Novela con innumerables recovecos y múltiples interpretaciones e imposible de abarcar aquí (o simplemente inabarcable). Pero sirvan estas notas para intentar animar a su lectura que estoy seguro que entusiasmará a más de uno de los que por aquí transitan.

Los atractivos son muchos. Para empezar, disfrutaremos de varios y muy distintos estilos literarios. La farsa centrada en el diablo, Woland, y su comitiva, es una sátira grotesca y justiciera de la situación política e intelectual rusa, con un lenguaje y tono propio de un cuento infantil y de ritmo trepidante; el drama histórico de la muerte de Jesús, despojado de toda simbología cristiana y alejado del relato bíblico, que concentran uno de los leitmotiv del libro, la cobardía como el más grande de los defectos del hombre, narrado de una forma realista, con un estilo literario más cuidado, una gran atención por el detalle y de ritmo mucho más pausado; y, por último, el lirismo y la poesía de la bella historia de amor entre el maestro y Margarita que ejemplifican otros dos leitmotiv de la novela, la misericordia y la leyenda de Fausto.

La novela, que tiene una lectura superficial entretenidísima, está repleta de simbología y sujeta, por tanto, a la interpretación del lector, pero lo que no está abierto a discusión es la indudable representación de la sociedad rusa del momento y la crítica a su intelectualidad, ambas sujetas a esa terrible acusación de cobardía. Las “indicaciones” que da el burócrata literario al artista para la escritura de su obra, la prudencia hacia los extranjeros que son recluidos en un hotel especial, las viviendas comunales, la misma emisora de radio en todas ellas, los privilegios de las clases intelectuales y dirigentes, las desapariciones repentinas… por referirnos solo a los capítulos iniciales, son una buena muestra de ello. Y en el centro de este paisaje está el homo soviéticus, ese producto del comunismo, ese “hombre nuevo” destinado a alcanzar nuestro histórico destino.

Woland, el diablo cojuelo de la literatura rusa, se pregunta: “¿Habrán cambiado en su interior estos ciudadanos?” Y se responde:

n   “son como todas las personas. Les gusta el dinero, pero eso siempre fue así… La humanidad ama el dinero, no importa de qué esté hecho, si de piel, de papel, de bronce o de oro. Bueno, son frívolos… Pero ¿y qué? A veces la misericordia también llama a sus corazones…”.n

El bien y el mal se aúnan y son inseparables:

n  “¿Qué haría tu bien si no existiera el mal y qué aspecto tendría la tierra si desaparecieran las sombras? Los hombres y los objetos producen sombras. Ésta es la sombra de mi espada. También hay sombras de árboles y seres vivos. ¿No querrás raspar toda la tierra, arrancar los árboles todo lo vivo para gozar de la luz desnuda? Eres un necio.”n

Se podría decir que Bulgakov no creía en ese “hombre nuevo” que controlaría su destino y conseguiría esa sociedad eternamente justa, libre y próspera. Pero, ¿se desacredita únicamente el intento soviético o se impugna su posibilidad en todo caso? No está claro. Otro personaje, Yoshúa Ga-Nozri, el Jesús bulgakiano, defiende ante Pilatos lo irremediable de esos dos objetivos comunistas:

n  “cualquier autoridad es una violencia sobre los hombres y llegará el día en que no existirá el poder de los césares ni ningún otro. El hombre entrará en el reino de la verdad y de la justicia donde no será necesario ningún poder.” n

Y ello gracias a que

”No hay hombres malos en la tierra.”

El lector tendrá que dilucidar la cuestión por su cuenta. Yo solo digo que:

El Maestro y Margarita es imaginativa, venenosa, sugerente, inagotable, divertida, una de esas obras provistas de esa magia especial que les confiere un carácter único y las hace inolvidables. Que el diablo me lleve si miento.

Three days of devilish havoc-wreaking leave many Muscovites reeling for decades.

Starting with an entirely wholesome theological argument (well, monologue really), the reader finds themselves dragged into city-wide manhunts, through horrific magic shows, cleverly disguised bouts of trickery, and lots of fake money showers, all culminating with an outlandish party.

Should the reader get tired of all the excitement, the alternate retellings of Jesus Christ's last days on Earth, make for interesting intermissions.



This 400-page equivalent of a high-speed chase, had me utterly riveted and glued to my Kindle these past few days. Most of the time I could barely do anything more than hold on, hoping to at least decipher the most superficial layers of the story. Still, sometimes I managed to get a glimpse of some deeper concerns, allowing myself to ruminate the merits of an ethical dilemma or two.

Attempting to match my long-forgotten Bible studies with the people from Pontius Pilate's story, was quite rewarding. I was especially delighted imagining Yeshua Ha-Nozri's reaction to reading some of Matthew Levi's more outlandish depictions of events.

On the whole, I don't really have the necessary words to do this book real justice, nor do I want to. Excessive literary analysis would only decrease its enjoyment value. So let's just leave it at THIS. WAS. SUCH. FUN!
It is my sincere hope that should anyone be compelled to check out the story based on this review, they will get to enjoy the story in their own personal way.



While I did get the many (not so) veiled references of woe be to you, if you dared to step out of the norm in Stalinist Russia, I'm not sure that I quite got all the subtle character references. I'm sure I must've missed quite a few, such as the real counterparts of the variety theater management, or to the many shady guests from Satan's party. The only exception was the Master, who was presumably Bulgakov himself. And even there I have vague doubts...

Score: 4/5 stars

As a rule, I rarely touch the classics. They remind me way too much of my school days when I almost never managed to express a personal opinion without being extensively lectured for veering away from the ministry approved interpretation.



That said, my experience reading The Master and Margarita was great. I loved every single one of the mad dashes through 1930s Moscow, I was riveted by the spectacle that horrifying magic acts presented, and I often found myself laughing out loud at many of the more absurd conversations. My only complaint would be that Pontius Pilate's overlong philosophical discourses bored me, but then that's just me with my philistine tastes.

n  
n  Sign Warns Against Talking to Satann

The Master and Margarita is set in Moscow of the 1930s and consist of three main story lines, 1)Pontius Pilates, and the crucifixion of Jesus; 2)Moscow in the 1930s under Stalin; and 3) a love story of the Master and Margarita (probably can be regarded as autobiographical elements of the author's life written into the novel.) Philosophy, history, politics and religion is woven into the vibrant life of the Muscovites at the time. The weaknesses and sins are exploited while an energetic debate around the existence of God, and in particular, Jesus, is raging.

I am including the blurb here in a spoiler to shorten the review.
n   Mikhail Bulgakov's devastating satire of Soviet life was written during the darkest period of Stalin's regime. Combining two distinct yet interwoven parts—one set in ancient Jerusalem, one in contemporary Moscow—the novel veers from moods of wild theatricality with violent storms, vampire attacks, and a Satanic ball; to such somber scenes as the meeting of Pilate and Yeshua, and the murder of Judas in the moonlit garden of Gethsemane; to the substanceless, circus-like reality of Moscow. Its central characters, Woland (Satan) and his retinue—including the vodka-drinking black cat, Behemoth; the poet, Ivan Homeless; Pontius Pilate; and a writer known only as The Master, and his passionate companion, Margarita—exist in a world that blends fantasy and chilling realism, an artful collage of grotesqueries, dark comedy, and timeless ethical questions.

