Talk:The Master and Margarita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Master and Margarita is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(comments)

There is a painting "Meister und Margarita"/"Master and Margarita" by H. R. Giger, which is featured on Danzig's 3rd album's cover.

Contents

[edit] User ID

7 May 05 -- 81.232.62.61 is Xjy -- didn't manage the log-in properly.

I have an English translation of this book, which is not listed on the main page. It is by Mikhail Bulgakov, published by Vintage, 2003.

[edit] Cleanup

The article has to be rewritten into an encyclopedic format. Right now it is a literary critic's essay, full of POV and scanty of solid information. POV is OK, if it is attributed to a famous lierary critic, but totally inadmissible as wikipedian's POV. mikka (t) 05:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't remove the technical notices without discussion here. mikka (t) 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, something in your name makes me think that you are Russian. Does your name mean what I think it means? mikka (t) 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of solid information. Plenty of attention given to literary qualities -- style, character, situation, theme, etc. An encyclopedia entry doesn't have to be boring or denatured. It has to do justice to its subject. And in this case the subject is one of the best-known and most popular Russian novels of the 20th century. Quite a challenge to present the quintessence of a work like this in a limited space.

Space is not limited.

This is a very good entry as it stands (feedback both Russian and non-Russian, Bulgakov-savvy and not, indicates that). The way to improve it is to create a ToDo list, not go for a clean-up. If Mikkalai feels a need for more solid information, this can be requested in the ToDo list.

There is no such thing as a "Wikipedian". And you don't have to be famous to make valid assessments. In particular you don't have to hang around for some "famous literary critic" to say what needs to be said. And if an assessment can be seen differently, it's better to add the new perspective and argue for it, than to just suppress and replace. It would be good if Mikkalai could mobilize some famous literary critics to enliven our discussion and understanding of the book even more.

yes there is such thing as wikipedian.
and wikipedian's assessments are POV, subject to Wikipedia:POV and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute policies. Once again, a wikipedian has no right to write his assessments; his duty to report facts and someone's else assessments, which, when publicized, become facts as well. I am quite surprized I have to spell this to a long-term editor.
What is more, wikipedian's assessments are original research, also inadmissible.
the key word here is "understanding". It is not the job of a wikipedian to enforce any understanding of the book, whether past or modern. The job is to report a commonly accepted or critically acclaimed understanding, saying precisely when and how it was formed. mikka (t) 23:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So I suggest removing the Clean-Up box, and starting a drive to improve the article using a ToDo list instead. xjy 22:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the cleanup box by any other one that brings attention to the article, but without any kind of warning it is

These arguments are completely abstract so far. Where are the controversial and disputed POVs in the article? Where does thinking about presenting the various aspects of the novel merge into unwarranted subjectivity? Which statements about what detract from a user's ability to get a clear understanding of the novel because they peddle a one-sided, false or disputed opinion? What understanding of the book is being enforced to the detriment of some competing understanding? Is official Soviet literary opinion being given a raw deal? Is Western dissidentia not being trumpeted enough? This sort of thing can be rectified by requesting input on the reception of the novel in a ToDo page.

So, until there are some concrete instances of distortion and bias given on the discussion page, I'll remove the "warning" signs and "watch out this is not neutral" flags. As I said, a ToDo list is quite in order. No problem at all. The article needs improvement. It doesn't need suggestions that it's subjective tub-thumping, cos it isn't.

And a "technical" objection to an article should be supported by concrete exemplification, not sweeping generalizations about POV or alleged lack of "solid information". What is this "solid information" that's lacking? Exemplify it and put it in the ToDo list as a request!

--xjy 00:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added these lines:The most quotable and memorable line in Master and Margarita is: "manuscripts don't burn." The Master is a writer who is plagued by both his own mental illness and the oppression of Stalin's regime in 1930s Moscow. He burns his treasured manuscript in an effort to hide it from the Soviet authorities and cleanse his own mind from the troubles the work has brought him. Bulgakov's own life is reflected in the Master's character, as he in fact burned an early copy of The Master and Margarita for much the same reasons. Now waiting for them to be addedin textual interpretation section.


