The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

[Scheherazade]

I am reading The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099448696/qid=1122474665/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-3038517-3687627) at the moment. Hadn't heard of it till recently but seems like it is considered one of the best novels of the 20th century Russian Literature.

Although I have only read 1/3 of the book, I am enjoying it very much and finding it hard to put it down. It is very amusing in parts and thought provoking. The author's tongue-in-cheek attitude towards Communism is somewhat brave considered the times it was written, I guess.

Has anyone else read this book? Any thoughts on it?

[Koa]

I read it (are you surprised? ;))...I actually didn't like it that much...it's ok but there are too many 'fantastic' details, people flying and such... a bit too modernist for my liking.
I actually started it once then had to start again cos I had left it for a while... and now I can't say I remember too much of it and I should read it again but... :rolleyes:

it was forbidden in the Soviet Union for quite a while if I'm not mistaken... but I think I'm not.

[RococoLocket]

My boyfriend just read it, I think he quite liked it but thought it dragged a bit in the second half, something like that :) I'm going to borrow it from him when I reach it on my reading list!

[Taliesin]

Ahh, it is one of our favourites.
We think that Peemot (the cat who drank vodka and ate mushrooms and did other interesting things) is in our top ten list of "The most coolest characters in literature ever"
Also, very funny and yet so sad.

[Scheherazade]

Couple of questions:

Do you think composer names such as Rimsky, Berlioz and Stravinsky have any significance in the novel?

Is Satan trying to punish those who are greedy? Like the Chairman of the Housing, the audience at the Black Magic show?

Is the author critical of the literary circles as well as the Communist system?


This is the kind of novel I wish I studied... With a professor and a discussion group! I feel like I have missed out so much by not reading it earlier!

Did I mention that I am enjoying this book??? :D

[Taliesin]

Is Satan trying to punish those who are greedy? Like the Chairman of the Housing, the audience at the Black Magic show?
The Satan seems actually not an evil character but a classical trickster (compare to Loki, Hermes, Anansi, Coyote, Hare, Old Man Hoaxer and others) to me, who does tricks to practically everybody. (with a few exeptions) We vaguely remember some characters (like the one who died because Annuška bought sunflower oil) who were not greedy at all, but still got punished by Satan. (and well, greed, you must have a little to survive - there was a terrible deficit at the soviet times, we imagine that the costumes at the circus could seem like a once-a-lifetime chance to all these women; you could hardly call all of them greedy) Like he said, humans are like humans have always been, only the apartment question has ruined them. (this is probably not an accurate quote, but we are translating and the last time we read it was about a year ago)

Mocking literary circles - well, yes, we think. It really looked like that i.e
when Peemot and one other chap wanted to enter that writers house without a card.
Peemot: When Dostojevski wanted to enter, would he need a card?
Clerk: But Dostojevski is dead...
Peemot: I object! Dostojevski is immortal!

It seems to me like the literary circles were as corrupt (so we say due to absence of a more accurate word) as the country. It seems a bit if the bloody society had too many perks and had too many really talentless people.

What do you think about Masters novel?

[papayahed]

Man, you guys are making me want to reread this book!!! You guys Stink!!!

[GruesomeBugman]

Well, I've heard of the book, but have not yet read it.
Though from the comments I see here, I may have to check it out sooner than planned.

[Scheherazade]

Tal,

I agree with you that the Satan is depicted as kind of a trickster because almost all his 'punishments' have a humourous side to them. However, I think he plays his tricks on only those who come and find him like the Barman, who asks for money although he serves bad food and actually quite well off or the Chairman. As for Berlioz (who died because of the sunflower oil), I thought the Satan did not like the way he was preaching the young poet regarding how Jesus did not exist and crititising his poem because he wrote as if Jesus existed. Also, it is possible that Berlioz was going to die no matter what? Hmm, I cannot think of an English word for this one but his time of death had come.

It is also true that as humanbeings we are all greedy but people at the show do not even stop to think where the money or the dresses are coming from and they try to get these at each other's expense... for which they have to pay the price later on.

I am still reading the book (Just started on 'Margarita' section) but Bulgakov sounds bitter about the Literary cirlces. They did cause the Master's predicament after all...

[papayahed]

You've reminded me of one of my favorite parts. When the devil was speaking with Berlioz and he's telling Belioz that humans can't be masters of anything (I'm paraphrasing here) because they can't plan anything. Humans can't make a true statement about anything in the future. And I think that's where the devil asks Belioz where he's going to be that evening and the devil tells Belioz that he isn't going to make it because that chick spills the sunflower oil.

