| In an increasingly fundamentalist world, the expression of a new belief is becoming progressively dangerous, especially if that new supposition challenges an already codified "truth." New thinkers who boldly challenge the status quo come under severe scrutiny from both extremes: the praetorian right-wing and the liberal left ostensibly denounce and excommunicate any new expression as impudent, particularly if it challenges a passionately felt religious or political belief. The reaction against Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses has been mostly one of moral outrage from devout Muslims and dour resentment from many respected artists. Rushdie has alienated many of the world's religious communities, political régimes, and cultural fraternities with his 1989 novel about the contemporary world and the birth of an ever-growing religion: Islam. |
| Similarly, Mikhail Bulgakov's 19391 novel The Master and Margarita takes an equally heterodox look at the genesis of Christianity and the world of communist Moscow of the 1920s. He, too, blasphemes in a religious sense, questioning the origins of a religion that millions throughout the world hold sacred. |
| Both novels share a central concern: the role of the artist in today's society. Should the artist be a pawn of the state, a writer of propaganda and champion of state-sanctioned goals, or should he disregard state-certified truths in search of his own higher reality? If the artist chooses the latter path, of what value to society, or humanity in general, is the product of his creation? What, also, is the responsibility of the individual in interpreting this artist's work? Indeed, should the individual even have to decide on a work's artistic merit, or should this determination be sanctioned by the state? These aesthetic questions have been debated since humanity first began producing art. The dialogues of Plato, one of the world's first aestheticians, addresses these concerns and develops a systematic approach to both the creation of art and its interpretation. |
| Using a mélange of Plato's diverse views of the artist as a model, this thesis will explore the role of the artist as presented by Rushdie and Bulgakov in their respective novels. This approach should enlighten both writers' positions on the role of the artist in the contemporary world. A juxtaposition of each novel's major characters indicates shared themes and illustrates distinct degrees of successful Platonic artists and how they transcend the Platonic categorization. |
| Rushdie and Bulgakov see the artist as one who shakes up the status quo. Without the occasional contention, a society, or any institution--be it collective or individual--may become complacent and prone to tyranny. Rushdie and Bulgakov represent the rebellious, uncompromising artist as hero, and criticize and abuse the masses for their thoughtless acceptance of one man's, or government's, vision of the "truth." The artist offers a different truth, which usually relegates him to ridicule, abuse, and sometimes death, and provides an example of individuality for his observers. Rushdie and Bulgakov, therefore, admire the artist and his creation as representing an individual's truth, yet both despise a thoughtless devotion to his or her art by unthinking masses. These ideas are important to lucid understanding of both novels and provide an example of the strength and devotion necessary to challenge general beliefs with creative and original thoughts; this is a lesson that Rushdie's own life exemplifies and makes thoughtful, sensitive people ask: "What kind of idea is he? What kind am I?" (Verses 111). |
