Bulgakov Versus Censorship

In honor (pun not intended) of the essay, I'd like to point out a few of my observations during my close reading. On page 67, there is a strange interruption in the flow of the text. The narrator flows from describing the scene that is going on to saying that none of the pirate fantasy that Archibald Archibaldovich was a part of exists. The narrator then flows from saying that none of that exists to begging for gods to give them poison. The sudden shift from storytelling to pressing the nonexistence of the fantasy is similar to how censorship takes works of fantasy that evoke a sense of revolt in oppression and silences them. As ideas are silenced, a desire for freedom from an artist's standpoint rises. The line "Oh, gods, gods, poison, give me poison!" could refer to the narrator's desire for gods, or some other form of myth/fantasy to poison his mind with ideas that Soviet censorship does not allow. Bulgakov's inclusion of the strange deviation from the story's progression could be his way of voicing his opinion about Soviet censorship and how it needs to go away.

P.S. I commented on Tyler's post.

Be careful what you wish for..

In chapter 19, Margarita says "Really, I would pawn my soul to the devil to find out whether he is alive or dead." This goes to show how enticing the devil can be and while I know we can't parallel this novel too harshly with Christianity, it just made me think of how the Devil is alluring. He is hidden in things that don't seem "bad" and he waits for our own thoughts to make us vulnerable, just as he does here with Margarita because she does end up pawning her soul off to the Devil.



I commented on Sierra's!

Master and the Margarita

I'm going to make a confession here; I haven't actually finished the book because I was busy with the essay.  However, I did get almost finished, and got confused towards the very end.  I'm also beginning to wonder if the combination of Woland, Koroviev, and Behemoth is a perversion of the trinity.

~Commented on Darby's post

Coincidence? Maybe completely bonkers.

So now I am pretty confused as to the nature of multiple characters. After Woland's conversation with Levi, it almost seems as though he exists to be the foil of Jesus. It's almost as though the two are at work in the world, ultimately bringing about their own odd forms of justice, with one light and the other dark to accentuate each other. That may be a completely bonkers interpretation, but ultimately, each person who experiences the trials of Woland and co really "get what's coming to them," and the people who have suffered, Margarita, the Master, and even Ivan get their own odd forms of release and peace. Satan even willingly takes orders from Jesus thorough Levi, which seems more like an odd partnership than the most passionate repulsion known to mankind. Still, it seems as though Bolgokov uses Woland to ultimately perform his own expose, and expose corruption and reveal revels for those who are striving to actually live. I don't really know though. Also my computer's autocorrect couldn't recognize the name Woland. Coincidence?

Chats on Jeremy's

Wut.......

In chapters 30-32, I am at a loss. This is not a good ending. Throughout this book, the storyline was not too terrible to keep up with. Now, I am just questioning why. Why did everyone's appearance change? I do not know. I am also confused as to why Master and Margarita were so okay with Azazello coming in and saying ''hey guys lets go on a trip. Here is some unsuspicious wine". There are a lot of things I am confused with and wresting with in this ending. I loo forward to getting some clarity.

I commented on Nate's/

Incurable Master

I cannot get over how the Master said he was "incurable" and "when Stravinsky says that he will restore me to life, I don't believe him". In what sense is he incurable? He cannot be cured because he has already written his novel, and his beliefs do not die. The circumstances that he is living in cause him to be incurable. It is not that he is mad, but that he cannot change who he is. The circumstances he lives in causes him to be considered ill. He's mental state progress throughout the book. He goes from rage, to depression, to being incurable. He finally finds a place of contentment with staying where he is though. I find this interesting that he just kind of gives up and accepts that he's incurable and must stay there.

I commented on Abbie's post.

Have Mercy!

On page 295, Margarita requests Woland to let Freida be free of her torment with the handkerchief. He starts talking about stuffing rags into every crack in his bedroom and after Margarita expresses her confusion with his statement, he then reveals, “I am talking about mercy. It sometimes unexpectedly and slyly creeps through the narrowest cracks.” I know at one point in class we talked about how Woland seems to give to each person what he deserves as opposed to Yeshua calling everyone a “good man.” This statement seems to confirm this side of Woland. He acts as though mercy has no place in his presence. The problem is he eventually allows the act to be completed anyway. Is Woland all-powerful, yet also somewhat of a pushover?
I commented on Abbie George's post.

Losing One's Head

After our class discussion outside last week, I couldn't stop thinking about the significance of character's losing their heads. I kept asking what the significance of it was. There was so much insight to that given by Brannen and others during class, I thought I might continue to elaborate and share thoughts on that.

Someone loses their head in this story when fear begins to rule their rational. When they lose their head, they also lose their rational faculties, as Jeremy mentioned. Their ability to think, reason, which is what previously led them to deny the supernatural. Yet the irony lies in the fact that the supernatural (Satan/Woland)  is precisely what predicted/caused them to lose their head.

Is the writer trying to make the point that these characters lose their heads when they misuse it? By misusing it, I mean use their rational faculties to disprove the supernatural rather that to affirm it.


Just a thought as to what the writer's intention may be.

P. S. Commented on Brannen's!

So, Where Are They?

Bulgakov! You're killing me here! Okay, so I really enjoyed this book and I did follow the multitude of story lines but what in Yeshua's name is Bulgakov driving at?!! I was enchanted by the specific plots of Master and Margarita but where do they end up? It's not Heaven and it's not Hell. Is it Purgatory? We know from the text that they will be happy for eternity. I'm just trying to piece together what Bulgakov's point is. Then the whole thing with Pilate and Banga. He is deserving of the light and "he with whom he longs to speak has already asked for him"(387). But why did Woland have a hold of him until Master proclaimed that Pilate was free? Does Bulgakov have a guide to the after life rule book, and if so where can I find it?

I commented on Darby Callicut's.

Margarita

In Chapter 30, the Master and Margarita are talking and the Master is having all these doubts that he met Satan even though earlier in the book he tells Ivan that Satan exists. Azazello comes to see them and Margarita is ecstatic. The Master is leery about who Azazello is and what he is doing there. When the Master and Margarita drink the wine they both come unconscious. Azazello then goes to Margarita's house where another Margarita is there. What!?! How is there another Margarita?  The other Margarita fell on the ground (Dead?) and Azazello then leaves and goes back to the basement where the Master and Margarita are and they both wake up. Why was there two Margarita's? Why did the Master and Margarita need to drink the wine? This whole scene is confusing and interesting.

