Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Margarita Talk: Session 3
This week I would like everyone to take a deep and thorough look at one chapter and report their analysis back to the group. In your post, you should address examples of symbolism, connections to on-going themes, and, more generally, the significance of the chapter in relation to what we have read so far. After posting your analysis, you should respond to at least one other comment in the thread.
Ready team? Here's the assignments:
Jared________Chapter 10
Matt S_______Chapter 11
Craig________Chapter 12
Paul_________Chapter 13
Matt J_______Chapter 14
Christin______Chapter 15
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In chapter 10, Rimsky and Verenukha try to figure out the truth behind Stepan Bogdanovich’s mysterious disappearance. The chapter seems to satirize the surveillance measures implemented by the Soviet state. The theater managers’ reaction to Styopa’s disappearance gives us a little glimpse into the minds of Soviet citizens and how they might try to rationalize the disappearance of a friend, colleague, or acquaintance. Although they know that people are occasionally picked up by the state, often without justification, this possibility does not even enter their mind. Instead, they attempt to make sense of the situation by concocting unlikely scenarios to justify Styopa’s absence. They receive a series of telegrams indicating that Styopa is in Yalta. Both men know this to be impossible, for Rimsky had spoke to Styopa earlier that day on the telephone and Styopa had stopped by the theater the day before. Yet, they continue to rationalize the situation. At one point, Rimsky speculates that Styopa had travelled to Yalta by super jet. Their dogged determination to find an acceptable explanation for Styopa’s disappearance eventually gets them into trouble. When Verenukha disregards the warning to stay away from the telegraph office, he is met confronted by the unholy trinity, beaten, and abducted. The events that occur in this chapter, including Verenukha’s ultimate fate, offer biting commentary on Soviet totalitarianism and the consequences paid by those that refused to accept the official line as fact/ reality.
ReplyDeleteI think it is also interesting to note which characters are confronted by Woland and how their response is tied to their fate. In each instance, Woland either offers some sort of temptation or exposes the failure of an individual to avoid temptation in the past:
ReplyDeleteBefore banishing Styopa, Koroviev accuses him of “behaving like a dreadful swine lately. Drinking, having affairs with women on the strength of their position in the theater, not doing a stitch of work and really incapable of doing any, since they don’t know the first thing about the job.”
Nikanor Ivanovich accepts the bribe from Koroviev in order to secure tenancy in his building. When he is later questioned by the police, Nikanor admits this was not an uncommon practice for him.
The women who accept Woland's offer to trade in their old clothes for the newest and most fashionable find themselves naked (exposed) in the streets when the show is over.
Berlioz is one of the only characters that I’m a little fuzzy about. I can only speculate that he is confronted / killed because he does not believe in God/Devil (Good / Evil).
Ivan, on the other hand, does not possess Berlioz’s level of atheist conviction. As rolliefng777 noted, Ivan does not have a spiritual home. He is agnostic and redemption is still possible for him.
Master informs us that he was ultimately unwilling to pursue a writing career that was consuming his life. He gives up on the novel and throws it into the fire, even though his mistress (an incarnation of the devil?) has foretold his imminent fame. Not only does Master (another interesting choice of names by Bulgakov) refuse to let his novel consume / destroy him, he also gives all of his money to his mistress and makes no attempt to pursue either one of them later. Master is master of his fate and redemption is possible for him as well.
Rimsky seems like an intelligent man with professional integrity. He is not corrupt. Consequently, he is able to narrowly escape looming death by leaving town on a train.
I quite agree with the first 4 paragraphs about people's reactions to Woland. There is a definite sense, I think, of everyone's being somehow tested.
ReplyDeleteI'm suspicious, however, that the Master is not being held up as master of his fate. He seems like a rather passive character thus far, and I suspect that passivity is not what Bulgakov is after. Rather, I think the idea of responsibility recurs -- people make choices, exercise free will, and when Woland comes along, suffer some consequences for their selfish choices, as has been noted.