Though completed in 1940, "The Master and Margarita" wasn't published in Moscow until 1966, when the first part appeared in the magazine "Moskva." It was an immediate and enduring success: audiences responded with great enthusiasm to its expression of artistic and spiritual freedom.n

The translators of this edition, Richard Pevar and Larissa Volokhonsky did a splendid job, adding much more depth by the footnotes and annotations provided. I personally found the footnotes, introduction and all other additional information really helpful. It changed my whole experience of the book.

This novel had all the elements to confirm it as a classic masterpiece. I spent days researching this book. The last time I was this intrigued by a novel was with n  n    The Noise of Timen  n by Julian Barnes.

Reading this book, regarded as the finest magical realism to ever come out of Russia, is like unpacking Russian Matryoshka dolls. Historically the satirical novel covers the Russian history in the the 1930s, after WWI, the 1905-, as well as 1917 Bolshevik Revolutions in Russia, and the establishment of communism.

The novel is written 'in code' (through metaphors/analogies) which resulted in thousands of literary sleuths trying to decode the message ever since its publication and distribution outside Russia. There are limitless publications and discussions about this book available on the internet for consideration. I am, therefore, not going to redesign the wheel here. Only a few thoughts.

Background to The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov:
Fyodor Dostoyevsky(1821-1881)already depicted the hell of communism and socialism in his famous works, after he was interned in a Siberian labor camp for four years for his involvement in "revolutionary activities". His first novel, The House of the Dead depicted the inhumane barbaric camp experiences. This lead to the prison camp literary genre of many authors ever since.

n   What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.~Dostoyevsky. n

In the 1860s Dostoyevsky turned his back on the utopia of communism and socialism.

Other Russian authors, such as: Alexander Pushkin(1799-1837); Nikolai Gogol(1809-1852); Anton Chekhov(1860-1904) and Leo Tolstoy(1828-1910) influenced world literature and became some of the brightest guiding lights of modern literature and play writing. The debate around the myth or existence of Jesus Christ flowed as a constant stream through many Russian author's work. Bulgakov just picked up where many others left off in The Master and Margarita.

The difference though is that Christianity was under brutal attack in the 1930s Russia, since millions of Christians were killed during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and in the aftermath, a slow but constant rise of rebellion was building in the Russian society against their perpetrators.

The Master and Margarita was one of those efforts to stand up against the evil horrors of communism and socialism eroding society at the time. Apart from religion being 'demonized', art, music, literature, family structures, private property, free speech, and everything else that served as the basic pillars of society were corroded away through prosecutions, relentless media attacks, and plain common robbery. The mental crushing by this arbitrary intimidation tax method was a central feature of the Bolshevik efforts to extract assets from the populace, as in polite requests that peasants inform the Cheka of the location of grain. (Source:n  BookTalkn).

High taxes strangled the life out of society. Intellectuals and writers disappeared first and faster than anyone else.

Mikhail Bulgakov(1891-1940) was a rebel, chopped from the same wood as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He passed away in 1940, after he rewrote this novel several times since 1928, and left it unfinished at his death at the age of 48. His wife would finish it. All Bulgakov's writings were banned and only received major recognition after Russian authorities allowed it to be published during 1966-1967 in Russia (although still heavily censored). The novel first appeared in the magazine Moskva in 1966. It became an instant success and was declared a masterpiece.

Why the book created a sensation can be explained in the historical period it was written. The anti-Semite sentiments in Russia played a role. The parallel history of the Crucifixion and 1930s Russia is no coincidence. At the time, a perception in Russia did the rounds that the Bolshevik Revolution was driven and brutally executed by the Russian Semites. All the leaders as well as 85% of the Red Army under Leon Trotsky, were Semites, who allegedly killed and persecuted an estimated 30 million Christians. Death camps were everywhere.

One million Bolsheviks fled to America and eighty thousand to Germany during this period when the White (Christian) army fought back. The Semitic refugees would become the supporters and biggest financiers of WWII and the establishment of Stalin in Russia. They were accused of promoting communism and allegedly promoting a Semitic reign in Russia. (They were also accused of spying during the McCarthy hearings in USA Congress in the 1950s. Their American and German spying activities were confirmed by the publication of the Venona papers in the 1970s). Thousands were sponsored and moved to Israel from Germany during the 1930s as well). This is the backdrop of this book, which confirms why it was so sensational and explosive.

Solzhenitsyn's highly controversial book Two Hundred Years Together(2002) became a hotly-debated item in international politics. Two Hundred Years Together is a two-volume historical essay by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It was written as a comprehensive history of Jews in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and modern Russia between the years 1795 and 1995, especially with regard to government attitudes toward Jews. (Source: Wikipedia.)

Religion is a perpetual and contentious argument in today's political arena. Nobody can deny the anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian sentiments at play in today's global politics.

Bear in mind: perception is reality. Different drummers different beats. History is written by different authors, with different axes to grind.

THE BOOK
Why this novel can be regarded as the unpacking of Russian Matryoshka dolls: Bulgakov condensed a multitude of different visions and vast areas of knowledge into one plot.

CHARACTERS
A complete character list can be found n  HEREn

I will only name a few:

1) The Devil disguised as professor Woland in Moscow (Stalin disguised as the Devil). Woland is reminiscent of Goethe's Mephistopheles, the devil character in Goethe's Faust, or Milton's Satan.

One very hot Wednesday evening in May, Woland appeared on the plain of Moscow's Patriarch's Ponds. The narrator in the novel described him as: First of all: the person described did not limp on either leg, and was neither small nor enormous in stature, but simply tall. As far as his teeth are concerned, on the left side he had platinum crowns, and on the right gold ones. He wore an expensive grey suit and foreign shoes the same colour as the suit. He had his grey beret cocked jauntily over one ear, and under his arm he carried a walking stick with a black handle in the shape of a poodle's head. To look at, he was about forty plus. Mouth a bit crooked. Clean-shaven. Dark-haired. The right eye black, the left for some reason green. Eyebrows black, but one higher than the other. In short – a foreigner.

His "high bald forehead" is "cleft by deep lines running parallel to the pointed eyebrows."

He met Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev and Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz who were debating the existence of Jesus in that moment.

n  'But allow me to ask you,' the foreign visitor spoke after some anxious reflection, 'what, then, about the proofs of God's existence, of which, as is known, there are exactly five?'

'Alas!' Berlioz said with regret. 'Not one of these proofs is worth anything, and mankind shelved them long ago. You must agree that in the realm of reason there can be no proof of God's existence.

Bravo!‘ cried the foreigner. ’Bravo! You have perfectly repeated restless old Immanuel‘s thought in this regard. But here’s the hitch: he roundly demolished all five proofs, and then, as if mocking himself, constructed a sixth of his own.’

'Kant’s proof,’ the learned editor(Berlioz) objected with a subtle smile, ‘is equally unconvincing. Not for nothing did Schiller say that the Kantian reasoning on this question can satisfy only slaves, and Strauss simply laughed at this proof.’

...'They ought to take this Kant and give him a three-year stretch in Solovki for such proofs!‘ Ivan Nikolaevich plumped quite unexpectedly.n

Professor Woland gave his occupation as a specialist in black magic. He was in Moscow to study the manuscripts of the necromancer, Gerbert of Aurillac (Gerbert of Aurillac: (938-1003), theologian and mathematician, popularly taken to be a magician and alchemist. He became pope in 999 under the name of Sylvester II).