Removed "copy-editing needed" notice. The language is OK. The information is OK. More citations could be provided, but I hardly think a citation is needed for characterizing the Soviet Union of the 1930s as "suffocatingly bureaucratic".

--xjy 08:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point of the request for citation. The point is that there is no citation of the professional literary critics who have championed the novel. That's the sort of information that should be easily found, and therefore cited herein. --Dgilman 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of Fagotto

The name of the valet obviously causes embarrassment. The two translations I've seen use "Faggot" (Glenny) and "Fagott" (Pevear and Volokhonsky). So I'd use one or the other. If we take "bassoon" as the underlying idea, then we need to use Fagotto. Since the slang meaning of "faggot" (like the slang meaning of "gay") has driven all sense from the normal use of the word, I'm going to plump for Fagotto for our article for the time being. At least there's a chance that monoglot English speakers who are dictionary or music savvy will get the reference.

[edit] Bitter irony

(new talk always at the bottom, please. mikka (t) 20:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I reverted the "bitter irony" remarks because in the first place they are not "false, misleading, irrelevant and unsubstantiated statements". Not false, cos bitter irony suffuses the whole novel. We can discuss the meaning of "bitter" and "irony" to decide this, if necessary. Not misleading, unless anyone wishes to claim that Bulgakov is neither bitter nor ironic?? Not irrelevant, cos the tension between artists and legislators (and their tools, like the psychiatric hospital, the investigators and the police, and the spies who lurk everywhere under the surface) is integral to the novel, and Shelley's quote throws a spotlight on this, highlighting it nicely, and also internationalizing our consideration of the novel. Such context is very useful to add resonance to the brevity of an encyclopedic entry. "Unsubstantiated" might make more sense if the charges of "false, misleading and irrelevant" were substantiated in any way, but they're not. They're just declared ex cathedra and then the deletion is performed. Since "bitter" and "ironic" are such well-established qualities of the novel, I think that removing them as characterizations demands substantiation. As I said -- show us that "bitterness" and "irony" and "bitter irony" have no place in the role of art and artists in the novel, and I might accept a removal. Till then, I think they should stay.

--xjy 16:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase in quesiton is:

The bitterest ironies of the book emerge if we consider Shelley's remark in the Defence of Poetry that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world".

The issue is not "bitter irony", but your loose and vaguely substantiated phrasing. I see no irony at all that Bulgakov confirms Shelley's observation. Or what are you saying with this phrase?

One wise man told me that main difference between the essay and the report: the goal of an essay is to show how smart you are, the goal of the report is to make others smarter. Assuming that I am an ignorant in the area (otherwise I would use specialized texts, rather than "bulgakov for Dummies"), please make me learn something quickly, without wordy developments, periods, associations, parallels, which are always 95% POV.

I suggest you to read the Inverted pyramid article and then explain what constitues the irony in the novel. In 12 words, please, first. mikka (t) 20:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Art and women