P.S. I commented on Darby Callicutt's Post.

The Devil and Peace

Chapter 29 kind of consfused me and if anyone has a good answer please comment! Everything seemed at peace with Woland sitting in a lawn chair looking to the horizon and then here comes good ole Matthu Levi. After snide remarks Levi asks Woland to reward the Master with peace and even jabs at him saying, " Is that so diffcult for you spirit of evil?" This paradoxical as why would the "Devil" of this novel have the power to grant peace something he most certainly did not give to any of the characters. Then Woland counters back by saying " And why don't you take him with you, into the light?", then Levi states that the Master has onl earned peace. So my second question is what is the difference between light and peace? Assuming that the light is heaven or a paradise with Yeshua, isn't peace associated with this? There shouldn't be a seperation of the two but I would love to know Bulgakov's take on this.

I commented on Nathan's post.

Jim Henson's "Satan's Great Ball"

During Woland's party- no, from the moment Margarita spoke with Azazello- all I could think about was "this sounds like a Jim Henson film." I am a fan of Labyrinth and the Dark Crystal, and these few chapters sounded like something he could have come up with. Sure, it lacks a singing David Bowie, unless you want to consider Woland the Goblin King, but with the colorful characters and creative set pieces painted in my mind reeked of the vision of the late Jim Henson. If he were still alive, I would have loved to see his take on this novel.

I commented on Nathanael C. Carroll's post.

Who is the Narrator?

    The story never comes right out and says it! Oh well, one must at least make attempts to figure this out, for it is the questions oft avoided can sometimes come to mean the most.
    Perhaps it is Homeless. Homeless is the last person referenced; he feels at peace. He desensitizes himself to his memories, allowing the bogus explanations to rule. He could have written down his experiences. The book could be the final draft of his statement.
    Perhaps the narrator is the Master, for he writes his manuscript earlier in the book, yet the subject of said book is never completely explained. The last words also point to this idea (in the epilogue)-- "the cruel fifth Procurator of Judea, the rider Pontius Pilate." They are VERY similar to the last words in the Master's manuscript, only adding the word "cruel." This and the fact that the master is in the Psychiatric Ward where any piece of the story could be heard attest to his possibility of being narrator.
    Woland- maybe he is the narrator. He is the coordinator of the craziness and insanity. He would know what all is going on and why. He would also follow up on his mischief and know what happened afterwards.
    Last but not least, let us consider the doctor at the psychiatric ward- Dr. Stravinsky. Though he does not play a major role in the story, he most likely talks to all of the patients in the ward and places their stories together- including the Master's. He could very well be writing down all of his notes from their interviews. The epilogue and other such bits of the story following the main storyline could even be attested to him due to following up in typical case study fashion. Though he does not seem likely and could be avoided as a subject, he is a plausible option.
     Who is the narrator? I do not know, but I think it is actually pretty cool to not know. It leaves a mystery behind that feels fitting to the novel. If everything that could be known is known, what fun is it to know? And even further than that- if everything that could be known is known, then is the perception of what is known correct? The lack of a statement or acknowledgement of who the narrator is leaves an imprint of intrigue behind with this novel.


P.S. I commented on Caleb Zessin's post.

Levi

Matthu. Homeboy. Whatchu doin in Moscow bruh?? But seriously. I don't completely understand why Bulgakov chooses to use Matthew as the huge messenger figure. There's a key passage that discusses the fate of Matthu and Pilate. These figures represent the different sides of the philosophy of the "idea" that Bulgakov plays around with through the whole novel. Ideas and specifically those that become written word. "manuscripts don't burn" When most people think of Christ, they remember Pilate as the guy who killed Jesus. And Pilate in real history never got over his guilt of the crucifixion. He went down in infamy for his crime. Thus we have his position in the novel. On the other side, nobody really knows Matthew except the writer of a gospel. He's not a necessarily huge figure in the gospels other than that. But his name is the one on the manuscript. He's the translator of the ideas. He gives them their immortality. He IS the ultimate transcending messenger. This his position in the novel. 

— I commented on Brannen's blog. 

This and Dante's Hell

are very similar.  It is that one has a defining sin and is sent to eternally experience that sin.  Therein lies my understanding of Pilate's fate, and even of M&M's fates, though, in their cases, their defining act isn't necessarily sin.  Such an "eternal home" does not appear hellish (unless they do not want to eternally be concerned with writing the story of Pilate, and that may be the case).  So where they go resembles some of the upper levels of Dante's hell, such as that of the virtuous pagans.  And Woland determines fate in Bulgakov's Moscow.  Why is that....

Jeremy's

The Master and Margarita

If Woland is supposed to be Satan, then why does he do the will of Yeshua? Yeshua sends Matthu to Woland and asks him to grant the Master and Margarita peace. So why does Woland do it? Is it because both of them "do not deserve the light"? And by granting them the peace he is not allowing them to seek the light? Why does Woland even allow this?! Wasn't he amused with messing with Margarita or was his sole purpose to bring them together?

I commented on Sierra's!

What is the mysterious liquid?

I am very confused at the scene when Margarita was given the clear liquid to drink. She said she felt no trace of intoxication, but rather she felt refreshed and grew increasingly hungry. As she continued drinking the liquid, the fires in the room grew bigger and brighter. Was she poisoned? Naively intoxicated? And could this be similar to, if not the same as, the liquid that Ivan was injected with while in the insane asylum? I thought it peculiar and interesting that the liquid gave her a sort of high, rather than a depressant. I have several questions about the liquid, but I could quite possibly be overthinking it all.

I commented on Brannen's!