2) Woland's entourage consisted of:
i) Korovyev (also known as Fagot, Behomoth - A large biblical creature mentioned in the Book of Job, 40:15-24), the large black cat at Woland's side. Berlioz who ended up being beheaded after his encounter with Woland in the park, described Korovyev as On his head a jockey's peaked cap, a little checked jacket, tight and airy too… A citizen almost seven feet tall, but narrow at the shoulders, unbelievably thin, and a physiognomy, I beg you to note, that was mocking.
ii) Azazello - from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch 8:1-3, Azazel is the fallen angel who taught people to make weapons and jewellery. A short, broad-shouldered man with a bowler hat and a fang jutting out of his mouth, and fiery red hair and a nasal voice
iii) Abadona - Abaddon in the Bible, meaning 'place of destruction',
iv) the witch, Hella - all serving as Woland's proxies;

3) Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev - a young poet who wrote under the pseudonym of Homeless.
Berlioz hired him to write a anti-Jesus poem. His interpretation, or perception of the events in the park, landed him in an asylum.

4) Jesus Christ, or Yeshua Ha-Nozr, Jesus of Nazareth in Aramaic (representing the persecuted christians in the storyline). From footnote:Yeshua: Aramaic for ‘the lord is salvation’. Ha-Nozri means ‘of Nazareth’, the town in Galilee where Jesus lived before beginning his public ministry.

5) Pontius Pilate, the main subject in 'The Master's' novel, which never appeared in print. First as a character in this novel, and later as a lost soul in the moonlight, trapped for twenty-four thousand moons in penance for one moon long ago;. We all know him as the governer of the Roman Province of Judaea (AD 26-36).

As one reviewer remarked: Nested inside the story in the dream in the novel in the satire of the communist state, we meet The Covetous Knight of Pushkin, who proves Stalin absolutely correct in the pure logic of his supreme deductive wisdom regarding the evil of private property.

6) Pontius Pilate's dog Banga;

7) Matthew Levi, the tax collector, who threw everything down, money lost its allure, and followed Yeshua Ha-Nozr ever since. From the footnote:Compare the Matthew Levi of the Gospels, a former tax collector, one of the twelve disciples (Matt. 9:9, Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27), author of the first Gospel. Again, Bulgakov’s character is not meant as an accurate portrayal of Christ’s disciple (about whom virtually nothing is known) but is a free variation on the theme of discipleship.

8) The Master...the author, a historian, who won a state lottery, quit his job and decided to work on his novel. He is one of the many dolls(layers) in the package. His novel about Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozr forms part of the plot of this novel...yes, indeed :-)

He also ended up in the asylum. The Master turned out to be Bulgakov himself, becoming a character in his own novel(only to be discovered at the end of the novel). Confusing yes. You have to read the novel to figure it out :-)
.
9) Margarita Nikolaevna - The Master's love-interest. She was modeled on his wife, Elena Sergeevna, who was previously married to a high-ranking military official, who for some time, apposed her wish to leave him for the writer, leading Bulgakov to think he would never see her again.

10) The sun and moon! Particularly the FULL MOON ...

When God created light, the first shadow was born ~ Anonymous

These celestial bodies are the leitmotif, connecting all the elements in the book.

n  n    "What would your good be doing if there were no evil, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it? After all, shadows are cast by objects and people. There is the shadow of my sword. But there are also shadows of trees and living creatures. Would you like to denude the earth of all the trees and all the living beings in order to satisfy your fantasy of rejoicing in the naked light? You are a fool." Chapter 29n  n

There is good and evil in everyone. Even Satan had his moments.

I recommend this novel to anyone: read the book, indulge in the informative footnotes, introduction and appendix, as well as the plethora of other reviews and discussions of this book, discover the utter magic and powerful content there of. It is as much an exhausting read as it is a fascinating, well-written, colorful ode to Moscow.

As magic realism, it delivers on the perpetual debate between believers and non-believers of religions. The battle has been raging for centuries and will probably continue ad infinitum... yes, so help us God. Oh the irony!

Bulgakov summarized his perceptions of history and the battle between good and evil in people's collective as well as individual consciousness.

While Moscow tried to canonize their own heroes and ideologies of their time and place, and debunk the myths and religious believes of the population, the artists rebelled on overtly or covertly. There is a phrase in the novel repeating itself over and over again: 'manuscripts don't burn.' It might be a metaphor for ideas being suppressed, pushed underground, where it roots and prosper. Although the Russian empire turned into a monochrome society on the surface, the manuscripts of freedom of thoughts, ideas and morals, smoldered deep under the surface.

From magic realism to reality: what happened to the Russian people, either Muslim, Christian or Jew, and any other religions, or a variety of ethnicities, can be read in the non-fictional book Secondhand Time: The Last of the Soviets by Svetlana Alexievich. Quote from this review: A Bolshevik motto on the gates of a prison camp stated: With An Iron Fist, We Will Chase Humanity Into Happiness.

Facts can never change, but perceptions and interpretations can. It's called freedom of thought.

I found this a fascinating read. Indeed a dark, somber satire. I wonder why nobody consider calling it a tragicomedy as well. The novel has a sobering Shakesperian ending.

There are so many elements tied together that it is impossible to summarize them all. It will be sad to read this work without delving through deeper analysis and research into the message it portrayed. The obvious one is simple: the exposure of the atrocities in the Russian society and the historical period it covered. Those who recognized the ideological hell around them, welcomed the novel as their own desperate voices.

FURTHER READING

Gradesavers.com

Mythic and Daimonic Paradigms in Bulgakov's Master i Margarita by Carol Arenberg

The Gnostic devil in Bulgakov's "Master and Margerita" by Marc Neininger ( A comparative study of the devil figure in Goethe's "Faust" and the presentation of the devil in the bible. The focus lies on on Bulgakov's devil figuration, however. The essay also deals with the Gnostic aspects in "Master and Margarita". University of Western Ontario, 2004)

Book Review by Jim Murdoch.2009.The Master and Margarita can be reasonably called the greatest novel to come out of Communist Russia, a work of magical realism, a pre-apocalyptic novel, a love story, a biting political satire or simply a damn good read if you can get over the fact that most of the names are thirty-odd characters long. But even that doesn't really cover it...

The book was made into a television series, viewed by 72 million Russians. The complete series provided with English subtitles is available on Youtube.

This is a Bucket List must-read for readers of classic literature. What an unforgettable experience!

Uno dei capolavori di tutte le letterature e di tutti i tempi.
Talmente bello che il solo ripensarci mi fa sentire il respiro più ampio... mi fa pensare come ad un senso di orgoglio, ma non so di chi o di cosa...
...ecco cosa: a ben pensarci, entri talmente in sintonia con i personaggi che ti fa provare orgoglio per il fatto di avere la loro amicizia. So di avere scritto una cosa squinternata, ma è così.

