Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Margarita Talk: Session 2
Question for the second section of readings from cadenning:
Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyryov (pen name, Bezdomny)is a young poet who appears throughout the readings rather frequently and timely. We learn from the notes that his pen name, Bezdomny, means homeless in Russian. First of all, what do you think the translation of his pen name to homeless symbolizes in the context of the novel? And also, what does the story of Pilate have to do with Ivan? More specifically, how can you relate the place (literally and figuratively) Ivan is at the end of the readings to the larger story of Pilate and/or Jesus?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well alright, I'll get it started. First off, the salary slave, corporate whore in me loves that the devil is a consultant. Also, anyone else noticed that we're 1/4 of the way through the book and there's no master nor Margarita? It'd be like reading Crime and Punishment with no crime; Naked Lunch with... no, wait, maybe that's not the best example.
ReplyDeleteOur friend Ivan has had quite a day or two since the start of the novel. It's pretty hilarious that he's sitting in the looney bin while out in Moscow people are appearing out of thin air, being transported, documents are vanishing and cats are drinking vodka & eating pickled mushrooms with forks. I'd say that his transformation started in the previous section with his disbelief at Berlioz's death and the ensuing chase. It's worth noting that during this scene Ivan dove 'swallow-fashion' into the Moscow river (baptism) after picking up a religious icon in the apartment. He never seems to have a clear understanding of who he's dealing with, but there does seem to be some deep recognition even if he's not completely cognizant. Quite a different character emerges than that from the start, when he seemed to be impishly following Berlioz's anti-religious thoughts. Bulgakov even hints that Ivan's poem on Jesus is hollow.
At first I took Ivan's pseudonym pejoritively, but the further into the reading I get the more I read his name as pityable; not that it's Ivan's fault his moral/intellectual order is homeless, but that this condition has been thrust upon him by the literary intelligensia and absurd Soviet bureaucracy. Through this lens Ivan's being committed takes on an absurd commentary on Soviet authority. And in the scene where Ivan is talking to the psych doctor, the doctor refers to himself as a professor and the chapter is titled thusly. He seems to be taking the place of Woland.
Bulgakov does quite a job of developing the absurdity of the Soviet state throughout this section, interspersing fantastical appearances by Woland's crew to show the deference to authority and silliness of the whole order. The introductary scene at the restaurant, the doings of the housing block manager. He does this while Ivan appears lucid in the asylum, a nice little inversion.
I was a bit disappointed we didn't hear again from Pilate's narrative in this section, I am intrigued by that storyline, but I suppose Ivan is taking the place.
The baptism scene stuck out to me while I was reading this. Here I think the swallow is entirely deliberate (swallows don't dive into water, so he must have chosen the bird over pelican and grebe for symbolic reasons), and when he emerges from the water of course he has been reborn into a new identity, having lost his Massolit ID card. Given the descriptions we get of Massolit, it's hard to mourn the loss -- no longer a card-carrying member of this pretentious, stifling and over-fed organization ("in short, hell" -- chapter 5), his identity as a poet is perhaps reaffirmed, but his homelessness is reemphasized. I agree with Paul that his homelessness is a function of the Soviet system here; Ivan can't really be a poet within the system, he has to live outside of it if he's not to perjure himself (at least once he's met Woland and realized he's no good). This constitutes a sort of homelessness.
ReplyDeleteI think Ivan's reaction to Berlioz' death bears remark. Several times he is described as unable to act: "something akin to paralysis had occurred with Homeless," "...so struck by the cat's behaviour that he froze motionless" (these from chapter 4). This is followed by the heroically futile chase after the unholy trinity. I particularly like "paralysis had occurred with Homeless," because in that wording it doesn't happen TO Ivan, it happens WITH Homeless. Prepositions are notoriously unreliable in translation, but I wonder if Bulgakov might have phrased it to imply that Homelessness brings on paralysis of a sort, that a poet locked out of the recognized literary scene becomes paralyzed. (Then, perhaps, crazy?) That's a big stretch for a single preposition, but I like it and I think it fits with the general trajectory. At any rate, his first reaction is inability to act.
Once tucked away in the cozy little asylum, Ivan is invited to reassess his approach: the professor asks if Ivan is trying to get the consultant arrested, to which Ivan replies: "And how could I not be trying..." and later "But he has to be caught!" to which the professor replies "Very good, sir, but why should you go running around yourself?" I think this speaks to the ever-present problem of responsibility. Whose responsibility is it to apprehend Woland and get him the hell off the streets? What good comrade but Homeless has tried to protect his fellow citizen from this dangerous individuum? (thank you Pevear and Volokhonsky for that word) Perhaps his homelessness has enabled him -- compelled him? -- to act, in that everyone else is has surrendered themselves to the system too completely to act, although they know something is amiss (the housing chairman, the findirector...). And, the devil nothing: whose responsibility is it to stand up to Stalin or whoever (not me, thanks!)?
