The Master and Margarita

[Ecurb]

I finished Mikhail Buglakov’s “The Master and Margarita” recently. Buglakov finished the novel in 1939, a year before his death of kidney failure. However, Stalinist Russia was not prepared to accept it, and it was not published until the ‘70s. It’s fabulous.

The plot alternates between modern Moscow and ancient Jerusalem. Moscow is visited by Professor Woland (Satan) and his cohorts – Koroviev, Behemeth (a huge cat), and Azazello. They set themselves up in the theater as magicians, and wreak havoc among the literary elite (as well as their audiences, at one point they rain money down on the theater, and the money, once it is spent, disintegrates).

Woland also tells the story of Pontius Pilate’s adventures in Jerusalem, including the Crucifixion of Yeshua Ha-Nozri. Strangely, this story has been accurately recounted in a novel by “The Master”, who now resides in an insane asylum. The Master’s lover is Margarita, who thinks he is dead because he disappeared (after burning his manuscript – although Satan is able to produce it, saying, “Manuscripts don’ t burn.”).

The first ‘book” of the novel involves the shenanigans of Satan and his comedy troop; in the second “book” Margarita makes her appearance, and becomes a witch, flying around on her broomstick and presiding over a Witch’s ball.

Modern Russia and ancient Jerusalem are compared and contrasted. Strangely (perhaps) the events in Jerusalem are recounted in a straight-forward, naturalistic way. Modern, atheistic Russia is a supernatural, magical place – ancient Jerusalem is prosaic and political. The novel is a fantasy, a satire, and a commentary on good and evil, courage and cowardice, and innocence and guilt. It is also a novel about stories and novel-writing. Matthew the Levite (the gospel writer) shows up, both in ancient Jerusalem and modern Moscow.

Book one is a difficult to get through – the Russian names are confusing, and the action is surrealistic. Once Margarita makes her appearance in book two, however, the novel takes off on a magical flight (just like Margarita does on her broomstick). The novel is influenced by Faust (Gretchen in Goethe’s Faust is Marguerite de Valois). Woland’s lackey Azazello may suggest the rebel angel Azazel.

I highly recommend it.

[OrphanPip]

Ya it's a great novel, there's a wonderful playfulness to it as well, despite the serious concerns it addresses about Stalinist Russia.

[Svidrigailov]

Another eye-catching dose of commentary on this pillar of Russian twentieth century fiction, serving to reprimand me for still not having read it. I like the way you gracefully trace an overview of the book's structure, whilst letting your enthusiasm speak for itself in your observations of certain themes. But I had to skim over sections, because I want to dive in with a cloudy notion of what to expect, and preserve the surprise. This month I hope to plug this hole in my literary education.

Interesting choice of phrase for poll option four, given that Bulgakov's freedom once hung precipitously on the outcome of a phone call with Stalin. Milkhail almost talked himself into a construction job on the White Sea Canal with a defensive letter to the state, bemoaning the censorship and criticism he'd been subjected to. This earned a call from Josef, who was arguably finagled into guaranteeing Bulgakov's liberty when the writer asserted his loyalty to the homeland. Our novelist was given to understand that Stalin would call again, to arrange a face-to-face, but even though this never happened I expect the phone cord remained in situ for the next few years!

[Aylinn]

One of the best novels I have ever read. It is simply marvellous in its weirdness :devil:

[Prince Smiles]

Ecurb,

a nice review.

I gather that you preferred the second part of the book, which is the part that interestingly seems to draw the most negative criticism.
Personally I adore the first part of the novel.

I can quite understand your confusion with the names and patronyms. If you ever (and I am sure you will) decide to re-read the novel, you will perhaps find yourself less worried about who is who and enjoy the proceedings more.

Which translation did you read? I have read several different translations, and although the one by Michael Glenny is incomplete due to the fact that it was from a censored text, it is my favorite.

I thought I'd go ahead and post a pic of my favourite M&M book cover.

