The Master and Margarita – 2 May
This somewhat challenging read gave us much to think about, and in some cases great amusement. A modern classic, this has been called one of the great books of the 20th century, and is often included on lists of must read books before you are whatever age/die (take your pick). However, like so many books which we’re all supposed to have read, or know, this is no easy read, but it is all the better for that. It is a treasure house of incident, story, joyful absurdity, spiteful self interest and greed, regrets and cowardice, self awareness and recognition, philosophical and religious query, full of vivid images and symbolism. Although several of us struggled with it, following our discussion at least two members determined that they would now go back and finish it.
Written in a 1930’s modernist style reminiscent of work by Pirandello , Ionesco and Brecht, the book, which was not published until the late 1960’s, has three main story elements. One, a satire of society in post revolutionary Moscow, with its favoured elites being taken to task, in ridiculous and sometimes tragic ways by the Devil, here called Woland, and his appalling and comedic sidekicks, in the form of, primarily, Behemoth – very large talking cat who walks on two legs, and Koroviev a sinister clown/entrepreneur. Another, the seemingly affectless depiction of, primarily artistic and entertainment, society presents fascinating glimpses into and observations on life in post revolutionary Russia which is seen to still contain many different classes of citizens. The third, the story of Pontius Pilate and Yeshua (Jesus), told by both the Devil and the Master. The former relating it as lived experience, the latter as a writer whose work is rejected as entirely out of keeping with the sensibilities and values of an officially atheist culture.
The different stories, numerous characters, and avant-garde style can make it tricky to get to grips with. The introduction and notes on the text where helpful here. However it is intriguing, and for some the Pilate story provided the way into the book, presenting interesting historical points and an empathetic character which many of the Muscovites were not. Despite this many of the episodes with the Devil and his sidekicks are full of a frenetic idiocy and joy, and scenes such as after the clothes exchange at the theatre, Margarita smashing up the apartment, the riot in the foreign food shop, and money changing can be laugh out loud funny. There is also a wealth of realistic and interesting detail about daily life, from the Bunsen burners of shared kitchens and the accommodation shortage, to the realistic responses of the doctors and nurses in the mental hospital to their patients' apparently fantastical reports.
The somewhat detached, even matter of fact, tone makes discerning the author’s position on the many issues the book raises easier said than done. Bulgakov does not offer us a clear view about religion, the nature of goodness, and its opposite, and the relationships between these themes and atheism, communism and morality, nor for that matter does the devil. Are the readers being asked to defend religion, or is this a philosophical exercise in what happens when you banish it? Interestingly, despite these questions there is no sense of nostalgia for pre-revolutionary Russia; people just want things to work better. There is anger that elite groups continue to get favourable treatment, which is expressed in the fact that it is the places where these groups gather, and their members which are the main targets for come-uppance at the hands of the Devil’s sidekicks. Nearly all the others who suffer as a result of money grabbing are the greedy, and the hoarders, very much in keeping with the soviet viewpoint and also a high degree of morality. The reader must make up their own mind.
By Karen
No comments:
Post a Comment