Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Margarita Talk: Session 1
This week's discussion prompt comes from the one and only rolliefngr777:
Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita is well known for its use of symbolism and historic reference. As an American reading a translated Russian novel, do you feel that Bulgakov's symbolic and historic references were easy to identify/understand? What examples of symbolism and historical reference did you deem to be the most significant or interesting?
BONUS QUESTION: What are your initial thoughts and first impressions of the novel thus far?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My initial opinions/thoughts about the book are directly related to the accessibility of the symbolism and historic references, so let me begin there:
ReplyDeleteI began the book assuming it would be a bit inaccessible, and quite frankly a hard read (like those Russian authors so often produce). What a pleasant surprise to find that the translation is immaculate and the symbolism and (most) of historic references are portrayed precisely. It's actually a rather fast, and somewhat easy read! :) Certainly there are quite a few prominent themes Bulgakov conveys to the readers through symbolism (many of the symbols and allusions flew over my head, I am certain), but I will focus on the few that were of particular interest to me. I am specifically drawn to the use of color, numbers and the historic/political references that were very aptly conveyed through beautifully concise and fluid prose.
Bulgakov's use of the color black in the first chapter (Berlioz's frames on his glasses, Bezdomny's shoes are black) is straightforward. Clearly that dark color is linked to the devil/evil. I find the juxtaposition between good and evil to be a rather important theme in this book. Also the numerous times Bulgakov uses the phrase, "What the devil" was very interesting/comedic. His humor and cleverness made it so I had a hard time setting the book down. Such a phrase transfers throughout languages rather flawlessly, obviously. It was the transmitting of the humor I found profound.
Also, the notion of espionage in the Soviet Era and how clearly Bulgakov portrays the Era without being redundant or dumbing down the subject. He makes the notion of xenophobia clear without wasting too much time explaining it. Instead he creates a story and the reader feels the Stalinist Moscow rather intensely. He never directly mentions Stalin or communism, but one clearly identifies those as gross realities of the time: People are disappearing, the police are questioning people relentlessly, and there is an obvious privilege awarded to those in elite positions (MASSOLIT).
Lastly, coming back to how I am drawn to colors and numbers, I just love how Bulgakov creates the "unholy trinity" of the cat, the witch and Satan- just glorious! Can I also note that his humor is unexpected and placed in the most wonderful places throughout the first part of the book...love it! PS. Do all of you have a "commentary" section a the end of your edition? Love that too...
Fucker! I just wrote a whole comment and the interwebs stole it. Bastard!
ReplyDeleteHey hey, everyone, this is Paul, in Chicago. Christin sent me the link.
It's pretty funny that the epigraph for the book is from Faust, one of your other finalists for this reading.
On the references, let me just say I'm glad the book has notes in the back. Especially for the first two chapters, as there were several a page. Some are pretty common sense - Kant, the alternate spelling of Jerusalem, Tacitus - but in a few places I would have been lost without the notes. How Bulgakov uses alternate spellings of some of the names - Bar-Rabbin, Ha-Nozri - makes it confusing. Eventually I would have figured out it was Barabbas, but it was nice to know from the start. And it was immensely helpful when dealing with the ancient gods. Sorry, Mikhail, I'm not up on my Syro-Phoenician demi-gods. Osiris - gotcha. Marmuk - you mean that dog from the comic strip?!? Also, the notes on Soviet society and literary elites are very helpful. I never would have guessed the significance of the multiple stoves or a few other things - MASSOLIT, the taking of proletarian pen names.
One thing I didn't get was his use of the sparrow. It popped through Pilate's colonnade and then showed up in Moscow as well. Google tells me 'See Matthew 10:29, which reads "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father."' OK. A device Bulgakov used that I liked very much was Woland's different colored eyes. It give him a very sinister image. And of course the use of black.
As for my thoughts in general, the book is off to a great start. Despite jumping right into the life of Christ, the story has an absurd and psychadelic feel to it. Almost like a combination of Camus' The Fall and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: people appearing out of hazes in the air, fantastical visions, suspicious narrators. There's a sly, subversive comedic feel to his writing that's quite engrossing.