[Monica]

It's a really good book, with nice plot and original images. Especially the satirical image of Russia and Moscow causes weird feelings. And of course it's a great idea to combine the story of Jesus with the story of Master and his Margarita. A lot of difficult problems are presented and it makes you think, And it gives hope if you read that Satan isn't so evil in fact (like in Faustus) although it may be terrifying to think that Satan is more human(e) that humans :eek:

[Scheherazade]

I finished the book over the weekend and there were no disappointments!

I am quite intrigued by the Master's novel. I don't know much about the events which led to crucifixion of Christ and people involved so had to do a little research into that. And I am really curious as to why Bulgakov wanted to bring in this relious aspect into the novel, which on surface simply mocks the Communist regime in Moscow.

I don't mean to offend anyone but do you think there is a possiblity that the Master and Margarita are references to Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

And it gives hope if you read that Satan isn't so evil in fact (like in Faustus) although it may be terrifying to think that Satan is more human(e) that humans I agree with you, Monica, that this is an interesting depiction of Satan. One almost likes him... And the notion that Satan only gives a push to those who already have 'it' in them... Sort of 'a push in the right direction'... Well, maybe in the wrong direction in this case :p

[Boris239]

I adore "Master and Margarita" and read at least once a year.
Does anybody know who Koroviev really is? He is often called a knight by Voland, and in the end it's said that he made a really bad joke and now is paying for it. I know couple of theories about it but none of them are very believable.
Has anybody read something about it?

[blp]

I finished the book over the weekend and there were no disappointments!

I am quite intrigued by the Master's novel. I don't know much about the events which led to crucifixion of Christ and people involved so had to do a little research into that. And I am really curious as to why Bulgakov wanted to bring in this relious aspect into the novel, which on surface simply mocks the Communist regime in Moscow.

I don't mean to offend anyone but do you think there is a possiblity that the Master and Margarita are references to Jesus and Mary Magdalene?
I agree with you, Monica, that this is an interesting depiction of Satan. One almost likes him... And the notion that Satan only gives a push to those who already have 'it' in them... Sort of 'a push in the right direction'... Well, maybe in the wrong direction in this case :p

I haven't read this for a long time. I didn't see the Jesus and Mary Magdalene connection, especially since the characters end up [LOOK AWAY NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING] end up, as I say, living in Hell. (and as AC/DC, I believe, put it, 'Hell ain't a bad place to be')

I also can't give a definite answer about why Bulgakov would have wanted to discuss Christian subject matter, but can make a few guesses. First of all, since religious worship was anathema to Communism, the subject matter was subversive in itself. Whether Bulgakov was religious himself or not - the book suggests he wasn't in any traditional since - Christianity obviously had a longer tradition in Russia than Communism and he may have been suggesting that it wasn't going to be that easy to just sweep away the past. There's also a suggestion, particularly in the Pontius Pilate story, of how Christianity might offer a solution to loneliness that Communism faisl to. Finally, Bulgakov's ambivalent theological discussion also makes him a lineal successor to Dostoyevsky.

[Boris239]

I haven't read this for a long time. I didn't see the Jesus and Mary Magdalene connection, especially since the characters end up [LOOK AWAY NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING] end up, as I say, living in Hell. (and as AC/DC, I believe, put it, 'Hell ain't a bad place to be')


They didn't end up living in Hell. It's clearly said that they earned peace, not light or darkness. Just because Voland and not Jeshua is able to provide them with this peace doesn't make it Hell.

I don't think that Master and Margarita resemble Christ and Magdalina. Master is very far from perfect. It is said in the novel that cowardice is the worst of vices, and Master is guilty of it. He chose not to fight for his novel but simply to surrender and voluntarily go to asylum. And comparison with Christ and Magdalina is ironic because it is Margarita who saves Master( Like Margarita(Gretchen) in Faustus), unlike the byblical story.

Bulgakov wasn't too religious and didn't have problems with atheists. What he can't accept is antireligious soviet propaganda. After all he didn't come with the story of Homeless writing a derogatory novel about Christ from nothing.

[blp]

Sorry, Boris, as I say, it's a long time since I read it (and I don't have a copy here), but I have a fairly clear recollection of them being given a little house to live in on the outskirts of Hell.

