Why You Should Read Bulgakov
Mikhail Bulgakov — the Alchemist of the Russian Literature
The first time I read Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, it was an unforgettable experience. I was only 14 years old, and there was much I did not understand. But I could not put the book down. Years later, as I read it again, and I read it four times so far, I’ve had a similar experience. You want to keep going because it feels like even the writer himself does not know where the story is going. This is why I call Bulgakov the Alchemist. He would take all of the same components that every other writer did and then produce something unexpected, even unimaginable out of it.
It is a shame Bulgakov is not very well known outside the former Soviet Union. Those who know his name, likely know his most famous novel — Master and Margarita, but rarely any of his other brilliant works. Those who grew up in the Soviet Union, likely also know two very successful movies — The Heart of a Dog (1988) and Ivan Vasilyevich Changes Profession (1973) which were based on Bulgakov’s works.
Mikhail Bulgakov was born in 1891, in Kyiv, Ukraine. He grew up in times of massive changes in Ukraine, Russia, and the rest of the world. His life was almost equally divided between before and after 1917 — the tsarist period (his father was an essayist, his mother a teacher, and both grandfathers orthodox clergymen); and the communist period (he lived under both Lenin and Stalin). Trained as a medical doctor, he spent some time in the hospitals on the frontlines during World War I. After being bounced around on medical assignments, dealing with morphine addiction, and surviving typhus, by 1919, Bulgakov started focusing entirely on his writing.
Before even reaching 30 years old, his personal experiences and suffering, the chaos of the war, and many of his relatives emigrating, Bulgakov shaped into a very unusual writer and had a hard time finding his place in the Soviet literary world. He called himself a “hunted wolf” — according to his own estimate, of the 301 reviews of his works by literary critics, apparently only 3 were positive. Bulgakov had a complicated relationship with the Soviet regime — his works were censored, and some banned. But oddly, Stalin himself loved his play The Days of the Turbins and held Bulgakov in high esteem, it is said that on some occasions, he personally protected the writer. Yet, even Stalin could not prevent the unstoppable Soviet machine from crushing Bulgakov’s spirit as he dealt with rejection after rejection. Bulgakov passed away in 1940, at only 48 years old.
Bulgakov’s style is a unique blend of satirical wit, surrealism, deep philosophical undertones, and examination of political and societal issues. His works have intricate plots and complex characters, and his writing exhibits a masterful command of language, with vivid and imaginative descriptions that transport readers into fantastical realms. It is hard to detect where reality ends and fantasy starts. Mixing the mundane with the fantastical, satire with fantasy, mystery, and even sci-fi, humorous and profound at the same time, Bulgakov made sure his works would be hard to put in a specific literary category. Some of his works remind me of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and others of Herbert Wells, although the setting of course is very different. Soviet Union. Truly, if you want to understand the first couple of decades of the Soviet Union, read Bulgakov. That said, prepare to be utterly confused in the process. Wait, what? — you might think. Exactly.
Tastes differ and when it comes to literature, no two people’s likes are the same. There are names that you constantly see at the top of book rankings — Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jane Osten, Alexander Dumas, Ernest Hemingway, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and others. Then there are those like Mikhail Bulgakov. Call it circumstances, the curse of geography, or whatever the reason may be, Bulgakov should be far more known in the world than he is. I am not a literary expert and not an authority of any kind. Don’t take my word for it. Just read one of the works below and make up your own mind. I invite you to explore the amazing world of Mikhail Bulgakov. Here are my favorite works of the writer:
- Master and Margarita (written in 1928–1940, first published in 1967)
Master and Margarita is a highly innovative novel that is not easy to categorize. Is it fantasy? Satire? Romance? Historical novel? All of the above. Just when you think it is a fantasy, you come across a part that gives you a healthy dose of realism. You think you are looking at a well-researched account of historical events and suddenly you are hit with demons and witches. Past and present co-exist, reality and mystery seamlessly flow into each other. The Soviet Union of the early 20th century and Jerusalem of two thousand years ago, the good and the evil, the grandiose and the petty, the serious and the comical. You laugh, then you are shocked, then you are saddened, then you laugh again. The way Bulgakov was able to weave all of this into one novel is precisely why you can’t put the book down.