Satan

Today, after I read, I went back and looked over the last two weeks blogs. It was interesting to me to see our first views of this foreigner who's name started with "W". Woland brings out the side of Satan it is so easy to forget or repress. It's easy to see Satan as the horned red devil with a pointed tail. However, he is much more crafty and mischievous and dangerous. Just like in Master and Margarita Satan plays with truth. He uses truth to completely break Homeless. He uses truth to tempt Margarita. He also lures people with beautiful things. The food he offers the director the theater is delicious and appealing. The clothes and accessories are appealing to the eyes of the women in the audience at the theater. The list goes on. Satan is not obvious. He makes things appear pretty and important. He plays with desires - like Margarita's desire to see Master or people's desire for money. He seems like a friend - like with the manager of the bar at the theater. However, he has his own agenda and will follow it no matter the cost to others.

Matthu at the Cruxifiction

One of the most grabbing chapters of this book, for me, was Chapter 18. Matthu's turmoil was saddening, and his desire to end his beloved friend suffering before it could truly begin spoke to me. I, perhaps, would try and do the same for someone I loved if it meant keeping them from a long, tormented death. And then, when the time came, and Yeshua passed, and the world grew dark, and the storm came, Matthu still never left his beloved friend and mentor, for he leapt upon that cross to rescue Yeshua's body from the storm, and was washed away with it. While not the biblical telling of the day, it is still believable that one of Jesus' followers loved him so much to at least have thought of doing what Matthu wanted to do and did.

I commented on Wendy's post.

I haven't been able to read much, but I have read a bit of it.  I did like how, in chapter 17, Petrovich cried out for the devil to take them, and he disappeared, and left only his suit.  It's almost as if the devil was being used a cuss word in a sense.

~Commented on Delaney's post

What's in a word?

In class, we briefly discussed the topic of word censorship. If you do not write something down, maybe the people will forget it. We see this idea played out in Chapter 13. On pages 163-164, the Master tries to burn his drafts in the fire, but he finds it to be a extremely hard task for "paper covered with writing burns very reluctantly." He tries to burn his writings to forget them forever, but his thoughts are still with him, creating fear within him and even landing him in a mental institution.

I commented on Briana Batdorf's post.

Woland

While reading tonight, I found the magic act that his assistant and the tom cat act out pretty hilarious. I really do not understand the author's choice of using the same person's name in 5 different ways. It has made it more confusing than helpful, but I love the characters. Going back to the magic act in chapter twelve, I was very disturbed. We get a graphic image of Bengalsky's head being ripped off. I am starting to think Bulgakov has a thing for decapitation. In this scene though, was the first time I really saw how evil the tom cat is. We see him being mischievous throughout, but not until now do we see how dark Woland, the assistant, and the tom cat really are. I am currently not too fond of this book, but it is one of those books you just cannot put down at the same time.

I commented on Sierra's post.

Octopus

I am finding more and more each chapter I am beginning to enjoy this novel and actually laugh at a few things. ( okay a lot)
In Chapter 13, pages 162 and 163 is the Master describing a depression that resembles a octupus that begins growing on him. This illustration was intriguing as I had never heard of it being octupus-like. Many authors would use things like black cloud, or plague to describe depression or a sort of mental illness but not Bulgakov. With further research, I discovered that octopus have a toxin in their tentacles that numbs their prey so that they are unbale to fight back. Secondly, when a octopus begins to devour its prey it billows out like a parachute and then covers all of it. In a video, a marine biologist showed that the crab a octopus had just eaten was entirely cleaned out from the inside. How creative is that word-play! Depression defintly mimmicks the qualities of a octopus and this helps us understand the depth of his mental illeness and the toil it took on the Master's lover. Depression numbs a person to the point where nothing is appeasing and there is a unpresidented feeling of hopelessness. Also it covers one completely emcompassing whoever the victim is in complete darkness and then devours all that is inside beginning with the heart. The Master felt just that as it slowly was watching him in his sleep, haunting him.

I commented on Sierra's post.

Two Ivans and the Weather

Chapter 11 in particular stood out. I appreciate when the weather matches the moods of the characters, so it definitely stood out to me that it pours rain as well as thunderstorms while Ivan weeps. It is all very poetic in a sense. And then the river calms down as Ivan calms down after the injection of medicine. Maybe he is just imagining it all - that his mind going crazy simply causes him to perceive the world in the same crazy way.
Ivan is trying to rationalize and process all of his recent experiences, and is struggling so much so that he is forced to create another version of himself in order to try and comprehend it all. Nothing is logical in his mind.

I commented on Nathanael's!

Relating to the Devil

As I work my way through the pages of The Master and the Margarita I find myself intrigued by the Devil's character and his game. He messes with atheists to convince them that God exists to simply prove his own existence. However, the way he tells Bible stories and predicts others deaths and futures gave me some food for thought. The stranger is going through all this trouble just to prove himself to these characters. He wants them to believe in him and what he can do. This got me thinking, is that not what we all do? We strive for people to believe in us and sometimes we even go out of our way to do so. As humans, we constantly try to prove ourselves to the people we see as important because we believe that their approval will get us where we need to go. Maybe not everyone thinks this way, but I definitely see it bringing out the human side in the Devil.


I commented on Caleb's post.

Poor Homeless

I'm really enjoying this novel so far as I've read it (which unfortunately isn't as far as I'd like), but I especially like the idea of Ivan's situation. The idea that anyone can be insane based on their actions to their surroundings. He has been perceived to be a Schizophrenic, therefore he is. Nothing he can say or do will change that. If he denies it he's ill, if he accepts it he's still crazy. No one is ever going to believe his story about Berlioz and Woland and when the head of the asylum visits Homeless(Stravinsky), Homeless begins to doubt even himself. Honestly it's a terrifying thought that once someone declares you there's pretty much nothing you can do to get out of it. Now Woland is off making trouble for Styopa. I can't wait to see what happens next.

I commented on Travis Carr's.

Trip trip acid trip tip.

My title has absolutely nothing to do with post. I just thought it sounded funny. What stood out to me moving forward is that the devil's assistants begin to become more mundane in their mischief. Mundane is probably the wrong term. But it's what I'm going with. They first come in and we see all this weird supernatural transportation and transfiguration and disappearing. But they quickly become physically with people as we move forward. And then the weird fiery naked siren lady shows up. I think it's another symbolic movement showing the degradation of the lust of the flesh.