[Boris239]

Checked it online- no mention of Hell. It is not said though where this little house was located, so theoretically you may be right. But I think it's highly unlikely

[Koa]

I don't get this book. At all.
I read it for the second time in my life last December, thinking that being a few years older and having a bigger knowledge of Russian history and society (which is said to be important to appreciate the book better) would have helped me... It didn't. It was a long drag struggling to the end, and I had been tempted to give up several times. There was only one bit that I enjoyed a bit more than the other time, that is when Margarita uses the magic 'cream' and all those crazy things happen... But still, it was generally boring. I'm not ever going to try it again. And I'm yet to find anyone else who doesn't like it...:rolleyes:

[Boris239]

Don't worry, Koa. I've met people who don't like it either. Although the great majority absolutely loves it.

[ZATISHYA]

Koa, believe in radiant future! ;-)

[Geoffrey]

well I went to my university library and found this title to be 'lost' but did find 'Diaboliad and Other Stories' by Mikhail Bulgakov. I really must say [having just started it and being only 50 pages in] that it is, so far, actually really good. I find how it is written to be extremely pleasing to and read and have been surprised to notice myself laughing out loud a good number of times.

Previously, the only Russian lit. i had read was Kafka [the metamorphosis and lots of his short stories] and have found that Diaboliad greatly exceeds any of that material.

[Koa]

Previously, the only Russian lit. i had read was Kafka [the metamorphosis and lots of his short stories] and have found that Diaboliad greatly exceeds any of that material.

Ahem... Kafka belongs to German literature... as he wrote in German even if he was from Prague which is now in Czech Republic but was part of the Austrian Empire at the name and in any case it's not Russia ;)

[Geoffrey]

You are 100 percent correct! My mistake. My mind really is somewhere else today. This book must be the cause. I wish I wasn't limited to reading books only in English at the moment! As a matter of fact, I'm looking at my bookshelf now and see no traces of anything Russian. [edit] Except for Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov which I just read. But I think that he wrote that while working at universities in the states. What a void I have let exist in my library!

[Koa]

Yep, and Lolita was written in English even if Nabokov was born in Russia.

If you're interested, we had a topic about it (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15297&highlight=lolita) not long ago.

[Idril]

I adore "Master and Margarita" and read at least once a year.
Does anybody know who Koroviev really is? He is often called a knight by Voland, and in the end it's said that he made a really bad joke and now is paying for it. I know couple of theories about it but none of them are very believable.
Has anybody read something about it?

The edition I have has a few notes in the back and it doesn't give a definative answer to the question but it does mention that "He is dressed like the shabby devil found tormenting Ivan in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov and certainly shares that character's impudent, over-familar manner." It also goes on to mention the musical connection to the character, that his other name "Fagot" means bassoon in Russian, although in French and Italian the name also means a silly person or a trickster and that at one point he is referred to as a choirmaster so I don't know if that helps you at all. :lol:

I loved this book! I knew it was going to be odd but I didn't realize it would have so much humour. What I like the most was how the creepy and funny went hand in hand, Woland or Korovyov or Behemouth would say something or do something that made you made you laugh out loud but a split second later it would hit you how incredibly disturbing it all was.

The only part that dragged a wee bit for me was the Pontius Pilate stuff. It never got to the point where I was truly bored, I guess a better way to put it is that there were times when I was very anxious to get back to Woland and his retinue but I think Bulgakov really did a good job balancing the two stories, he didn't dwell too long in one place, he kept you on your toes.

[Boris239]

The edition I have has a few notes in the back and it doesn't give a definative answer to the question but it does mention that "He is dressed like the shabby devil found tormenting Ivan in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov and certainly shares that character's impudent, over-familar manner." It also goes on to mention the musical connection to the character, that his other name "Fagot" means bassoon in Russian, although in French and Italian the name also means a silly person or a trickster and that at one point he is referred to as a choirmaster so I don't know if that helps you at all. :lol:

I loved this book! I knew it was going to be odd but I didn't realize it would have so much humour. What I like the most was how the creepy and funny went hand in hand, Woland or Korovyov or Behemouth would say something or do something that made you made you laugh out loud but a split second later it would hit you how incredibly disturbing it all was.

The only part that dragged a wee bit for me was the Pontius Pilate stuff. It never got to the point where I was truly bored, I guess a better way to put it is that there were times when I was very anxious to get back to Woland and his retinue but I think Bulgakov really did a good job balancing the two stories, he didn't dwell too long in one place, he kept you on your toes.