شرح و توصیف داستان مرشد و مارگریتا و دنیای عجیبی که بولگاگف کبیر ساخته کاری ایست سخت و دشوار . نویسنده با قلم جادویی خود اثری ساخته اعجاب انگیز و درخشان .دنیایی ترسیم کرده هم خیالی و هم واقعی با سه داستان متفاوت در زمانهای مختلف ، این سه داستان گاهی در هم تنیده می شوند و گاهی از هم جدا می شوند .
قهرمان این داستان کیست ؟
نمی توان به این سوال پاسخ دقیقی داد ، کتاب با گفتگوی دو شخصیت روشنفکر و سپس پیوستن ولند (شیطان) به جمع آنان شروع می شود .اما دیری نمی گذرد که بولگاکف یکی را به زیر قطار می فرستد و دیگری را به تیمارستان ، اما ولند تا آخر داستان می ماند ، نقش دانای کل را بازی می کند ، صحنه را او طراحی می کند . پس شاید بتوان گفت که او شخصیت اصلی داستان است .
پس از این شروع غافلگیر کننده دو داستان دیگر هم تقریبا هم زمان آغاز می شود : یک داستان عاشقانه بین شخصی که مرشد خوانده می شود و عشق پاک او ، مارگریتا . داستان دیگر هم که در حقیقت بخشی از کتاب چاپ نشده مرشد هست شرح به صلیب کشیده شدن عیسی را بازمی گوید .
این سه داستان به موازات هم پیش می روند و شخصیتهای جدیدی خلق میکنند ( شاید یکی از علل پیچیده بودن داستان همین شخصیت هایی باشند که ناگهان ظهور می کنند و ناگهان هم محو می شوند ) ، بولگاکف حتی سر وقت یهودا اسخریوطی هم می رود و به خدمت او هم می رسد .
شهرهای اصلی داستان اورشلیم و مسکو نسبتا شبیه هم هستند ، دریکی عیسی به پول فروخته می شود و در مسکو مرشد به دلیل واهی زندانی ، در هر دو شهر حقیقت است که دفن می شود .
استاد معماهای بسیاری در کتاب طرح کرده که با یک بار خواندن کتاب به جواب آن نخواهیم رسید . مثلا شیطان در این کتاب نمادی از شر نیست و حتی دست خیر هم دارد ! در حقیقت این ولند است که باعث می شود مرشد و مارگریتا به رستگاری برسند . ابهام دیگر کتاب در مورد نظر نویسنده راجع به دین و بی مذهبی ایست ، نویسنده تصویری سطحی از روشنفکران بی دین مسکو نشان می دهد اما نظر خاصی هم نسبت به دین ندارد ، حتی عیسی کتاب هم جنبه مادیش بر معنویاتش برتری دارد .
بولگاکف رهایی و رستگاری را در عشق می داند ، مانند عشق مرشد و مارگریتا . این که در ازای این عشق فاوست گونه با شیطان معامله کرده اند و این که اصولا ولند از این معامله چه بدست آورده خیلی مشخص نیست .
بولگاکف کبیر یک یاغی ایست ( او نویسنده ای ایست که در قلب سگی ، بین انسان و سگ پیوند زده !) او دنیای وارونه ای ساخته که قوانین خود را دارد ، در این دنیا شیطان از وجود عیسی دفاع می کند ، خواننده زمانی که قوانین بولگاکف را بپذیرد دیگر سوار شدن مارگریتا بر چوب جادو برایش غیر باور نخواهد بود .
استاد سیزده سال از عمر خود را صرف ساخت دنیای خیالی کتاب کرده ، ممکن است که خواننده ( مانند من ) با یک بار خواندن کتاب متوجه تمامی راز و رمز کتاب نشود . کتاب قطعا ارزش خواندن چند باره را دارد .

This review is dedicated to Mary, the very model of a perfect co-moderator and GR friend.

Unlocking the Meaning of The Master and Margarita


Mikhail Bulgakov

In the decades following the publication of The Master and Margarita, myriad critics have attempted to find a key to unlock the meaning of Bulgakov’s unfinished masterwork. Some viewed the novel as a political roman à clef, laboriously substituting historical figures from Stalinist Moscow for Bulgakov’s characters. Others posited a religious formula to understand the relationships between good and evil in the novel.

After giving myself time to think, I believe that any attempts to reduce the novel to a formula reflect some readers’ desire for neat, safe boxes to contain the world. This approach is at odds with the fear-ridden, desperate, and yet transcendent reality of Bulgakov’s experience in writing, revising, destroying, reconstructing, and then revising the novel, up to his death in Moscow on March 10, 1940. The Master and Margarita shows evidence of Bulgakov’s struggles to complete it, especially in part two, which illness prevented him from revising. I believe that the novel’s profound humanity stems from these imperfections, these facets not quite fitting neatly together, these jarring movements from scene to scene. In the end, The Master and Margarita is, by virtue of its own existence, a testament to the necessity of art in times of repression, and to the urgent need for artists to veer from cowardice and hold firmly to their commitment to living a true human life, with fantasy and reality combined, with history and invention feeding into each other, with good and evil providing the shadows and depth that make life meaningful and real.


The Master and Margarita as Fairy Tale

One approach to The Master and Margarita that appeals to me is understanding it, in part, as a fairy tale. In the novel, Bulgakov threads together three different storylines, which intertwine, especially at the novel’s conclusion: the often slapstick depiction of life in Stalinist Moscow, seen in part through the antics of the devil Woland and his demonic helpers; the story of Pilate, with names and details transformed from the familiar Biblical versions; and the story of the Master and Margarita. The action takes place in a compressed time frame, so readers looking for character development will be disappointed. Instead, Bulgakov develops an extended allegory where flight equals freedom, where greed and small-mindedness are punished, and where weary artists are afforded some mercy and peace.

The Master and Margarita provided Bulgakov with a lifeline to the imagination in the midst of the stultifying culture of Stalinist Russia. There are healthy doses of wish fulfillment in the novel, especially in those sections in which Woland’s minions, Azazello, Behemoth, and Koroviev, wreak retribution for the petty-mindedness and greed inherent in this political and social system. There also is a desperate attempt to resist the Stalinist bent towards monotony and flatness, and instead to weave dizzying strands of magic, fantasy, and power into life in Moscow.


Behemoth

These attempts to use a story as wish fulfillment, criticizing a social order by turning it upside down in fiction, and recognizing how to use an audience’s sense of wonder as a fulcrum for change, resonate with the historical and cultural functions of fairy tales as described by scholars including Jack Zipes in The Great Fairy Tale Tradition and Marina Warner in From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and their Tellers. Magic and wonder force the reader to acknowledge other possibilities outside of a reality of political repression, poverty, and war. When fairy tales reveal challenges to misplaced authority, whether in the guise of an evil queen or a greedy government official, they may take on one of two roles: a subversive threat to authority, or a valve to release the pressure of living under severe constraints. Perhaps most important, fairy tales remind their readers that life is miraculous, and that certain freedoms, such as the freedom to imagine and dream, can be nurtured and honored even under the most restrictive regimes.

For Bulgakov, the blend of the fantastical and the everyday in The Master and Margarita serves as his manifesto. Throughout his life, he fought to preserve the full human experience, not the two-dimensional totalitarianism in the Stalinist USSR, where human life was flattened of any sense of wonder, creativity, exuberance. Instead, he advocated for human life with all its shadows and colors, with a foundation in imagination and wonder. The freedom he sought was not simply freedom from communal housing or repressive government policies. Instead, he sought the freedom to imagine, to dream, to infuse his life with wonder, and to share his vision. For this reason, any attempt to read The Master and Margarita as a simple satire of Stalinist totalitarianism is misguided. Instead, Bulgakov sought to fly free along with his characters, and in doing so to tap into the universal human need for imagination, wonder, and freedom of the intellect and spirit.