My comment rests with Tyler.

Psychedelic Slate

Reflecting on the reading this week I found it interesting to think about what this book would be like without the Russian setting. What exactly would the story look like without its soviet background? The black and white (and red, I suppose) background of order and protocol and social expectations really serve to create the perfect canvas for these crazy bursts of the spiritual realm and altered Bible stories and all sorts of shenanigans. While it makes for a sort of psychedelic merri-go-round of plot and character and silly social rules and black government orders, each individual element gets its own clear, distinct spotlight somehow. While the soviet setting would typically seem to so contradict the almost New Orleans type occult activity, the satirical spin Bolgokov places over the background really causes it to blend and knit in with the rest of his masterpiece.

Comments on Nathanael's

The stranger

In chapter 13, a stranger comes into Ivan's room at the mental facility. This stranger proceeds to basically insult Ivan and Ivan just agrees with him. The stranger also tells Ivan a love story that has a obscure ending. In the story, the stranger mentions writing a book about Pontius Pilate but he will not go into depth about his book which he also ends up burning the five copies he has. Who is this stranger? Why does he tell Ivan what he does? What is the book about? I am excited to further discuss this stranger in class.

P.S I commented on Daniel Stephen's Post

Russian Smeagol

   As I continue through this interesting story, I have been hoping, for Homeless's sake, that he eventually finds someone who believes him. Sadly, as I reach chapter eleven and following, Homeless slowly turns into one of the most memorable characters from one of my favorite series- Lord of the Rings. Homeless turns into a sort of Smeagol character- personally conflicted, questioning reason, and actually arguing with himself. This picture displays the idea that, given the correct conditions, anyone could become somewhat insane. It seems that one's surroundings can truly attribute to their actions and attitude- even changing their personality. This is a perfect correlation with Smeagol. Smeagol was tormented and tortured by and for the ring of power. It changed him from a simple being capable of emotion and care into a single-purposed obsessed creature of unhealthy stature and endless babblings. Homeless, due to his being treated as insane and unbelievable surroundings slowly begins to go crazy, even to the point of conflict within and without. He can find no rest, for he does not know what to say or do- to himself or to others.


P.S. I commented on Travis's post.

Master and the Margarita

Having not been in class Thursday, I honestly have no idea how I should follow up with this blog post, because I don't know what we talked about.  However, I did find chapter 13, when the master appears, quite interesting.  I find the description of the devil quite interesting in this chapter as well, and how they put it as the master losing possession of himself.

~Commented on Daniel's post

The Master Arrives

After one hundred and fifty pages, the Master has finally been brought into existence in my readings. And I must say, he may turn out to be my favorite character of this book for one reason: He forms the foundation for the reality of what is happening in this book. His recounting of his own strange occurrences affirms, for me, the creditability of these character's claims of the supernatural occurring. One could say that the characters have simply had mental breakdowns or it was hypnosis and all the things that have happened were merely fantasies. However, the Master is the only character so far that can be spoken to about these events without the speaker, such as Homeless, being judged as a madman, because he can relate to Homeless' story. Also, his tragic love story was a nice touch as well.

I commented on Travis' post.

Russian Spaghetti and Margarita

The Master and Margarita continues to provide me with an abstract cinematographic mental movie that seems like spaghetti covering an entire plate. Many storylines interweave and themes intertwine with one another like noodles, which cover an entire visual plate. As the story progresses, it is like Bulgakov is taking another bite of spaghetti, which reveals more of the plate, but that portion being removed also remains tangled with the rest of the novel, invoking a sense of mystery, as the amount that will be intertwined is unknown. I feel like the book will make sense once every noodle of a story, and every drop of detail sauce has been removed. To see the final story unveiled will be exciting, as, even though it has confused me, I have thoroughly enjoyed the novel up to the point that I have read to.

I commented on Jeremy's post.

The Master

     Now knowing who Master and Margarita are, I am beginning to understand this book and its title. The Master has an interesting story that he tells Ivan which includes him meeting Margarita. He tells how they fell in love and had a "secret marriage", because she was already married. During this, Master was writing a novel.
   
     There are a lot of things going on at this point. But before all these events, I am convinced that Woland is Satan. He brings people deeper in their sin and encourages them. He puts people right confront of their sins to tempt them. But I am interested to see what happens in the end of this novel and how it all ties together.

I commented on Darby's.

MaM

A major effect of the novel (this may be a view of Bulgakov or it may just be his presentation of a reality in Soviet Russia) is the result of spiritual encounters: all those people end up in the psyche hospital.  Religion, or spirituality, in Bulgakov's Moscow is something demanding institutionalization.

All of the events are unbelievable, and even absurd, but spirituality is just that (at least to some extent).

The people of this novel may be godless, but they aren't necessarily morality-less.  We see this as the bartender goes into Woland's place and is greeted by the "shameless maid" who he considers abominable and disgraceful.

Darby

The Magic Show

In Chapter 12 of The Master and Margarita, Professor Woland, the checkered man (now called Fagott), and the cat are in the theater and are demonstrating a magic show. I think the point of this showing is to bring out the worldly desires of the people that are attending. For the men, it is money. For the women, it is to look the prettiest and have the nicest clothes. I think Woland does this purposely. In my opinion, I think he is the devil and that he is trying to get the people to hurt each other over jealously for what the others have. For example, two men begin to fight and brawl over the money that is falling in the air. I think this ties into the fact that Woland is trying to change the world in which these people live. In the chapter, Woland says that the "Moscow populace has changed significantly". Maybe that was foreshadowing the change in the people after his magic show after Fagott (Koroviev) tempts them. I think that Woland is trying to drag the people deeper into their sin.



I commented on Daniel's!

Delighty Confused

As of now, I am thoroughly confused and delighted by this book. It was shocking to see the foreigner's prediction of Berlioz demise come to fruition, Final Destination style. Then, when Homeless gave chase to the foreigner, the appearance of the walking tomcat whom, apparently, rides streetcars, is something like from Disney or the mind of Lewis Carrol, author of Alice in Wonderland. Then with Homeless' maddened search for the foreigner in the river, which costs him his clothes, his reputation among peers, and eventually his freedom. This is truly a confused tale, but it is the best sort of confusion, meant for class discussion. And might I add, if there were ever a film adaptation of this novel, I would most definitely go see it.