Through the first 4 chapters, religious themes are playing more prominently than the anti-Stalin, anti-communist stuff for me. There's obviously a current of mocking xenophobia (the first chapter being titled "Never talk with strangers" is a great joke) and Moscow's literary elite, but thus far that seems to me as more of a leaping off point for dealing with the existence of God and interpretting Christ's life. Although I supposed affirming the existence of god is anti-Soviet. That's one thing I liked very much, Woland's surprise at the unbelief of the two guys in the park. I'm very intrigued to see how the author will intertwine the Moscow narrative with that of Jerusalem.
One quote sticks out to me, spoken by my man JC, the prisoner. "These good people... haven't any learning and have confused what I've told them. Generally, I'm beginning to be afraid that this confusion may go on for a very long time. And all because he writes down the things I say incorrectly." Indeed, Jesus, be afraid. Be very afraid.
The symbolism in the first four chapters seems to translate quite well. As written before, the play with colors, phrases, etc. all seem to work in both languages, and give the strange, surreal foreshadowing that Bulgakov is working for.
ReplyDeleteAs for the story itself, I find it kind of a page turner, though I can't say why. I love how the story moves quickly, but it seems a bit chaotic and misplaced at times. This being said, the book was really catching stride at our stopping point so the verdict is out. I really like when the strange professor pleads with them to not deny the existence of the devil.
Other thoughts:
Does anyone else get irritated when a historical story is added to, or, in this case, recreated? I know this is the crux of historical fiction, but I'm not sure I'm a fan.
I forgot to mention the juxtaposition of the color white relating to good in the "good/evil paradigm" in my first post. Have you all noticed many things are described as white when referring to the poet? He can sometimes seem dense thoughout the different scenes in the book, but other times kind of holy...I don't know.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have a question for you all also: Is Satan as you imagined him prior to reading this book? I mean, he's manipulative and tricky and all that jazz, but I don't think he's all that bad...considering he's the devil and all. Don't get me wrong, he's an ass, for sure, but for being an entity without any consequences for his actions, he's quite mild.
As far as the story being a bit chaotic (on which I do agree, to a point), maybe the flow of time was slightly lost in translation. Also, I think the historal stories being added/retold helps skew that sense of time.
Cheers, friends.
The chaoticness and misplacedness of the story is kind of what makes it a page-turner and helps it catch stride. Like, "where the hell is this guy going to take this craziness?" Almost like watching Benny Hill run around in fast-motion (sorry, really lame analogy, I know).
ReplyDeleteI was just reading an interview with Orhan Pamuk, whose 'My Name is Red' I'm trying to finish right now. It's also historical fiction, set in 16th century Istanbul. Coincidentally, he says "The challenge of a historical novel is not to render a perfect imitation of the past, but to relate history with something new, enrich and change it with imagination and sensuousness of personal experience." That really speaks to me. I wouldn't really like a historical fiction if it was just a simple narrative, but using past events and giving them new voice, reinterpretting what the events mean, doesn't bother me; in fact, I find it quite compelling.
I agree, especially when the author uses a story from a religious tradition. They are rich in symbolize and can be applied in so many ways. I think it works quite well in this book.
ReplyDeleteI am totally into this book too. A number of people have recommended this book to me and I can now see why. It's a quick read and the pace of the story, along with the surrealist details, make you want to read more in order to figure out what the hell is going on.
ReplyDeleteBulgakov does a fantastic job of asking the reading to consider the state system in the Soviet Union without being heavy handed. He uses symbolism, historic references, and the ridiculous to draw scrutiny on the failures of state ideology and policy. But, as cadenning mentioned, I am sure that many of the small details elude me because I am not fully versed in the details of Stalinist Russia. That being said, I found it very helpful to quickly skim through what we've read so far in order to tease out some of those details.
I know that up right ape and rolliefng777 have expressed some misgivings about the Pontius Pilate chapter, but I found it to be extraordinarily powerful and full of symbolism.