“For me the inability to write is as good as being buried alive”


Bulgakov and his wife Yelena, c. 1939

Although Bulgakov universalized his quest for artistic freedom in The Master and Margarita, he drew inspiration and a sense of urgency from his experiences. A playwright, he faced censorship as his plays were banned and productions cancelled. He saw his fellow writers imprisoned for following their calling. (In response to one of these cases, Bulgakov destroyed one version of The Master and Margarita, which he later reconstructed.)

In desperation, between 1929 and 1930 Bulgakov wrote three letters to Soviet government officials, including Stalin, to protest his censorship and beg for a chance to practice his art, if not within Russia, outside it. In the final letter, dated March 28, 1930, Bulgakov movingly describes his ordeal, arguing that his duty as a writer is to defend artistic freedom, and pleading that being silenced is tantamount to death.

Although the letters provided Bulgakov with employment after receiving a favorable response, and saved him from arrest or execution, he still faced his works’ being banned and suppressed. He devoted the last years of his life to revising The Master and Margarita, knowing he would not live to see it published, and sometimes despairing it would ever be read outside of his family circle. His widow, Yelena Shilovskaya, worked tirelessly after his death for decades, preserving his manuscript and finally seeing it published, in a censored version, in 1966 and 1967.


Planes of Reality: The Fantastic, The Historical, and the Totalitarian


Azazello, Behemoth, and Koroviev

Some criticism of The Master and Margarita comes from the abrupt transitions and changes in mood among the three storylines: the actions of Woland and his minions in Moscow; the transformed story of Pontius Pilate, with some striking changes to the names of characters and the sequence of events which simultaneously make the narrative seem more historical and keep readers off-balance; and the story of the Master and Margarita, which includes Bulgakov’s central concerns about cowardice, artistry, duty, loyalty and love. I believe that Bulgakov purposefully constructed his novel so that the reader would be pulled from dimension to dimension. The effect, although jarring, is one of constant instability and surprise. The reader is immersed in a world where a Biblical past seems more historically based and less fantastic than 20th-century Moscow, where characters who are petty and greedy are meted out fantastic public punishments, at times literally on a stage, and where in the end characters with the most substance and loyalty have their lives transformed through magic.

By carefully building this multifaceted world, with all the seams showing, Bulgakov forces us as readers to consider the intersections among these worlds. Bulgakov reveals how we cut ourselves off from the wellsprings of magic and wonder, and invites us to join him in mounting a broomstick and riding off into the night sky, free from the constraints of our everyday lives.


The Necessity of Shadows: Woland


Woland

Just as Bulgakov confounds his readers’ expectations of a unified and seamless world, so he also makes us question our assumptions about good and evil. A key character is Woland, the devil at the center of the magical action. From his appearance in the first chapter, Woland presents an arresting and disconcerting figure. Woland immediately inserts himself into a conversation with Berlioz, the editor of a literary magazine and chair of MASSOLIT, a prestigious literary association, and Ivan, a poet also known by his pen name Bezdomny, engaging in a debate with them about the existence of God. Berlioz parrots many of the current arguments against the existence of God, but Woland deftly counters his arguments in a manner that veers between the charming and the sinister.

This debate introduces a theme that runs throughout The Master and Margarita: a cosmos in which good and evil each have their jurisdiction, but work together to ensure that people get the rewards or punishments that they deserve. In a famous passage later in the novel, Woland provides the following cogent description:

“You pronounced your words as if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of either shadows or evil. But would you kindly ponder this question: What would your good do if evil didn't exist, and what would the earth look like if all the shadows disappeared? After all, shadows are cast by things and people. Here is the shadow of my sword. But shadows also come from trees and from living beings. Do you want to strip the earth of all trees and living things just because of your fantasy of enjoying naked light? You're stupid."

Throughout The Master and Margarita, Woland metes out justice to wrongdoers. However, he does not simply punish -- instead, he also rewards Margarita for her devotion, intelligence, loyalty, and bravery. He rescues the Master from his exile in the asylum and ultimately grants him and Margarita a destiny of peace and rest together. In doing so, Woland overturns our expectations. Bulgakov describes a world where good and evil powers work together to provide some justice and balance in our lives, in spite of the thoughtless and cruel ways that humans behave. As Woland tells Margarita at one point, “Everything will be made right, that is what the world is built on.” The true evil in The Master and Margarita does not rise from Hell, but instead comes from the pettiness and greed of flawed, small-minded humans.


The Master and Margarita: Responsibility to Art

The Master makes his appearance relatively late in the novel, in chapter 13, “Enter the Hero.” However, he is not the traditional hero. He is a broken man, living in an asylum, remembering his love for Margarita, while at the same time turning his back on the art that Margarita loved, protected, and honored: his novel about Pontius Pilate.

In a lengthy conversation with Ivan, the Master paints an idyllic portrait of his life with Margarita, who creates a cozy sanctuary full of roses and love, in which the written word is treasured and respected:

“Running her slender fingers and pointed nails through her hair, she endlessly reread what he had written, and then she sewed the very cap he had shown Ivan. Sometimes she would squat down next to the lower shelves or stand up on a chair next to the upper ones and dust the hundreds of books. She predicted fame, urged him on, and started calling him Master. She waited eagerly for the promised final words about the fifth procurator of Judea, recited the parts she especially liked in a loud sing-song voice, and said that the novel was her life.”

However this idyll comes to a crashing end when the Master completes the manuscript and looks for a publisher. He provides harrowing descriptions of his brutal treatment by the literary world in Moscow, as editors, publishers, and fellow writers publicly criticized him for his novel. These descriptions bear the pain of Bulgakov’s personal experience with censorship and rejection, culminating in the Master’s paralyzing fear of everything around him.

Finally, in a scene inspired by events in Bulgakov’s life, the Master attempts to destroy his manuscript. Although Margarita salvages some pages, this scene marks the end of her life with the Master, who turns his back on Margarita and his art. He describes himself as a man without a name or a future, marking time in the asylum. Bulgakov depicts the Master as a broken man, whose loss of spirit and cowardice in the face of adversity led him to lose everything of value in his life.


Margarita

Margarita poses a stark contrast to the Master. When we finally meet her in part two, she is grieving over losing the Master, but she also shows herself to be intelligent, energetic, and fearless in her determination to find him and rebuild their life together. In doing so, Margarita is not taking an easy path. She is married to a successful husband who adores her. The two live in a large apartment with a great deal of privacy, a true luxury in Stalinist Moscow. She is beautiful, but she cannot put behind her deep dissatisfaction with her life, apparently perfect on the surface, but with no depth. She is living a lie. Her despair starts to break when she has a dream about the Master, which she views as a portent that her torment will soon come to an end. After rushing from her home, she has a fateful conversation with Azazello, whom Woland has tasked with inviting her to officiate as his queen at his ball. Margarita handles the interaction with spirit and courage, agreeing to follow Azazello’s mysterious instructions in hopes of learning the Master’s fate.


Margarita’s Night Ride

Margarita is transformed and embarks on a night ride, flying naked on a broomstick over Moscow. After wreaking havoc at the apartment of a publisher who had tormented the Master, and comforting a small boy who awakened, terrified by the destruction, she participates in a moonlight gathering of other magical creatures. Afterwards, she returns to Moscow in a magical car, “After all that evening's marvels and enchantments, she had already guessed who they were taking her to visit, but that didn't frighten her. The hope that there she would succeed in regaining her happiness made her fearless.” The night ride is a symbol of Margarita’s freedom and power.