Here with have my well-thumbed Mirra Ginsburg translation:

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd74/BigRedPaul/IMG_2283.jpg

Behemoth is cutting a dashing figure, is he not?

[Buh4Bee]

Nice review, I'll add it to my Kindle after I finish The Beautiful and the Damned.

[Anton Hermes]

A wild, wonderful book. Nice review!

[Lokasenna]

It's the favourite novel of one of my housemates, and she's been prodding me to read it for a while now. I really must, as it sounds right up my alley.

[Kafka's Crow]

I finished listening to the audiobook earlier this week. The difficulty with Russian names increases many times when you are listening to the Audiobook. I preferred the second part as well. It starts off a bit slow but things start happening very soon and by the time the reader reaches Part Two, he is well used to the supernatural and the interlacing of stories within the main narrative.

http://pixhost.me/avaxhome/f8/4e/00114ef8_medium.jpeg

[neilgee]

I've already said that this is my favourite novel in the world (so far).

The contrast between the scenes in the holy land where you, the reader, could almost feel the strength of the sunlight, that image of the flies, extraordinary writing moment by moment, literature at it's best, if ever a novel took me to a different place as I was reading it it was this one; the contrast between that and the absurdity of the scenes set in Russian society that this book was Bulgakov's revenge upon, almost cartoon-like and yet hilarious. It still made me giggle just reading the synopsis in post one.

Every time I mention this novel I always credit Bulgakov's widow (the original Margarita) who hid his manuscript in a drawer until Stalin and Stalinist-reality was dead and risked imprisonment by doing so. She is one in a great tradition of Russian literary widows without whom we wouldn't have some of the great works we have today.

As Svidrigailov says Stalin did personally interfere in Bulgakov's career but the biography I read said something different, about him getting B a job in a theatre as a writer but B continually having his manuscripts rejected because they didn't toe the "Stalinist-reality" line (as opposed to social-reality, which most people called it at the time, a term that has subsequently been rejected by some commentators because what was actually happening in Russia had so little relevance to solialism) and eventually he was sacked and left jobless. Stalin was essentially a bully.

The reason it got personal between Stalin and Bulgakov was that B wrote Stalin's favourite play (the days of the Turbins). Stalin loved that play so much he was not amused when he found the play had been taken out of the theatre reportoire as not fitting in with Stalinist-reality guidelines and ordered it put back in production, no doubt firing people left, right and centre just for following his government's instructions.

B could never replicate whatever had so appealed to Stalin in the Turbin's play and he suffered as a result.

Turbin's was a very early play in B's career, I've read it and can't make much of it, it's not really that surprising that B outgrew an audience of Stalin's mental stature and went on to write superior things, but if the audience who could only appreciate Turbins and not the writing that came later happened to be in his country's dictator, well, the odds were stacked against him, to say the least.

But at least the suppression of B's talents led to the book in question, every cloud has a silver lining, though I can't help wishing B had just been allowed to flourish in a free society that would have appreciated his talents.

Incidentally, the difference between part one and two is exacerbated by the fact that part two was never revised as part one was. Apparently B lost heart and didn't think there was any point in investing the time to revise part two.

Who can blame him?

[WyattGwyon]

The reason it got personal between Stalin and Bulgakov was that B wrote Stalin's favourite play (the days of the Turbins) . . .
Turbin's was a very early play in B's career, I've read it and can't make much of it, . . .

A Turbin family features prominently in Bulgakov's early novel, The White Guard. I haven't read the play, so I don't know if there is any connection beyond the name. The novel, however, is excellent, though in a completely different vein than The Master and Margarita.

[Eiseabhal]

The White Guard and A Country Doctor's Notebook are superior in every way to The Master. The play is apparently based on the novel. I find it hard to understand how Stalin could have enjoyed it if it is as sympathetic to the anti-communist forces as the novel is. I'm afraid the M&M was a damp squib for me.