I commented on Jeremy Beaman's post.

His Objective

Context adds a lot to understanding this novel.  Obviously, he is writing under Communism, and under Communism, organized religion was largely scrutinized (consider Marx's famous statement about religion).  In many cases, it was done away with.  Bulgakov follows the historical skepticism coming out of Europe at this time, from authors like Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre.  This skepticism is more in the language (I think) than the plot.  In other words, the difference in spelling of names (transliteration may play a part) speaks to uncertainties about historical verification.

Jessica's

The Stranger..

So far in my reading of this book, along with a good number of other questions, my biggest curiosity is who the stranger really is and what role he is going to play in this story? I don't understand his character yet but I'm a bit skeptical..I don't think I trust him. I'm interested to see how his character plays out.

I commented on Sierra's!

The Master and Margarita

I find this book very interesting so far. Pontius Pilate and Yeshua's conversation interests me because of the way Yeshua converses with Pilate. Yeshua reads Pilate like a book when he says, "your head aches and aches so badly that you are giving yourself over to cowardly thoughts of death. . . but your suffering will be over soon, your headache will pass". Yeshua ultimately escapes being hanged, for the time being. Pilate's interest in this "mentally deranged" man's thoughts does not make sense if he really thought he were ill.

I commented on Sierra's post.

The Master and Margarita

This is a very intriguing book to read. It raises interesting questions, and challenges me to reread the page and try and figure out what they are talking about. Also, having a character list has been very helpful while reading so that I can distinguish each character.
I cannot get over the conversation between Berlioz, Homeless, and the Foreigner (Professor Woland). Every time Berlioz and Homeless would say that Jesus Christ is a myth, and there is "no proof of God's existence," Professor Woland would grow more enthused and curious (10). That frustrates me because Woland is the devil figure, and his reactions to the denial of God are probably very similar to what Satan does when we deny God. However, it is very interesting that Woland continues asking "how man can govern" if man is not everlasting or all-knowing (11).
I commented on Rachel's!

Master and the Margarita

I haven't really read much of the story, the first ten pages to be exact, but what I have read I still found enjoyable.  So far, I've found the poet being named Homeless quite entertaining.

~Commented on Daniel's post

Master and margarita

So.......this book so far is one of the better we have read. It is a good read, but it is confusing at times. I have a couple times in the first couple chapters where I am lost in the characters. The names of the characters are hard to keep up with because they are so foreign to me. I am interested to see where how the rest of the book unfolds and how the title fits with the book. But most importantly, if you read the back of the book, Harry Potter said this was his favorite novel. So now obviously I must read it.

I commented on Darby's

Fascinating

Personally, I found the reading this week really funny and enjoyable. Yes, there are some interesting/odd things going on with the different perspectives being shown (Pilate, the people's different reactions to Satan, etc.), but its really quite pleasant to read. I love the little quirks of the author, such as when Homeless is trying to find the "professor" and the narrator says something along the lines of, "He just knew he had to be ______. No one knows why he thought as such, but there was no one else on the street at the time to ask why." Little additions like this are so quirky and fun, and keep the irony quite colorful in a way similar to Candide, but not so grotesque. I'm really excited to see where all this is going, or perhaps where it isn't going.

comments on Brannen

The Historical Jesus?

At first, I thought I was not going to like this book very much, but now I am having a hard time putting it down. I keep wanting to know what is going to happen next. Right now, I am seeing some familiar names being thrown around, such as Josephus, Tacitus, Kant, and Strauss. I am definitely seeing a possible connection to the First Quest to find the “historical Jesus” that was led by Strauss during this time period. Part of this quest involved taking the supernatural out of the Gospels, and, therefore, leaving room for Jesus to be interpreted as a reflection of whoever was studying Him. This sort of thinking definitely bleeds into the second chapter of the book, as the account of Jesus is nothing like the Scriptures say. For now, this is just a theory of mine that will most likely be challenged as I read on through the chapters. Again, I am really intrigued to see what happens next.

I commented on Briana Batdorf’s post. :)

Demons...

     As I have read through some of The Master and Margarita, I keep finding my mind relating most to the first chapter. For another class I have started reading Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. Lewis opened my mind to a very different view of how demon society could work. It has been interesting. Now, you may be like what does this have to do with honors? EVERYTHING! As I was reading through the first chapter of The Master and Margarita, I kept seeing Screwtape Letters. For those of you who  may not know, Screwtape Letters is about a demon guiding his nephew in how to keep his human from God and heaven. It consists of Uncle Screwtape writing letters to his nephew Wormwood. It has been amazing. Anyways - I apologize for the tangent - some of the methods of distraction and temptation that Screwtape tell his nephew are in The Master and Margarita. Now, granted, I have been reading both books together, so finding connections is hard not to do. However, when the men are discussing being atheist and the quote, "Most of our population is intelligent and enlightened, and has long ceased to believe the fairy tales about God," my mind is brought directly to Lewis. Screwtapes informs his nephew to feed men into finding truths in every theory. Then the people are unable to find one truth. It is an interesting concept just like most of the book, but it provided an amazing view of this first chapter.
     Also, as I have been ready through chapter two, I have been reminded of Milton simply by Bulgakov taking Bible stories and playing with them. I am not quite sure where I stand quite yet. Perhaps Thursday I will have formed a more concrete opinion!
      Happy Mardi Gras! I hope everyone enjoys their day off!
P.S. I posted on Hannah's!!!

The Master nd Margarita

After reading the first two chapters of The Master and Margarita and I have to say, I am certainly enthralled. The stranger is a wonderfully devious character, and I greatly enjoyed the bit about the poet is nicknamed Homeless. My favorite part currently is pretty much the entirety of Chapter 2. I really enjoyed this version of the meeting between Jesus and Pilate. It showed Pilate as being this harsh Roman official, but then it showed him breaking from what he's done. This was an enjoyable contrast to see. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the story.

I commented on Hannah Senteney's post.

