Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.16 AVERAGE
4.16 AVERAGE
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
dark
funny
medium-paced
This wildly imaginative and bizarre book gets 4 stars out 5 because I don't actually have a clue what the point of it was. The events themselves are entertaining enough. What I don't understand is what the author wanted to say with it because it feels like some essential parts of the plot were missing. Though most likely they were there and I just didn't pick up on them.
Basically the devil, also known as the black magic artist Woland, arrives in Moscow with his man-sized talking cat Behemoth and a vampire. Chaos ensues. Plenty of characters end up in mental hospital, and for good reason considering the events they describe. One of them is the author about a book on Pontius Pilate. Some of the chapters are from that era.
This crazy, surrealsitic and quite often down-right hilarious. Not even Terry Pratchett could manage bizarre at such a vertigo-inducing level. This book will stay with me because I feel I missed something that I upon closer thought might actually discover. Mind-blowing. Not recommended for people who like to understand what is happening or have an affinity for logic. Best suited for fantasy lovers who can just roll with it.
Basically the devil, also known as the black magic artist Woland, arrives in Moscow with his man-sized talking cat Behemoth and a vampire. Chaos ensues. Plenty of characters end up in mental hospital, and for good reason considering the events they describe. One of them is the author about a book on Pontius Pilate. Some of the chapters are from that era.
This crazy, surrealsitic and quite often down-right hilarious. Not even Terry Pratchett could manage bizarre at such a vertigo-inducing level. This book will stay with me because I feel I missed something that I upon closer thought might actually discover. Mind-blowing. Not recommended for people who like to understand what is happening or have an affinity for logic. Best suited for fantasy lovers who can just roll with it.
dark
funny
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
funny
mysterious
slow-paced
adventurous
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
I love art that isn’t immediately known to you from the first chance getting to know it. There's something captivating about not fully grasping the entire context—it opens the door to personal discoveries about history, world leaders, literary references, and so much more. I find it fascinating to uncover philosophy in Christianity or other religions through the lens of a different belief system. It’s not that it makes me feel smarter; rather, it offers an experience I know I could never find in contemporary literature. I think I’m in love with the inherent strangeness of classic books, and Bulgakov’s writing, in particular, is so mesmerizing that I never want to stop immersing myself in it.
I have a theory about Woland’s role in The Master and Margarita. He was present at Christ’s execution and later appears in Moscow during Stalin’s Soviet regime, a time when the government aggressively promoted atheism and rejected religion. Woland seems to have a specific purpose: to expose and punish the people’s denial of Christ and their refusal to believe in His existence. He finds amusement in their ignorance, especially in how stubbornly they reject the idea of God. But Woland’s actions aren’t just for his own entertainment. He eliminates anyone who opposes him or tries to stand in his way. What’s interesting is how he punishes people in ways that match their beliefs. Since they deny God, Woland becomes a kind of divine reckoning, enforcing justice in his own way. His presence forces the people to face the consequences of their disbelief. To Woland, this approach makes sense—if they’ve already dismissed God, he feels free to act as he pleases, without following divine rules. This connects to the translator’s note: “As Woland’s existence proves the existence of a God the Soviet state has abandoned—so the writer tells lies in order to say something true.” Woland’s presence challenges the Soviet regime’s rejection of God, showing that denying spiritual truths doesn’t make them disappear. Instead, their ignorance and defiance invite forces like Woland, who punish them in ways they can’t understand or escape.
I have a theory about Woland’s role in The Master and Margarita. He was present at Christ’s execution and later appears in Moscow during Stalin’s Soviet regime, a time when the government aggressively promoted atheism and rejected religion. Woland seems to have a specific purpose: to expose and punish the people’s denial of Christ and their refusal to believe in His existence. He finds amusement in their ignorance, especially in how stubbornly they reject the idea of God. But Woland’s actions aren’t just for his own entertainment. He eliminates anyone who opposes him or tries to stand in his way. What’s interesting is how he punishes people in ways that match their beliefs. Since they deny God, Woland becomes a kind of divine reckoning, enforcing justice in his own way. His presence forces the people to face the consequences of their disbelief. To Woland, this approach makes sense—if they’ve already dismissed God, he feels free to act as he pleases, without following divine rules. This connects to the translator’s note: “As Woland’s existence proves the existence of a God the Soviet state has abandoned—so the writer tells lies in order to say something true.” Woland’s presence challenges the Soviet regime’s rejection of God, showing that denying spiritual truths doesn’t make them disappear. Instead, their ignorance and defiance invite forces like Woland, who punish them in ways they can’t understand or escape.