Yes, I've heard about this comparison to the devil, but I didn't buy it, because I couldn't think of a joke he is paying for. I, of course, kknow the meaning of fagot in Russian, and I think that Bulgakov wanted to combine it with its French meaning intentionally. In general it's very intgeresting to notice the musical connections in the novel- there are really a lof of characters named after the famous composers: Stravinsky, Rimsky, Berlioz.

Going back to Koroviev, the most believeable version I've heard is about some Albigensian troubadour who compared the death of Simon de Montfort to the dawn, i.e. compared death to the beginning of life.

In my book they mention Til Eulenspiegel, but I've read Charles de Coster and don't see much of a similarity between the heroes( except constant joking).

I'm glad that you liked the novel, it's one of my favorites.

[Taliesin]

You know, we've heard a theory that Korovjev is Dante.
Don't remember the calambour exactly, but it was indeed some sacrilegious play on words.

[Idril]

Going back to Koroviev, the most believeable version I've heard is about some Albigensian troubadour who compared the death of Simon de Montfort to the dawn, i.e. compared death to the beginning of life.


That sounds like a very good theory. At least it's connected with a specific joke and a joke that fits in with Woland's description. I really don't have enough knowledge of that kind of classical literature to even venture a guess on my own but that sounds like a real possibility.

I did notice all the musical references in the book but I think it's funny that for all those references, there really isn't much actual music in the book.

[Boris239]

I'm sure that you can find some calambour from the Divine Comedy, but Woland calls him "knight", and I don't know any reason to call Dante a knight.
I actually asked one of the professors at my college- she translated "M&M" into English. She didn't know the answer, but she always thought that thare was some kind of connection between Koroviev and Pilate. Pilate is asking Jeshua about the Truth, and he can be considered a knight. I'm not sure about this theory- after all Koroviev is part of Woland's retinue, when we see Pilate in the end of the novel.

[Scheherazade]

I don't think that Master and Margarita resemble Christ and Magdalina. Master is very far from perfect. It is said in the novel that cowardice is the worst of vices, and Master is guilty of it. He chose not to fight for his novel but simply to surrender and voluntarily go to asylum.This point was one of the things which made me think that Master could be a Christ figure: Jesus did not fight for his book/Bible either and he surrendered and 'went away'.
And comparison with Christ and Magdalina is ironic because it is Margarita who saves Master( Like Margarita(Gretchen) in Faustus), unlike the byblical story.Maybe here Bulgakov is offering an alternative or expressing a wish: That if Jesus had given in to his more 'humane' side, he would have found peace? Or led a better life?

I am still not sure why Pilate section was included but cannot help feeling that somehow there is a connection between Master's resignation and Jesus' capture.

[Idril]

I actually asked one of the professors at my college- she translated "M&M" into English. She didn't know the answer, but she always thought that thare was some kind of connection between Koroviev and Pilate. Pilate is asking Jeshua about the Truth, and he can be considered a knight. I'm not sure about this theory- after all Koroviev is part of Woland's retinue, when we see Pilate in the end of the novel.

But there is nothing funny about Pilate, there's no levity or humour there, he's serious and morose, there is a lightness about Koroviev(I don't know what spelling to go with here, my book has Korovyov but since you know the language so well, I'll go with your spelling. ;) ) and I think there is a sense of the opressive in Pilate, but, I did notice that they make the point of calling Pilate a Knight so maybe we are meant to connect them somehow.


This point was one of the things which made me think that Master could be a Christ figure: Jesus did not fight for his book/Bible either and he surrendered and 'went away'.

But I think that was the way he did fight for his book, by dying, that was how the Christian religion was born, his death sealed his book's fate, it made it a best seller. ;)


And comparison with Christ and Magdalina is ironic because it is Margarita who saves Master( Like Margarita(Gretchen) in Faustus), unlike the byblical story.

Well, just to be a devil's advocate here because I'm not sure I see the connection there either but you could make the argument that it was Mary who first comes upon a resurrected Jesus and it's her who brings him to the attention of the disciples, thus saving him from just another dead prophet's fate...that's stretching it a little I realize because Jesus didn't need to be saved, he didn't need anyone to intercede for him as the Master did but I just thought I would mention it.

Does Bugakov ever mention Mary in the Pilate narrative? It's hard to know what we're to go on, there are, of course, differences in Bugakov's version of the events and the accepted version so are we supposed to read into it characters or events that aren't mentioned but we know are supposed to be there or are we to assume that if Bugakov wanted us to think of these characters, to consider the events, he would've brought them into the story?