I specifically liked the way Bulgakov used the anecdote of the trial of Jesus as a metaphor to help illustrate the lack of justice in the Soviet system. I envisioned Pilate and the High Priest as two bureaucrats who are responsible for determining the fate of criminals and dissidents and are bound to each other by the system in which they live. This can be clearly seen in the section where Pilate tries to convince the High Priest to commute the sentence of Yeshua. Pilate is a bureaucrat, but, unlike the High Priest, he has a sense of justice. I believe that Pilate's discomfort during hearing stems from his disillusionment with the Roman judicial process. This sentiment is expressed on several occasions. Early in the chapter, Pilate scoffs at being called a "good man." He does not want to be called a good man because he acknowledges all of the horrible things that he has done in his life, including condemning the innocent. This pains him and being called a "good man" only adds insult to injury. Instead of doing what is right and demanding that real justice be served, in this case the release of Yeshua, he plays his role in the system with "dead eyes"--he has lost faith in humanity. It seems to me that this is a direct comparison to life in Stalinist Russia where neighbor spies on neighbor and nobody has the balls to associate with those that have been ostracized by the system for fear that they too will be marginalized (and possibly killed). Pilate illustrates this point explicitly when he tells Yeshua that he will not challenge the Sanhedrin's ruling because he does not want to switch places with him.
Two details from the chapter highlight Pilate's personal affliction and both allude to life in Stalinist Russia. First, his best friend and only confidant is his dog. Second, Pilate feels completely trapped and, at the end of the chapter, imagines that he is submerged in water and starts to have trouble breathing. He is indeed in the ether and it is suffocating his soul.
As you can tell, I loved this chapter.
cadenning made some very good points in her last post.
ReplyDeletecadenning brought up two interesting details. First, Bulgakov describes Berlioz's glasses as being dark. Might this imply that he has -or, more accurately, had- a sinister view of humanity? Second, the use of light colors to describe the poet, who, I agree, represents some kind of holy figure.
Bulgakov's construction of Ivan's character is very interesting. Ivan is a poet and poets strive to find some universal truth in our otherwise complex world. The introduction to my book contains an excerpt from a letter that Bulgakov sent to Stalin that addresses this very idea:
"It is my duty as a writer to fight against censorship, whatever its forms and under whatever government it exists, and to call for freedom of the press...Any writer who tries to prove that he no need of this freedom is like a fish that publicly declares it needs no water"
So, it seems to me that Bulgakov is establishing Ivan as soul searcher who may accept the Soviet system, but who still believes individuality should be valued. I think this idea is reinforced by the fact that Bulgakov refers to the poet as "Homeless."
Returning to Berlioz, I think Bulgakov tries to draw a connection between him and the High Priest. They are both bureaucrats responsible for suppressing individual expression (truth / humanity). Thus, Berlioz did not heed Pilate's warning and, consequently, the streets were filled with blood.
Ok.......I'm reading all these wonderful responses and I'm wondering how many of us have read footnotes or notes about the book. I admit I have read a few notes about the book, but even so, I can not say I am drawing the same symbolism from this book. I just wonder, Is it not too early to tell? I mean how can we draw parallels from Jesus to the Soviet System so quickly? I know there is the obvious answer, "they are in the same book so they must be related.." but I simply wonder if we are pulling the trigger too quickly. Would love to hear responses....
ReplyDeleteI do not have notes in my edition. I did read the introduction to my book which gives a brief overview of Bulgakov's artistic career. Apparently, he had much of his work blocked by the state censorship apparatus who believed it might compromise national security. Ironically, Stalin was a fan of Bulgakov's work even though it was extremely critical of the Soviet system.
ReplyDeleteMy comments about the Pontius Pilate chapter where based on the toned set in the first chapter. I could be completely off base. It was just my interpretation.
I like cadenning's comment about the unholy trinity...very interesting. And, for the record, Bulgakov's devil is not at all how I pictured. I think that I have always imagined him to be more evil, sinister, and, well...devilish. That being said, he does conform to our notion of Satan as a source of temptation.
ReplyDeleteLike Up Right Ape, I'm very curious about the symbolism of the swallow. It seems very significant in the Pontius Pilate chapter. And, in chapter 4, Ivan dives "swallow-fashion" into the water. What the hell is Bulgakov getting at?
