Bulgakov
A couple of weeks ago, I read two plays by Bulgakov, Adam and Eve, and Bloody (or Red, I haven't figured out the translation) Island. They're both about people trying to be people in a world of political fanaticism. I was surprised to read in the introduction that Bulgakov had hoped Adam and Eve would actually be published, it was kind of his last attempt to survive as a writer in Soviet society. Writer in the sense not of writing quietly in the kitchen, but in the sense of being published and a part of public life. This play is about a couple who survive a chemical attack that kills off all of Russia, sometime in the 30s I think. They, and a few visiting neighbors, live because just minutes before they meet a professor who's invented an apparatus that protects people from this sort of attack. The professor is a disheveled man, the symbol of humanity of sorts, who loves only his dog, believes in pacifism and hates political ideologues. The husband in the couple, Adam, is exactly the latter, and the wife eventually becomes disenchanted with him, as they live in the woods while waiting for another survivor to find out if anyone else in the world has survived. She eventualy tries to leave with the professor.
So up to now, it's your regular Bulgakov fare (hehe, I've just unwittingly quoted something the NYT would write. I don't exactly know what Bulgakov is about.) The lone and gentle male genius, the caring woman, falling in love in a world without rules and leaving the other dirty world behind. What I meant by 'regular Bulgakov fare" is that this reminds me of another storyline of his. But then, in this play, the guy who had gone off to find survivors, comes back. It turns out the rest of the world has united in a communist federation, where gender equality rules, and Spaniards, Germans and Russians battle together (although, now that I think of it, who do they battle now?) Eve and her professor then come out as traitors, lacking the grandure of imagination and faith to have believed all will turn out ok after this little chemical holocaust.
The funny thing is that though they are forgiven - the professor did after all invent the cure - at the very end he is ordered to speak to the leader, on his liberation plane or whatever. And on one hand, I think Bulgakov intended this to say - everyone can come around to communism, just have mercy on those slow ones who don't right away, they're still useful. That's probably why he thought it might get published. But at the same time, it is a completely tragic end - the only people with humanity don't escape, they probably can't love each other in the future, and the professor might very well be told everything is fine and be sent to some camp in Perm' the next day (this is a conclusion someone familiar with Russian history in the 30s may draw.) This friendly international union of young Communists, as benign as Bulgakov paints it, is still imposed from the top (literally, since these people fly in on some sort of exciting plane) on every human in sight, leaving no personal choices to be made. And, moreover, the professor's dog is dead already, so really who cares about the future anyway.
It's interesting, this play seems similar to the two books I babbled about in the last post, but also it is very much a work of Bulgakov, where the life of dogs and sacred personal space are supremely important. Although I would be the last not to agree with these feelings, they are somehow different from Platonov's approach I think. The latter has more empathy for the desire to sacrifice, and to help others who are lost, at least through mindless companionship. Bulgakov then, is more like Nabokov. They are sort of aristocrats of the spirit, whose characters only need themselves and a loved one to exist in the world, not bothering others but understanding these others to be unable to engage with them or bring them happiness. I can't take sides in this debate I just imagined, both make a world of sense to me. I guess it's just interesting to find such fundamental differences in authors who at first glance write about the same thing, this oppression of the individual in the construction of the communist system, and even pass the same sort of judgment on it.
So up to now, it's your regular Bulgakov fare (hehe, I've just unwittingly quoted something the NYT would write. I don't exactly know what Bulgakov is about.) The lone and gentle male genius, the caring woman, falling in love in a world without rules and leaving the other dirty world behind. What I meant by 'regular Bulgakov fare" is that this reminds me of another storyline of his. But then, in this play, the guy who had gone off to find survivors, comes back. It turns out the rest of the world has united in a communist federation, where gender equality rules, and Spaniards, Germans and Russians battle together (although, now that I think of it, who do they battle now?) Eve and her professor then come out as traitors, lacking the grandure of imagination and faith to have believed all will turn out ok after this little chemical holocaust.
The funny thing is that though they are forgiven - the professor did after all invent the cure - at the very end he is ordered to speak to the leader, on his liberation plane or whatever. And on one hand, I think Bulgakov intended this to say - everyone can come around to communism, just have mercy on those slow ones who don't right away, they're still useful. That's probably why he thought it might get published. But at the same time, it is a completely tragic end - the only people with humanity don't escape, they probably can't love each other in the future, and the professor might very well be told everything is fine and be sent to some camp in Perm' the next day (this is a conclusion someone familiar with Russian history in the 30s may draw.) This friendly international union of young Communists, as benign as Bulgakov paints it, is still imposed from the top (literally, since these people fly in on some sort of exciting plane) on every human in sight, leaving no personal choices to be made. And, moreover, the professor's dog is dead already, so really who cares about the future anyway.
It's interesting, this play seems similar to the two books I babbled about in the last post, but also it is very much a work of Bulgakov, where the life of dogs and sacred personal space are supremely important. Although I would be the last not to agree with these feelings, they are somehow different from Platonov's approach I think. The latter has more empathy for the desire to sacrifice, and to help others who are lost, at least through mindless companionship. Bulgakov then, is more like Nabokov. They are sort of aristocrats of the spirit, whose characters only need themselves and a loved one to exist in the world, not bothering others but understanding these others to be unable to engage with them or bring them happiness. I can't take sides in this debate I just imagined, both make a world of sense to me. I guess it's just interesting to find such fundamental differences in authors who at first glance write about the same thing, this oppression of the individual in the construction of the communist system, and even pass the same sort of judgment on it.
posted by Katherine at 5:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home