[Boris239]

Yes, there is nothing funny about Pilate- wouldn't that make his transformation into some kind of trickster more of a punishment? Having said this, I don't really believe this version too, but it's still interesting.
I'm not sure about the spelling of Koroviev's name- obviously I know how it's spelled in Russian, and I think Koroviev is the closest in latin letters.
Bulgakov says nothing about Mary in his book. In fact he doesn't mention any of hid desciples except one- Matthew Levi, and Jeshua says that he writes not what Jeshua says. Woland calls him slave.

[Idril]

Yes, there is nothing funny about Pilate- wouldn't that make his transformation into some kind of trickster more of a punishment?

That's a very true and a very good point. I don't know if I believe it either but it's certainly worth a thought.

I didn't think he'd mentioned Mary but I've been known to miss things like that before so I just wanted to make sure. I do wonder why he cut the disciples down to one...well... and Judas, of course, who was also considered a disciple. I suppose it made it much easier and it fit in with his story better, since Yeshua didn't make any big pronouncements or claims of his godliness, it would be odd to have a bunch of people following him around proclaiming him the messiah. It was much more intimate this way. And oddly enough it wasn't so much the fact that Bugakov went with only one disciple...and Judas...but that he picked Matthew, I would've guessed if you were going to pick one...and Judas...you'd go with John or even Peter over Matthew. Do you think he did that because of the connection he has with greed and corruption and ultimately, redemption because of his tax collector past?

[Boris239]

I did notice all the musical references in the book but I think it's funny that for all those references, there really isn't much actual music in the book.

How about the choir that couldn't stop singing? :lol:
And the orcherstra that was playing during Satan's ball?

Bulgakov's choice of disciple is indeed interesting. Obviously I don't know why he chose Matthew. But I think that Peter is more important in the Western Church and associated too much with papacy, and Bulgakov for sure wasn't catholic. And Peter is associated during all these events mostly with his denial of any connections to Christ, and I guess Bulgakov didn't think it fits to the image he wanted.
You remember that Jeshua says that Mathew writes not exactly what he says and people don't get the right picture. Maybe Bulgakov tries to show that the modern religion is based mostly on not correct teachings that were written by people who misinterpreted the real meaning. We see that Matthew doesn't really understands Jeshua's thoughts- the biggest proof is that he wanted the revenge on Judas. He is the preimage of future fanatics, who misinterpret the fundamental ideas of Jeshua.
Bulgakov wasn't extremely religious and surely didn't believe Bible word by word. His story is actually quite good and I would be ready to believe something like that. Even in "M&M" Bulgakov is not against atheism, but against violent antireligious soviet propaganda. His father btw was a well known religious philosoper, so he knew a lot about the "byblical Jeshua plot".
Jeshua's only disciple is obviously far from perfect.He is called a slave by Woland and he doesn't have any good reply for that. This whole scene reminded me when Stephen in "Ulysses" calls himself a servant of two masters: English and Italian, i.e British state and Roman Church. The figure of Mathhew never really interested me- I was always fascinated with the complex character of Pilate.

[Scheherazade]

But I think that was the way he did fight for his book, by dying, that was how the Christian religion was born, his death sealed his book's fate, it made it a best seller. ;)That would surely depend on one's point of view. :)

This would be a discussion similar to 'suicide: bravery or cowardice?', in my opinion. One can suggest that if Jesus stayed alive and fought for his beliefs, he could have persuaded more people and spread his word himself more persuasively. However, this is not a religious discussion so we won't go there. ;)

I personally still think that Master and Margarita can be references to Jesus and Magdalene.

[beer good]

And in a cruel twist of fate, of course, "Master and Margarita" wasn't published in Bulgakov's home country until almost 40 years after HIS death. If I'm not entirely mistaken, he never managed to finish it to his own heart's content either...? Life imitating art?

[Idril]

How about the choir that couldn't stop singing?
And the orcherstra that was playing during Satan's ball?

See?! That's why I asked about Mary because I so often forget or overlook these important points. And I do vaguely remember someone signing, was it Margarita, not anything staged or performed, just singing as she did her work or maybe I just made that up...I seriously don't retain details all that well. :rolleyes:


But I think that Peter is more important in the Western Church and associated too much with papacy, and Bulgakov for sure wasn't catholic. And Peter is associated during all these events mostly with his denial of any connections to Christ, and I guess Bulgakov didn't think it fits to the image he wanted.