This whole section reads poorly; it's more like one end of a spoken dialogue than an encyclopedic entry. I would love to revise it, but I'm not very familiar with all of the literary criticism that our colleague(s) used. Can someone who understands exactly what Shelley or Lukács has to do with any of this please, please re-word the section for clarity? (Or, if it's as unnecessary as it appears to me to be, delete the whole thing?) --Dgilman 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake! I've gone through that section with the proverbial fine-toothed comb, and there is exactly one factual statement -- It is notable that Bulgakov attacks no actual political leaders -- that cannot be gleaned from the basic description of the novel. Everything else is opinion. Sure, a lot of it may be plausible literary criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that it's opinion, and therefore a direct violation of NPOV. However, since the whole section appears to be a vehicle for someone to sound off on how much theory and German poetry they've read, rather than a coherent discussion of the novel, it's gone. If anyone would like to add a section of criticism explaining some of the underlying themes of the novel, that's great; this, though, is just pretentious blather. (And believe me, I know my way around pretentious blather.) --Dgilman 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dgilman's "pretentious blather" and anti-intellectualism is purely destructive in relation to an encyclopedia entry on this novel. Too bad DG isn't "very [HA!!] familiar with all of the literary criticism that our colleague(s) used", cos then s/he would realize that Shelley and Lukacs and what they focus on are central to both the novel and its reception/interpretation - ie the relation of the individual to people, society, history and ideas - and literature!! S/he didn't use a "fine-toothed comb" to go through the piece, but a fucking pneumatic drill and demolition ball. "Theory and German poetry" are central to the novel, partly because the hero is a novelist and the circle of characters comprises literati and ideas people - the discussions between Yeshua and PP are philosophical in case that had eluded DG - and partly because one of the main inspirations for the book was Goethe's Faust - one of the most intensely emotional-intellectual-theoretical-historical works in Western bleeding literature. (That's Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, German Romantic poet, scribbler and Geheimrat in Weimar before and during the Napoleonic wars, if DG could be so kind as to look the guy up and check his credentials.)
DG thinks somehow that it's "great" "to add a section of criticism explaining some of the underlying themes of the novel", but wipes out exactly that with no detailed discussion and a couple of philistine side-swipes.
I don't believe DG could recognize "pretentious blather" if it sat on his face and farted. Be that as it may, let's go through this section with a fine tooth-comb and see what sort of criticism it might be and what it tells us about "underlying themes".
First, women and art are two central themes. Art in the form of literature, and women in the shape of lovers and spiritual forces for good and evil. Any objections?? Women not a central theme?? Margarita not central? Natasha not central? Hella not central? Niza not central? Annushka not central? Not to mention Gretchen... Art not a central theme? Bozhe moy...
Now for the details...
"The ironies of the relationship between social power and Art are essential to the dramatic tension in the book." --- The main irony being that social power lacks Art, and Art lacks social power, shortcomings which distort the life of humanity. The dramatic tension in the book is related to the fate of the master's manuscript in relation to social power (which suppresses it), and to history and spirit (which justifies it).
"Shelley remarks in the Defense of Poetry that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world", and as a poet/writer, the Master is so unacknowledged that he feels more at home in a lunatic asylum than in society, where he is subject to the whims of the actual legislators of the world, such as the bureaucrats of Massolit and their political masters." --- This sentence develops the first one, giving examples of social power found in the novel and the way they consign a serious author (Art) to a lunatic asylum. It gives a quote from an author who thought deeply about this sort of thing in a very relevant period for Bulgakin (late Romanticism, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac if anyone's interested...) ie Shelley, and the quote has relevance to the relationship between law-makers (that's what "legislators" means) and the aspects of life affected by these laws, and between the acknowledged (politician) and unacknowledged (artist) law-makers.
