h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Good evening, Tobes, you probably misunderstood me. I just meant to specify a bit the title in a way Sir Bossel did. I was not quite sure if all users of h2g2 know who Bulgakov was.

As for difficult Russian names used in the literature I was portraying the common complains of non-native speakers. For me as I am a native Russian the pronounciation of them is not so bad.

You wrote: And an Entry on "Mysticism in Russian Literature" would have to run to the length of a university thesis, and I suspect it would be beyond my abilities/knowledge. Still, you never know.

It´s a pity. One could try.

Anna Banana

Hi Tobes.
Although your entry is nominated for the guide, I would like to know where do you have the explanations of Bulgakov´ work from? I´ve looked in the Russian sites after Bulgakov and find a whole Bulgakov Encyclopedia. The explanations given by the authors there are quite different to yours.

Are you interested in? Please contact me, because Woland is NOT Lenin. Pr. Preobrazhenskiy neither.

Anna Banana

Hi again Anna,

Sorry about any misunderstanding. I'm still not entirely sure about the need to add more to the title, but then again it's in the editors' hands now, and they may decide otherwise.

Regarding my analysis of some of Bulgakov's stories - I've read the 'Entsiklopedia Bulgakovskaia', which doesn't go into too much analytical detail on B's fiction, although it is an excellent reference work for his history and bibliography in general. Also read Michael Glenny's English translations of several of B's works, which have brief analytical introductions in them. I can't remember whether he says anything about Lenin-like characters, though. Ultimately, though, I've read B's fiction, and came to the conclusion that several pieces *could be read* as satires of Lenin.

I'm not saying this is the only way they could be read, just that they can be read that way. Persikov in 'Rokovyie Yaitsa' creates a "red" monster that escapes his control, and he shares characteristics with Lenin - he's chubby and he's bearded. Preobrazhenskii creates the proletarian stereotype from a lower animal, and although he doesn't share so many of Lenin's characteristics, he's obviously meant to represent someone who created or empowered the Soviet proletariat, which strongly suggests Lenin. The Island native (can't remember his name - is it Kiki-Tuki? Something like that) in 'Bagrovyi Ostrov' can't really be physically likened to Lenin, but his first, failed attempt to seize power, his flight abroad, his alliance with more powerful foreign investors and his triumphant return to the doomed Island with a fleet of foreign sailors mirrors Lenin's failed first putsch, his flight to Germany, his raising of German investment and his return to Russia with German military help. We know Bulgakov didn't like Bolshevism - his family was a part of the White Army, who'd lost to the Red Army in the civil war - and it's not much of a leap to read Lenin into B's satire.

As for Professor Woland, I personally never read him as a caricature of Lenin. I may just not have noticed. The theory of Woland as Lenin (and again, he does share some physical characteristics) and the rest of that interpretation of 'The Master and Margarita' I found on some Russian literary scholar's website, quite unexpectedly, while I was looking for a concise Bulgakov timeline to use for year references. I've referenced this man's website, and I hope it's clear that it's his theory rather than mine. I personally find it an intriguing possibility, but like the mainstream Russian literary establishment, I'd always read 'M&M' as just a fantastical bit of wish fulfilment on B's part. I'd like to think both interpretations are possible.

I was the scout who recommended this entry, so I thought I'd say well done Tobes

Hi, Tobes, thank you for explanations.

I would also like to make some observations about some facts you´ve mentioned in the entry. Although I liked the unusual view of some details, I think it is necessary to clear them up as I like Bulgakov´s work very much. Maybe we should better discuss the following points in our private spaces. Otherwise I have thought it could be interesting for the reader of this threat.

Now I see, it was your opinion and your conclusion that several characters of Bulgakov's stories were Lenin´s caricatures. The authors of the 'Bulgakovskaya entsiklopedia' (do we talk about the same site? http://www.bulgakov.ru ) cite quite a lot of documents. They prove that Pr. Preobrazhenskiy, for example, did have a real prototype. Bulgakov's uncle was a famous gynaecologist and had the same manner of buzzing and so on. His name was also 'religious' Pokrovskiy. His patients were also real persons (important politicians and artists), whose names Bulgakov had to change while he overworked the first draft if he didn´t want to be send to the prison. Bulgakov was not as naive thinking of Lenin as a 'creator' of a new human race. Lenin himself was from Bulgakov's point of view this new race. Of course, the main character of 'Bagrovyi Ostrov' seems doubtless to be Lenin, but other characters are not. Perhaps he used some caricatural features of Lenin, but that´s all.

As for Woland he is Mephistopheles from Goethe´s 'Dr. Faust' and also the name 'Woland' comes from a phrase Mephisto is saying during the Valpurga's Night (sp?). It is the only time that the devil is referring to himself as Woland, which comes from the old German name of the devil 'Faland'. Bulgakov decided to use Woland, as for Russian ears the name Faland would be funny and the effect would be missed. I also think that 'M&M' is a wish fulfilment as Bulgakov and his third wife wanted to leave the USSR but were not allowed to. In this sense a supernatural intervention is necessary to rescue them from the stupid, sick Soviet everyday life. Do you remember, Master gets a house and candles which enables him to carry on with his literary work. This was the only wish of ill and opressed Bulgakov, I think.

The last comment I would like to do is that not only Gogol used 'talking names'. Bulgakov´s work is also a splendid example of this practice. The case of Preobrazhenskiy itself or Aloisiy Mogarych from M&M (bribe in Ukrainian) and so on.

Nevertheless, well-done. Do you speak Russian?

Dear Silverfish, I haven´t understood your comment. Is it an invitation for me to shut-up or have you just congratulated Tobes to the entry being picked up?

Anna Banana

Hi again Anna,

Firstly, yes, I do speak Russian (although I read it better than I speak it. I do a good line in passive language acquisition...) - I studied it as an academic subject for seven years. That was four years ago, though, but I still try to keep in practice.

Secondly, i think we're talking about different Bulgakov Encyclopaedias - I'm unaware of the website, I was referring to a book I bought in Russia a few years back. Thanks for bringing the website to my attention, though - it's a lot better documented than the book I have.

Thirdly, literary interpretation. That's all it can be - interpretation. I mean, Bulgakov sadly didn't leave behind a definitive statement of what his writing was about, so we can never know what he really, really meant, we can only guess. The practical upshot of this is, one interpretation of his work is as good as another, as long as it can be backed up. The "straight" interpretation of a work can always be backed up; the task I've seemingly taken on here is to back up the alternative interpretation. I hope that you have accepted, or may yet accept, that the possibility exists that Bulgakov's work could conceivably be interpreted the way I've interpreted it here.

And the beauty of literary interpretation is, both versions can be correct simultaneously. It's the mark of a great author that his or her writing can be viewed on more than one level.

For example, it's not uncommon for writers to take inspiration for their characters from friends and relatives, but that does not preclude the possibility that those characters can also stand for something else. I speak as an aspiring writer myself, as well as a reader. Many elements go to make up a character; there's still room for some Lenin in there as well. And I doubt 'The Heart of a Dog' is a satire on Bulgakov's uncle. Who apart from Bulgakov and, if he had a good sense of humour, his uncle, would get the joke?

Same for Prof Woland - Bulgakov wouldn't be the only author to have drawn inspiration from 'Faust', but that doesn't mean this is all that Woland is. It's just one element of the character, and there's still room for more.

Nor do I suggest that the "creation" or at least the advancement of Sharik from dog to proletarian should be taken as the analogue of a literal act of creation on Lenin's part. It's a metaphor. Bulgakov wanted to write fantastic stories, and the 'Frankenstein'-esque plot of 'The Heart of a Dog' is perfectly legitimate fantasy window-dressing. Underneath that, I maintain, is a statement on Bolshevism, but that statement isn't that Lenin created his Bolshevik followers by unscrewing their heads and tinkering with their brains. Or did he? Maybe that's all that political campaigning really is - unscrewing people's heads, tinkering with their brains. It's just a metaphor, non-literal.

At least, it can be read as a metaphor. It can be read as straightforward fantasy in its own right, too. Both are possible.

Oh, and thanks Silverfish!

Good evening, Tobes,

thank you for lots of information and it warms my heart that there are people in Western Europe who are interested in Russian culture.

I agree with you about the interpretation of literary work. However, in my opinion you should stress the fact that this is one plausible but alternative version and not the 'official' one.

As for the 'Dog´s Heart' I don´t think that Preobrazhenskiy is a satire of Bulgakov´s uncle, but I am sure, his uncle can stay for all the 'Old Guard' who face the 'New Human Being'. I would not ever think of the possibility that Bulgakov was as naive to assume Lenin had been the creator of the 'new race'. I think Lenin himself as an unscrupulous and dishonest politician personifies this 'new race'. The leader of Soviet Russia could hardly recommend to his pupil: "Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner. It can damage your stomach."

There is still the possibility to contact your Sub-Editor and straighten this out - in one sentence, footnote whatever, or so. What do you think about this? I do not want to be the boring person, but to me it´s a question of principle, what can enter the Guide. Perhaps that is my interpretation of it.

Anna Banana

Hi Anna,

Damn, that's good! I must have overlooked the "Soviet newspapers" line when reading 'Dog' - very careless. You're absolutely right, and your suggestion of Prof P as the old White Guard pitted against Sharik's Soviet worker makes perfect sense. I suppose in this context, the Professor's "creation" of Sharik could be taken a bit more literally, as the pre-Revolutionary generation giving rise to the Revolutionaries. The more I think about it, the better it fits.

I'm still standing firm on 'Bagrovyi Ostrov' and 'The Master and Margarita' though

Silverfish, are you the Sub-Editor for this Entry now? What's the chance of amending it?

Aha, looks like the Sub-Editor could in fact be Sam. I'll badger him directly

I don't know if it's been sent out to a sub yet but don't worry - just tell me what you want me to do and I'll do it, either before it goes to a sub, or when it comes back.

And I'm *loving* 'The Idiot', by the way.

