|
I have a consideration about a particular aspect of the literary style employed by Bulgakov. I call it the theatrical style.
I observe that several key passages in the novel are accompanied by detailed description of the sky, of the weather, the light, the clouds, the storms, the lightnings, the thunder. These descriptions counterpoint the evolution of the episode, like in Chapter 2 where they are active in the changing moods of PP. Or they establish the dramatic set up of the episode, or they just function as a general, visual background to it.
I also observe that most of the episodes are developed through two main elements. The first one is a strong visual description related to the appearance, the clothes, the objects and the motions of the characters. The second one is the dialog.
I got the impression that Bukgakov did so drawing on his experience as a playwright, taking care not only of the plot, the characters, and the dialogue, but also by building on the various aspects of scenography, staging and direction of the play. He did not resort to explicit descriptions of a character nature, function or history except for the bare minimum.
The resulting narrative is stimulating for the reader, that is constantly invited to represent mentally the scene, its emotional color and mood. The understanding of the inner world of the story comes from within the reader with his own elements and references and is therefore more vivid than through explicit declarations. In a way it is the lesson of E.M. Forster according to whom is more important what is not said.
It is so rare to encounter an acclaimed playwright that doubles with a literary masterpiece.
|