"But the whole novel is directed at demonstrating to what it depicts as the corrupt philistines in power that they are less in control than they might wish." --- I find it hard to single out any of the thousands of examples of this in the book for special mention, as every chapter is full of ferocious demonstrations of the emptiness of the worldly authority of establishment figures. It's a satire for gods sake.
"Above all they have no control over death or the spirit. They might mobilize the forces of darkness themselves, but fall short in a face-to-face contest with the Prince of Darkness -- and contests of this kind provide the content of most of the Moscow chapters of the first part of the novel." --- Making the previous points even clearer.
"It is notable that Bulgakov attacks no actual political leaders. His targets are all minions of one kind or another, albeit comfortably placed minions, like Berlioz, the head of Massolit, the literary bureaucracy." --- For some reason DG lets this remark pass!! Other commentators have used allegorical readings to contradict it...
"Despite the grand gestures of universality – darkness and light, the world and the stars, historical and geographical range – the novel is to a great extent a psycho-drama playing itself out in the literary world." --- Hm, perhaps the big words here pressed DG's philistine buttons. "Grand", "universality", "psycho-drama". I can assure h/er/im that some of us find these to be useful descriptive terms, especially when exemplified, as here, and seen in the context of literary movements and figures like Goethe, Shelley and Lukacs. "Psycho-drama" locates the action in the sphere of the mind (allegorical, symbolic, subconscious, mythical, etc) rather than kitchen-sink realism (although there's plenty of that in the actual scenes in which the deeper confrontations occur).
"The protagonists are the Academy and Bohemia." --- Anyone who has dipped their toes into the world of art or literature and their history will recognize this clash. Academic stuffiness and political correctness versus the creativity, wildness and authenticity of Bohemian rebels. Bureaucrats versus dissidents. Not valid thematic references in relation to this novel perhaps????
"Even Pilate and Christ clash on these terms of authority vs authenticity. Bulgakov induces a "willing suspension of disbelief" almost as effective as the tricks pulled off in the Variety by Woland, Fagotto the valet and Behemoth the cat. Georg Lukacs's remarks on naturalism and modernism in the references given below are relevant to this novel, too – focus on either the close-up surface texture of society, or the distant mystery of the stars at night. Treating the doings of a narrow circle as affairs of universal significance, and so on." --- putting some meat on the bare bones of the last sentence by giving examples from the novel's various settings. And focusing on the relevant aspects of Lukacs's criticism. How about reading the guy before dismissing him as useless to an understanding of modern literature or this novel?
"The portrayal of women shares this "cosmic" contrast in perspectives, too (exploited to great dramatic effect). Natasha seeks her freedom in witchdom, and Margarita flees respectability (submission to authority) to devote herself to the service of her lover (authenticity). She saves him, as Gretchen saves Faust in Goethe's plays, but likewise only because of the heroic challenge he has mounted to the "peace of the graveyard"." --- This is all clear, both in relation to the novel and the literary-theoretical and historical context. The quote is not so clear to people not acquainted with the most important works of the Western social-literary canon, perhaps. It's from Rousseau, the Swiss prophet of authenticity and the goodness of uncorrupted human nature, in his "Social Contract". Relevant not only to Faust but to the ex-USSR and any other oppressive society where you can get an easy life by shutting your eyes to injustice and oppression. Part of the intellectual equipment of any modern citizen with pretensions to culture, I'd think.
" "Das ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan", Goethe wrote at the end of Faust – "the eternal feminine draws us onward" – and the feeling is the same in The Master and Margarita. Most of the other female characters in the book are wives or mistresses of males in positions with some social clout. Or unattractive biddies." --- Straightforward relevant stuff expressed in simple language. Agree or disagree, this is a thematic preoccupation of the novel and worth mentioning and discussing.
"A courtly idealism with regard to women and relationships (and the ethos of the Middle Ages forms a clear motif in the book, especially in the internal relations of Satan's team as revealed in the final chapters) is nothing new in Russian or European literature." --- Perhaps DG thinks this idealism IS something new??? In that case, wow... perhaps the "ethos of the Middle Ages" in the final chapters slipped DG's attention?? The knightly crew galloping off over Russia and leaving Moscow burning??
