Talk:The Master and Margarita

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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

User ID[edit]

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.

Here's a complete list of all English translations of The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov:
Mirra Ginsburg, New York, Grove Press, 1967.
Michael Glenny, New York, Harper & Row, 1967; London, Harvill, 1967; with introduction by Simon Franklin, New York, Knopf, 1992; London, Everyman's Library, 1992.
Diana Burgin and Katherine Tiernan O'Connor, annotations and afterword by Ellendea Proffer, Ann Arbor, Ardis, 1993, 1995; New York, Vintage Books, 1996.
Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, London: Penguin, 1997.
Michael Karpelson, New York, Lulu Press, 2006.
Hugh Aplin, London, One World Classics, 2008.
Andrzej Klimowski and Danusia Schejbal, unpublished; used for the script of the graphic novel The Master and Margarita, London, Metro Media Ltd, Classical Eye series, 2008.
-Jan Vanhellemont User:Janvanhellemont, March 7, 2012.

Cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

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

I don't agree that the article need be rewritten into an encyclopedic format. it should have the qualities and advantages of an encyclopedic article, but also summary and 'literary critique', or at least possible interpretations, are more than welcome on Wikipedia, as they might prompt further investigation and thought. I DO feel,however, that the mentioning of 'polyphony' and 'counterpoint' as a metaphor for the illustrated relationship between Moscow and Jerusalem should be removed. This is an entirely inappropriate metaphor, givin the context in which it occurs. It is more confusing than helpful or colorful, as it refers to specific styles and periods in music and music history. This is something that a high school teacher would draw a big red line threw in a term paper. I've tried to work out the intentions of the metaphor taking into account the musical (original) and literary uses of polyphony and counterpoint (the illustrated relationship between the two cities and times is sometimes parellel, making them similar, and sometimes contrasting, showing opposition?) but it doesn't quite work. Let's be specific here. -Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryzeigler (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is the book as boring and overly nuanced as this article? Is all I want to know.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Fagotto[edit]

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.

In Russian, there are no word "faggot" meaning "gay". Russian word фагот means 1) bassoon, 2) hanged man (it's obsolete meaning). The second meaning is probably the meaning Bulgakov's used. MBH (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter irony[edit]

(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)

Art and women[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Grafitti & Defacement?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The new Russian tv series[edit]

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

Themes and Imagery[edit]

The article completely misses a central theme of the book. M & M can be seen as a satire on the prevailing atheism and materialism of the intellectual and political elite of modern Soviet. Bulgakov himself had an interest in the paranormal, and in M & M the fantastic and occult wins over the "realistic" - a sweep at the intellectual climate. Helge Waaler 132.150.8.82 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.150.8.82 (talk)

Question[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:RFC, section "Article content disputes" and Wikipedia:Third opinion. `'mikka (t) 15:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added a note to WP:RFC/ART KBehemoth 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Arguments for some kind of standard of notability are hardly ludicrous - they can be extremely liberal, but there has to be SOME kind of standard, and availability is probably the best place to start. The idea that a translation isn't an original work, however, IS ludicrous; if translations weren't original works then we would only ever need one, and it could be done by a computer by using WORD(LanguageA = WORD(LanguageB). 173.181.38.229 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgakov's flat[edit]

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

Abadonna[edit]

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)[reply]

NPOV translations & source[edit]

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)[reply]


Good job! I removed the warnings.

Art and Women themes section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Original research[edit]

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)[reply]

I hope I did nothing wrong, when added for comparison of translations the relevant fraze in original language. It is not my musings, it is taken directly from Russian edition; source added. I think it is needed, so that people with some, even rudimentary knowledge of Russian would be able to compare translations. And in this case 'what others say' would not be enough. English translations are also taken from the books, not from secondary sources, are'nt they?
And, Margarita. Person in the novel. There stands: "Trapped in a passionless marriage, she devoted herself to the Master, whom she believes to be dead." If this is from secondary source, this is bad source, as in the novel she did no such thing. The most awful tragedy was exactly opposite - that she did not know, wether Master was dead or alive. May I here quote the novel itself? Maybe not, as that would be original research really, but what to do? I do not know, where is secondary source with good information about that case. If you do, please correct that information about her believing.BirgittaMTh (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Estonian edition 1968. As it stands now, it might be original research - I took it from the very editon referenced, on jacket of the volume. Please leave it for time being, I am looking for better secondary source with same information, will replace or add then immediately. As it was historically important, albeit bizarre, I think this information might stand here in history of publishing, as example of controversial politics (or plain negligence of censors) in SU. Btw, some cuts in novel for publishing in the magazine, might be censored, but at least two major cuts, two chapters (Dream of Nikanor Ivanovich, and ch. 28 omission of Behemot and Korovyev's visit to foreigh currency shop) were not essential to the plot nor concerning leading characters, so they did not harm overall shape and effect of the novel. And might be viewed rather as necessary cuts for publishing in magazine with limited space.BirgittaMTh (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz and satire[edit]

A minor thing, but I'm a bit puzzled by this part in "Themes and Imagery"

jazz is a favourite target, ambivalent like so much else in the book in the fascination and revulsion with which it is presented

A favourite target? Does jazz deserve to be even mentioned in the discussion? As far as I remember, it's mentioned once in the whole book, and very briefly.