Her fearlessness propels Margarita through her meeting with Woland and his minions, and a surreal evening as the queen of Woland’s midnight ball. Her devotion is rewarded by Woland, in scenes full of magic and moonlight. Although the Master crumbles in the face of adversity, Margarita becomes the ultimate hero and savior through her courage and commitment to the Master and his art.


The Moon

Throughout The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov uses key symbols to tie together the different chapters and storylines. Perhaps the most important symbol is the moon, which appears frequently in practically every chapter. The moon conveys a kind of otherworldly truth. Characters are bathed in moonlight at critical points in the novel, especially when making entrances, as when the Master first appears in Ivan’s hospital room. Moonlight imparts insight and truth even to the most delusional of characters. The moon lights the night rides of Woland, his companions, Margarita and the Master.


Woland and company: Night Ride

The moonlight also features prominently in the Pilate chapters, serving as a lynchpin between them and the rest of the novel. Pilate looks up at the moon for solace in the face of his agony from his migraines and his cowardice, with his faithful dog Banga as his sole companion. Bulgakov uses the moon to illuminate Pilate’s torment and his final peace, granted to him by the Master, his creator:

"[Pilate] has been sitting here for about two thousand years, sleeping, but, when the moon is full, he is tormented, as you see, by insomnia. And it torments not only him, but his faithful guardian, the dog. If it is true that cowardice is the most grave vice, then the dog, at least, is not guilty of it. The only thing that brave creature ever feared was thunderstorms. But what can be done, the one who loves must share the fate of the one he loves."

In response to Woland’s prompting, the Master stands and shouts the words that complete his novel, and end Pilate’s torture:

“The path of moonlight long awaited by the procurator led right up to the garden, and the dog with the pointed ears was the first to rush out on it. The man in the white cloak with the blood-red lining got up from his chair and shouted something in a hoarse, broken voice. It was impossible to make out whether he was laughing or crying, or what he was shouting, but he could be seen running down the path of moonlight, after his faithful guardian.”


Pilate, Banga and the moon

Bulgakov follows this transformative scene with Woland’s gift of peace to the Master. As she did throughout the novel, Margarita remains by the Master’s side, his loyal companion through eternity. Bulgakov cannot give salvation to the Master, perhaps because of the enormity of his cowardice against art, perhaps because he has been so damaged by a hostile society. In these final passages, Margarita gives the Master, and the reader, a soothing picture of a peaceful life, perhaps one Bulgakov himself longed for:

"Listen to the silence," Margarita was saying to the Master, the sand crunching under her bare feet. "Listen and take pleasure in what you were not given in life—quiet. Look, there up ahead is your eternal home, which you've been given as a reward. I can see the Venetian window and the grape-vine curling up to the roof. There is your home, your eternal home. I know that in the evenings people you like will come to see you, people who interest you and who will not upset you. They will play for you, sing for you, and you will see how the room looks in candlelight. You will fall asleep with your grimy eternal cap on your head, you will fall asleep with a smile on your lips. Sleep will strengthen you, you will begin to reason wisely. And you will never be able to chase me away. I will guard your sleep."

بزرگ‌ترین گناه بزدلی است

نمره کتاب بلافاصله بعد از پایان خواندن:
3.5
نمره کتاب بعد از گذشت 24 ساعت:
5

کاملا مشخصه که نویسنده طرح بزرگی رو در سر داشته که به خاطر سانسور و فشار زیاد نمی‌تونسته اون رو صریحا بنویسه. به همین جهت بولگاکف مجبور شده صحبت‌هاش رو خیلی سربسته بیان کنه و از این جهت مرشد و مارگارتا کتاب بسیار عجیبی هستش، طوری که بعد از تموم شدن و بستن کتاب، تازه شروع میشه.
با این همه، نمی‌شه کتمان کرد که بعضی از بخش‌های کتاب اونقدر سربسته مونده که گاها توی ذوق می‌زنه. خصوصا در مورد مرشد، یا عیسی که برغم نقش مهمی که در داستان دارن، مقدار خیلی کمی راجع به اونها نوشته شده. منتها گناه این ماجرا به گردن استالین و دوستان هستش نه بولگاکف بیچاره.

با توجه به پیچیدگی‌های کتاب و از اونجایی که ریویوهای بسیار زیادی راجع به اون نوشته شده، من اینجا فقط سعی می‌کنم سوالاتی که برای خودم به وجود اومده بود رو مرور کنم.


هشدار: احتمال لو رفتن بخش‌هایی از داستان
ابلیس
برغم ظهور بسیار خوف‌انگیز ابلیس در مسکو در ابتدای داستان و برغم اعتقادات مسیحیان، در اینجا با ابلیسی مواجه هستیم که نه‌تنها دشمنی با خدا یا انسان نداره بلکه تو کار خیر هم دست داره و دست مارگارتا رو تو دست مرشد میذاره. اما خواننده اونجایی آچمَز میشه که متی باجگیر (از حوایون عیسی) میاد سراغ ابلیس و پیغامی میاره از سوی عیسی و از ابلیس درخواستی می‌کنه راجع به جناب مرشد. این چجور ابلیسی هستش؟!ا

ابلیسی که بولگاکف به تصویر می‌کشه نه در نقش یک نیروی شیطانی هستش و نه یک وسوسه کننده. اون فقط یک آینه است که پلشتی انسان رو بهش آشکار می‌کنه. از نگاه بولگاکف، زشتی رفتار انسان ناشی از وجود نیروهای اهریمنی نیست بلکه از ذات و سرشت خود انسان سرچشمه می‌گیره. به رخ کشیدن حرص و طمع انسان با پول‌ها و لباس‌های جادویی در نمایش جادوی سیاه در تئاتر واریته، به رخ کشیدن چه جنایت‌هایی که بشر می‌تونه مرتکب بشه، طی ضیافت شام ابلیس، و البته نشون دادن ذات پلشت آدم‌های به ظاهر محترمی چون لیخودیو، ریمسکی، وارنوخا و نیکانور ایوانویچ همه نمونه‌هایی هستن از تمسخر انسان‌ها توسط ابلیس. در واقع ابلیس فقط به مسکو اومده تا این انسان‌هایی که غرق در غرور کمونیستی، فکر می‌کنند که به منتهی‌الیه بشریت رسیدن و برای همه چیز از جمله خدا نسخه پیچیدن، رو به سخره بگیره. بولگاکف سعی کرده تا جای ممکن به فساد و بی‌عدالتی نظام حاکم هم اشاره کنه، از جمله اون ماجرای کارت عضویت نویسندگی یا اون قشقرق توی فروشگاه. با این حال کاملا مشخصه تا چه حد قلمش زیر تیغ سانسور بوده.

"فکرش را بکن؛ اگر اهریمن نمی‌بود کار خیر شما چه فایده‌ای می‌داشت و بدون سایه دنیا چه شکلی پیدا می‌کرد؟"

در واقع باید گفت ابلیسی که مدنظر بولگاکف هستش به نوعی مکمل نور هستش. نه چیزی در مقابل نور.