"It is perhaps surprising that such a traditional portrayal of a woman's role is so skilfully presented that the novel achieved cult status among women and still enjoys it, first in the Soviet Union and now in the Russian Federation." --- I have yet to meet a single Russian (ex-Soviet) woman who can read who is NOT a great fan of the novel. Maybe someone knows some Russian neo-feminists who puke over the servile role allotted to Margarita in relation to the Master, and in that case it would add a lot to the breadth of the article to include a reference to this. Till then, this characterization of the position of the novel with Russian (etc) women can stand.
So, let's see if DG can give us a fine tooth-combed riposte or a mindless display of ignorant prejudice ;-)
--xjy 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No one but Xjy himself appears to be interested in his poorly written opinions of the book. More to the point, no one, repeat, no one looks up an encyclopedia entry on a book in order to read a scattershot summation of what other writers have said about it. At the very least, someone needs to copy-edit this misbegotten section. At best, however, Xjy will desist from making junior-high snipes at critics, and let the section die a natural death. Wikipedia is not here so that you can amuse yourself by writing astonishingly bad prose about a book that you like. If you, Xjy, have the desire to fix this section, go ahead. As it currently reads, it's out of place and unacceptable for any encyclopedia. --Dgilman 06:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Point-by-point refutation of Dgilman's empty remarks:
"No one but Xjy himself appears to be interested in his poorly written opinions of the book." --- The substance of this criticism being? Dg's authority to judge poor writing? To distinguish opinion from criticism? We need to see some arguments backing up this proclaimed authority.
"More to the point, no one, repeat, no one looks up an encyclopedia entry on a book in order to read a scattershot summation of what other writers have said about it." -- Two points, neither of them subtantiated. One a general statement implying that Dg knows exactly why EVERYBODY uses encyclopedias, which must fall by reason of its own megalomaniac fatuity. The other an indirect characterization of the section on Art and Women as "a scattershot summation of what other writers have said about it". So I'd like to see some sensible discussion and substantiation (fine-toothed if possible ;-) ) of this claim. "Summation" might be acceptable - the section's brief and pithy, after all. But "scattershot" is way wrong. General points are made in the section about the relation of art/literature to society, reference is made to a couple of standard statements of literary theory about these, and exemplification is given from the novel. Same goes for the women. Nothing scattershot here. And Dg doesn't make any attempt to address the issues (art-society, women in society and art) mentioned. Just the demolition ball swiping again.
"At the very least, someone needs to copy-edit this misbegotten section." For what? Long words??? Spelling? Punctuation? Has Dg ever done any copy-editing? Does s/he have any idea what it involves? "Misbegotten" - wonderful NPOV here. I'm inclined to think that Dg is just viscerally opposed to any reflections on art, society and women in relation to a novel thematically pregnant with art, society and women. Too bad s/he doesn't try to EXPLAIN why and how the section is "misbegotten".
"At best, however, Xjy will desist from making junior-high snipes at critics, and let the section die a natural death." --- "Junior-high"!!! priceless... Since when is asking for substantiation and reasoning "sniping"? No way a section on the themes of Art and Women in the Master and Margarita (a famous Russian novel I'm not sure Dg has read yet) should "die a natural death".
"Wikipedia is not here so that you can amuse yourself by writing astonishingly bad prose about a book that you like." --- Again a totally unsubstantiated stylistic slur, plus a gratuitous ad hominem (you can look it up, Dg ;-) ) slur on Xjy's motives, plus a wonderfully arrogant assumption that Wikipedia is Jesus to Dgilman's Paul.
"If you, Xjy, have the desire to fix this section, go ahead. As it currently reads, it's out of place and unacceptable for any encyclopedia." --- The whole idea of Wikipedia, Dg, is collective construction of articles, not anarchistic individual demolition jobs. "Out of place" for Dg perhaps, but this personal statement of opinion is empty until it's substantiated. "Unacceptable" likewise. Dg is speaking purely for one isolated user, not the collective wisdom of Wikipedia - until s/he starts adding some flesh and bones to the windy phantoms deployed so far.

