M
member 737
Guest
Has anyone read this novel by Mikhail Bulgakov and would like to share his/her opinions about it?
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
M
member 737
Guest
What's "heart of a dog" about?
kskyhappy
New Member
dog
A bedraggled street dog is about to perish in the cold winter night, after having been scalded by boiling water earlier in the day. Suddenly, an elegant man feeds him and takes him home. The dog's savior is a famous and wealthy medical professor who rejuvenates people by hormonal manipulations.
As soon as the dog becomes accustomed to his new life of plenty, he finds himself the subject of a strange experiment--the professor and his assistant implant the testicles and pituitary gland of a dead criminal into the dog's body. After a rocky post-operative course, the dog gradually begins to change into an animal in human form and names himself Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharik. The half-beast-half-man, who gets along very well in the prevailing proletarian society, turns his creator's life into a nightmare--until the professor manages to reverse the procedure.
its a good book! worth a read
ksky
A bedraggled street dog is about to perish in the cold winter night, after having been scalded by boiling water earlier in the day. Suddenly, an elegant man feeds him and takes him home. The dog's savior is a famous and wealthy medical professor who rejuvenates people by hormonal manipulations.
As soon as the dog becomes accustomed to his new life of plenty, he finds himself the subject of a strange experiment--the professor and his assistant implant the testicles and pituitary gland of a dead criminal into the dog's body. After a rocky post-operative course, the dog gradually begins to change into an animal in human form and names himself Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharik. The half-beast-half-man, who gets along very well in the prevailing proletarian society, turns his creator's life into a nightmare--until the professor manages to reverse the procedure.
its a good book! worth a read
ksky
M
member 737
Guest
Sounds to me like the Frankenstein: a newly-created something-like-a-man creature, which tries to destroy its "daddy". Scary.
jaynebosco
New Member
I read this book about a few years ago, when I took a 20th Century Russian Literature course in university and found the book very fascinating. My favourite part of the book was the death party that took place near the end. It was interesting to see all these evil people having a party 
I did find it rather confusing near the beginning and had to re-read the first few chapters because you weren't really sure as to why what was happening and then to make sense of it all, especially the symbolism that is encountered in the beginning of the book. Quite an amazing book and one that I will never forget (still have my copy that I bought for the course and have no intention of selling it, at least presently).
I did find it rather confusing near the beginning and had to re-read the first few chapters because you weren't really sure as to why what was happening and then to make sense of it all, especially the symbolism that is encountered in the beginning of the book. Quite an amazing book and one that I will never forget (still have my copy that I bought for the course and have no intention of selling it, at least presently).
Stewart
Active Member
Discussion Questions
I found a number of discussion questions for this book on the US Penguin site.
I found a number of discussion questions for this book on the US Penguin site.
- Why does Woland come to Moscow? Why does he give a public performance at the Variety Theater?
- Why is Woland the instrument of Margarita's kindness toward Frieda and the master?
- When Woland sees Margarita's compassion for Pilate, why does he tell her, "Everything will turn out right, the world is built on that"?
- Why has the master earned peace, but not light?
- Why does Pilate dream that he is involved in an "interesting and endless" argument with Yeshua, "this philosopher, who had thought up such an incredibly absurd thing as that all men are good," and that Yeshua's execution never took place?
- Why must Margarita become a witch and host Woland's ball in order to rescue and be reunited with the master?
- Why does Margarita become devoted to the master's novel?
- Why is the story of Pontius Pilate presented as not only written by the master, but also told by Woland, dreamed by Ivan, and read by Margarita?
- When Woland asks what she wants, why does Margarita choose to free Frieda from her punishment?
- Why must the master and Margarita leave the material world at the end of the novel?
- Why does Woland insist, against the beliefs of Berlioz and Ivan, that Jesus really existed?
- When Nikanor Ivanovich dreams that he is being interrogated, why does interrogation take the form of a number in a stage production?
- Why is the master's real name never revealed?
- To what extent do individuals control their own fate?
- Would acts of goodness have the same meaning in the absence of acts of evil?
- What are the similarities between religious and aesthetic experience?
Dogmatix
New Member
I read this book in August in preparation for the September BOTM. This was really a dificult read for me. I know nothing about this time period in Russia and next to nothing of the story of Pontius Pilot. Many of the references were completely lost on me and I really had to wade through a lot. Oh and the names, holy cow! I actually had to make a list of who was who on the inside back cover.
That being said I found this book hilarious, slapstick really. What a great play this would make.
Hopefully if this discussion blossums I'll learn quite a bit. Nice list of questions Stewart.
That being said I found this book hilarious, slapstick really. What a great play this would make.
Hopefully if this discussion blossums I'll learn quite a bit. Nice list of questions Stewart.
Flor
New Member
These questions provide a nice framework for discussing this novel as it sprawls all over the place while you are reading it. I think Pilate distances himself from his role in Yeshua's death and, through that disconnect, he's able to view the situation as an argument, not the execution of an innocent person. Pilate wants desperately to believe that the crucifixion never took place because he was instrumental in achieving it.