Here's what I found out about the swallow:
ReplyDelete"The swallow is any one of numerous species of passerine birds of the family Hirundinid, specially one of those species in which the tail is deeply forked. They have long, pointed wings, and are noted for the swiftness and gracefulness of their flight. The Swallow Christian Symbol represents the Incarnation of Jesus and the Resurrection, as it appears every spring to announce its arrival."
The following article describes what different birds symbolize in the Christian tradition:
http://catholicism.org/birds-are-used-as-christian-symbols.html
This interpretation of the swallow's symbolic significance would seem to confirm our suspicions that Ivan represents some kind of holy figure.
ReplyDeleteI think this novel is insanely rich with symbolism, and much of the comments from you cats were WAY over my head. There lies the beauty of this blog- to see what others are gaining, and we may be missing. This book is intense, and I am so glad we decided to blog about it...helps the process move more smoothly, at least for me.
ReplyDeletePS. I can't wait for Satan to really "temp" us, if you will. He is such a softy, ya know, for the devil and all.... :)
And, good call on noticing the use of the sparrow, Paul. Very interesting stuff. I feel like we could talk about each chapter for years.
Hello, I'm in late, so I suppose y'all won't see this. I'll chime in about birds, though. To summarize what we have: there's the swallow (Pilate's colonade, perhaps symbolizing "the Incarnation," as per the Catholics), the pigeon (when Yeshua is taken outside for a little priming by Ratslayer; a pigeon is basically a dove, and doves might symbolize the Holy Ghost, as per the Catholics), and finally the sparrow (spooked out of its roost in the linden, perhaps symbolizes the commoner, as per the Catholics). I am little wary of jumping to conclusions about the bird symbolism (after all, could you best describe a street and trees without adding birds? And Israel really is infested with birds, especially in the spring, as it's a migratory pathway between Africa and Europe, and the pigeons really do coo all the damn time in Jerusalem), BUT I think we should keep an eye on it. Bulgakov may or may not have had any interest in ornithology, but we know he knew something about Christianity and symbolism.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Although Bulgakov may certainly being using birds to establish setting and paint the scene, it seems to me that he has deliberately chosen the swallow to represent certain ideas/themes.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see a huge amount of hard to catch cultural references...though maybe I missed them. hah.
ReplyDeleteCh 1 - I thought it was interesting that the stranger, the Professor, appeared to have two personas both physically and in perception of his audience. Berlioz saw one character, and Ivan another and each clearly had a different impression of him. I thought the transition into the story of Jesus and Pontius Pilate was excellent - the characters debate whether Jesus really existed and then next we get a first hand accounting of what happened to Jesus which is necessary to show that the Professor was there and also, I think, to show how a story can play out a certain way and be interpretted in any number of ways.
Ch 2 - Pontius seems like an incredibly reasonable man even though he has a migraine. He wants to save Jesus and even considers taking him home with him. Pontius thinks Jesus will be able to cure him of his migraine and maybe his loneliless as well - what is ironic is that Pontius clearly beleives this, but rationalizes Jesus' behaviour and ability to sense things by saying Jesus is crazy. It seems the book is setting a precedent in the first few chapters of calling the difficult-to-understand "crazy." It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The birds - I think the sparrows had clear sybolism, but not necessarily sweeping symbolism - I think the sparrows represented the thought process and flow of emotion in Pilate as he dealt with Jesus. Perhaps Jesus is the sparrow - as Pilate thought of what to do the bird flitted about and figuratively caused damage to the cheek of a statue (as Jesus did to the Jewish establishment) then when Pilate decided to take Jesus home and spare him the sparrow flew to freedom (paralling Jesus' arrival before Pilate) and then when Pilate realizes he must uphold the death sentence for Jesus the bird materializes once again.
Pilate very quietly confers with a hooded man in a dark room - is this the Professor? Is this God? Is this satan? Is the Professor satan?? duh duh duhhhhh....
ch 3 and 4 - exciting and eventful, but also brings in once again the theme of someone you can't understand being crazy, and events you don't understand appearing crazy.
ch 4 had quite a bit of reference to Russian lit. Both Tolstoy and Pushkin are heavily refered to and I wonder if this is just for show or if there is a greater reason.