The Master and Margarita (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition) Paperback – Deckle Edge, 3 May 2016

I often think that the term "masterpiece" is too liberally applied these days to books which really do not deserve it but The Master And Margarita is one of those wonderful books which truly DOES deserve that title.If you're not familiar with Russian literature I still think you'd find this good a great romp but you may possibly not enjoy it as much as someone who has read Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Cherneshevsky, Turgenev, Goncharov etc beforehand, mostly because, in my opinion, the humor which this book boasts a-plenty is very, very Russian!!If you have an interest in the culture and history of Russia, this book also gives you an insight into the prejudices, the moral and philosophical opinions and the political upheaval of the time.One of my favorite (and most "Bulgakov-esque"!) moments comes at the very beginning of the book where Berlioz and his companion meet The Devil on a park bench and, not really knowing who he was and finding him somewhat strange, they try to logically and rationally discuss between themselves where he comes from and who, exactly, he is. They then conclude that he must surely be a mentally unstable German! Bulgakov has a way of writing which makes you believe that Berlioz and Co had come to this conclusion perfectly reasonably!The concept of someone being beheaded by olive oil (indirectly!) is just too delicious for words too!I would highly recommend this book to anyone who fancies a foray into Russian literature at the turn of the 20th Century and who is open to Bulgakov's seemingly limitless powers of imagination!This is not a "story" in the conventional sense - it is a wander through the mind of Mikhail Bulgakov (a genius by my estimation) and there are many different interpretations of this novel. My own feeling is that it is an attempt to parallel "old" and "new" moral values (in much the same way as Turgenev's Fathers and Sons or Dostoyevsky's Notes From the Underground were) and it also has a philosophical and slightly heretical take on organized religion.Give it a try as it really is a superb book and funny beyond words!!