The Master and Margarita

I am a few chapters into this strange book, and to be honest, I am quite lost. But, I do have a few questions or statements to make. I am not sure whether the Stranger/Professor is trying to save Homeless and Berlioz. He makes the statement that Jesus did exist, and he tells them the story of how he was arrested and tried and then sentenced to death. But, his way of telling this is far from what the Gospels write. And even after the Stranger is finished with his tale, Homeless calls him out for not having the facts straight. So, I do not know what the Stranger is trying to accomplish in the beginning of this book. Is he a good man or a bad man trying to lead others astray? What is his purpose? He seems to just jump from thought to thought without giving comfort to others.



I commented on Briana's!

The Master and Margarita

After reading the first chapter of The Master and Margarita I am very intrigued. I have very much enjoyed getting to know the first three characters that are all so different from each other. The stranger, like many other people, is one of my favorite characters. He is so mischievous and brilliant. He gets so excited when the other two men, Homeless and Berlioz, do not believe in God or Jesus. At the end of the chapter the stranger tells these men that Jesus does exist and that there is no proof of his existence, he just exists. I am curious to see where Mikhail Bulgakov goes with this tale and hope it continues to be as interesting as the first chapter.

P.S. I commented on Travis Carr's Post.

The Stranger

I haven't gotten very far in the book yet but I am absolutely captivated by the Stranger. I keep trying to envision him with his black eye and green eye and I keep coming up short. I find him to be the most fascinating character thus far. His ability to see the future and his knowledge of the past is hypnotizing. From the moment he comes into the book he steals every scene he's in. How does he know what he knows? How did he gain all this knowledge? What's with the bizarre appearance? Why does he insert himself into the conversation with Berlioz and Homeless, only to allude Berlioz later? I can't wait to see what this book has in store.

I commented on Travis Carr's.

Strange Strangers are Strange

This novel is so strange, but I love it. It brings about constant confusion, as the events that happen are illogical, yet able to be comprehended at the same time. The stranger who constantly changes appearance, multiplies, and dematerializes seems to know everyone and everything. He was at the trial of Yeshua and Pilate, as well as in Moscow nearly 2000 years later. I am curious to see what else the stranger has in store for readers later in the novel, considering what he has done so far. Can he be trusted? Is everything he says a lie? What lies, deceit, trickery, revelation, and history will be revealed by him in the future? I am curious to see how the rest of this outrageous story unfolds.

P.S. I commented on Nathanael's.

At the Tip of the Iceberg

I have currently not read very far in the book, but from what I have read all I am left with is more questions. Who is the the magician? Or the stranger? Where are things going? What is supernatural and what is real? And like Caleb said, what do I pay attention to? The story has an upbeat tempo that keeps moving with new surprises at the turn of a page. Characters coming and going, disappearing and reappearing making you question the reality of it all.  However, because I am not far into the tale I am still at the tip of it all, but I am so excited where the further chapters take me.

P.S. I commented on Caleb's

An Unqualified Set of Thoughts

   I have not currently read too far into the book, but as I find myself going through the story surrounding Pontius Pilate in chapter 2, I feel myself constantly being put in suspense towards a magnificent revealing. Who is the stranger? What is he going to do? Why is he talking to these two literary men? What is his purpose? I have my suspicions on some of these but have not been verified as of yet. Also, with this strange rendition of the trial of Yeshua (Jesus) before Pilate, I feel a rise in suspense as well. How is it going to end; the way it actually did or some weird conclusion that is not to be expected?
   My main idea, well, theme, now is this idea of twisted thought or deception by the stranger, not by sketchy means, but by use of human logic and misconstruing truth. For example, he goes along with the idea of Jesus never existing, but then speaks with authority saying that He did. He then goes on to tell the story including the trial of Jesus to the two men. They are forced to face this story because he listened to their argument. Nevertheless, his story is definitely an augmented version of what is considered true. I am enjoying this work completely and cannot wait to delve deeper into the meaning and picture that is meant to be portrayed.


P.S. I commented on Abbie's post.

The Supernatural

There are many different themes that have surfaced so far in my reading of this  work. You have the intellectuals being attacked (as Caleb talked about in his blog), you have the absurdities like the cat and various senseless events, but the primary theme that I've recognized and analyzed is the presence of the supernatural.

...the ironic part is that the supernatural is right in the middle of an atheistic culture. Satan and his comrades are literally attacking this culture that does not even affirm their existence. There are prophecies fulfilled and apparitions appearing and vanishing and cats paying tolls all within a realm of disbelief. I'm so anxious to see how this theme continues and what the final opinion of the supernatural will be in this atheistic culture. 

P.S. I commented on Caleb's blog. 

I think...

...therefore I am. But seriously. Eight chapters of the triplets literature I've ever read. Maybe. I don't know. Though now I've discovered two new operas and a novel. But I want to hit on the operas. This book has actually been turned into a number of musicals and operatic productions. So of course I went and took a listen. I also listened to the opera mentioned within the novel, Eugene Onegin. The first song is so jarring. It's a duet and a quartet within the same song. So it ends being crazy piece of work that's just all over the place and your ear has no idea where to rest. My mind is the same way as I read the novel. I have no idea where to rest. What to actually focus on. Where to set my attention. But I've definitely picked out this theme of attacking the intellectuals. The absurdity taking place between Ivan and the psychiatric ward. Also the fact that Satan is attacked the intellectually elite of the MASSOLIT. He's ripping them apart. I think I'm seeing a lot of satire in that respect by Bulgakov's and Ginsburg's choice of vocabulary. A specific example is their description of speaking voices. They use operatic terminology. Tenor. Basso. Contralto. This may have meant something totally different to them in use. But I see it as an attack and an illumination of the absurdities of the period.

The Bear

The main thing that stood out to me was how Faulkner put most of the things throughout the story into epic proportions.  Previously stated by Caleb in his post, America doesn't really have a mythological past or background.  However, anything mythological could mostly come from the South, and this seems like Faulkner's attempt at doing so.  Almost everything in the story seems to be blown into epic proportions, such as the hunt, and the struggle between Lion and the bear.  There's also multiple passages that give airs of suspense throughout the reading, that can build onto that epic proportional struggle.