You're right, I really hadn't thought about it that way. We have a tendency to think of the disciples as the people they became, not the people they were during Jesus' life time, I don't think they were particularly helpful or bright, that seemed to come later. When I think of Peter, the first thing I think of is his denial but I also think of what he did to establish the church after Christ's death, not necessarily catholicism because I'm not catholic, just that he was instrumental in laying the foundations for the Christian faith and I guess I feel in some ways Bulgakov was setting Matthew up for that job, that it would be Matthew that would carry on what he thought was Yeshua's message, the "rock" on which the church would stand and that makes me think Peter.

I still think John would've been a good choice but perhaps, as you said, he wasn't looking for a friend for Yeshua, he wanted someone a little less intimate, therefore allowing for the misinterpretations.

[Boris239]

And in a cruel twist of fate, of course, "Master and Margarita" wasn't published in Bulgakov's home country until almost 40 years after HIS death. If I'm not entirely mistaken, he never managed to finish it to his own heart's content either...? Life imitating art?

The whole life of Bulgakov is very interesting and tragic. Most of not Russian readers have only read "M&M", but he wrote quite a lot of plays and novels, worked in on of the leading Moscow theatres. He was born in Kiev, and was a doctor by education. His novel "White guard" is about the life of one family in Kiev during the Russian civil war. I like it as much as "M&M". There is a famous play after the novel "Days of Turbuns". It wa extremely popular in 30s in USSr, and ironically was one of Stalin's favorites. When asked, why does he like the play, Stalin answered that he was proud that they(communists) were able to win the battle against such people.
Bulgakov started his writing career as a journalist and soon moved to Moscow. He always had problems with the Writer's Union, that's why his description of MASSOLIT is far from admiring. The late 20s were a critical period for Bulgakov. All his plays were banned, he didn't have any work, his relations with Elena Sergeevna Shilovskaya(his future wife and preimage of Margarita) seemed impossible as she was married to a general. It is at that time he burned his first version of "M&M" which was quite different from the final- the role of Margarita was almost nonexistant.
And suddenly he received a phone call from Stalin. At first he hung up not believing that it was him, but Stalin called again. After this he miraculously got his job back. Ina c ouple of years he married Elena Sergeevna.
Bulgakov was writing "M&M" all the rest of his life. Even a cople of days be4 his death he was editing it. It was clear to him that to publish it in 30s is impossible.

[Woland]

There is a famous play after the novel "Days of Turbuns". It wa extremely popular in 30s in USSr, and ironically was one of Stalin's favorites. When asked, why does he like the play, Stalin answered that he was proud that they(communists) were able to win the battle against such people.


I always wondered why Stalin allowed that play to be performed while denying the bulk of Bulgakov's work.

[Boris239]

I always wondered why Stalin allowed that play to be performed while denying the bulk of Bulgakov's work.

Most of Bulgakov's works were certainly not publishable. "Heart of a dog"'s main character says that he doesn't like workers and the whole story is as antiSoviet as it goes. "Fatal eggs" are also at best questionable.

[Woland]

I did notice all the musical references in the book but I think it's funny that for all those references, there really isn't much actual music in the book.

Dont forget the scene when Homeless is running around Moskva at night in his underwear. The streets are filled with the blaring, omnipresent Yevgeni Onegin.

[Idril]

Dont forget the scene when Homeless is running around Moskva at night in his underwear. The streets are filled with the blaring, omnipresent Yevgeni Onegin.

:rolleyes: Yes, yes, yet another musical reference I forgot so please, just pretend I never said that thing about how there isn't much actual music in the book because obviously, I didn't know what I was talking about. ;) :lol:

[fati]

hi everybody!
i have just finished rereading M&M. and i enjoyed it a lot more than the first time since i guess i am more aware of the satirical intentions of the writer.

i saw there was a lot of discussion on the chapters about Jesus and Pilate. i think that Bulgakov chose to present another version of the facts than the official ones as a paralel to what was happening in russia at the time. he wanted to show how an ideology can develop on writings that distort the facts. the role of levi mathew was rather similar to the writers of propaganda of his time. i guess Bulgakov just made a paralel between two ways of developing a system of thought that can be very close to fanaticism.

as about Idril's comments about music. i am not very good at musics, but i sensed several techniques that are largely used in music if i remember correctly, like the points and counterpoints, or like the recurrent motives (mainly Faust in the book). but i am not very sure about this. personally, i saw a lot of musicality in the way the book is composed. but i also felt the book as being close to theater (a lot of dialogues, actions, and less descriptions).