I love Russian literature - love a good story with a deep undercurrent of philosophy. That said, I am not super into religious books. This combination seemed awkward, but was eager to try it anyway. Then a disaster happened in my personal life - I read this book mostly in a hospital while a loved one was stuck on a hospital bed. I think no matter where I was, I would have loved this book, that is part comedy, part thought experiment, and part soliloquy on love and isolation. That said, this especially spoke to me in that hospital, and it will always have a special part in my library. The classic philosophical nature of this Russian novel plus the surprisingly hilarious scenes was exactly what I needed in the dismal hospital room. Highly recommend.
I can't give this "The Master and Margarita" any stars because I am not sure exactly what I read. This book had been on my to-read list for quite awhile, but I probably would not have read it if it wasn't a selection for my book club. As soon as I finished it, I realized that I had not understood most of what the book is about. I then read some reviews and on-line articles to help me put things in perspective. I did not enjoy reading it and probably will never read it again, but it did give me some food for thought.
I am going to list a few of my reactions to the book:
1. Every Russian novel should have a character list at the beginning of the book, giving all the variations of the names of the main characters. It became very tedious trying to keep track of characters who would disappear for several chapters and then come back into the story. Many of the names were similar, which made it even more difficult.
2. I do not know much about the Soviet Union in the 20's and 30's, other than it was a very harsh and repressed society. Much of the story is about specific people and situations in Moscow. Bulgakov satirized the society that he observed and suffered under. This lack of knowledge about Russia hampered an appreciation of the book.
3. Bulgakov was not really interested in developing characters. He sketches characters in without really giving them an inner life. Even Margarita, the best-developed character, is not given any background.
4. Some fantastical scenes are the center-piece of the novel The night at the Variety Theater and Satan's Ball are vividly drawn. But in other scenes Bulgakov takes much less care to draw the reader in. The last section of the book reflects the fact that Bulgakov died before he could polish the writing.
5. The scenes with Pontius Pilate and Yeshua are very enjoyable--they language is vivid and lyrical. Bulgakov makes the reader look at what we think we know about the Passion of Christ through totally different eyes.
6. Is this a "man's book"? I found the treatment of the female characters--Margarita, Natasha, and Hella--disconcerting. They are usually described as being naked. Maybe there was a purpose in this, but the frequent references to their nudity seemed pointless.
7. I read the Burgin-O'Connor translation. I can't speak to its faithfulness as a translation, but I thought the notes at the back of the book were not always helpful.
My reaction to the book is that of someone who sees a city dimly through a fog. I know there is much more there than I am able to see and comprehend.
I am going to list a few of my reactions to the book:
1. Every Russian novel should have a character list at the beginning of the book, giving all the variations of the names of the main characters. It became very tedious trying to keep track of characters who would disappear for several chapters and then come back into the story. Many of the names were similar, which made it even more difficult.
2. I do not know much about the Soviet Union in the 20's and 30's, other than it was a very harsh and repressed society. Much of the story is about specific people and situations in Moscow. Bulgakov satirized the society that he observed and suffered under. This lack of knowledge about Russia hampered an appreciation of the book.
3. Bulgakov was not really interested in developing characters. He sketches characters in without really giving them an inner life. Even Margarita, the best-developed character, is not given any background.
4. Some fantastical scenes are the center-piece of the novel The night at the Variety Theater and Satan's Ball are vividly drawn. But in other scenes Bulgakov takes much less care to draw the reader in. The last section of the book reflects the fact that Bulgakov died before he could polish the writing.
5. The scenes with Pontius Pilate and Yeshua are very enjoyable--they language is vivid and lyrical. Bulgakov makes the reader look at what we think we know about the Passion of Christ through totally different eyes.
6. Is this a "man's book"? I found the treatment of the female characters--Margarita, Natasha, and Hella--disconcerting. They are usually described as being naked. Maybe there was a purpose in this, but the frequent references to their nudity seemed pointless.
7. I read the Burgin-O'Connor translation. I can't speak to its faithfulness as a translation, but I thought the notes at the back of the book were not always helpful.
My reaction to the book is that of someone who sees a city dimly through a fog. I know there is much more there than I am able to see and comprehend.