--xjy 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grafitti & Defacement?

I reedited the page to make the section about the graffiti more neutral (though now it is probably leaning more the other way). I cccc cvehemently disagree that the graffiti was defacing anything. The first level was more just "crap" really, but walking up the stairs there were some great paintings. and yes, paintings. i went back a 3rd time with a friend and was crushed when i saw the walls were all white. but on that topic, when i was there, there were workers in apartment #50, and with my limited russian confidence at the time i got something out of them about a museum, but they very well could have just been lying so there wasn't a riot, or fed up with people asking them. Has anybody been there recently? (or since I was in apr 2003?) i'd love to know what has happened to the place, whether there is a museum or if there is more horrib le graffiti defacing the walls. Jowe 03:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

reading through the history a bit i see the "defacing" came from reported racist grafitti, and well, there was som e ranomd american such or things like that. but not very many at all, you had ot look for it, they were small, and just written, the things getting all the attention were the drawings. hopefully my edits aren't totally off-base. i think rather the article as it stood before was wrong. Jowe 03:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new Russian tv series

Should be mentioned. Xx236 09:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

8/06 -- I am curious to know why my edit regarding a new English translation has been reverted.

I haven't been able to get a response out of the person who reverted the edit so far, so let's put this up for discussion: there's a new self-published English translation out there. Is there a reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the appropriate section? --KBehemoth 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The main criterion is notability. Is this translation critically acclaimed? It is not big deal to self-publish today. `'mikka (t) 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't quite find the Wikipedia guideline that states that a translation must be "critically acclaimed" to be mentioned here. Furthermore, what determines "critical acclaim" here? Although self-publishing is indeed easier today, please keep in mind that a translation of a major work is not something that is routinely cranked out. There were no claims about the quality of this translation, only that it exists; it is no less of a translation by virtue of being self-published. Unless there are other objections raised, I would like to reinstate the information about this translation on the page. KBehemoth 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
A cornerstone principle about information included in wikipedia is reasonable notability. The amount of work itself says nothing: ever heard of graphomaniacs? (most wikipedians are :-)) It must be verified by a third party that the work in question deserves mentioning. Otherwise wikipedia will be flooded with self-published poets, self-proclaimed politicians, non-notable self-released pop-bands and bios of pets. So, either the translator or translation must find any attention elsewhere. Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle for his promotion. Glory first, wikipedia article second. `'mikka (t) 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I understand, the verifiability guidelines you linked to refer to, quote, "facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments." A translation is neither. These criteria have to do with material that contains a disputable claim - the issue at hand is verifiability, not "notability" or "critical acclaim" or "fame," which you seem to be conflating with verifiability. A translation does not involve disputable material, nor does it fall under the category of research; the only "claim" being made is that the translation is available, which is easily verifiable.
My point was not about the amount of work involved, but about the nature of the work. A translation is not an original work in the sense that poetry, political statements, pop music, or pet bios are, and as a result your comparison is invalid. It is only a mirror of the original work, and deserves mentioning if the original work deserves mentioning. If the article purports to list "published English translations" (without any particular evidence that they have passed some unknown measure of "critical acclaim"), then it should either list all known translations or have a disclaimer that details precisely what standard of "critical acclaim" they have been held to.
I realize that self-published work is a gray area, but please note that none of the reasons against inclusion of self-published work apply here. KBehemoth 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is about "master and margarita". The major question is: whether the link adds important information about the topic. Since the discussed personal translation was not evaluated by experts, wikipedians have no opinion about its quality, i.e., whether it merits mentioning. Once again: the main issue is notability; the verifiability comes second, as an instrument to ensure notability: a wikipedian can claim notability of something only basing on verifiable sources. `'mikka (t) 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, just to clarify, the reason I spoke about verifiability is because your link above is to the Wikipedia verifiability page, not the Wikipedia notability page.
While verifiability is an official Wikipedia policy, notability is not. Quoting the page, "a topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." There is a section in this article that specifically deals with translations. A new published translation is clearly important to the completeness of that section. Furthermore, the notability page speaks primarily of the creation of separate articles rather than references to works within a subsection of an article.
Also, could you please clarify (I brought this up earlier) how the four existing translations have been "evaluated by experts" to a degree that wikipedians have "an opinion about [their] quality?" For instance, one of the translations currently mentioned has been heavily criticized, but that doesn't mean it should not be mentioned. Does Wikipedia have a formal definition of what constitutes expert evaluation as far as translations are concerned, or was that a subjective judgement?
And in conclusion, since we may not reach an agreement, shall we get someone else to weigh in on this?KBehemoth 05:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFC, section "Article content disputes" and Wikipedia:Third opinion. `'mikka (t) 15:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a note to WP:RFC/ART KBehemoth 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Unless this translation has been published by a mainstream or academic publisher, or it is the subject of a published professional or academic review, it should not be included. Gamaliel 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would allow a reputable small press publisher, and also allow verification from newspaper or other media coverage of the book. Otherwise there has to be consensus from the editors involved to include it. Tyrenius 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
All right, I guess the consensus is that if this translation receives a published review, it may be included; until then, it stays off. KBehemoth 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This argument is all ludicrous. Bulgakov's novel was published as samizdat. Typewriters are the ultimate instruments of individual POV. I agree completely with KBehemoth about the merits of including this new translation. Notability has nothing to do with it. And the "mainstream or academic publisher" or "published professional or academic review" criterion is just nonsense. There is no adequate translation of M&M currently available in English, so every contribution building towards one is worth noting. The idea of Wikipedia is to get away from unnecessary straitjackets on the communication and exchange of ideas. "Professional, academic and mainstream" are all notorious (and expensive) straitjackets on the communication and exchange of ideas. As the institutionalization of communicable ideas in the ex-USSR demonstrated. Anyway, now there is a consensus (me and KB) for the mention of this translation.