[fati]

as about Bulgakov's plays, as far as i know, his plays were forbidden after the famous play Boris mentioned. and most of Bulgakov's work on the stage was merely some sort of subsistence artistic work with a lot of compromises to the political system.

[Boris239]

as about Bulgakov's plays, as far as i know, his plays were forbidden after the famous play Boris mentioned. and most of Bulgakov's work on the stage was merely some sort of subsistence artistic work with a lot of compromises to the political system.

I think that you are too harsh. If we talk about compromises, yes he did write a play "Batum" about the youth of Stalin. His compromises are probably the reason that Master in the novel doen't earn light, but only peace. He (Master and Bulgakov too) doesn't fight for his ideals, for his books.

But let's be realistic- not compromising authors in USSR at 30s didn't live too long. After all Bulgakov was only a human.

[fati]

i had no intention to acuse Bumgakov of anything. i lived for a short period in a communist system in eastern europe, and i know what it means to have to stand such an ideaology. i did not refer to plays actually written by Bulgakov. i just refered to his activity in the theater field, but not as a play writing. i am sorry if my statements create some misunderstandings. english is not my native language, so i can leave some room for confusion in my sayings.

i have all the admiration for Bulgakov's work, and even the fact that he wrote the novel in spite of the authorities was a great danger for him. people were put in jail for a lot less. and i think Bulgakov was very realistic in his approach to his own work. a fight against an extreme ideological system would not have gotten him to anywhere. i think his way of fighting was to continue writing, even though he was conscient that his works were not going to be published soon (which actually happened). i mean, as far as i know, he made the last corrections to M&M less than one month before his death... nothing can be added to that concerning Bulgakov's fight for his works. even though he had a certain feeling of guilt (just like the Master, or like Pilate), i agree to you. it is impossible to openly fight fanaticism.
so i am sorry if my post about Bulgakov's activity is read like an accusation. it was nto at all my intent. on the contrary.

[Boris239]

No need to apologize, fati. I understand that you didn't want to accuse Bulgakov, and after all he was not perfect, as we all are ;)

[Woland]

Its difficult for me to imagine the pressure NOT to write under that kind of ideological coercion. I admire Bulgakov and indeed all the artists that had/have to endure such an environment.

[bazarov]

I see you're Bulgakov fan :nod: :nod: .Yes, a great book!!! I also saw Azazello on forum :nod: :nod: :nod: Man, you're not alone :D :D

[Idril]

This man needs to be stopped!...article (http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/08/29/webber-margarita.html?print)

[Woland]

I like Andrew Lloyd Weber's work but I dont see this being a good match.

Put more succinctly: Please stop now

[aeroport]

I have mixed views of Webber, but this sounds ridiculous to me. Perhaps this is just because I seem to have this prejudice that seems to keep me from taking stage musicals seriously. I do not know what the general success rate is with novel adaptations for the stage - leastwise for operas. I did think Britten's "Turn of the Screw" was well-done, but I do not know that I can see Webber having that kind of depth.

[bazarov]

I'd like to see Azazello flying around the stage:crash: :crash: Is he crazy?:flare:

[Idril]

I like Andrew Lloyd Weber's work but I dont see this being a good match.

Put more succinctly: Please stop now

Hey, no one loves Jesus Christ Superstar more than me, seriously but Master and Margarita just does not lend itself that genre. I just don't see how you can adapt that story to a musical form and it not be cheesy and over the top. And how are they going to carry the thread of the past and present storylines going on. Can't you imagine that being incredibly confusing to an audience that hasn't read the book?

They couldn't even manage a good musical version of LOTR and as much as I love LOTR and I truly do, I can also acknowledge that that story lends itself to cheese and over the top scenes and if that can't work, how is something like this going to work? And while some of the scenes in Master and Margarita are over the top, the political satire is a little more subtle...oh, this just can't be good!

[Boris239]

It is incredibly difficult to make a good movie out of Master and Margarita, although there are couple of attempts. I'm not sure about musical or opera, but after all there exists opera "War and Peace".

[aeroport]

but after all there exists opera "War and Peace".

What does one even say to that? I'm in shock.

[Jean-Baptiste]

"Ambitious," yes. That is not always a good thing. I do agree with the general flow of this thread. What nonsense. This novel is among my favorites, and I don't see how, for one thing, that it could be done properly, or how it could ever seem to be a proper thing to do. Yes, he must be stopped. Maybe he has not yet been told that he's cracked.