The Master hasn't acted selfish or greedy or self-important or fallen to any of the ridiculous vices portrayed in the Great Bureaucracy. However, he has sort of abdicated, by resigning himself to the small world of the asylum garden, not bothering to pursue...anything at all. In this, I think, he differs from all the other characters in the book, which might be noteworthy.
As for Berlioz, I'm not sure what his sin may have been... just being a self-important ass? It may be a clue that he shares his name -- Mikhail -- with the author. Anyone want to weigh in on why they share a name?
ReplyDeleteOther mysteries to get your juices flowing: Does the character Hella (the witch) symbolize some person or idea in particular? (And why the dissipation at the cock's crow in chapter 14? A basilisk is warded off by a cock's crow, but she is not described in snake-like terms. Is it just that she and the vampirish Varenukha are creatures of the night, or is there something else going on?) What is really going on in that seance? Why does Bulgakov have Woland choose a theater to make his appearance? (Woland claims it is just a way to assemble a mass of people, but Bulgakov wrote plays, so... why the theater?) Pushkin keeps showing up. Anyone read anything of his, or know what this might symbolize? He's quoted extensively at one point...(chapter 15)... these are some things I wondered about as I read, but haven't yet pondered into submission.
About Behemoth the cat: I'm reading in Borges' "Book of Imaginary Beings" that to support the earth God created an angel of immense size, but there was nothing for his feet, so He made a rock of ruby, but there was no support for that, so He made a gigantic bull, who stood on a great fish named Bahamoot [Behemoth]. "He placed, as its support, water; and under the water, darkness: and the knowledge of mankind fails as to what is under the darkness." (that's Borges quoting someone else.) Borges adds: "The fiction of the rock standing upon the bull, and the bull upon Bahamut, and Bahamut upon something else could well be an illustration of that cosmological proof of the existence of God which argues that every cause requires a prior cause -- so that at last, if one is not to on to infinity, one comes to the necessity of a First Cause." Or maybe Bulgakov was merely referring to the cat's immense size (and why a cat?). So much for Behemoth.
But I suppose Bulgakov wasn't thinking about that (although I like it); in the Bible, "Behemoth" is only the big ox-ish thing described in Job (40:15-24), and is plural of the Hebrew word for "beast."
ReplyDeleteTillie, I think you might be on to something there. I hadn't spent too much time thinking about the cat or the witch, assuming that they were embodiments of their typical connotations (evil, witchcraft, etc.). This website:
ReplyDeletehttp://cr.middlebury.edu/public/russian/Bulgakov/public_html/Begemot.html
contains a short character description of Behemoth and also speculates that Bulgakov may have been referring to the story of Job. In this story, Behemoth inhabits the barren waste land on the edge of the garden "where the elect and righteous dwell."
Could Master possibly represent the doorway or "key" to Ivan's salvation? He does appear on the balcony bathed in moonlight bearing the keys to the asylum. What are your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that Rimsky's encounter with Verenukha after the magic show took place after Rimsky had taken one of the chervontsy bills and placed it in his suitcase. Again, the failure to avoid temptation brings about unpleasant consequences.
ReplyDeleteDoes Master = Matthu Levi?
ReplyDeleteAlrighty, I'm a little late to the party this round, but better late than never, right.
ReplyDeleteOk, first off - chapter 13, our introduction to the Master, 'The Hero Enters'. I found it very odd how when the Master walked through the window, two chapters previous, he was described as having a voice "extremely like the bass of the consultant." But, anyways, the Master shows up through Ivan's window as Homeless is talking to himself about his experience with Woland, trying to rationalize away his meeting with the devil. The exchange develops more fully two chapters later.
The Master is immediately introduced as a helpless character, the way I read it. He has the keys to the balcony but doesn't leave cuz he's got nowhere to go. Not quite sure what to make of that - is it an indictment of the Master's weakness of character or perhaps more of a recognition that outside the asylum the devil is everywhere, inescapable? I was surprised that the Master was described as being youngish, late 30s and clean-shaven. I was expecting him to be some old dude with a huge Russian beard, but maybe Bulgakov intentionally throws us a curveball on this one.