[edit] Bulgakov's flat

I suggest that this paragraph, if it belongs anywhere, should be in the article Mikhail Bulgakov.--Smerus 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abadonna

Is it really necdesary to mention Abadonna among the main characters? Even Frida (the woman who killed her baby) seems more important to my eyes!--Hun2de Correct me! 08:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV translations & source

I added many sources and tried to make it more NPOV. I still lacks proper source in support for Glenny flowing better, but I think it is quite fair to say that the early translations run more smoothly. The later translations deliberately sacrifice idiomatic flow to get as close to the original as possible. I think the section reflects the situation fairly. Is it okay to remove the POV flag? --Vesal 10:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Good job! I removed the warnings.

[edit] Art and Women themes section

I see from the history page that the following section has been causing some controversy as to whether to include it or not. It has no citation of its references, and as such I suspect it's original research, which is not part of the scope of Wikipedia (cf. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). I've removed it to this discussion page for the time being. If someone wishes to move it to Meta-Wiki, or give it citations and move it back to the main page, you are of course welcome to do so, though I would recommend moving it into a 'Themes' section and not as its own subdivision.

==Major thematic issues relating to Art and Women in the novel== The ironies of the relationship between social power and Art are essential to the dramatic tension in the book. [[Percy Bysshe Shelley|Shelley]] remarks in the [[Defence of Poetry]] that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world", and as a poet/writer, the Master is so unacknowledged that he feels more at home in a lunatic asylum than in society, where he is subject to the whims of the actual legislators of the world, such as the bureaucrats of Massolit and their political masters. But the whole novel is directed at demonstrating to what it depicts as the corrupt philistines in power that they are less in control than they might wish. Above all they have no control over death or the spirit. They might mobilize the forces of darkness themselves, but fall short in a face-to-face contest with the Prince of Darkness -- and contests of this kind provide the content of most of the Moscow chapters of the first part of the novel. It is notable that Bulgakov attacks no actual political leaders. His targets are all minions of one kind or another, albeit comfortably placed minions, like Berlioz, the head of Massolit, the literary bureaucracy. Despite the grand gestures of universality – darkness and light, the world and the stars, historical and geographical range – the novel is to a great extent a psycho-drama playing itself out in the literary world. The protagonists are the [[Academy]] and [[Bohemia]]. Even Pilate and Christ clash on these terms of authority vs authenticity. Bulgakov induces a "willing suspension of disbelief" almost as effective as the tricks pulled off in the Variety by Woland, Fagotto the valet and Behemoth the cat. [[Georg Lukacs]]'s remarks on [[naturalism]] and [[modernism]] in the references given below are relevant to this novel, too – focus on either the close-up surface texture of society, or the distant mystery of the stars at night. Treating the doings of a narrow circle as affairs of universal significance, and so on. The portrayal of women shares this "cosmic" contrast in perspectives, too (exploited to great dramatic effect). Natasha seeks her freedom in witchdom, and Margarita flees respectability (submission to authority) to devote herself to the service of her lover (authenticity). She saves him, as Gretchen saves Faust in Goethe's plays, but likewise only because of the heroic challenge he has mounted to the "peace of the graveyard". "Das ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan", Goethe wrote at the end of Faust – "the eternal feminine draws us onward" – and the feeling is the same in The Master and Margarita. Most of the other female characters in the book are wives or mistresses of males in positions with some social clout. Or unattractive biddies. A courtly idealism with regard to women and relationships (and the ethos of the Middle Ages forms a clear motif in the book, especially in the internal relations of Satan's team as revealed in the final chapters) is nothing new in Russian or European literature. It is perhaps surprising that such a traditional portrayal of a woman's role is so skilfully presented that the novel achieved cult status among women.

