Take a photo of a barcode or cover
dunnettreader 's review for:
The Master and Margarita
by Mikhail Bulgakov
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.