The book weaves in two plotlines. In the first, the devil visits Soviet Moscow in the 1930s — if that doesn’t get your attention, I don’t know what will. He is accompanied by a valet, a black talking cat, a demon, and a witch. We are later introduced to a struggling writer Master (almost certainly autobiographical — parallels with Bulgakov’s own experiences are unmistakable) and his lover Margarita. The second is set in Jerusalem in the 1st century AD, where Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea is presiding over the trial of Jesus. This part is the novel within a novel — a description of the events depicted in the Master’s book.
The visitor in Moscow — Woland — is a mysterious character, and we are left wondering whether this is Satan himself, or some other demonic creature. Woland is a character that we sometimes find ourselves sympathizing with, he is spontaneous and does unexpected things, sometimes it even seems like he does good things, yet he always has a plan, a purpose. But even Woland can’t make much of a change in Moscow — a feeling Bulgakov himself was all too familiar with. You read and you are puzzled — was Woland unable to influence things, or did he, in fact, achieve exactly what he wanted — after all, isn’t an atheistic society what a devil would want? And then you realize — if people don’t believe in God, they also won’t believe in Satan, so…
Every time Bulgakov describes life in Moscow, it is depressing. People demonstrate all kinds of vices, they lie, they cheat, they are corrupt. The writers' community(MASSOLIT) is especially shocking. Busy with getting an apartment, a summer house, or a paid vacation, they talk about nothing related to literature, but a lot of gossip. Even their surnames are references to their vices. This is a classical mocking of Soviet society — equality only exists as a slogan, but in reality, inequality is alive and kicking. So no wonder the devil is having a field day. People disappear, some get killed, some get arrested. Yet even such evil is unable to change this society. This, perhaps, is the most shocking thing — people just go on with their lives. The whole thing feels like a parody, yet a frighteningly realistic depiction of the atmosphere of the Soviet realities. At some point, the Master burns the draft of his novel (just as Bulgakov did — he burned the unfinished draft of Master and Margarita in 1930 and two years later started re-writing the novel) only to be confronted with Woland’s cold remark: “Manuscripts don’t burn”.
Bulgakov’s description of Jerusalem is different. Unlike the language used in the Moscow scenes, which is less formal and more ironic, the language of the story of Pontius Pilate and Jeshua suddenly becomes more formal and artistic. Descriptions are very realistic, no less than in the Moscow scenes — it is clear Bulgakov did his research. The court process has a sense of inevitability to it — Jeshua is going to be executed, no matter what happens. It is almost like Bulgakov is giving a chance at salvation to the prosecutor, not to the accused. As I was reading, I realized that the central character here is, in fact, Pontius Pilate. Not Jeshua. Will the prosecutor do what is right and free the accused? Or, afraid of going against the narrative, he will let the execution take place? Here the theme of cowardice is dominant. Pontius Pilate acts cowardly. So does the Master, crushed by the system. Perhaps that is one of the main themes of the novel — the damage cowardice can do.
- The Heart of a Dog, 1925
The novel was first published in 1968, outside USSR and it took twenty more years for it to see the light of the day in the Soviet Union. Just three years before the empire’s collapse.
This is sci-fi satire. At barely 150 pages, it is a powerful allegory for the dehumanizing effects of ideology. The narrative follows the transformation of a stray dog into a man, offering a scathing commentary on the ethical dilemmas posed by Soviet society. What makes a “new Soviet man”? Sharik (the dog) becomes Sharikov and his rough and simplistic personality, keen to follow the Soviet dogmas is contrasted with the character of the professor who undertakes the very surgery that created Sharikov, an intelligent and well-educated, if little sarcastic man.
