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.