Greetings dramacels and !bookworms 
As promised, today we are holding our first bookclub discussion thread. We’ll be discussing the first 7 chapters of “The Master and Margarita”, written by the late Russian author Mikhail Bulgakov, set in Stalinist Moscow 
.
I hope you have enjoyed these first chapters, I certainly did. Based on the numbers of pages read from chapters 1-7, next week discussion will be about chapters 8-17.
I know it was supposed to be at noon E.T. However I’m posting a bit early because I’m off for a family lunch in half an hour, and I don’t want to longpost there.
Have fun with the discussion!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Here are my takes on the first 7 chapters.
Berlioz and Bezdomny discussion resembled that of two redditors, so basically a couple of redditors meet the devil. When you think about it, as the head of MASSOLIT, Berlioz acts as a real life power mod, censoring whatever steps out of the party line while using empty verbose arguments to show why he’s right and why Jesus never existed. I was rooting for Woland the entire time, then Bezdomny proceeds to act in the most crazy person way as possible, so no one believes him.
The Pontius Pilate chapter was strange and very interesting. Does anyone here who is a fan of Stephen King knows whether he read or mentioned this book in some interview? Because the characterization of “Yeshua” kind of reminded me of John Coffey. Yes, I’m aware Coffey is a Christ like figure, being a miracle man wrongfully executed and such, but Biblical Jesus is different, he speaks with a strong voice and is quite aware of the evil in this world. This book’s Yeshua on the other hand is quite naive and frail, he calls anyone “good people” and begs not to be killed and mistreated. So I wonder if king got inspired by this version of Jesus.
The apartment chapter was just comical, the theater director being magically transported to Yalta after meeting some stranger with a nice suit with a beret, accompanied by a giant talking cat and another couple of weird men. So Woland/Satan is planning to give Moscow some nice magic tricks.
I’m very intrigued by the plot so far.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think he's naive, he understood perfectly well who and why Ratkiller was. The insistence that everyone is a good person is a philosophical statement rather than naivete. Being well aware what the good person Mark Ratkiller would do to him if he addresses the procurator incorrectly also strikes me as being realistic rather than weak. But yeah, he sounds much more different from the canonical Jesus, much more human I'd say, but "naive" is about the last word I'd use to describe him.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Maybe I should have used the term “seemingly naive”, as Pilate initially takes him for a naive simpleton.
Canonical Jesus stands defiantly in front of Pilate, refuses to answer most of his questions and then says this 👆🏻, book Yeshua is meek and much more peaceful, you’re right about the different philosophies.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's also noteworthy that it's from the devils perspective telling the story, who probably sees himself as the strong pragmatic one.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Notice though:
Which btw mirrors the way Woland dunked on Berlioz.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Omg bbbby you're back!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm curious why this was. Maybe for narrative effect, which may become more clear later.
I was also thinking it might be in part of our own perception / understanding of Jesus vs Soviet era, that's been shaped by >1950s films and TV (including the Passion movie) which focused more on being canonical. And the basics might be more common knowledge these days.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bulgakov hints at his motives in the first chapter, wherein Bezdomny writes a flawed, realistic depiction of Jesus.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Lolz I thought the exact same, took the words right out of my mouth.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A few hours later
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bulgakov even got the proportions right.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's so funny how Ivan completely believes that the guy met Pontius Pilate as if it were a fact, after their whole spiel about atheism, after a prediction over a single death. Shows the depths of their resolve for rationality vs just following the popular line (although he's the young more impressionable poet and not as smart as Berlioz).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I find it interesting that Ivan Bezdomny was almost silent in those discussions (at least in my translation). The narrator wants us to believe he's listening attentively, wowed by Berlioz's superior wisdom, but we only have the narrator's word for that. We don't see his true opinions because neither Berlioz nor the narration allow the poet to speak for himself.
Then as soon as his editor dies, Bezdomny starts running around ranting about the diabolical professor. No wonder Berlioz felt the need to keep him quiet.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Have you owned the libs yet?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I hope so
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context