In The Heart of a Dog, Bulgakov essentially “sentences” Soviet ideology to failure. Sharikov’s personality becomes worse and worse as the story progresses. In his quest to be exactly the kind of man society wants him to be, he steals the professor’s money, reports him to the authorities, and tries to take away part of his apartment. Professor’s efforts to transform Sharikov are futile. Bulgakov mocks the Bolshevik principle of “Who was nothing, will become everything” demonstrating that even lofty ideals and progressive intentions become another tool of persecution and oppression at the hands of illiterate and ill-intentioned persons. In the example of one dog/person, Bulgakov wants to show that revolutionary methods for changing society are dangerous with often unexpectedly horrific consequences.
- The White Guard, 1925
The White Guard is very underrated in my opinion. It is one of my top three novels about war (after Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Remarque’s Everything is Quiet on the Western Front). The novel explores the lives of the Turbin family in war-torn Kyiv as power changes hands over and over, as Kyiv is controlled by the Whites, the German army, the Ukrainian nationalists, and finally, the Bolsheviks. Bulgakov gives us vivid characters and his masterful storytelling gives us a sense of the human cost of the revolution and the fragility of the society in turbulent times.
Bulgakov was in Kyiv in 1918 and saw these events firsthand. His family and friends became the foundation for the characters in the novel. Turbins are a regular family, well-educated and hospitable. They have their shortcomings and differences, but their kindness, sense of honor, and duty are what unite them. In many other circumstances, this family could probably be successful and happy. But they find themselves in a situation where no decision seems to be able to prevent the forthcoming calamities.
One thing that I found incredibly saddening was that there were no clear villains in the novel. The war is overwhelming, unstoppable, and impersonal. No government is able to fix the problems. No heroism can stop the evil. Chaos and destruction. Death. The characters try to find hope, meaning, and a chance of happiness however they can. Yet, there is a certain inevitability about the larger setting of the novel.
Master and Margarita, The Heart of a Dog, and the White Guard are the “big three” of Bulgakov’s legacy. Then there are other pieces that you may want to explore, four of which I will briefly describe:
- Diaboliad, 1924
This short story is a satire of the Soviet bureaucracy, somewhat reminiscent of Kafka’s Trial, but crazier, and at a much faster pace. At times, it seems like the focus is on the impossibility of getting anything done in the state institutions of the 1920s Soviet Union. Then there are moments (smell of sulfur) when it feels like this story is set in the same world of Master and Margarita.
- A Young Doctor’s Notebook, 1926
This is a collection of semi-autobiographical short stories based on Bulgakov’s experiences as a young doctor in a rural hospital during the Russian Revolution and the Civil War.
- The Fatal Eggs, 1925
Here is a novella a la Herbert Wells. An invention that accelerates the growth of embryos intended to develop chicken eggs mistakenly ends up leading to the hatching of giant reptiles. The creatures start chaos, the government is trying to deal with it, and the whole thing is a mess — while Bulgakov uses the absurd setting for satirical commentary on the dangers of unchecked scientific experimentation and the incompetence of bureaucracy.
- Ivan Vasilievich, 1934–1936
This is a play in which Bulgakov compares the Soviet Union to the Tsarist Russia of the time of Ivan the Terrible. A time machine invented in his house by a scientist, mistakenly sends the building superintendent Ivan Vasilievich to the 16th century, swapping him with Ivan the Terrible, who finds himself in the 20th century. While the superintendent has to rule a medieval kingdom, the Tsar has to figure out how to live in the apartment of an ordinary Soviet citizen.
Here we go. I hope I have been able to convince you to check out Bulgakov’s unique world where reality and fantasy coalesce, and where serious reflection on the human condition amidst the dramatic events of the 20th century is undertaken along with dark humor and satire.
If you liked this read, check out my home page for articles about learning, self-improvement, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, literature, and more. Here are some you may be interested in:
