Religious Imagery in The Master and Margarita? Maybe?

(I'm a little uncertain as to what book to write about, as I see nothing much about Envy here, but I'll just touch on The Master and Margarita that we started with today, as I'm enjoying that so far.)

Throughout this course, we've covered a variety of different novels that have touched on various different subjects.  However, we have not really seen much in terms of religious writing (in either direction, for or against it), with the exception of in We with the One State religion concept.  With The Master and Margarita, we now get that in a very unique and borderline whimsical manner.  Instead of using societal religious figures, such as priests or clergy members, as plot devices, Bulgakov opts for the more absurdist, fantasy-oriented, fictional method of literally bringing Satan to life in the guise of Woland, while also focusing on The Master's manuscript, which is a revised version of Jesus' trial.  With that in mind, so far, this feels very little like religious criticism.  Instead, it feels like the religious imagery is only conjured merely because Bulgakov was feeling like being creative in a manner that would be objectionable to the orthodox church at the time.

In previous literature courses, the most I've ever seen of religion being involved in a novel is that it has either served the role of oppressor, or a main character has been a sort of Christ-like figure (both sides of the same coin, I guess...).  Thus, I find this new twist on the religious theme to be quite fascinating.  The way it is integrated so far makes me feel like this is more about a "good and evil" kind of theme that will be revealed in some manner.

The 20th century literature we've read so far has been a far cry from the 19th century material.  We've now covered dystopian societies, extreme satire, the presence of a "big brother" styled state, and now this unusual religious imagery.  What does this say about the state of Russian literature in the 20th century?  Despite the fact that this novel was withheld/restricted/censored/delayed/whatever, is it a sign of social or literary progress to see how writers seemed to really push boundaries more now than ever before, especially in terms of bringing in radically fictional elements into their works?  How did 19th century works lead to the incredibly different novels we're reading now?

Religion and We

In Zamyatin's We, the reader is constantly bombarded with references to the old world and the future. Both times, though very different, seem to have a need for religion in common. Giving people a way to ground moral values and give reason to life, religion has been an important part of people's lives throughout history. However, religion in We seems both to criticize organized religious practices and realize their necessity.

We uses the One State as organized religion for all people. This way, people have a common goal and background to increase uniformity among beings. The Benefactor serves as a god-like being, all-knowing and all-powerful. The benefactor is referred to as He, a term usually used for only God. D-503 even says that the Benefactor's face was "somewhere in the clouds, up above" (186). Many of the ceremonies take on a religious feeling. I made a connection to the story of Adam and Eve through parts of the novel. Love, or D-503's feelings toward I-330, can be seen as Adam tasting the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Also, the fact that the surgery of taking rid of the imagination is done, shows a criticism of religion. I think Zamyatin is arguing that religion takes away much individuality because it makes people constantly conform to certain beliefs.

What role do you believe religion plays in the novel? Does Zamyatin portray religion in only a bad light?

Don't tell me how to feel!

After reading so many 19^th century authors who seem to go to great lengths (often literally) to broadcast their own opinions (nihilism is dumb!  Christianity!  Peasants!), I’ve found Zamyatin and Olesha’s willingness to embrace ambiguity and nuance very refreshing.  Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy all appeared to have well-formed ideas about how one should live and seemed to utilize large parts of their novel to convey these thoughts.  Turgenev has long periods of philosophical debate about the tenets and merits of nihilism.  The premise of Dostoevsky’s entire work was premised on the question of how someone functions in a modern society and he comes to the relatively straightforward conclusion that God can solve it all.  Tolstoy spends literally hundreds of pages romanticizing the simplicity of peasant life and concludes that living for God is the only way to go.

Zamyatin and Olesha, by contrast, seem much more willing to embrace vague and open-ended conclusions.  Both critique communism and the new Soviet Union while simultaneously acknowledging some benefits.  While Tolstoy was perfectly at home making broad categorical statements (“All happy families…”), Zamyatin and Olesha seem very uncomfortable doing that, preferring to prod and poke rather than wholly praise or condemn.  This is perhaps best exemplified by the warm welcome Envy received in the Soviet press and its simultaneous endorsement by critics of the Soviet Union.  After reading so many novels that seemed like lectures, I’ve really appreciated Zamyatin and particularly Olesha’s willingness and ability to praise opposite ends of the spectrum at the same time. 

Does anyone else feel the same way about the transition from the 19^th to the 20^th centuries?

Reading Experience of 'WE'

I've read a fair number of distopian novels, but in reading WE I found myself sympathizing with the quest for creating an ideal world (though arguably impossible) more than I have in the past. This is probably due mostly to the fact that I haven't read a distopian novel since early high school and now have more knowledge surrounding industrial mechanization, communism, and the cold war. Growing up in the United States in a post- Cold War world, I was (as many of us in the US are) raised to value individuality.

Therefore, in the past when I have read distopian novels I always felt negatively toward the stifling suggestion of uniformity that is present in these novels (which I am supposed to feel as a reader). While reading WE, however, I kept thinking about the idealism that was behind the 'One State' and the idealism that was behind early soviet visions. The idea of a world in which everybody is equal, has their basic needs fulfilled and are content sounds great in theory.

Perhaps I am more inclined toward this sympathy considering that Zamyatin was Russian and wrote WE at a time in which the soviet experiment was only just beginning. Does anybody else find themselves similarly affected by WE? I just think that it is interesting that WE has provoked more thought about these issues than, say 1984 which I enjoyed reading more. Maybe it is simply because I am older and have more context than when I read 1984, but maybe there is something special about WE also!

The Problem with Being Human

 In We, Zamyatin shows how the One State and Benefactor try to control every aspect of life; from waking up in the morning to the bell, to walking in lines in the surroundings enclosed by the Green Wall to allotting specific Sex Days given out by pick slips. It seems that D-503 has completely bought into the ways of the One State at the beginning of the book. D is content with his work as a builder of the Integral and loves spending his Sex Days with O even though he knows that O is also with R. The reader slowly discovers that D is different from everyone else in the One State. He continuously describes his surroundings as full of color (yellow, blue, green) and is completely infatuated with I-330. He goes against all of his beliefs for I-330. Instead of describing his actions with "we" he starts to use the word "I" and describes what his own desires and needs. 

Although D ends up going through with the Operation at the end of the book, the state itself is still chaotic. As we discussed in class today, I think Zamyatin is trying to critique how during this time leaders in Russia idealized communism. If they could just control each individual, everyone would be happy, however this is impossible. This is made clear when D expresses his individual desires. He also expresses his own jealously, another “human” emotion, when he sees O with R together.  Each person has his or her own desires and needs, and there is no middle ground that can make everyone equally happy. This is the human way. Therefore, there seems to be no right answer on how to run a state or even just a group of people. Look at the problems within our government today! 

Structure and Character

During the first half of the semester we read novels from the nineteenth century and after reading our first twentieth century novel, We by Zamyatin, differences between the two century can be noted. Firstly, the structure of the novel differs from those we have read. Unlike traditional chapters told by a third person narrator, We is told through a series of records narrated by our main character D-503. The records are brief and are basically series of stream of consciousness.  I sort of see this structure as a combination of Pechorin’s diary and Raskolnikov’s episodes of dementia.

Secondly what struck me was the way Zamyatin characterizes his characters. Forget detailed physical descriptions that we saw with Tolstoy, Zamyatin gives his characters, who are named with a single a letter and a number, one or two traits i.e. O has the wrists and the color pink. In this sense, Zamyatin downplays his characters which I guess could represent the idea that the communal is greater than the individual; the description of the One State trumps that of the ciphers. This lack of physical characterization made the novel harder for me to read as I, a visual learner, had a hard time envisioning what was going on. 

Combine the stream of consciousness with the lack of vivid imagery I found reading We much more challenging than anything we read from the 19^th century. Am  I the only one?

Utilitarianism versus Love and Compassion, Round 1

In We, Zamyatin shows, through D-503’s transformation from an almost emotionless individual to a compassionate and loving one, that the One State’s utilitarian ethics conflict with the values of compassion and love.

An essential characteristic One State is that it aims to provide collective happiness. The One State operates by a utilitarian ethic under which the proper course of action is the one that produces the most happiness for the largest amount of people. You can find evidence for this interpretation page thirteen when D-503 expresses vexation with ancient laws: “To kill a man, that is, to decrease the sum of human life by fifty years—this was criminal. But decreasing the sum of many humans’ lives by fifty million years—this was not criminal. Isn’t that funny?”

D-503’s surprise at these ancient laws reveals what he things the proper laws of the One State are. He implies that killing a single man is less reprehensible than doing a lesser harm to many more people. This sort of estimation is typical of utilitarianism because it can be reached by a calculation to determine which action has a greater effect on gross happiness.

The values of love and compassion are not guided by these calculations and they’re typically focused on individuals, not collectives. As the novel progresses, D-503 devotes more of his records to individuals (R-13, I-330, 0-90) rather than to the whole of the One State. He also begins to express compassion and love for certain characters, I-330 in particular. He falls uncontrollably in love with I-330 (he mentions it on page 57) and the deeper he falls, the less he is able to be a functioning member of the One-State, he has to be listed as sick, he cant go to work, cant sleep when supposed to etc.

This simultaneous transition from emotionless to loving and function member of the State to delinquent is how Zamyatin’s intended to show love and compassion are incompatible with the One State’s utilitarianism. As D-503 develops these emotions, he himself becomes incompatible with the One State.