|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Excellent review! (Reply to this comment)
by nellie2008
Excellent review, it actually explained the book to me. Your review made ever so much more sense to me than the actual book. The book itself I started reading expecting something really great, and it turned out to be just a very whimsical fairy tale. What a disappointing book! I did not understand what was going on. The review opened my eyes somewhat, still don't like the book. If Bulgakov was a non-entity, perhaps it was justified based on his "talent". There were a few one-liners that made an impression, such as manuscripts never die and remove the record and the man is gone.
|
Jan 16 '09
12:38 pm PST
|
|
Re: A fine... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch,  in Books
Thanks.
I'm afraid I've let my Russian slip drastically in the past few years. The prospect of reading anything longer than a short story is daunting, although I still have a promise to myself to pull that pretty Russian edition of War and Peace off my shelf some time and hole up in a closet with it for a week or two.
-Andy
|
Jan 05 '07
8:02 am PST
|
|
A fine... (Reply to this comment)
by lammet
review of a fine, IMO, book. I can't read it in its original, I can only think it will be better.
-Vasilis
|
Jan 04 '07
5:52 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: I love this novel to death (Reply to this comment)
by joyfulgirl91
I've just been lurking these comments, but I've found that the translation can make all the difference in Russian literature. I wholeheartedly agree that the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation is the best to read.
Back to passively enjoying the company of smart people...
Jessica
|
Nov 30 '06
6:30 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: I love this novel to death (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
I found two English translations of the novel online.
Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, 1997.
http://lib.ru/BULGAKOW/master97_engl.txt
Translated by Michael Glenny, 1967.
http://lib.ru/BULGAKOW/master_engl.txt
A quick look at the first chapter suggests that Pevear's is a better translation. The other advantage is that it has plenty of endnotes which I am looking forward to exploring.
|
Nov 29 '06
2:54 pm PST
|
|
Re: I love this novel to death (Reply to this comment)
by smorg
Hi Andy,
You're welcome! You're right, translation artifacts can be quite annoying sometimes. Russian apparently isn't an easy language to translate (I still haven't found a really good one for the Pushkin plays yet). Asafono's right, to, one of the fun thing about re-reading Master i Margarita for me is in catching so Soviet inside jokes I had missed before. I missed the very first one about stores advertising for stuff they don't have on my first go (that kiosk by Patriach's Pond doesn't have anything listed on its ads).
O, that director's window scene is just so vividly describe that I can see the vamp's putrid arm reaching in... and it gives me the creep (much like that darn aerialist at the Glyndebourne opera' version of Rachmaninov's Miserly Knight... I kept checking behind me for any Gollum look alike crawling on it for quite a while afterward). A good kind of creep out, I guess. :O)
Oy, there're already lots of great reviews of Bulgakov, tho. I'd just be redundant.
Thanks again for the great review!
Cheers,
Smorg :O)
|
Nov 29 '06
10:42 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
Perhaps the translation makes all the difference - I was reading the novel in Russian.
As for the details and allusions - though Bulgakov was writing the novel "for his table drawer", fully expecting it to never be published, let alone in his lifetime, he still had to obfuscate the obvious parallels, such as Stalin - Pilate. The other thing is, his intended audience (a small group of friends) was not only highly educated, but very good at decyphering the hints he drops around the text.
This is not to say, of course, that modern Bulgakov readers are less educated - just that the reality of 21st century North America is very different from the world he lived in.
P.S. Comment notification appears to malfunctioning again - had I not checked this page manually, I would have been unaware of your responses. Cheers,
|
Nov 28 '06
10:13 am PST
|
|
Re: I love this novel to death (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid I can't compare translations. Mine at least lacked some of the annoying things translators often do to Russian lit. One of these days I'll muster the commitment to finally read the small collection of Russian lit I have in the original.
Really? I thought the director's window scene was kind of sexy. Probably has more to do with me than the scene, though.
I'd like to read a Bulgakov review from you. You obviously are better acquainted with him than I.
-Andy
|
Nov 26 '06
8:09 pm PST
|
|
Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
I would agree with your identification of three primary plotlines. As I told Stephen, for me it was a forest-for-the-trees thing. It was clear that there were three plotlines. But, with the exception of the Pilate thread, they were too cluttered with tangential or inane details to feel coherent or active.
There most certainly are a multitude of allusions. Many of which I would classify as similar to the obscuring details I just mentioned. (This reminds me of how little patience I have for folks like T.S. Elliott.) Others, however, are very tasty.
I think it's a great book, but I don't think its greatness is much increased by all the allusions. Only somewhat.
Thanks for reading.
-Andy
|
Nov 26 '06
8:01 pm PST
|
|
I love this novel to death (Reply to this comment)
by smorg
.. think the Ginsburg translation (the new complete one) and the Burgins & O'Conner translation are the best ones. I love how Woland is present, tho... and how he gives it to Matthew Levi on Sparrow Hill. The Varenukha trying to get in the director's window scene always creep me out, too.
Anyhow, I have to say this is Bulgakov's best work.. The others aren't up near this book, tho his Heart of a Dog and Flight are very interesting, and The White Guard is very good once you get going. Thanks for reviewing this book!
Cheers,
Smorg :O)
|
Nov 24 '06
1:14 am PST
|
|
. (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
I could say that plots are several and intertwining (2 or 3, depending on how you count - the story of Master, Woland/Satan visiting Moscow in 1929, and Pilatus and Yeshua), but plotless?
I am reading a book called "Bulgakov Deciphered", and I am discovering a copious amount of references and allusions in the novel - and I thought I was an insightful Bulgakov reader!
|
Nov 22 '06
3:36 pm PST
|
|
Re: Plotless??? (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
I said seemingly plotless. That seeming I think comes from an overabundance of plot that rarely coheres on a basic linear level. A can't see the forest for the trees sort of feeling. There is technique there, but it is also an obstacle.
I've never been exposed to any of his drama. If I ever move beyond M&M, it'll probably be to his HG Wells influenced science fiction.
-Andy
|
Nov 10 '06
10:51 am PST
|
|
Plotless??? (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray
I could see a case that there are too many plots, but none?
I read the first translation way back when and the newer one on my relatively recent Bulgakov kick, though I didn't feel up to writing about it.
And I saw a stage adaptation (!) though I haven't seen any of Bulgakov's plays staged.
|
Nov 08 '06
11:03 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.