orthodox church may have been doing the Soviets a favor by labelling him a Satanist? I didn't know the Orthodox church and the Soviet government were so friendly. I was always under the impression that religion was verboten in Soviet circles. Of course I may be misunderstanding your point because I've certainly been known to do that. :blush:


I admit that there are some "crazy" people in every religious group that very often "cross the line" of common sense, but we shouldn't judge the whole church by the experience we had with a few of its representatives, should we?

That is very true, the ultra-conservative branch of any religion should be seen as a separate body from the more rational and reasonable mainstream.

[Yelena]

I'll try to explain what I ment.
You are right, the Soviet government actually was atheistic and of coarse it couldn't be "friendly" to the Orthodox church. But, the Soviet government could influence or manipulate the church, which it certainly did. Stalin, who is the most notorious representative of the Soviets here in the US, used any means possible to protect his totalitarian regime. (Writers and poets were sent to jails, just because their works were not favored.)

[Boris239]

When "Master and Margarita" was published in the USSR nobody was calling it satanist, so it has nothing to do with the Soviets. Things like that are pretty recent in Russia. After the fall of the USSR, it has become fashionable to be religious and go to church. You can see former communist leaders suddenly becoming "pious". The Orthodox Church is favored by the state and slowly is trying to influence different aspects of life. When we are talking about books and movies- there were big protests against "Da Vinci code", some of the thetres weren't allowed to produce "Master and Margarita"(obviously it wasn't in Moscow or Saint Petersburg) and so on.

[Yelena]

Well, I'll try to be more accurate here after Boris239's post: Many critics consider the book to be one of the greatest Russian novels of the 20th century, as well as one of the foremost Soviet satires, directed against a suffocatingly bureaucratic social order So to me it does seem that it has to do with the Soviet government. Now, could they have "skipped" or "overlooked" that hidden message? I GREATLY doubt that......

[Taliesin]

Well, Basilashvili is a great actor, but have you really imagined Voland looking like that?
And I wouldn't call Voland evil, although it sounds funny when you discuss evilness of the devil

I wouldn't actually call him very evil neither.
He seems like a classical trickster, like Loki, Sõrdon, Anansi, Coyote et cetera.

[Boris239]

Well, I'll try to be more accurate here after Boris239's post: Many critics consider the book to be one of the greatest Russian novels of the 20th century, as well as one of the foremost Soviet satires, directed against a suffocatingly bureaucratic social order So to me it does seem that it has to do with the Soviet government. Now, could they have "skipped" or "overlooked" that hidden message? I GREATLY doubt that......

Yelena, you have misunderstood me. Obviously "M&M" has a lot to do with Soviet bureucracy. What I meant is that the book wasn't considered satanist during the USSR times- so calling it satanist has nothing to do with Soviets.

[Yelena]

To me it seems like our discussion shifted from one subject to another, and, honestly, I'm a little bit confused here.:blush: It looks like all of us are trying to say the same thing, but we are still confonting each other...:-) For example,
"Lena: “THere's something positive about Oleg Basilashvili even when he plays evil guys.”
Boris239
Well, Basilashvili is a great actor, but have you really imagined Voland looking like that?
And I wouldn't call Voland evil
Teliesin: “I wouldn't actually call him very evil neither”
Sorry if I misunderstood you and its sad you guys misunderstood me. Where are you from originally anyways?

[Boris239]

I am from St. Petersburg. And you?

[Yelena]

Doesn't your avatar say you are from NYC?

[Boris239]

I live in NY but originally I'm from St. Petersburg

[Elpis]

Hi everyone!
I haven't noticed any "threads" about this writer here so I've decided to start a new one. I'm re-reading Master & Margarita now and I'd like to start a discussion about it.

[Aunty-lion]

Has anyone else read Black Snow?
I love the Master and the Margarita too, and I never thought I could enjoy another of his books that much, but I just loved Black Snow! I felt like it gave a really great insight into his life/mind.

[Idril]

Has anyone else read Black Snow?
I love the Master and the Margarita too, and I never thought I could enjoy another of his books that much, but I just loved Black Snow! I felt like it gave a really great insight into his life/mind.

I read it late last year and really liked it. I had to read White Guard after that to get some kind of idea what the play was supposed to be about. I actually liked White Guard better than Black Snow but Black Snow was certainly clever and insightful, it was the ending that sort of lost me.

[Estrellana]

Hi everyone!
i wonder whether you enjoyed reading "Heart of a Dog". What do you think about this novel? What are, in your opinion, the best moments of it - maybe those that made you laugh or, vice versa, those that are really full of seriousness? I'm just writing my graduation thesis dedicated to the english translations of this novel and it'll be interesting to learn the opinion of non-russian readers=)

[MissScarlett]

I've read The Master and Margarita. Loved it, but I'm sure I missed a lot in it. A lot of the symbolism.