The Kerosene Cat

One of the angles for analysis I left out from my previous post was the ethical angle. I failed to mention how interesting it is to evaluate the actions of the characters from a moral standpoint. What is the true nature of evil in this story? It is more than arguable that Woland and Co. aren't really that horrible at all. (In fact, I rather like the cat...)

During a heated discussion about the moral behavior of the two seemingly clear *protagonists*, it was established that much of their behavior was reprehensible. It appears that The Master may have cooperated with the Regime to get his freedom. And his pessimistic behavior makes me wonder whether he, too, was suffering from a case of a pre-historic Inner Programmer. That would certainly explain some patterns in his behavior. Whatever the case may be, I found him a bit creepy, and all critical analyses aside, don't really find him very sympathetic. In fact, his major accomplishment seems getting saved. He's also very passive, which is one quality I absolutely can't STAND... so, I don't have a problem with considering him an antagonist.

Margarita, however, is a different matter, and although far from perfect, I wouldn't go as far as calling her an antagonist. I could argue for hours about it, and I would have, if I didn't have to leave. Some examples of questionable behavior:

1)Egotism and extreme love of comfort. She can't stand her husband, but prefers living with him rather than being free, but poor. Despite her promise to The Master to leave him, she returns home as soon as she finds out The Master is arrested. Thus, it seems, that only The Master motivates her enough to face discomfort. And despite not loving her husband, she pretends that everything is all right... Which makes her somewhat dishonest.

I have no issue with this, except that sometimes trying to break up with somebody you're very used to is much harder than it may appear. That's it.

2)Shamelessness - Margarita stayed undressed even after the Spring Ball was over. Doesn't that say anything about her character?

Er... Come on, it's not like she's naked in front of human beings. She's in front of a bunch of demons. And demons can see right through her anyway. So why bother? Besides, I'm not sure I wouldn't necessarily do the same in her situation... or some situation other than my own for that matter! No one can predict how we'll behave under conditions of extreme stress, and anyway, she had more important things to worry about than looking for her clothes.

3) "Betrayal" of The Master

I argued that choosing to save Frieda before saving The Master did not constitute betrayal per se. Margarita very much wanted to save him... but she knew that she was responsible for her promise to Frieda, and did not want to make it even worse for the sinner. Frieda was in a much worse situation than the Master. Her sin was much worse, as was her punishment. I'd say that morally, helping out someone who's in a more dire situation, is more important than saving someone whose situation is not quite so bad. Of course, I've never had to face such a situation, and can't predict which moral argument would actually take precedence in my mind, if I did. For now, however, I think that Margarita was completely justified and did not betray The Master through her action. She had to act according to her conscience.

The real question is: does personal relationship take priority over what would have been otherwise a very clear moral choice?

I argue that it doesn't. In fact, I would argue that it *would* have been extremely selfish of Margarita to ignore Frieda after she promised to help her. And irresponsible. In some ways, it's a no-win situation, but you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

But let's say, for the sake of the argument, that Margarita is every bit as no-good as The Master. That both of them are complete losers. That still doesn't resolve a very important question: what attracted them to each other? Their personalities are very different. Margarita is very active. *She* was the one who named The Master, she inspired him to publish his work and pushed him on and on through all the difficulties, she made a deal with the Devil in order to save him, she wore heavy, piercing metal bodice for an entire night, ignoring discomfort just to save him. She was the one who took the initiative throughout the novel. What did The Master do? He was her lover and he wrote a book. And got in trouble for it. The opposites are supposed to attract, but in this particular case, I don't see why that should have been the case. The Master didn't have anything to offer to Margarita except his talent (of questionable value, all things considered). So in what ways was he better than her husband?

Come on, I dare you. What is it that attracts lonely people to each other, other than their loneliness?

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! : )

Testing testing!