I agree with much of what has been said thus far. As Paul pointed out, Bulgakov puts forth a scathing indictment of the Soviet system by juxtaposing Ivan’s predicament with events occurring outside of the asylum. Ivan, who is being detained in an insane asylum, is one of the few lucid individuals we have encountered. And, as you have mentioned, this lucidity is a departure from the Ivan we are introduced to in the opening chapter. Ivan’s pursuit of truth was initiated by his “baptism” in the river. After diving swallow-fashion into the water, he reemerges only to find that his clothing and Massolit card-- his identity--have been taken. He is left with another man’s clothes, a wedding candle, and an icon. It is at this point that his search for truth begins. I may be digging too deep here, but I find it very curious that Ivan is left with an icon (of an “unknown saint”) and a wedding candle. The wedding candle is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, candles are used to find your way in dark places and our friend Ivan is certainly in a dark place. Second, this is no ordinary candle. It’s a wedding candle. Bulgakov’s decision to arm Ivan with a wedding candle may connect to a certain passage in the Pontius Pilate chapter:
ReplyDelete“At this moment a swallow darted into the colonnade, described a circle under the golden ceiling, swept down, its wing almost brushing the face of the bronze statue in one of the niches, and disappeared behind the capital of the column. Perhaps it had decided to build a nest there.”
I’m making this connection because we have established some sort of correlation between Ivan and the swallow. Now, the swallow “described a circle under the golden ceiling.” Among other things, a circle is symbolic of marriage, truth, and fidelity. The swallow makes this circle under the golden ceiling--under the eyes of God. Is Ivan’s discovery and use of the wedding candle symbolic of his newly found principles and his willingness to be critical of the Soviet system?
What do you guys think? Have I gone too far?
I think that it is important to note the way that Bulgakov initially describes Ivan's appearance. In the very first paragraph of the book, Ivan is described as a "broad-shouldered young man with a mop of shaggy red hair, in a plaid cap pushed well back on his head, a checked cowboy shirt, crumpled white trousers, and black sneakers." While this description may coincide with our notions of homelessness (particularly the overgrown hair and the crumpled white trousers), it also seems to suggest that Ivan could legitimately be classified as a member of the proletariat. I think that this point is worth examining.
ReplyDeleteAs we move through the novel, we notice that Bulgakov is very critical of the elite members of Soviet society. He makes it pretty clear that many of them bare no special skills or talents, in short they do not deserve their positions. The case of Ryukhin is particularly interesting. Bulgakov, through Ivan, implies that Ryukhin not only is a talentless hack, but that he was born into an upper-middle class family (kulak). Because Ryukhin is not a member of the proletariat, his poetry depicting the life of the commoner is contrived and his proletarian pseudonym is undeserved.
Ivan's pseudonym, on the otherhand, seems appropriate in both the literal and figurative sense.
Samson, I do not think you have stretched the symbolism of the circle and the wedding candle. I'm glad you put some sort of meaning to it, because I finished that scene and thought, "what the hell does an icon and a wedding candle have to do with anything??"
ReplyDeleteOver the course of this reading, I kept getting the sense that Ivan was being reborn...obviously the emergence from the water (sans identity card) standing out as the most evident proof of this transformation. But, overall, as I have said before Ivan somehow seems "holy", and although he appears to be crazy to the outside world, he seems to be such a lucid and progressive figure to me, constantly seeking the truth. Paul phrased it clearly when he said, "He never seems to have a clear understanding of who he's dealing with, but there does seem to be some deep recognition even if he's not completely cognizant."
I come back to one of my earlier comments noting how objects surrounding Ivan are sometimes described as the color white, to me meaning pureness/holiness. Also, coming full circle, I think it is interesting to note, as has been said before, that in the first chapter Berlioz tells Ivan his poem about Jesus makes Jesus appear too real. Can this be taken to connect Ivan to a Jesus or holy-like figure?
Lastly, you all did a great job of describing how Ivan is figuratively homeless, but am I stating the obvious when I say he is also, literally homeless? He is basically a transient, without an identity, in strangers clothes (or robes when at the insane asylum). Even the guy manning the door at the MASOLIT party was scolded for allowing Ivan into the gathering. He is in transition (within himself and outside himself) and clearly without a home.
Ok, while I still do not feel very qualified to speak on what we have read thus far, I am wondering about an alternate meaning to "homeless." By this I mean a spiritual "homelessness." His atheism has made him an extremely poor man. If you remember back to the first section, the devil practically begs him to believe in the devil if not God. Due to his unbelief, he has not picked a side, neither good nor evil. In a sense, he has not picked a home.
ReplyDeleteHello, Long time listener first time caller here. I find it very fascinating that even if a book is translated into a common language, the culture and time period of the novel still remain inscrutable. In a world dominated by dimestore fiction and reality TV, its refreshing to dig into a book that requires some synapses to fire. I love the way Bulgakov and many other greats in the pantheon of Russian literature infuse their stories with so many wonderful allegories and allusions. It adds depth and complexity to the characters and to the story as well.
ReplyDeleteWhite could also have an added significance in Russia. During the Bolshevik revolution, the counterrevolutionaries were called whites. Bulgakov even had a novel called 'The White Guard'. So that could be something. Or not. Ivan is described as times as wearing a red and white cloak or cape.
ReplyDeleteJust like Pontius Pilate!
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like rolliefngr777's comment about Homeless and his struggle to come to terms with his religous beliefs.
I'm about to start this reading, but wanted to see what was said first - is Ivan our Jesus character? Is he the guy that would be named "J.C." in American lit? With this in mind, I looked up the name Ivan. Its related to the name John, but comes from a Hebrew name meaning Yahweh is beautiful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_(name)
ReplyDeleteCh 5. I think Ivan is certainly Jesus just as the sparrow flitting with Pontius was also representative of Jesus. Ivan appears with the candle in underwear and has acquired a scratch on his cheek – just like Jesus on the cross. By the end of chapter 5, when Ivan is being carried off, he isn’t even in long underwear anymore, but now is “swaddled like a doll” – just like Jesus on the cross (at least the Jesus in icons…maybe he was completely naked when really on the cross.)
ReplyDelete