Similarities between religious and aesthetic experience... Great great thought to sleep on...
Dogmatix
New Member
Here is my floundering and admittedly very unsophisticated attempt at a couple of these.
#3: When Woland sees Margarita's compassion for Pilate, why does he tell her, "Everything will turn out right, the world is built on that"?
Balance of good/evil, God/devil or maybe an insinuation about predetermination?
# 5: Why does Pilate dream that he is involved in an "interesting and endless" argument with Yeshua, "this philosopher, who had thought up such an incredibly absurd thing as that all men are good," and that Yeshua's execution never took place?
He is trying to "logic" his way out of having killed, by choice or merely by lack of action, the son of God.
#11: Why does Woland insist, against the beliefs of Berlioz and Ivan, that Jesus really existed?
No Jesus = No devil. One is dependant on the other's existance.
#13: Why is the master's real name never revealed?
He represents the struggle of not one man but all.
What are the similarities between religious and aesthetic experience?
This question makes me think of religious rapture and the rapture we feel when experiencing art such as symphony, the vatican's interior, or a beautiful Boticelli. These experiences lift us from our minds and bodies into a feeling of divine and otherwordly pleasure.
Okay guys I know there are others out there that have read this book. Show yourselves!
#3: When Woland sees Margarita's compassion for Pilate, why does he tell her, "Everything will turn out right, the world is built on that"?
Balance of good/evil, God/devil or maybe an insinuation about predetermination?
# 5: Why does Pilate dream that he is involved in an "interesting and endless" argument with Yeshua, "this philosopher, who had thought up such an incredibly absurd thing as that all men are good," and that Yeshua's execution never took place?
He is trying to "logic" his way out of having killed, by choice or merely by lack of action, the son of God.
#11: Why does Woland insist, against the beliefs of Berlioz and Ivan, that Jesus really existed?
No Jesus = No devil. One is dependant on the other's existance.
#13: Why is the master's real name never revealed?
He represents the struggle of not one man but all.
What are the similarities between religious and aesthetic experience?
This question makes me think of religious rapture and the rapture we feel when experiencing art such as symphony, the vatican's interior, or a beautiful Boticelli. These experiences lift us from our minds and bodies into a feeling of divine and otherwordly pleasure.
Okay guys I know there are others out there that have read this book. Show yourselves!
beer good
Well-Known Member
One of my favourite books. I wrote a weird review of this a while back after reading it for the second time, let's see if I can do a quick translation.
---
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
Jerusalem, good Friday 33 AD, around tea time. Three men are nailed to one cross each. None of them is named Bar-Abba; he's been released at the expense of the third.
Moscow, May 193X AD, dusk. Three men meet at a park bench. None of them is named Lucifer, that doesn't mean he's not around.
London, June 1968 AD, probably not very early in the morning. Three men enter a recording studio to record a new song. None of them is named Brian Jones; he's on his way to a swimming pool.
Somehow all of that happens here. And more. Bulgakov writes in two worlds at the same time; he describes how... yeah, you know who, the guy with the pointy beard and the firey eyes, turns up in Moscow.
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
"Professor Woland", that's what he calls himself - his real name having been abolished by the party, which means it doesn't exist - and his more or less mad aides turn the well-ordered socialist paradise upside down. The result is one of the funniest and most vicious pieces of satire ever written; the forces of evil are loosed upon a society that believes that it's gotten rid of them. Lines form outside the mental hospitals, the cops don't know whom to arrest anymore and no one's safe. Every hypocrite is pulled up, roots and all, and hung out to dry. And it becomes very hard not to sympathize with... you know, the guy who's supposed to be on the wrong side.
But at the same time, Bulgakov weaves in the other story as well. The story of a lone, scrawny Hebrew with no following, no ambition to lead anyone or anything, sentenced to die by a reluctant judge at the insistance of a mysterious guest. A revolution founded on a misunderstanding, much too zealous followers and a shadow figure with a plan. And while Jeshua dies on the cross with no famous last words, Moscow descends into mass hysteria and Mick Jagger works himself all the way up into a falsettoed frenzy
Tell me baby, what's my name?
Tell me honey, can you guess my name?
Tell you one thing, you're to blame!
the boundaries between Bulgakov's worlds become undone and we meet the storyteller. The Master. The one who's behind it all - and he's just a man, like the rest of us. The book describes how it itself is burned because no one wants to publish it (it wasn't published in the Soviet union until 33 years after Bulgakov's death) but manuscripts don't burn.
No rest for the wicked. "The Master And Margarita" hasn't had an easy life. In the Soviet of the 30s the mere mention of... you know, the one on the cross and the one with the pitchfork, was too controversial. As I write this, the Russian church has condemned the new movie adaptation on the book for the same, except opposite, reasons. The book has always been fired upon from both sides.