Hi again Anna and Sam,

As I've already told Sam elsewhere, it looks like I've been able to edit this Entry directly myself after all. For some reason I'd left it flagged "Not for Review", and this small mistake has allowed me to give my Entry one last revision before it becomes the Guide's Entry. Anna, I've changed the paragraph that analyses 'The Heart of a Dog', and I've added a footnote crediting you for bringing that crucial information to my attention. I've also changed the footnote on Woland, because I can hardly invite people to compare him with Preobrazhenski now... Still, I think it all hangs together well enough.

Sam, glad you're enjoying your Dostoevski. I've never really enjoyed Dostoevski's work much myself - I try and try, but I just can't get past page 40 of 'Crime and Punishment'. Personally, I much prefer Gogol.

I've also changed the title to "Mikhail Bulgakov, Russian satirist and playwright" in line with an earlier suggestion on this thread. There's always more to do, isn't there? :p

Good evening, Tobes and Sam,

I am very happy about the re-written entry.
But, Tobes, you are confessing that you prefer Gogol rather than Dostoyevski and you are not interested in an entry about the mysticism in the Russian literature. I can´t believe it. Have you heard about Leskov? He is not as known as others grands, but he is very good.

bye, Anna Banana

PS. Sam, I admire non-Russian speakers who enjoy Dostoyevski. It is really a hard job, but it´s worth all the efforts.

Tobes and Anna - Good morning! I'm glad the entry is ready - great work, the pair of you. As for Dostoyevsky, I too tried and tried with 'Crime and Punishment' and didn't get on with it. It is only now, five years on, that the 'Idiot' has toally gripped me!

Anna, Leskov sounds very interesting - have you heard of Platanov? He was recommended to me a while ago. And what do you both think of Tolstoy?

Sam.

Hi guys,

Anna, I just don't feel that I've read widely enough to give a proper overview of mysticism in Russian literature. I'm familiar with Bulgakov, Gogol, Zoshchenko (whose writing is only barely mystical, if at all), bits of Tolstoy and Chekhov, and Viktor Pelevin; I haven't read nearly enough Dostoievski, since 'Crime and Punishment' pretty much put me off reading his novels; I've never even heard of Leskov or Platanov. I'd hesitate to write an Entry on mysticism in English science fiction, an area with which I'm extremely familiar, because it's just such a big subject, and I don't believe I could do it proper justice. We could collaborate if you like, but I wouldn't be able to contribute much.

Sam, I'm not too interested in Tolstoy. You see, I don't really know *why* I don't enjoy Dostoievski's work - it just doesn't grab my attention for some peculiar reason - but I can definitely state that I don't enjoy Tolstoy's work because I find it dull! (Controversial!) I'd place Tolstoy firmly in the camp of "traditional" literature - English equivalents might be Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, the Brontes, straight-up historical narrative in other words. "Classics" of the sort that bore me to tears. Dostoievski, Gogol and Bulgakov write more in the "slightly odd" style of literature, which Russian authors seem to be so good at, and which thankfully Pelevin is continuing today. They're more like Dickens - stylised, quirky. Which is why I can't understand why I don't like Dostoievski, because his writing is certainly quirky. I probably ought to try more of his short stories, build up a tolerance to him

Either of you two familiar with Pelevin?

Good evening, the (our children) are sleeping now, Mr. Hell is writing his next entry and I can talk to you a bit.

I am not a real expert, just a fan, I was used to read quite a lot as I wasn´t abused by family I think that Dostoyevskiy has different levels and one should know his biography for better understanding. He was a revolitionary, condemned to death and five minutes before the execution he was amnestied. This experience had a great influence on his psyche. I also prefer his early works, 'The Crime and Punishment' is quite hard, but the 'Caramasoffs' and the 'Idiot' are very philosophical and mystical. I think one has to read it at 20, then at 30, etc. (Hard job)

Try to read Tolstoy's 'Diary' or 'Secret Confession'. I was very impressed. And what about P'yer and Karatayev from the 'War and Peace'?

Tobes, I haven´t still read neither Zoshchenko, nor Pelevin. It´s not as easy to get Russian books in Germany, above all good literature. I´ll have to order their books as soon as they appear in the catalogues of Russian media. I am not very familiar with the modern Russian authors. One of my favourite writers is Yuri Nagibin and the work of Irina Murav'yova was a real revelation for me. Nothing of mysticism, but a very realistic description of modern 'Humbled and Outraged' ('Unizhenny'e e oskorblyonny'e).

Well, I am not sure about Platanov, do you mean Platonov, perhaps?

Good night, Anna Banana

Tobes, I hadn't heard of pelevin, but having just looked him up on the internet I think I'm going to buy some books by him at the first opportunity, thanks for drawing my attention to him!

Hello Tobes

The Entry has now been SubEdited, so if you want to have look through and check that everything's OK, it's at A868278. I think I've got all the updates that you made in the original, but it's worth checking

Danny B.

Hi Danny B,

Sorry for taking my time - I've been away from the computer for the last week or so. I've spotted one problem with the Entry - you've missed my rephrasing of footnote 6, the one about Professor Woland. I'd changed it from "Besides being a Professor and having a beard..." to "The strongest evidence for this is that...". I think that's it, but I'll have another close look at it now; if I don't post again today, assume all's well.