Very early on we find out that the Master is a literary figure, familiar with Ivan's work and other members of Moscow's literary circle, critics n such. In one of the notes, the editor makes mention of how it was common practice in these circles to go after an author after his work was denied publication. That caught be off-guard as something crazy, adding insult to injury quite literally. It's through this section that it really hit me how much of this book is almost therapy for Bulgakov. You can imagine him as the Master, almost losing his mind throughout the Soviet ordeal, only keeping his shit together by putting the absurdity on paper.
Throughout the chapter we learn that the Master and his ladyfriend came together to write a novel about Pontius Pilate, much like the tale told by Woland. Quite an interesting turn in the narrative. Don't really know what to make of the Master divining Pilate's story, but I suppose we'll learn more about that later. Most of the chapter is firmly focused on how the Moscow literary scene tormented the Master. It is interesting to note that the Master says he doesn't have a name anymore. Something to relate to Ivan/Homeless.
At intervals throughout this chapter, other victims of Woland's hijinks end up at the asylum.
And now for something completely different, comments on what else is going on in this section. Samson's right on with how the characters' responses to Woland seem to seal their fate; tempted by the devil - who wants to bet this ordeal ends up lasting 40 days?
ReplyDeleteThe cock's crow is a biblical reference. Peter denied Christ, Matthew 26:34: "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." Perhaps the death-chick and Verunukha were scared off by the cock because Rimsky was not fully tempted; he did not deny Christ so the cock crow had a contrary effect?
Bulgakov does use the theatre as a device, as has been noted. Both in the seance and in Ivan's dream. My thought was that, besides Bulgakov's work in the theatre, this is used to speak to the mass hysteria of the Soviet system and the absurd public spectacle that it is.
I think the Master does very much represent the key to Ivan's understanding. Perhaps Ivan is meant to come to a middle road - not giving in to the devil, as so many of his countrymen do, but also not completely abdicating his role in society; or maybe he'll just sit in the nuttybin like the Master. I'm not quite sure how to understand the repeated references to Pushkin. Mostly, I end up thinking he's being invoked as a sort of proto-Russian literary figure. Almost like their demi-god, but who knows.
Is that Borges good? I almost ordered a copy a couple weeks ago but got something else instead. It sounds very cool.
I agree with Paul's observation about the book functioning as a form of therapy for Bulgakov. Like Master, Bulgakov threw his work into a burning stove after being denied publication. The decision to use the theater as the setting for Woland's show may be a projection of Bulgakov's real life frustrations. After having his work reject over and over again, Bulgakov became extremely frustrated and probably began to view art in the Soviet system as a farce (theater). As Paul mentioned, he also resigned to work in the theater at Stalin's behest.
ReplyDeletere: Borges
ReplyDeleteBorges in general is very good. About "The Book of Imaginary Beings" in particular, sure, it's good, too, though not famous. It's a compendium of imaginary beasts, as you might expect, like a modern, playful bestiary that is also literary. It being Borges, and listed as fiction (although it challenges notions of what "fiction" is), there are almost certainly a few "literary" quotes in there that are actually academics imagined by Borges (or characters found in obscure, fictional books) or references to obscure works imagined by Borges. This is part of the fun. (The English translation I have gives an extensive collection of end notes that gives real-life credence to most of his references to other writers...however, not all the references could be found, which is in part because Borges read so damn much, but... as I said, he could have invented some of them.) If you're the sort of person who likes picking around in random encyclopedias and mythology, you'll probably like it.
I think the parallels between the Master and Bulgakov are clear, as is the idea of the book as a writer's therapy of sorts. "A Clockwork Orange" was also one of these -- Burgess was told he was going to die within the year (he didn't) and proceeded to write a lot of psychological weirdness he felt like he had to deal with before he died. I think there is an intense creative space people sometimes enter when they're writing to release the pressure on personal disaster. As the book really starts to depart from the usual (this strange mix of reality, surreality, pure imagination and mythology), I think he's in that space.
