
In the Face of Constant Censorship, Bulgakov Kept Writing - lermontov
http://lithub.com/in-the-face-of-constant-censorship-bulgakov-kept-writing/
======
acomjean
I read the The Master and Margarita for a literature class at University. It
was a fascinating but confusing book, but lots of references which made it
ideal to get some help by someone who scope and historical context (USSR being
at its end when I read it).

Of course now with the internet there is help from wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_Margarita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_Margarita)

~~~
throwaway7645
Did u enjoy it? I started reading it, but stopped early on.

~~~
defen
I tried reading the Ginsburg translation and didn't get very far. Found it to
be wooden and stilted. Recently I started reading the Pevear and Volokhonsky
translation and I'm having a much better time of it. It has footnotes that
explain some of the references, and I'm just finding it much easier to read
from a prose-style standpoint.

~~~
notzorbo3
According to my russian wife who studied both russian and english literature,
the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation is by far the best. Not only does it
provide a great introduction and footnotes, it also manages to capture the
spirit of the original.

I found it a highly enjoyable book and, while I'm sure I missed many
references, it gave me better understanding of what it must have been like
living in the USSR in those times.

------
smogcutter
For those looking for more Bulgakov, or who found M+M too opaque but are still
curious, The White Guard is a hell of a book. Sharp, beautifully told story
about a monarchist family in Kiev in the early days of the revolution.

~~~
glangdale
Heart of a Dog is also very accessible relative to M+M, and considerably more
fun. It also features Bulgakov in at what seems to be peak "Honey Badger" mode
- you read it, then check the date in disbelief... how he figured he'd get
away with writing a book like that in 1925 beggars belief.

~~~
madaxe_again
Also, The Fatal Eggs, and Journal of a Young Country Doctor are fascinating
reads for different reasons - the former is a scathing allegorical attack on
the Soviet Union (the eggs being the ideals of communism, the things which
hatch from them being the praxis), and the latter is a riveting insight into
the pillories of daily life in rural soviet Russia.

Along with Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn also offers deep insight into the soviet
mindset, between his better known works (Gulag Archipelago, Cancer Ward, Ivan
Denisovich) and his lesser known works (Incident at Krechetovka Station,
Matryona's House).

One thing that both excelled at was getting their work published, not purely
through samizdat, by making their allegorical allusions clear to those who
knew what they were looking for but utterly opaque to the poorly educated
soviet censors.

------
idlewords
This is a contender for the greatest work of Russian literature in the 20th
century. The Bergin/O'Connor translation is a good one. Even if you don't get
the references or historical context, you'll still enjoy reading it. Giant
talking cat!

As pvg points out, Kevin Moss's notes
([http://cr.middlebury.edu/bulgakov/public_html/](http://cr.middlebury.edu/bulgakov/public_html/))
will reveal whole new layers of the onion when you re-read the book.

~~~
StavrosK
I'm an hour away from finishing the book, and goddamn I cannot get into it _at
all_. It's just a bunch of random stuff happening without much connection.
What is the appeal?

~~~
geoka9
Which edition/translation are you reading?

EDIT:

For me, the appeal is in the interplay of the ultra paranoid and cynical life
in the Stalinist USSR and the supernatural and goofy exploits of the Devil and
his entourage who happen to visit Moscow.

The love story between the two main human characters is just the icing on the
cake, but in my opinion not that important.

Not to mention that the "book within the book" about Pontius Pilate provided
an entertaining intro to one of the fundamental Biblical stories for the
atheist me, although now I tend to skip it when I re-read the book every once
in a while.

EDIT2: Forgot to mention that the style it is written in (in Russian) is
unique; it's very tongue-in-cheek: respectful to the established order and
authorities on the surface but derisively satirical underneath. Nobody else
wrote like that.

~~~
StavrosK
(After your edits:)

Hmm, yes, I do agree that it is interesting to see how everyone reacts to
accusations of "holding foreign currency", but I think I'm missing most of the
humour because I just don't know what it was like to live in a Stalinist
sociopolitical climate.

I did enjoy the sub-book about Pontius Pilate indeed, and I also agree that
the style feels very unique. I think the story with the Devil is just an
excuse to orchestrate these unique situations and write the
satirical/subversive reactions. I think that's what I don't like, the
disjointed narrative without much of an arc, because I'm missing most of the
subtext that is the payoff for the scenes.

~~~
narrator
The closest modern day equivalent to living in Stalinist Russia in the 30s is
North Korea. At the slightest suspicion that one was somehow demonstrating
disloyalty to the Soviet state one could be hauled away to be tortured and
executed or sent to the Siberian Gulag to be slowly worked to death.

Bulgakov's writings, if discovered, would have lead to him being executed. To
people who lived in the system, their was an unacknowledged understanding that
something bad was happening as people would mysteriously disappear on a
regular basis. The movie "The Inner Circle" (
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103838/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_p...](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103838/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl)
) and "Burnt By The Sun" (
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111579/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111579/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
) are good depictions of what life was like during those times. It makes the
high anxiety and paranoia of most characters in M & M much more
understandable.

~~~
smsm42
There are deeper things in play there. Bulgakov had very peculiar relationship
with Stalin. He hoped, against all odds and reason, that Stalin would read the
book and like it and would protect him. That is what the scene when Woland
talks to the Master about his novel is about. Stalin actually kind of did help
Bulgakov somewhat, and enabled his works to be produced in theaters (without
which Bulgakov would not have any means to support himself). It was kind of
cat and mouse game which Stalin, having a sadistic streak, loved to play - one
day he helped Bulgakov, another day reverted everything back. But Bulgakov
sincerely hoped that Stalin would personally read the book and like it. That,
of course, never happened and probably couldn't happen.

------
smsm42
Didn't expect to find discussion of my favorite writer here at HN. I wonder
how does it translate to English... Now I want to get all those translations
and compare them. Thanks HN!

------
gonubalabala
Is the translation that important? I'm writing a piece of fiction that
occasionally quotes M&M, and consider using a yet another translation if it's
so controversial...

~~~
lobster_johnson
For one, many of the translations are just terribly wooden.

But Russian is also very hard to translate to English, for several reasons;
it's a heavily idiom-based language, full of common phrases (that every
Russian knows) that an author can turn into puns or allusions. If the
translator chooses to rewrite using the equivalent English idiom, the original
meaning may be lost; whereas if it's translated literally, the reader won't
know that it's a common saying that the author has subverted. The same thing
goes with words that have multiple meanings, where the ambiguity itself
resonates within the phrasing, or where the word has historical subtext or
whatever.

But translators also often get stuff wrong. Plenty of people have pointed out
very clear errors in the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations that are based on
misunderstandings of the original text. Bulgakov also frequently writes on
several levels (there's a lot of subtext and humour), and it's often hard to
replicate the intended meaning, so translators end up with something that
isn't quite right. Here [1] is some discussion with concrete examples.

[1]
[http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/translation_wars_on...](http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/translation_wars_once_more_into_the_breach_edition/#20224)