In Chapter 21 of The Master and Margarita the maid Natasha, having been transformed into a witch and revelling in the freedom that the metamorphosis has brought her, exclaims “We, too, want to live and fly!”. Many in Stalinist Russia must have longed to ‘live and fly’ to escape the fear, tyranny and grey uniformity of Soviet life, but few had the opportunity and still fewer the courage to do so. This novel is about many things, but to my mind it is mainly about courage and freedom - the courage to be free. One of its recurring themes is that “cowardice is the most terrible of vices” and throughout the story it is the cowards, those who have made their compromises with tyranny and who lack the courage to seek freedom who are punished.On a warm spring afternoon at full moon Satan, attended by a bizarre retinue of demons including a huge black cat that walks on its hind legs, talks, drinks vodka and plays chess, arrives in Moscow, presents himself as ‘Professor Woland’ a theatrical magician and for the following few days presides as a kind of ‘Lord of Misrule’ over a series of hilariously disruptive events that cause widespread hysteria. While it becomes clear to the reader what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the world of the novel it is not at all clear to most of those citizens of Moscow who encounter Satan/Woland and his demons. For the people of Moscow have made their compromises with tyranny to the extent that their perceptions have become so distorted that that they do not recognize tyranny for what it is, but believe it to be good and regard anything that disrupts the status quo as bad. Woland represents the urge to escape, to be free and apart from Natasha the only characters who act on this urge are Margarita who longs to escape from a loveless marriage and to be reunited with her lover, a persecuted novelist (‘the Master’), who has disappeared and the Master himself. The other characters who encounter Woland and his entourage are too immersed in the petty concerns of their everyday lives, their envy, their ambition, their crass materialism and their fearful and unquestioning acceptance of things as they are to dare to desire freedom.The novel is filled with incident and is very fast paced and I got the distinct impression that the driving force behind all of this is Bulgakov’s anger – his anger at Soviet society for its acceptance of and collaboration with tyranny and his anger at himself for what he believed to be his own cowardice in the face of tyranny. He invents a world in which he can wreak revenge and creates his own version of Satan to be his avenging angel. Bulgakov’s Satan is not the all evil Satan of the Christian imagination. True, he does bad things to bad people as Satan is expected to do, but uncharacteristically he also does good things to good people; not only is he capable of doing good as well as evil, but he also has a sense of humour: through Satan/Woland, Bulgakov can fantasize about laughing at and at the same time punishing the bureaucrats, spies, informers and busybodies who made day-to-day Soviet life so intolerable.Much of Bulgakov’s animus is directed at the complacent Muscovite literary establishment, who should have known better, who should have spoken out on behalf of the oppressed, but were so seduced by their privileged status and its attendant material benefits and so cowed that they ignored the reality of the world that they lived in. It was said by Nabokov that there was no such thing as Soviet literature as the truly great figures of Russian literature in the Soviet period were forced to become dissidents to be true to themselves and their art. It was the mediocrities who did not become dissidents and who reaped the rewards for their collaboration. Bulgakov shows his contempt for them by portraying them as the members of the literary club Massolit who are less interested in writing than in dachas, Crimean holidays and above all their fine club restaurant from which members of the public are excluded. The Master, in contrast, is not part of the literary establishment. He has written a novel about the moral cowardice of Pontius Pilate, who was so terrified of the consequences of defying the Emperor Tiberius that he submitted to the blackmail of the high priest and acted contrary to his own conscience and inclinations by agreeing to the execution of Jesus. The Master’s novel has been denied publication presumably because the parallels with Soviet life are too obvious for comfort, and a campaign against its author by a group of influential literary critics has driven the Master to burn the manuscript and has led to his being arrested and subsequently seeking refuge in a psychiatric hospital. There are parallels with Bulgakov’s life in that he was himself the victim of a politically motivated press campaign in the 1920’s. The Master and Margarita was not published during his lifetime and at one stage he even burned the manuscript. But, as Woland says, “Manuscripts do not burn”…The Master and Margarita is a wonderful comic fantasy in which supernatural happenings occur in a world that does not accept the supernatural as a possibility and much of the comedy is provided by the reactions of Soviet citizens and officials to the outrageous tricks that are perpetrated on them. One of the funniest incidents in the book is when a pompous citizen who has temporarily been metamorphosed into a hog and forced to attend Satan’s grand ball demands from Satan a certificate attesting to this fact as evidence to prove to his wife and to the authorities where he has spent the night. I suppose it is the portrayal of Satan that caused the Russian Orthodox Church to find the novel offensive and that in 2006 induced a religious extremist to vandalize the Bulgakov museum in Moscow. This is ironic because Bulgakov was a Christian and it was his outrage at the crude anti-religious propaganda of the Soviet authorities that prompted him to write the novel, but Satan as the advocate of religious belief and the opponent of official Soviet atheism even in the context of a satire was clearly too much for conventional Christians to swallow. It is also probable that they were offended that the Master’s unorthodox retelling of the Gospel story is featured in four chapters as a novel within the novel, part of which is actually narrated by Satan. In the circumstances the fact that the atmosphere of ancient Jerusalem (in the novel called ‘Yershalaim’) and the events surrounding the crucifixion are brought to life much more vividly than in the Gospel accounts cannot have pleased the church authorities.I found it difficult to put the book down so engrossed did I become in the world that Bulgakov created and as soon as I finished it I started to read it again. His Moscow seems very immediate and alive and the small-minded, sly, officious and corrupt Soviet citizens and officials that he describes are sadly all too credible. The general unpleasantness of life in the Stalinist period, the atmosphere of fear and distrust, the denunciations, the disappearances, the privations of life in communal apartments, the privileges enjoyed by the favoured few such as hard currency shops and exclusive clubs are all objects of Bulgakov’s satire. Even though it is set in Stalinist Moscow at the height of the purges and show trials in the late 1930’s the atmosphere of the novel is not oppressive. This is a Moscow of the imagination in which demons with a sense of fun play pranks against the dour and humourless citizens and officials of the communist state. It is hardly surprising that Bulgakov did not seek to have the novel published during his lifetime..

This is just a fantastic book, more people should know about it! I won't go into detail about the plot as it's been covered here and to be honest there really is no substitute for reading the book itself: I think it just about has everything and its originality, intricacy, and subtext is breathtaking.What I will pass comment on however is the translation. Firstly, I have not read the much lauded Glenny translations as discussed on these pages. I read the Penguin Classics Pevear & Volokhonsky translation. My intention is not to get embroiled in a battle over which translation is the superior but rather to provide an assurance to those looking to purchase the book that this is an eminently readable version. Not having read Glenny I can draw no direct comparisons, but the P&V version is far from "unreadable"; people are always going to be biased to how they first encountered the book. There are times when the text appears a little, for want of a better word, `clunky', but I am lead to understand that the translation is far more faithful to the original text than Glenny's version; personally this means something to me as I want to read it (short of learning Russian) as close to the way Bulgakov wrote it as possible.