ReplyDelete"he" being Bulgakov, in that last sentence. (I wish I could edit stuff after I press the button!)
ReplyDeleteonly the blog gods can do that
ReplyDeleteHey just want to let everyone know I was on vacation. I'm trying to catch up to where everyone is...
ReplyDelete“Master informs us that he was ultimately unwilling to pursue a writing career that was consuming his life. He gives up on the novel and throws it into the fire, even though his mistress (an incarnation of the devil?) has foretold his imminent fame. Not only does Master (another interesting choice of names by Bulgakov) refuse to let his novel consume / destroy him, he also gives all of his money to his mistress and makes no attempt to pursue either one of them later. Master is master of his fate and redemption is possible for him as well.”
ReplyDelete- I thought this was interesting because I looked at the situation between the Master and his girlfriend a little differently. I saw it more as she was encouraging him to do what he wants to do but that he was completely giving up. But to look at it in the light of staying true to one’s self, then you could also take a step to saying that those who stay true to one’s self end up in the loony bin.
________________________
“The Master hasn't acted selfish or greedy or self-important or fallen to any of the ridiculous vices portrayed in the Great Bureaucracy. However, he has sort of abdicated, by resigning himself to the small world of the asylum garden, not bothering to pursue...anything at all. In this, I think, he differs from all the other characters in the book, which might be noteworthy.”
- To make a connection to Ivan, the book opens with Ivan being a failure – he has written something that Berlioz doesn’t approve of and when Woland enters they are talking about what Ivan has done wrong. Also, Ivan later admits that his poetry is no good and promises later to never write any more.
I’m trying to make a connection between those in the loony bin and those out. So far, I’m seeing that those in the loony bin have tried, but ultimately failed to do something and those out have been successful, but only by cheating…Berlioz is the only death so far and I’m wondering if maybe he is the death because he was successful, but didn’t cheat – this could also be the link between his own name and the author’s name. Maybe our humble author isn’t so humble.
_______________________________
The idea of Behemoth referring to Job is hard for me to wrap my mind around. Isn’t Job about a guy who just sits about complaining and doesn’t do anything – maybe that is the commentary. The Russian people do a lot of complaining but take no action. This could be a link between those in the loony bin as well. Ivan took action in trying to hunt down Woland. The Master took action in trying to get published, and then later took further action in burning his book. But then why Bengalsky?
__________________________________
“Not quite sure what to make of that - is it an indictment of the Master's weakness of character or perhaps more of a recognition that outside the asylum the devil is everywhere, inescapable?” – well said
“It is interesting to note that the Master says he doesn't have a name anymore. Something to relate to Ivan/Homeless.” – and Bengalsky lost his head.
_________________________
I noticed at the beginning that Woland had a triangle on his cigarette case and then later I think it was his watch...this is a symbol of the holy trinity. I don't know if this is to point out that Woland and the pince-nez and the cat are an unholy trinity, or if it is refering to something else. Whatever the case, there is something there. I think Bulgakov is making more of a connection between the crucifixion and the asylum, as in, the asylum is the modern day crucifixion. It is tempting to make a religious connection, but I'm thinking its a lot more simple than that - I think he's just saying that people who go there own way or are willing to think their own thing are persecuted, especially in the context of Stalinism and nobody being willing to take responsibility in that culture for fear of the repercussions it will bring.
What about Nikanor Ivanovich? He is guilty of accepting bribes and ends up in the asylum as well.
ReplyDeleteI haven't come up with a definitive link between the people who end up in the asylum...If it is our heros who do, then I don't think that they are defined as heros based on common ideas of "good" or "bad" - Nikanor Ivanovich may have taken bribes, but maybe in the context he did it, he did the right thing. I don't know. It would be interesting if someone sat down and made a list of the ppl in the asylum and the traits that link them and the traits that separate them.
ReplyDelete