On the other hand, Bulgakov seems to give a lot of importance to the satire of the literary elite of his times, which could perhaps deserve at least a mention in the "Themes and Imagery" part.

It's so minor a reference as to be insignificant. As far as music is concerned, Bulgakov mentions Berlioz (also the name of a character in the novel), Strauss, Stravinsky (another character), etc. He also makes frequent allusions to literature that inspired his novel (namely Faust, and all related literature, particularly Goethe's). The whole article needs reorganization - it's fairly disjointed at the moment. Fuzzform (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Second grade fresh"[edit]

A line from Chapter 18 that has become a common Russian phrase. Should be included somewhere. Fuzzform (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easter?[edit]

In the plot summary there is this phrase: as its cupolas and windows burn in the setting sun of Easter Saturday. I have just finished the book, but am not sure the novel is set during Easter time, because in the first page there is this: There was an oddness about that terrible day in May which is worth recording. What is the reference for "Easter"? --Schickaneder (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be due to the difference between computing the dates of Easter between western Christian traditions (Catholic, Protestant) and Eastern Orthodox Church. I am not familair with the details but I do know that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition the date of Easter Sunday floats within a few weeks of the calendar year and sometimes happens in early May (see for example [1]). Nsk92 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is right, but the point is: is there something in the novel suggesting that the history is set during Easter time? Or is it only a supposition? I think, from my readings on the web, that there is not consensus about this "fact" --Schickaneder (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does actually. The whole Satan's Ball is an allusion to black easter. It cannot be a "fact", because it is after all fiction. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

review references[edit]

I think the references need updating or corrections, in concrete these don't work: ref 1 (ny-times): requires login ref 4 (yahoo news): "cannot be located..." -> as usual yahoo links don't work after a while, please make a direct link ref 7 (kislovodsk): just goes to a local website for the russian city kislovodsk, giving the weather and all other things, not the referred quote ref 13 (andrew lloyd): "Sorry, that page could not be found..."

Yes, referring to something as dynamical as internet is almost impossible. Wikimedia foundations should compile a bot to search for likely failed links (things as: "error", "page not found", are easy hints) --85.146.199.125 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

psikhushka[edit]

I replaced "psikhushka" by "psychiatric clinic" on the account of the former term not appearing anywhere in the text. I preserved the link though, which is to punitive psychiatry: I believe this is a fitting reference. melikamp (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely. Punitive psychiatry in USSR appeared about the end of 1970's. This novel is set in the 1920's. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work (Interpretation) of Alfred Barkov[edit]

Is much taken into account in the article of the interpretation of Alfred Barkov of the novel? For instance, a major point of his is that the Master is Maxim Gorky and that Margarita is Gorky's love interest. That it is the character "Homeless" that is actually Bulgakov. I believe this may require a major re-reading of the novel - but this shouldn't be surprising since many state that there is still no adequate English translation. Those who read Russian can also reference the works in Russian of Alfred Barkov. One website in English is [http://www.megaone.com/bulgakov/index.html Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita, the true content]

I myself find the interprtations of Barkov to make sense, as he presents them, but my lack of Russian skills hinders me in making judgments about them... But I think the website(s) should be included in the article as External Links and his books as Further Reading. --Sp3lly (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the "works" of Alfred Barkov can hardly be given as a reference for "The Master and Margarita". In 1994, he published a book of nearly 300 pages with the title Роман М.А. Булгакова Мастер и Маргарита: альтерна-тивное прочтение or M.A. Bulgakov's novel 'The Master and Margarita': an alternative reading, a feat of strength which he repeated in 1996 with another essay called Роман М.А. Булгакова Мастер и Маргарита: вер-новечная любовь или литературная мистификация? or The novel The Master and Margarita by M.A. Bulgakov: an everlasting love or a literary mystification?. In both essays he ranted and raved heavily against the interpretations of most scholars, both in Russia and abroad. According to Barkov only his interpretation would correspond with the true content of the book and the real intentions of the author. Moreover, he considered other opinions as "traditional pro-Soviet and pro-Stalin presentations". But it was clear that Barkov never consulted Bulgakov's own annotations, he only followed his own phantasy.

This was not Barkov's first attempt to give a "unique" interpretation to a great literary work. Before that, he had been engaged in heavy controversies about the "true content" of the theatre plays "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare and "Yevgeny Onegin" by Alexander Pushkin, and he was defending categoric points of view that went right into the teeth of more common opinions.