~Commented on Caleb's

Coming of Age

One thing that stood out to me was on page 187. “It seemed to him that at the age of ten he was witnessing his own birth. It was not even strange to him. He had experienced it all before, and not merely in dreams.” This expression gives the story a supernatural vibe. He had not ever been to the wilderness to hunt before, yet it was all too natural for him. However, when I look back on my own life and just human nature overall, I notice a similar pattern. When we eventually face things in our culture that may be considered a symbol of status or “adulthood,” we easily adapt to them. For the boy, becoming a hunter was like his gateway to becoming an adult, and whether or not he was aware of it, his internal instinct and determination helped him achieve that. 

I commented on Abbie George's post.

Scary Bear

"Be scared. You can't help that. But don't be afraid."
To be scared, one is frightened for a temporary spans of time. To be afraid, one is also frightened; however, the difference is that when one is afraid, they are worried and unwilling because they are frozen by fear. This line stood out to me as an important thought and reminder that it is okay to be scared sometimes, but to never let your actions be frozen by fear or worry. Obviously it is okay to be scared when hunting Old Ben, but not okay to let the worry of negative possibilities paralyze you from taking your next step. Simple, yet is also profound.

I commented on Briana's!

One with Old Ben

 The fixation of Old Ben doesnt just resinate with the main character but with me as well. The young hunter gives up all material things on page 198 to be closer to Old Ben and is compeled to find him through the hidden pathways of the forest. My favorite part is where he becomes frantic and is unsure of where he is. Faulkner constructs the sentences to be hurried and uses imagery to not only showcase how the character feels but gets the readers heart beating a little faster. Then when Old Ben appears everything seems to stand still. What could have been no more than a minute felt like a hour with the word choice such as immobile, dimesionless and faded. Old Ben is pictured as a gentle spirit, a normal bear strolling its way through the wilderness. Its like the calm before the storm as we know that there are vicious encounters with Old Ben. Though this moment encaptures a hidden connection that lies deeper than the hunt.

I posted on Racheal's blog.

Old Ben

For most of the story, until they actually killing of Old Ben, the men and the boy show a reverent admiration of the bear. Each year they chase after him and focus on ways to slay him. Over the years, the boy becomes even better in the woods, almost to the same level as Old Ben. Old Ben lets the boy see him on multiple occasions when he knows that he will not kill him. Each man is longing to kill this animal but he has thwarted them numerous times. This brings a respect for the bear but also more of a want to hunt him down and slay him. Finally, when the event has happened, when Boon kills the bear, their lives are fulfilled. Even though such tragedy has struck them in the efforts.


I commented on Hannah's!!

I miss Dr. Bear

When I think of Naturalism, I think first of Jack London, then of Frank Norris, Cormac McCarthy.  Then, almost as afterthought (because his work somewhat evades many genre distinctions), I remember Faulkner.  This is absolutely a naturalist piece.

Old Ben represents something both evasive and incomprehensible (kind of like Faulkner's work), some kind of pursuit which can't be reached.  It must be related to Faulkner's lasting theme, which permeates all his work, about the rebirth of the South in response to the Civil War.

Along with this theme is the repetition of several words, such as abject: "an abjectness, a sense of his own fragility and impotence against the timeless woods."  This could be the mantra for all naturalist works and is a reflection of the boy's pursuit (and all pursuits).


Caleb's

The Bear

This story is quite intriguing thus far and I'm very excited to discover how Faulkner is going to keep the story moving in chapter four. I was perplexed at the fascination with the Bear and what it is supposed to represent for us. Maybe our unachievable goals? Maybe "the green light"? Why keep hunting this mysterious, majestic animal if it is supposedly immortal? I feel like the story is about how people drive themselves into the ground attempting to obtain the unobtainable. We always want what we can't have, the grass is greener on the other side sort of thing. It would've been sufficient to just hunt the other animals but no, they had to have Old Ben.

I commented on Hannah Senteney.   

Imagery

I have come to find that Faulkner is one of the best at imagery. I do not read a lot. I have never been a fan of reading, and I do not read books for fun in my spare time. So when the author has such good imagery, I find it easy to read. Thus far, it is like I can see each phrase in my head in the form of a picture. In these chapters, it was easy to picture the bear and what it looked like. This has been one of my more favorite readings, because I can understand it. It is so easy to create each page in my head. It is more like watching a movie rather than reading a book. Faulkner has a gift. Not a whole lot of authors can get their message across and be on so many different people's levels. I am excited to see where the rest of this book is headed!


I commented on Hannah's.

Of Imagery and Such

       Honestly, in my simple reading of these chapters, I was impressed by the imagery surrounding the bear and imaginations of the bear. Even on page 185, the imagery starts. I can picture an older bear with a scarred foot, able to destroy large amounts of other animals, mangy haired, red- eyed, and powerful. That is just the imagination. Then, further on, in an actual sighting of the bear (p. 200), the simile to a bass sinking back into the depths gave an awesome picture of how the bear acts. It is in no hurry; it is not bothered with worry or malicious intent. It disappears in a lazy fashion- not a flash, a sprint, a jump- but a simple slip into darkness. I am a sucker for imagery, not because of a picture in my mind, but rather the slight tinge of feeling or emotion that comes with a beautiful masterpiece of words.
      I think the reason I am so focused on this imagery is because of my own experience with hunting. I have seen a coyote with matted fur and brutal teeth lurking around. I have seen a hog covered in mud and bloodied up from a fight. I have seen a graceful, yet powerful buck disappear into the woods without the slightest sound. All of these pictures are brought to mind any time that I think of hunting. So, as Faulkner describes this bear, I slowly build the picture in my mind, and it intrigues me. It captivates me and brings me into the story. Once again, I am simply a sucker for good imagery, and this story does an immaculate job of painting not just a picture but a feeling of ominous beauty in my mind.

P.S. I commented on Brannen's post.

