Master and Margarita: Is There a Method to This Madness?
So, let's recap: we meet Pontius Pilate, see a railroad decapitation, watch an anthropomorphic cat boarding a cab, casually walk in on someone showering, go to a nightclub owned by a pirate, witness Satan(??) eat somebody's breakfast and then send him to Yalta on short notice, and then try to figure out why that one guy was beaten to a bloody pulp by a man in goofy glasses and then kissed by a naked woman. I think it's safe to say that when it comes to combining the Prince of Darkness with the verge of the vile Soviet Union, two wrongs don't make a right. ...That said, I was laughing through this reading much harder than I did in Candide last semester. Nothing makes sense, but it's the good kind of madness.
But even after reading a hundred and thirty-two pages of this, I still have a question tied to big implications for the book: is this intended to ultimately be a Christian work? Does it have any kind of moral whatsoever? So far it's not like Paradise Lost or Faust or "Young Goodman Brown." (although I did catch a nod to Faust with the black poodle head on the cane of the presumably-Satan-figure). The Devil hasn't yet much to test men or ruin their souls--he's just wreaking havoc. Now, he does tell a twisted, heretical version of Christ's trial, but he tells it to two atheists, one of whom immediately dies and the other of whom is in an insane asylum before the night is over. Of course I believe that this kind of Biblical perversion is one of Satan's strongest tactics alongside atheism; Acts 20:30 is one of several verses warning that false biblical doctrine is one of the greatest dangers to the church, possibly greater than atheism (who is it easier to save: a man who knows he is not saved, or a man who has gone his whole life thinking he already is?). But again, this tale from the devil hasn't yet ushered in any spiritual struggles quite like Mephistopheles did. Ivan was the only one who lived long enough to consider it, and the only part he seems to care about is the fact that somebody currently living saw Pontius Pilate.
Up until that point I thought the book might be about men wrestling with the idea of God while the devil taunts and corrupts them. But after Berlioz died, the issue of God hasn't yet received a single mention. We just start reading about a cast of Russian men whose names I cannot remember running around like crazy while Satan's cat posse flips Moscow on its head. It's a good book, but with a theme like the devil challenging man, it seems like there should be more of a point hidden somewhere. Perhaps I'm overlooking it for now, or it just hasn't manifested itself yet.
P.S. I commented on Sophia and Zelda’s posts.
But even after reading a hundred and thirty-two pages of this, I still have a question tied to big implications for the book: is this intended to ultimately be a Christian work? Does it have any kind of moral whatsoever? So far it's not like Paradise Lost or Faust or "Young Goodman Brown." (although I did catch a nod to Faust with the black poodle head on the cane of the presumably-Satan-figure). The Devil hasn't yet much to test men or ruin their souls--he's just wreaking havoc. Now, he does tell a twisted, heretical version of Christ's trial, but he tells it to two atheists, one of whom immediately dies and the other of whom is in an insane asylum before the night is over. Of course I believe that this kind of Biblical perversion is one of Satan's strongest tactics alongside atheism; Acts 20:30 is one of several verses warning that false biblical doctrine is one of the greatest dangers to the church, possibly greater than atheism (who is it easier to save: a man who knows he is not saved, or a man who has gone his whole life thinking he already is?). But again, this tale from the devil hasn't yet ushered in any spiritual struggles quite like Mephistopheles did. Ivan was the only one who lived long enough to consider it, and the only part he seems to care about is the fact that somebody currently living saw Pontius Pilate.
Up until that point I thought the book might be about men wrestling with the idea of God while the devil taunts and corrupts them. But after Berlioz died, the issue of God hasn't yet received a single mention. We just start reading about a cast of Russian men whose names I cannot remember running around like crazy while Satan's cat posse flips Moscow on its head. It's a good book, but with a theme like the devil challenging man, it seems like there should be more of a point hidden somewhere. Perhaps I'm overlooking it for now, or it just hasn't manifested itself yet.
P.S. I commented on Sophia and Zelda’s posts.
I'm waiting for the moral of the story, too. So far it seems as though the devil only wants to cause a little bit of chaos. At the same time, I have to wonder about all those contracts the bad guys are making everyone sign. Is it just a human formality they are humoring? Or is it a trap to ensnare unsuspecting souls? And I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the poodle head cane!
ReplyDeleteI agree Will, it is definitely “the good kind of madness”. As far as the moral of the story goes, I feel as if I am one of the characters in the book saying, “The devil only knows!” because I for one certainly do not. I am really enjoying the black tom cat and how the other characters react to him. In a book where so many odd things are normalized (such as randomly seeing a naked woman in the shower), it is nice to see Bulgakov add some reactions to the cat that would be similar to how one would react in real life.
ReplyDelete