Barkov often refers to quotes which are not - or which are different - in the novel. Just one example related to "The Master and Margarita": according to Barkov, Vladimir Lenin was the prototype for Woland. He "argues" it as follows: "Not only is Woland [...] bearded [...]". Well, one of the first things which Bulgakov writes about Woland is that he is "выбрит гладко" or, in English, "clean-shaven". This has got nothing to do with translation. March 7, 2012 - User:Janvanhellemont

1982 stage production?[edit]

Moved from main page. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I do not have the particulars, but I recall seeing a stage production of the novel at the Taganka Theater in Moscow. The year was approximately 1982. I am hoping that others will have seen this excellent rendering and will provide the particulars (director, actors, etc.)

(unsigned)
I’ve moved your comment here, and this note into a stub mention in the “Adaptations” section – hopeful further details can be added!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Taganka Theatre still plays almost daily The Master and Margarita. The play is on the repertoire since April 6, 1977, and the action is accompanied with music from Sergey Sergeevich Prokofyev, Tommaso Albinoni, Johan Strauss and Yuri Butsko. The director is Yuri Lyubimov.
-Jan Vanhellemont (User:Janvanhellemont), March 7, 2012.

Exposure[edit]

I am referring to the following statement from the main article:

A "foreign professor" who is "in Moscow to present a performance of 'black magic' and then expose its machinations". The exposure (as one could guess) never occurs, instead Woland exposes the greed and bourgeois behaviour of the spectators themselves.

While the statement is correct it somewhat misses the obviously intended two-fold pun by Woland or Koroviev. In Russian Woland proposes to run "a black magic session with subsequent exposure" (the actual word used is not "session" but "séance" however in Russian its meaning is rather broad). In Russian "subsequent exposure" in such statement would normally mean "subsequent exposure [of black magic machinations]", correct. Woland instead exposed some secret sins of Soviet bureaucrats present in the public, that's also correct. The point that is missed here (and is often missed by native readers as well) is that the whole session's scandalous wrap-up was marked by a literal exposure of the members of public attracted by garments giveaway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.240.108 (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulgakovmuseum.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Bulgakovmuseum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

The Master and Margarita is anything but a one-dimensional satire. That's why I changed the over-simplification in the opening para. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can others have a look at whether ref #1 is relevant to the sentence in question. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further expansion[edit]

I want to expand this article by writing separate ones on the main characters and add a few items into the navbox (geography, etc). Do you think it can be of any interest? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't comment here on what you might do elsewhere. New pages must satisfy the notability criteria. Here, I can see we need more details on Natasha, a character who is quite significant in the second part of the book. Navboxes for books are only about the books as books. Not about plotlines or places and characters in the book. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in foreign languages[edit]

It seems quite wrong to offer sources in a foreign language. It violates the sense of "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources", and "When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced". How can we check anything if we can't read the source?

I think all those references in Russian should be taken out. There are plenty of critical sources in English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a similar argument is made against non-online sources that require a trip to the library or bookstore. Non-English sources are clearly allowed, and it is beyond the scope of this article's talkpage to have a debate that belongs on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. There is nothing to keep English references being added as well, if you happen to have access to English books. Or if you reasonably suspect someone is pulling your leg, you can request corroboration at Wikipedia:Translators available. Sparafucil (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Sparafucil (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with respect, I don't think it is the same thing as an English non-online source, because when I get to the book or volume, then I can read it, whereas with Russian I can't read it!
Yes, if the issue was important enough, there are ways to get it read by someone else. But time is a great factor on WP, which is not our employer. A person's WP editing time is precious, and so, in effect, a reference in Chinese (say) is absolutely useless for most purposes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember: English wikipedia is not for monolingual English speakers. It is for every person on the planet with knowledge of English. If not in intention, in reality. So, as non-English references and sources do no harm to English-only-speaking population, but may be beneficial to all others (majority), those should be encouraged rather than frowned upon. Be they Chineze or Lithuanian.BirgittaMTh (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flag complaint[edit]

What is the basis for the quality standards flag on the page? I don't see a discussion here explaining it, and failing that the flag should be removed. In any event, I don't think it is justified. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20s vs 30s[edit]

The Meridian Classic paperback edition in the description on the back says "The time is 1920 The place is Moscow" although there is reference to air travel that would indicate that it is more likely the 30s so that might be a mistake on their part. In any event, I am about 2/3rds through it and there is no reference to Stalin's ascendency. Other than the master's difficulty getting published most of the references to the regime, like the foreign currency and whatnot appear to be played for dark laughs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.23.254 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Master and Margarita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Master and Margarita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Master and Margarita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian translation[edit]

Why is the Estonian translation significant enough to be mentioned in the history section? "The text, as published in the magazine Moskva, was swiftly translated into Estonian, remaining for decades the only printed in book form edition of the novel in Soviet Union, published in 1968.[7]" Is it because the Russian versions weren't available in the form of a novel? This needs to be made more clear.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Covers BBC TWO[edit]

2601:646:200:120:C0B3:FD0E:F5C8:B992 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Master_and_Margarita&oldid=1198909374"