Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

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.