عیسی
نگاهی که بولگاکف به عیسی داره هم بسیار متفاوته. اونچه که بولگاکف از عیسی نقل می‌کنه عاری از هرگونه وحی، وظیفه الهی یا معجزات هستش. تصویری که از عیسی رسم می‌شه، تصویری بسیار باورپذیر از انسانی فانی هستش که دارای ویژگی‌های برجسته اخلاقی و در راس همه اون‌ها شجاعته. عبارت "بزرگ‌ترین گناه بزدلی است" که چندین بار به نقل از عیسی در کتاب تکرار می‌شه بیانگر تاکیدی هستش که از نظر بولگاکف، عیسی رو متمایز از سایرین می‌کرده. منظور از شجاعت البته نه دلاوری، که شهامت پذیرش عواقب رفتار و گفتار حق هستش. همون بی‌پروایی که عیسی حتی در جایگاه محکوم در جلوی پنتیوس پیلاطوس نشون می‌ده. نگاهی که بولگاکف به عیسی داره، در یک کلام ستایشی عمیق از انسانی فانی هستش که مصلوب شدنش رو با جان و دل پذیرفت، خیانت‌ها رو بخشید ولی از گفتن حرف حق اجتناب نکرد.

مرشد

"او استحقاق نور را پیدا نکرده، استحقاق آرامش را پیدا کرده"

مشخصا شخصیت مرشد استعاره‌ای از خود بولگاکف بوده. بولگاکف که به وضوح میونه خوبی با نظام کمونیستی شوروی نداشت، از سوی بوروکراسی ادبی شوروی بسیار تحت فشار قرار داشت. اونقدری که به استالین نامه زد و بهش گفت "یا بذار کارم رو بکنم یا بگذار از این کشور برم!" تمام بلاهایی که طی کتاب بر سر برلیوز یا خانه گریبایدوف میاد یک جور تسویه حساب شخصی بولگاکف با بروکراسی ادبی شوروی بوده. با این حال، این سوال پیش میاد که چرا پس متی باجگیر به ابلیس گفت که مرشد لیاقت نور رو پیدا نکرده؟ شاید به این دلیل که مرشد در مقابل فشارها تسلیم شده و از پا درآمده. شاید به اون دلیل که فاقد اون شجاعت عیسی‌گونه است که از او به عنوان نور مطلق یاد می‌شه. در واقع بولگاکف با همه وجودش حس کرده بود که عیسی بودن در مسکو، چقدر سخت بوده.

مارگاریتا
مارگاریتا رو باید به نوعی قهرمان کل داستان به حساب آورد اما چطور ممکنه کسی که روحش رو به ابلیس فروخته در نقش قهرمان یک داستان قرار بگیره؟ جواب رو باید در بی‌پروایی عشق مارگاریتا به مرشد جست و جو کرد. مارگاریتا دست از زندگی سابق شسته و همه عواقب عشقش به مرشد رو پذیرفته. تا اونجا که حاضره برای رسیدن به عشق، حتی با شیطان معامله کنه. همین خصلت عیسی‌گونه تحمل مصائب و عواقب عشق هستش که مورد ستایش بولگاکف بوده و مارگاریتا رو به قهرمان کتاب تبدیل می‌کنه. شجاعتی که نه تنها در عشق بلکه در رفتار مارگایتا در مجلس مهمانی ابلیس هم خودنمایی می‌کنه و احترام ابلیس رو برمی‌انگیزه. شخصیت مارگاریتا البته بعد از آشنایی با النا سرگیونا (همسرش) به کتاب اضافه شده و ادای دینی به همه زحماتی که این زن در نوشته شدن این کتاب کرده هم محسوب می‌شه.

Maestrul şi Margareta, romanul unei epoci.
Mihail Bulgakov este indiscutabil geniul literaturii ruse moderne și totodată promotorul obscuritismului în Rusia.
"Maestrul și Margareta" este romanul care i-a adus întreaga faimă. La fel de captivantă precum scrierea este și povestea scrierii romanului în sine. Interzis în Rusia după publicare deoarece a stârnit critici și reacții în interiorul Partidului Comunist, Stalin ordonând, prin urmare, interzicerea, găsirea și arderea tuturor copiilor, romanul avea să fie publicat mult mai târziu după ce Bulgakov avea să moară.
După o luptă grea dusă cu capii guvernului, cărora le cerea să fie exilat, spunând că "Totul îmi este interzis, sunt ruinat, otrăvit, mă aflu într-o singurătate deplină", Bulgakov afirmă în jurnalul sau -făcând referire la roman- "îl știu pe de rost", rescriindu-l apoi din minte și trimițând o copie clandestin în Italia. Romanul avea să fie publicat la 26 de ani după moartea autorului.
Firul narativ se desfășoară pe trei planuri: acțiunea principală se petrece în Rusia interbelică, în Moscova, într-un cadru în care este surprinsă "vizita diavolului" care este transfigurat în profesorul german de magie neagră Woland și "gașca" sa. Ei folosesc magina neagră pentru a juca "farse" anumitor figuri ilustre din capitala URSS-ului. Cel de-al doilea plan prevede o întoarcere în timp cu mai bine de nouăsprezece secole, surprinzând viața lui Iisus din Nazaret și judecata sa de catre Pilat din Pont. Aparent, cele două planuri nu au nicio legătură, dar apariția unei a treia structuri, povestea de dragoste dintre Maestru și Margareta, leagă cele două planuri și da naștere unui fir fluent care curge precum un râu învolburat.
Pe parcursul scrierii lui, Bulgakov și-a autointitulat romanul sub mai multe titluri: "Romanul despre diavol", "Magicianul negru" sau "Prințul întunericului".
În incipit are loc punerea în scenă a personajului Woland (ciudat îmbrăcat pentru Moscova de atunci) care acostează doi intelectuali ruși pe stradă și îi atrage într-o dialectică ce are ca temă existența lui Dumnezeu. Începând de aici, Woland are să le terorizeze viață , ucigându-i subit și printr-un mod care face sângele cititorului să fiarbă în vene.
Parcurgerea romanului mi-a provocat delirul, mi-a extins barierele imaginare dincolo de granițele lor firești.
Finalitatea acțiunii, în spațiul cosmic are un final sublim, un final care-l face pe cel care citește să-și piardă simțul realității, să uite că este făcut din atomi și să devină stare pură, să plutească în eter și să audă -în plimbarea sa- o sublimă sonată de pian.

This is bound to be one of my top books (and reading experiences) of 2025. I have so much to say about it, mainly about my journey with this book and why I think it's worth the effort to read this.

So I read this book, as one does, and I just didn't really 'get' it. The first half especially confused me, keeping track of the dozens of characters (and their many Russian names), the random bits about Pontius Pilate, and what the heck was even happening. Then the book takes a sort of turn at its midpoint and from there I at least was more easily able to follow the narrative even if I wasn't grasping the layers beneath what I was reading. By the time I came to the end I felt bereft of the reading experience I expected or wanted to have with it, and I felt like I owed the book more than that. Thus, I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole (as I tend to) and found this video about 'How to Read the Master and Margarita' that completely unlocked the book for me.

After finishing the video, which provided great historical insight into the headspace Bulgakov was in while writing the novel as well as the state of artists in Stalinist Russia of the early 20th century, I decided to go back to the begin and just read through the first chapter or two to see if I felt differently about the book at all. And then I didn't stop reading. I read the whole book twice in a row! The first time felt like a slog, not because the book is bad (I mean, it's very VERY good) but because I lacked the deeper understanding of what the book was satirizing, what was being said between the lines. And once I understood that, it shifted my whole perspective and reading experience with this story.

I won't recap the plot or share what's in the video linked above because it would definitely take too much time and space here, however I will say that this book is so clever and worth every second of reading it, even if it's a bit of a challenge at first. The translation I read by Pevear & Volokhonsky was fantastic; really beautiful prose that flowed along, witty dialogue, and a great capture of the subtext of the novel.