But Bulgakov had seen trenches and purges. He knew full well that we don't need anyone with cloven hooves to excuse the evil that men do.
I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys?!?"
When after all it was you and me...
Shortly after "The Master And Margarita" was as finished as it would ever be, Europe imploded. Somehow Bulgakov manages to capture in 376 pages everything that went and would go wrong with the 20th century; madness, paranoia, xenophobia, holier-than-thou attitudes - and he does it with equal parts poison and love. I don't know if Bulgakov himself meant that we're alone here or that we're not, and which would be the most frightening alternative. But there's some solace in the fact that everyone lives happily ever after. Well, OK, except for the ones who die or go insane.
Whoo Whoo! Whoo Whoo!
---
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
Jerusalem, good Friday 33 AD, around tea time. Three men are nailed to one cross each. None of them is named Bar-Abba; he's been released at the expense of the third.
Moscow, May 193X AD, dusk. Three men meet at a park bench. None of them is named Lucifer, that doesn't mean he's not around.
London, June 1968 AD, probably not very early in the morning. Three men enter a recording studio to record a new song. None of them is named Brian Jones; he's on his way to a swimming pool.
Somehow all of that happens here. And more. Bulgakov writes in two worlds at the same time; he describes how... yeah, you know who, the guy with the pointy beard and the firey eyes, turns up in Moscow.
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
"Professor Woland", that's what he calls himself - his real name having been abolished by the party, which means it doesn't exist - and his more or less mad aides turn the well-ordered socialist paradise upside down. The result is one of the funniest and most vicious pieces of satire ever written; the forces of evil are loosed upon a society that believes that it's gotten rid of them. Lines form outside the mental hospitals, the cops don't know whom to arrest anymore and no one's safe. Every hypocrite is pulled up, roots and all, and hung out to dry. And it becomes very hard not to sympathize with... you know, the guy who's supposed to be on the wrong side.
But at the same time, Bulgakov weaves in the other story as well. The story of a lone, scrawny Hebrew with no following, no ambition to lead anyone or anything, sentenced to die by a reluctant judge at the insistance of a mysterious guest. A revolution founded on a misunderstanding, much too zealous followers and a shadow figure with a plan. And while Jeshua dies on the cross with no famous last words, Moscow descends into mass hysteria and Mick Jagger works himself all the way up into a falsettoed frenzy
Tell me baby, what's my name?
Tell me honey, can you guess my name?
Tell you one thing, you're to blame!
the boundaries between Bulgakov's worlds become undone and we meet the storyteller. The Master. The one who's behind it all - and he's just a man, like the rest of us. The book describes how it itself is burned because no one wants to publish it (it wasn't published in the Soviet union until 33 years after Bulgakov's death) but manuscripts don't burn.
No rest for the wicked. "The Master And Margarita" hasn't had an easy life. In the Soviet of the 30s the mere mention of... you know, the one on the cross and the one with the pitchfork, was too controversial. As I write this, the Russian church has condemned the new movie adaptation on the book for the same, except opposite, reasons. The book has always been fired upon from both sides.
But Bulgakov had seen trenches and purges. He knew full well that we don't need anyone with cloven hooves to excuse the evil that men do.
I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys?!?"
When after all it was you and me...
Shortly after "The Master And Margarita" was as finished as it would ever be, Europe imploded. Somehow Bulgakov manages to capture in 376 pages everything that went and would go wrong with the 20th century; madness, paranoia, xenophobia, holier-than-thou attitudes - and he does it with equal parts poison and love. I don't know if Bulgakov himself meant that we're alone here or that we're not, and which would be the most frightening alternative. But there's some solace in the fact that everyone lives happily ever after. Well, OK, except for the ones who die or go insane.
Whoo Whoo! Whoo Whoo!
Flor
New Member
This is a great stand-alone question, but in thinking about the novel, I just can't pull this reflection from the reading. Unless it's Yeshuah's experience compared with that of the master? What am I missing? So, in this particular novel, I can't find answers to this. But I think the religious experience is a limited form of aesthetic experience in that so much is proscribed.
One of these days I will revisit The Master & Margarita for the great satire. Especially as Woland first comes to town and everyone who's anyone clamors to see his show. It would be even richer and funnier with a complete understanding of the references, something I just don't have.
Ms.
New Member
No one has yet mentioned the nods to Faust within the text, such a Margarita and the German Gretchen and the cute little nod of the poodle headed walking stick in the opening chapter. I read the Master and the Margarita about a month ago and on recommendation followed it with Faust soon after. My main problem with Master was it had a stunning 5/6 chapter introduction which needed no emotional weight due to the humour and fast paced narrative. However after these chapters there is scant emotional development or depth to the characters of Master/Margarita. I read especially the second book as if a cold observer to the events within it. I think I needed some internal development to make me engage with the book and I guess reading Faust I could in some respects transfers emotions from it to Master. It ranks as one of my favourite and most enjoyable books and I will read it again soon
