fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2979 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2979 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16. [repeat]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 091 secrets from Secret Submission Post #426.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think it goes without saying that everyone has heard of Leo Tolstoy, so I won't add to that pile too much, but I will say that his short stories (including Ivan The Fool) are maybe more worth the time to read if you're not up for tackling War And Peace or Anna Karenina.

Mikhail Bulgakov is also a name I mention a lot: The Master And Margarita, Heart Of A Dog, and The Fatal (Fateful) Eggs are full of cheek and highly satirical of Soviet Russia. They're great fun to read.

If you want to be depressed and saddened, One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich by Solzhenitsyn is a ruthless and brutal realization of real life in a gulag. One that is unmatched by any other account.

And uh... I think that's enough for now. That's a lot to check out, so hopefully that should keep someone happy for a while.

I've considered The Master and Margarita a few times because I've seen it recced in a couple of other places, but chickened out because I was worried I wouldn't have enough background knowledge to enjoy it. I think I'll save it for when I have more free time in case I need to do extra research. Do you have any advice?

Yeah, that book is not one to read if you don't know a lot about the underground writing scene/writer's guilds that took place in Soviet Russia before the Kruschev thaw. Without historical knowledge half of the jokes and barbs at the writing community are lost, and without humour the novel itself falls flat. Technically it isn't the best piece to read, but Bulgakov excels at satire and that's where his works really shine.

I would suggest bringing yourself up to speed on the history of Soviet literature before the Kruschev thaw, particularly the period between 1910-1930 which was when Bulgakov was writing. The Wikipedia pages for Mikhail Bulgakov and Russian Literature are pretty good sources from what I've read of them.

Also, having historical knowledge of Pontius Pilate is pretty essential for understanding a lot of the symbolism and parallelism in TMaM. It doesn't have to be very in-depth, but it does inform a fuller interpretation of the novel.

Thanks for the tips! I'll make sure to read up on those before/while tackling TMaM.

DA

I wouldn't necessarily agree that TM&M falls flat without historical knowledge. I only had the most general knowledge of the period the first time I read the book (though a bit more about Pontius Pilate, admittedly), but the opening conversation between Berlioz and Bezdomny (and then Woland) at the Patriarch Ponds sets up a lot of the tone and the situation quite well even with minimal knowledge. Once you have a grasp of Woland's style as well, and Koroviev & Behemoth's, you can understand a lot of what they're attacking just by what they do to them. 'Black Magic Revealed' in particular is not at all shy about what it's poking holes in. It gets better the more knowledge you have, but I think it's still darkly humorous and pointed even with only the barest idea. The characters are very vivid, and can carry a lot of emotion and implication just in their interactions alone.

I think there are a number of ways to enjoy the book. When I first read it, it was the Satanic fairy tale I was looking for, because I like a lot of Irish and Russian fairy tales in that vein, and it stands up pretty well as that, too. The characters are also pretty compelling all on their own. The satire once you have a firmer grasp of what's going on is amazing, though. Pilate's story and the actions of Woland's cavalcade sketched against Moscow of the 20s/30s is a wonderfully damning skewer. It also feels more whole, with the Pilate sections more unified and less a separate story, once you know more of the background.

It does stand up to multiple readings, I think. I came at it piecemeal, getting elements at a time based on the amount of knowledge I had. While it may not have been the most sensible way to go about it, especially with the internet right there for research, sometimes I think it gave me an interesting experience of the novel. Different parts of it stand out more depending on how much knowledge you have going in, and while they don't unify very well without background knowledge, they're all surprisingly compelling on their own too.

I think it's kind of being pedantic at this point, but there's a huge difference between no knowledge and minimal knowledge. Minimal knowledge will get you through MAM with a chuckle or two at the physical comedy, but no knowledge can make even the plot progression seem confusing and as if the story is jumping around incomprehensibly. Like you mentioned, the Pilate sections come off as a separate story at first without a bit of a grasp as to why Biblical history is suddenly figuring into the narrative.

Also, yes, multiple readings are almost necessary. Like with most classic lit, there's a lot you can miss in just a single reading. I'd almost like to say this applies to Russian literature especially just because of what some culture specialists like to call "the dualistic nature of the Russian soul". There's always such personal contrast to be found in any work. You may think it's a strict condemnation at first, but it can never be that simple with Russian writers. There's always a little bit of internal conflict and an extreme opposition of emotions when someone (particularly a writer of those times) tries to express a certain viewpoint.

This is part of what makes Bulgakov and Zamyatin so interesting to study, for me.

[ SECRET POST #2979 ]

Re: Classic literature thread

Re: Classic literature thread

Re: Classic literature thread

Re: Classic literature thread

Re: Classic literature thread

Re: Classic literature thread