The Kerosene Cat

The first question we have to ask ourselves is... Why "The Master and Margarita"? Why not, say, "Woland in Moscow" or "Pontius Pilate"? After all, both The Master and Margarita are supporting characters in the book. The novel's real protagonist is Woland, who comes to Moscow to learn more about people. The city as a whole is like a colony of microbes under the microscopes. The Master, Margarita, and other characters in the book, are scrutinized more closely. That, however, doesn't at all mean that they play a more important role in the colony. No, the real protagonist, is clearly Woland. It's his story. But who's telling it? It must be someone who understands the way he looks at the city, who understand why Woland studies all these people and how he chooses whom to study more closely. It's probably someone who knows Woland well enough; perhaps someone from his entourage. Whatever the case may be, the book is obviously more than about separate adventures of individual people. Human lives are finite, Woland's is not.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the book doesn't have many levels. For instance, if we just focus on one of the minor angles in the story, we can argue that The Master and Margarita are reflections of Bulgakov himself, as well as his third wife, Yelena. The sufferings he faces clearly mirror Bulgakov's tense relationship with Stalin. Many of the separate incidents throughout the book are obvious and very clever elements of satire, mocking the Soviet reality. Nevertheless, this level, very obvious to someone who was born in the Soviet Union and grew with the history and understanding of that reality, may not appear so obvious to an outsider. Thus, the book is usually analyzed on a sociopolitical level when it's studied in schools and universities.

I, think, however, a more mature reader will see that there's more to the story than the critique of dictatorial Soviet politics and the flaws of human nature in general. And, of course, even the story of The Master and Margarita is more than a simple love story. I won't discuss their relationship at length right now, but despite their obvious love for each other, many questions remain. What it is, one may wonder, that made them love each other "even before they met"? It's not an easy relationship; frankly, I sometimes have trouble understanding what it is that Margarita saw in a burdened, pessimistic, Master, except for his passionate writing and love for the truth. Very admirable qualities, indeed, but are they enough to make a working relationship? What is it that makes these two people soulmates if it's not just that honesty towards the reality?

I think that no less interesting is the role of the Master's opus, dealing with Pontius Pilate. He never clearly explains why he chose that particular figure. It's also quite obvious that his story devious substantially from the Gospels. And yet, the Master is a historian. That leads me to believe that Bulgakov himself must have had some significant interest in historical research; for he surely spent a lot of time researching the historical circumstances around the life and death of Joshua HaNutzi... and then deliberately distorting them. More interesting still is that the protagonist of the story-within-the-story is Pilate rather than Joshua himself. Pilate is an existential hero battling a difficult decision and then being forced to live with that decision. Pilate is dynamic, whereas Joshua is stable and static.

If it is dynamism that makes a protagonist what he or she is, then we must examine our human characters first, and the demonic ones later, to see how they fit into that category, and whether "change" is really an appropriate criterion to judge whether someone's a protagonist or not. And indeed, we find that Woland's examination of the people of Moscow consists in trying to figure out whether they have changed since his last visit. His microcosmic examination of The Master and Margarita, too, may reveal his interest in whether these individuals are capable of change.

And so, we must, for the time being, examine at least these angles in the story:

1) The role of history and The Master as a historian
2) The interaction (not just relationship) between The Master and Margarita
3) The relationship of Pontius Pilate as a character to the rest of the story, his historical/symbolic role aside.
4) The evidence within the structure of the novel, which would reveal who and why chose to write about Woland, the why being no less important than the "who".
5) The dynamism of each character under the microscope, the least significant to the most.
6) What makes these protagonists significan, and WHY is change of such interest to Woland?
7) Finally, the names. The names of the characters are directly tied to their attributes and roles in the story. Margarita, for instance, is a name of Indian-Greek origin. According to the legend, it is a teardrop from the eyes of an angel, which, upon falling, turned into a pearl. The Master has no name. He offers an interpretation of why Margarita calls him "The Master"... but I have a feeling there's more to it. Azzazzello = Azazel one of the many names/incarnations/types of demons, though not the most important one. See also, the "scapegoat". As for the rest... good luck! : )