Quote:
Originally Posted by toomanybooks
My main question to others is not whether you got the book, but whether the text drew you in and engaged in a rewarding way? If not, what did the author do or fail to do that kept you from being drawn into the text?
|
Haven't had the peace of mind to put two thoughts together, but I'll try and see what comes out anyway...
The pleasure I got out of reading the book was primarily intellectual. I don't think I got to the point where I can say I loved it - I had to push myself a little to get through, especially in the first part. That said, it wasn't as if I had to force myself so much either. All the way through it was very entertaining.
It's the kind of book where it's clear that there's several levels apart from the basic narrative, and for me, part of the fun with such books is looking for "clues" and "hints". Here, for example, sparrows flies around in many scenes - why? People end up without their clothes numerous times, and it's usually highly embarrasing for them - why? There were several red haired people, the colour seemed specifically mentioned - references to Judas perhaps?
A thing I really liked about the book is Bulgakov's very visual language. I love when an author can make feel and smell and see and touch, and several scenes stood out, e.g. the black magic scene in the theatre and Margarita's (and Natacha's) witch flight. That was beautifully described.
I found the first part somewhat confusing to read. Lots of names, we switch from character to character, but I took my confusion to be partly intentional on the author's side, to stress the absurdity of life in Soviet Russia. I don't see the confusion as a lack in the book - he was working with strands of narrative, and I think they were put down and picked up again in a tempo that made one able to follow the story rather well, despite the jumping around. I think Bulgakov pulled it off.
I didn't get the humour that well. Probably while I can see the humour in absurdity, it's not native to me. The satire is though, and that was very good, indeed.
One thing that irritated me a bit, was the way women were described in comparison to men. There's a bit too many pretty secretaries with whom the men have affairs because their wives are haggard harridans. And what's up with all those naked women at the ball?
It's probably just a reflection of gender and gender roles of a time past, but it kept annoying me like a pebble in my shoe.
Lucifer is always an interesting character - he's probably almost impossible to make boring. I was reminded of Robertson Davies who have tackled the devil too (though in a more "drawing room" kind of way).