[Idril]

I'm not sure about musical or opera, but after all there exists opera "War and Peace".

And how long does that last? About 12 hours? ;)

[Boris239]

I think that it lasts only 4 hours- certainly less than Wagner's operas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(Prokofiev)

[aeroport]

I think that it lasts only 4 hours- certainly less than Wagner's operas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(Prokofiev)

Oh, I see, it's Prokofiev. Suddenly I'm not so surprised.
Well, each of Wagner's opera's, at their longest, do not really far exceed 4 hours, but I guess the Ring-cycle comes to 14 or so. Seems to me that an opera-cycle would have been a bit more appropriate for Tolstoy, but I guess I really haven't seen it, nor even read the book, so I will hush up.

[Idril]

4 hours is still plenty long, although the fact that I don't care for opera probably hinders my willingness to sit and listen to it for 4 hours at a time. Although I would be interested to hear some of the orchestral peices.

I can actually see War and Peace as an opera, it's a very dramatic piece. I'm not sure how you could fit the whole thing in or if not, how you decide what to cut but I do think it's a much more natural fit than Margarita and an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.

[Woland]

Does anyone know if Bortko's Master and Margarita (the mini series that played on russian tv last winter) is available on a north american format DVD with english subtitles? I havent been able to find a north american format version or any version with english subtitles.

[Koa]

Eeer...I have it (copied) but with no subtitles, I watched only the first episode because I find it boring as hell (not a fan of the book either), it follows the book so closely that I can follow even if I don't understand 100% of the Russian, but it would be more exciting with subtitles... If they existed in the original (which I got in Ukraine from a friend so maybe there were no subtitles at all), they got lost in the copy, since my friend's one was a copy already and had no subtitles either...
I suppose you absolutely need the subtitles? Otherwise I could try and let you have it...

Uhm anyway...I actually doubt that such things are released in international formats (I would have never heard of its existence if I hadn't spent time in Ukraine), although maybe there is a version with English subtitles to be found, since it seemed a quite ambitious project...

[Boris239]

I think it'll be very difficult to find it with subtitles- after all it's pretty recent. I still haven't seen it, but I've heard not only negative opinions. Bortko actually isa great director. His "heart of a dog" is absolutely brilliant, and his another mini-series "Idiot" is also great.

[Elpis]

Does anyone whant to continue this discussion?
Please join:) (because I'm feeling like a " lonley person shouting in a desert")
Do U really think this novel is too much "mystic"??? I don't!
It seems to be one more "Gospel by M. Bulgakov".

[lisahead]

This is the best book I ever read! Used to be Crime and Punishment, now it's Master and Margarita. The cat is by far the coolest character in literature!

[amalia1985]

The cat is a striking figure, indeed, lisahead. Bulgakov is one of my favourite authors, and "Master and Margarita" had a deep influence to me when I first read it. It teaches a lot, about many, many things...

[lisahead]

My favorite novel was Crime and Punishment till I read this a couple of months ago. It made me cry- it was so beautiful! The Master's novel will haunt me always- I didn't like th Master much though. He was my least favorite character. A DVD with English subtitles is available on Ebay- I am going to get it. I LOVED this book
I could read Russian literature over and over and learn something every time. Just finished War and Peace for the 4th time-

[johann cruyff]

I started reading The Master and Margarita for the second time(the first time I read it I was really too young to understand anything) and right from the start,I'm noticing things I completely missed the first time around. Anyway,I have a question about a reference to Kant in the very beginning of the book. I'd quote it,but my version is translated to Bosnian,and I don't think I can find it in English on the internet. I hope you'll know what I'm referring to though.

The characters in the first chapter are talking about the existence of God,and they first mention the 5 proofs of existence(Quinquae viae) and how Kant disputed them. Okay,I understand it up to this point. But then they mention how he unwillingly created the sixth proof,the one that "Schiller and Strauss later ridiculed". This is what I don't understand,so could someone please elaborate this?What sixth proof,I really wasn't aware of this in Kant's philosophy(I'm by no means an expert,especially when it comes to him,but I do know the basics)...

[MissKathryn]

I was just wonder if anyone had read this book? I find it quite interesting because the book is about the devil showing up in Moscow, Russia and wreaks havoc in a town that doens't believe in heaven or hell. It sounds bad at first but it was a showing of Russian culture in the 1930's and the book was so accurate that it couldn't be publish in the authors lifetime because they would have killed him.

So I was wondering who else has read this book and what they thought of it?