A Matter of the Heart

The part of The Bear that stood out for me was where he says “He didn’t have His Book written to be read by what must elect and choose, but by the heart, not by the wise of the earth…” (249). I particularly liked this passage because of the truth it speaks about God’s word. His Word was not written to just know about it but to be taken to heart and we are to live by the Word rather than by the Earth’s word. In the Gospel of John, Christ says “they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” prompting us to live in Him rather than the things of this world and I believe this is what McClasin was explaining. That it is all a matter of the heart and us being in Him and only Him.

Hunting

     Okay... I have decided that I am naturally a romanticist. I romanticize what I read. That is why my last post was so off. Once again I found romanticism even though there probably is none. When reading this week's assignment, I enjoyed the paragraph where the author describes hunting. I have grown up where hunting is almost a religion. I see nothing wrong with enjoying that sport; however, just like with anything, man can take it too far. This reading gave me a different perspective. The following quote stood out to me.
    "It was of the men, not white nor black nor red but men, hunters, with the will to survive and the dogs, and the bear and deer juxtaposed and reliefed against it, ordered and compelled by and within the wilderness in the ancient and unremitting contest according to the ancient and immitigable rules which voided all regrets and brooked no quarter, - the best game of all, the best of all breathing and forever the best of all listening..."
    This quote held a truth for me. The battle of nature versus man. The relationship between man and nature was severed just as the relationship between man and man, man and God, etc. Now it is at constant battle. Man has to kill in order to survive; however, the animals fight for survival themselves.
     The last part of the quote is interesting for me. "Forever the best of all listening..." Now, I have never gone hunting, but from what I have understand, one must remain as quiet as possible. This means one can hear nature. The hunter has to listen to nature's song as he waits to take one of nature's own. It is a fascinating concept to me. Again, I am being a slight romantic, and I am probably completely off on my comprehension of what we were given to read. We shall see in class, and hopefully I will soon understand this new line of thought and writing better.
P.S. I commented on Abbie George!

What is the bear?

I just am curious to know what the bear may represent. I'm loving the intensity of the story thus far. I keep waiting for something major to happen regarding the bear, or the main character the "boy."

There is so much mystery in this work as a whole, but especially surrounding the bear, "Old Ben." They are searching for it desperately, yet can't seem to work up the courage or motivation to kill him. There is almost a reverence when describing his physical appearance and dominance.

I wonder if the bear is metaphorical for something that man searches for, must grasp, yet can't quite attain. Something that is so real and tangible yet so mysterious and awe inspiring. Maybe Old Ben represents the search for God, or the supernatural? I'm unsure but anxious to find out.


P.S. Commented on Caleb's.

Old Ben

Why is the story called "The Bear"? Throughout the first three chapters it makes sense because the characters are tracking and trying to kill this mystical bear. This bear whose name is Old Ben, is smart, fast, and mysterious. Everyone is afraid of Old Ben and they have reason to be. It really intrigued me how Faulkner explained that the bear "faded, sank back into the wilderness without motion as he watched a fish, a huge old bass, sink back into the dark depths of its pool and vanish without even any movement of its fins." But then again why "The Bear"? At the end of chapter three Old Ben is killed. I am curious to see how Faulkner connects Old Ben with the rest of the story and how this story deemed its name "The Bear."

P.S I commented on Travis Carr's post.

Faulkner Faulkner Harper Lee

america really doesn't have a mythology. We've discussed a lot that poets are always attempting to construct mythologies and give an air of high culture to the background and origin of their respective peoples. I think this is true of Southern writers. I've been formulating this ever since I first read To Kill A Mockingbird. The rabid dog scene is overwhelmingly supernatural. Lee gives that dog an otherworldly presence. She isn't alone. Faulkner does it here with Old Ben and Lion. These mundane creatures loom over the characters as supernatural beings. It's very much like Hercules or Beowulf. The south is the last place that the US can still find remnants of it's mythological past. All of the spooks in American lore, they come from the South. Or at least we're the last to truly believe in the stories. And the writers portray this. I can't help but be reminded of the great epics when I read Bear. I think Faulkner and other southern writers are giving America a mythology through its Southern stories. This isn't an origin story. But these are folkloric Herod we can look to. The "taming" of Lion. The killing of Bear. These epic-proportioned events. And Ike is the classic hero, only he's been transported to the American South.

—Travis has my comment.

Wisdom

Faulkner's The Bear introduces many interesting characters, such as Ike, Boon, Sam Fathers, Old Ben, Lion and Major de Spain. I have noticed throughout the first three chapters that the boy, Ike, displays a higher level of wisdom than average. This is exemplified in chapter one when Ike demonstrates his ability to recall information. He becomes lost, yet he is able to recollect skills that Sam had taught him in order to find his way again. He also demonstrates an almost supernatural level of wisdom when, in chapter three, he is the only one able to tell that Sam would die soon. I am curious to see how Ike's wisdom plays a roll in the future chapters, such as a means of foreshadowing or providing answers that other characters are unable to produce.

Commented on Abbey's post.

Progression

The progression of the boy really stood out to me throughout the reading this week. There is such a contrast between the mountain man Boon, the indian Sam, Major de Spain, and the boy himself. Best I could tell, the boy himself isn't much indian, but he seems to have the demeanor of one. While Boon is obviously more redneck and doesn't seem to really respect the wild, the boy has a sort of hallowed view towards the wilderness and Big Ben that has been instilled in him by Sam. Despite his lack of natural tendency towards the wilderness, even Boon understands how he is lacking. It will be interesting to see exactly what happens with the boys relationship with the ancient wild now that both the indian and Big Ben are no longer there. There seems to have been some sort of rupture, and it will be interesting to see what results.

Comments on Wendy's post.

Courage

One thing that struck me while reading, The Bear, is when he said, "it was the young hound which even a year ago had had no judgement and which, by the lights of the other hounds anyway, still had none. Maybe that's what courage is, he thought". I find humor in this, but truth as well. I reflect on years passed and see that same ignorance. As so the young hound thought he was invincible, I thought nothing could hurt me when I was younger. Lion is a different kind of courageous. Lion was relentless and bloodthirsty. So is the young hound courageous, or is Lion? In my opinion, the young hound is up for the chase and unknowing of the dangers he is getting into. Lion knows the fury of the bear, but still is up for anything that comes his way.

I commented on Abbey's post.