--BlackAndy 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, to respond to a potential argument before it is made: No, the themes section doesn't give citations either, as of now. However, on reading it I find it to be less ambitious, more grounded in the text (see particularly the Burgin/Tiernan O'Connor translation, with its annotations by Proffer) and less in interpretation of it then the section removed to above. That's not to say, however, that, as it stands now, it couldn't stand a fair amount of work, especially quotations from the text (which I don't have in front of me right now, or I'd do it myself).
In addition I want to make clear that I'm not disagreeing with anything in the section I removed to this page, nor am I criticizing the style or tone of the writing. My point is merely that it makes ambitious, unreferenced statements about the interpretation of the text, and as such in its current state it is not appropriate for Wikipedia.--BlackAndy 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Rather than remove a useful pointer to themes (women's roles, social perspectives) and traditional work on them (Shelley, Lukacs), I think it's better to keep the section, as BA decided he would choose to keep the themes section. The level of ambition shouldn't be an obstacle to inclusion! ("This is too ambitious for us, it refers to "courtly idealism", "witchdom", "authority vs authenticity" and other hard stuff..." Duh...) Then it's open to those readers and contributors who have the book open in front of them to add references for or against. I'd personally love to see someone show there's no "witchdom" in the novel, or no clash between "authority" and "authenticity", or no hint of "courtly idealism". Or that Anna is not an old biddy, or the women at the Variety show are not wives and mistresses of males with social clout. Or in general that any of the statements made in the section are no rooted in the text, by sentence, chapter or whole.
"Hard stuff" and "big words" are commonplaces of literary discussion, and references to them are commonplace in any encyclopedia that goes beyond "this book has 200 pages and 750,000 words".
--xjy 11:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Xjy. I can tell that this section is dear to you, and as such I want to suggest that, instead of enduring endless removals of it only to have you replace it, which in its current state it should be obvious by now is going to continue happening over and over, you address the issues in the section that are causing its removal. I too see the important role of women both within the novel and in Bulgakov's life. As such, there are undoubtedly scholarly references, for example, available that you can use to give citations to the section.
I think it's likely that this section, if given a well-researched and -cited background, perhaps with a somewhat narrower scope, will find a much warmer welcome on this page than it has to date. As such, none of the objections I've raised with the section (particularly those concerning how it seems to consist of original thought) have been addresssed, even by doing something as simple as providing quotes from the text, and as such it continues to be below the bar of what is acceptable on this page. For example, it states that the feeling of "the eternal feminine draws us onward" is the same in Faust as in The Master and Margarita, but there are no citations for this statement nor are there references to a paper or essay which argues this to be the case.
I'll leave the section up for a while, but if it doesn't show signs of improvement I think sooner or later its going to be removed, whether it's me or someone else who does it. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you; I think many of the the points in this section are worthwhile and deserve to be expounded. But this has not been done, they've merely been raised without reference, and this is not enough.
Regarding the scope of the article, please remember that this page on The Master and Margarita is intended to be about the novel The Master and Margarita. Textual allusions to other works and knowledge are of course relevant to understanding of a work, and so the allusions made to the ethos of the Middle Ages, for example, may or may not be appropriate on the page, but to be honest I've read the book several times and have very little idea of what is meant. It may be that adding a clause or sentence will make your meaning more clear to the casual reader of the page; if more is needed, however, it is likely that the information is of interest to specialists more than it is to the users and readers of Wikipedia. The level of ambition is sometimes, unfortunately, an obstacle to inclusion, and your statement to the opposite more than anything else makes me suspect that this section in question does in fact consist of original thought.
If the last sentence of your reply was intended to be directed toward me, I ask that you spend the time to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --BlackAndy 11:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

The Master and Margarita#Themes and imagery, The Master and Margarita#Major thematic issues relating to Art and Women in the novel, unless the references to sources provided, these two sections will be deleted. We may only to summarize what other said about the M&M. Our own musing is original research. `'mikka 06:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Master_and_Margarita_eb4c.html"