This is a book that demands to be not just read, but studied closely. But the fun in the book is paying attention to the layers of the novel, from the romantic elements of the master & Margarita, to the historical and political of Pontius Pilate, to the comic and tragic satirization of then contemporary Russia. There's so much to unpack, while simultaneously being a gripping and surprisingly fun story to read.

There once was a book praised as boff
That caused others to pan it and scoff
So who wrote this thing
Whence sentiments swing?
T’was a Russian they called Bulgakov.

The culture was smothered by Stalin
He purged those he felt failed to fall in.
So how to respond
Sans magical wand?
With satire, to show it’s appallin’.

The book has been said to have layers
With multiple plotlines and players.
There’s good and there’s bad
And witches unclad.
Can naked truth sate the naysayers?

The Devil’s own minions had power.
Blind fools in their presence would cower.
And smug Party folks
Were easy to hoax.
No tears, though, when bureaucrats sour.

To further the key dialectic
Twixt good that’s in man versus septic,
Comes Christ to the fore
Through Pilate’s back door,
Though this prefect’s well-nigh eclectic.

In Moscow amidst the commotion
We realize a somewhat strange notion:
M and M from the title
Weren’t all that vital,
But she, at least, showed love’s devotion.

The Master, whose job was to write
Shared Bulgakov’s tyrannized plight
Do manuscripts burn?
That’s something we learn.
The hope is that art survives might.

It’s funny how evil can blur
Just read this and you may concur
The Devil may stir
But you might prefer
Ol’ Satan to Anton Chigurh.

And how does good shine without bad?
Is bad the worst trait to be had?
Pilate’s regretful;
Others were fretful –
Mikhail cursed the cowardly cad.

It’s odd to choose this review style –
We’re not on the Emerald Isle.
These aren’t the best themes
Just fits to rhyme schemes
That target a Russ-celtophile.


This was a group read for me and I’m guessing nine out of any ten clicks this review gets will be from fellow members. So when I say it’s no easy matter to add anything that’s not been said better elsewhere, most of you will know what I mean. That’s especially true with this group, loaded with smart people who’ve already done their reviews. The group (which we all thank Kris and Mary for running so well) has been great for providing discussions and links to help interpret the symbols, themes and historical context. But this, too, makes original thoughts about it hard to come by. Anyway, this is my justification for punting, and instead trying (perhaps too hard) just to be different.

I will say that I never really lost myself in the story nor cared about the thinly drawn characters. Maybe it’s not meant to be that kind of book. The greater pleasure was in trying to figure out the different elements of the allegory, what the broader questions were, and how Stalinist oppression may have driven it. The fact that this emerged in the 60’s as a samizdat well after Bulgakov’s death in 1940 was part of the appeal. The axe he was grinding to counter the shush on creative freedom continues to resonate.

It’s easy to pose questions: What does the devil (Woland) represent? What is Bulgakov saying about Stalinist Russia; the general population; the arts community/intelligentsia? Is there a religious angle? What about moral judgment; free will vs. determinism; the nature of man?

I won’t attempt to answer these because 1) I don’t want to supply any spoilers, and 2) I’m not sure I can.

Others have done a much better job addressing the main themes: good vs. evil, courage vs. cowardice, and related to that, artistic freedom vs. toeing the line. About the only motif I haven’t seen mentioned is the contrast between felines and canines. The big, black, humanized cat in Woland’s retinue was like a badly behaved Marx brother. As an example of his character, he tried cheating at chess. Conversely, Pilate’s dog was nearly fearless and ever faithful. I’m surprised that cat owners have not been more vocal in their protests against such an unfavorable contradistinction.

Three stars is a cop-out, I know. I was caught between extremes. The story and characters failed to draw me in, but it was an interesting exercise in interpretation.

رمانی عجیب، دلنشین و گیرا که نمیتونم برای لذتی که از خوندنش بردم توصیف و کلام مناسبی پیدا کنم. چنان درگیرش شدم که گذشت زمان رو حس نکردم.
در این کتاب سه داستان به موازات هم روایت میشن: داستان ورود شیطان و یارانش به مسکو، داستان مصلوب شدن عیسی مسیح و در نهایت داستان عشق مرشد و مارگاریتا که هر کدوم از این روایتا جذابیت خاص خودشون رو دارن. فضای سورئال کتاب برخلاف خیلی آثار که خسته کننده و گاها مسخره به نظر میاد، بسیار جذاب و تکون دهندست. بولگاکف در هر کدوم از این داستانا به نوعی به انتقاد از فضای فکری حاکم بر جامعه، محدودیت ها و تعصبات میپردازه و به طور کل کتابیه که سرشار از مفاهیم عمیق فلسفیه و خوندنش نیاز به تامل داره.
بعد از اتمام کتاب متوجه شدم که این اثر 25 سال پس از درگذشت بولگاکف به چاپ رسیده. هربار با اثر موفقی مواجه میشم که پس از مرگ صاحب اثر به محبوبیت رسیده، افسوس میخورم از اینکه اون فرد لذت شکوفایی و تاثیرگذاری کارش رو نچشیده و چه حیف.

لحظه ای که راوی آخرین کلمه ی این کتاب رو گفت و موسیقی پایانی شروع شد، انگار از یک خواب طولانی پر معنی بیدار شدم. از اون خواب هایی که چند لحظه بعد از بیدار شدن، بی حرکت دراز می کشی، هنوز مرز خواب و واقعیت کشیده نشده و تصاویر لحظه ای در ذهنت نقش می بنده. به دنبال معنی پنهانشون می گردی و دنبالشون می کنی ولی انگار ازت دور میشن. به یک رویای دور تبدیل میشن

سه ساعت بود که اینترنت رو به دنبال هر نوشته و مقاله ای درباره اش زیر و رو می کردم. وسط یک مقاله ی طولانی در مورد استالین انگار تازه متوجه شدم من وارد قلمرو جدیدی از کتاب ها شدم، از مطالعه، از ادبیات. کتاب هایی که بیشتر از اینکه پاسخگو باشند، می پرسند . دست تو رو می گیرند، به یک دنیای جدید می برند و اونجا رهات می کنند تا راه برگشت رو خودت پیدا کنی. مرشد و مارگاریتا شروع این مسیر برای من نبود، ولی چراغی بود که این مسیر جدید رو روشن کرد و بهم نشان داد

جایی می خواندم که مرشد و مارگاریتا مثل الماسیه که در فشار و خفقان شوروی استالین ایجاد شد. داشتم فکر می کردم که مرشد و مارگاریتای این روزهای ما رو کی قراره روزی بنویسه؟ اصلا کسی قراره بنویسه؟ چه کسی قراره ابلیسی رو به جان جامعه ی سیاه ما بندازه ؟

کتاب صوتی
این بدون شک بهترین کتاب صوتی فارسی ای بود که گوش دادم. یک کار هنرمندانه و فکر شده با صدای زیبای حامد فعال، موسیقی و صداهای صحنه که این کتاب رو زنده تر کرد. به شدت توصیه می کنم گوش بدید و لذت ببرید

یادداشت برای خودم: چهار ستاره دادی چون فکر می کنی به اندازه ی پنج ستاره نفهمیدیش، "بزرگ تر" که شدی دوباره بخونش

98.12.22