The Noise of Time - Part 1 - On The Landing, Spoilers Allowed (March 2017)

[Hugh]

I have decided to create a topic to discuss the first section because there are so many things we can discuss just in this section.

A few general questions to kick things off. Firstly how successful is Barnes at establishing Shostakovich's character? How familiar are you with Shostakovich, his music, Soviet history and the Great Terror, and how did this knowledge colour your perceptions? How did you feel the introductory scene on sharing vodka with the legless beggar worked?

Any other thoughts and questions about this part of the book are welcome too, so feel free to say whatever interests you.

[Neil]

I've just finished this part. Before I started, I did some internet research into the man himself and the time period in which the book is set. I think that is well worthwhile, unless you already know it well.

In response to Hugh's questions, I think Barnes' does an excellent job of establishing Shostakovich's character in this first part. I think one of the dominant themes of the book is personal integrity and Barnes gives us a good introduction here to the man and his uncertainties, worries, conflicts.

As an experiment, I listened to Symphony No. 5 as I read this (this part ends with the successful launch of that symphony). As a general rule, I don't listen to much in the way of classical music. It might have been more appropriate to listen to one his more controversial (less successful) pieces, one of the pieces that got him into trouble, but it turns out I don't own any of those! Maybe I need to visit iTunes. I love music and play guitar, but I'm not an expert - I find it hard with classical music that I am not familiar with to distinguish what is the "formalism" that got Shostakovich into trouble. And maybe Barnes is right that Shostakovich got into trouble because Stalin sat too close to the drums. But I know enough about the history of that period to know that formalism was considered bad and that bad things weren't just a shame, they were genuinely life-threatening.

This is a re-read for me and I had entirely forgotten about the opening scene with the legless beggar. The "half-man" sort of points the way to what the regime would do to the composer.

I'm looking forward to discussions about personal integrity and the survival of art.

[Whitney]

Good observation about the beggar, I had forgotten about him as well. Do you think that Barnes did a good job with establishing Shostokovich's character, or a good job creating a character with Shostakovich's name? I have little background on him, so I certainly can't make claims one way or another, but it seems a little pat for a western artist to present someone laboring under Stalinism as a bit of a self-loathing coward.

The one work I was at least aware of before reading this book was the Leningrad symphony and some of its background. It seems unlikely that someone who insisted on staying in Leningrad during the early siege was quite so craven. And, like many artists do under repressive regimes, some have seen S as having coded criticisms of the regime hidden in his music. This interview with the author of Symphony for the City of the Dead: Dmitri Shostakovich and the Siege of Leningrad touches on that a little. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/0...

I'm left wondering if Barnes may have glossed over this era in Shostakovich's life and work a little not just because of the time frame of the book, but because it didn't quite jibe with the character he created.

[Hugh]

Whitney wrote: "Do you think that Barnes did a good job with establishing Shostokovich's character, or a good job creating a character with Shostakovich's name?"
That is a great question, but one on which I suspect even expert historians would not agree on, and most of the witnesses are dead! I thought Barnes created quite a nuanced portrait, and I felt he conveyed the impossibility of the situation quite well - maybe he could have been braver once Khrushchev was in charge, but bravery under Stalin generally meant death.

[LindaJ^]

Hugh wrote: "A few general questions to kick things off. Firstly how successful is Barnes at establishing Shostakovich's character?
I thought Barnes did an excellent job at establishing the character of the person he calls Shostakovich.

How familiar are you with Shostakovich, his music, Soviet history and the Great Terror, and how did this knowledge colour your perceptions?
I think I knew that Shostakovich was a composer but it was reading Do Not Say We Have Nothing that made me want to listen to his music and know more about him and that prompted some Googling. I know a fair amount about Soviet history and the Great Terror and that may be why I found this book so fascinating. I appreciate that this is fiction so whether the real Shostakovich had the thoughts that Barnes attributes to him is an unknown, but I think that someone in Shostakovich's position could well have had the thoughts and feelings that Barnes attributes to him.

How did you feel the introductory scene on sharing vodka with the legless beggar worked?"
It wasn't until much later in the book that this scene made sense to me, so I will not comment here in Part I!

[Jill]

Linda, I am glad you said the introduction with the beggar didn't make sense to you until later in the book. I just finished the first section, but I still don't see the link to that first scene. I will be patient then!

I didn't know anything about Shostakovich until Thien's book either, so I had done some reading on him then. I did have to stop and look up some of the other characters and facts about his personal life. I always find that fascinating when people marry the same person twice! I also enjoy books like this, because of what I learn about the history of that time by having to stop and look things up. Even if you don't do any research along the way, I think the author sets the stage very well and gives you everything you need.

So far I am really enjoying being inside his head and being a companion in his self proclaimed hysteria. As he said in part 1, one of life's many disappointments was that it was never a novel. It's actually been quite funny at times, which I was not expecting. I'm really enjoying it!

[Ernie]

I thought the beggar scene in the beginning was more making a statement on life/culture at the time, and as mentioned in the novel, a gesture of politeness. I had to go back to it after finishing the novel, as I also had not really put much thought into it at the time.

I thought the first section of the book was so beautifully written. I had to devour the rest immediately.

I am pretty familiar with the Russian history and Shostakovich, and I agree with earlier comments that this is a very nuanced portrait - a brilliant one at that - of an artist living during this time. Barnes does such a magnificent job with building the character in such a subtle way and does the same with laying the foundation for the reader of the time and place.

[Ends of the Word]

I agree with earlier comments that the beggar scene does not really make sense until later in the novel.

As for the depiction of Shostakovich in the first part, I think it effectively and convincingly portrays what might have been Shostakovich's frame of mind at the time of the "Muddle instead of music" article.

I think that as a soundtrack to this first part of the book it is illuminating to listen to Shostakovich's 4th and 5th symphonies side by side - the 4th, withdrawn before its first performance, is bleak and ends with an enigmatic, obsessive movement. The 5th ends grandly and triumphantly... but is it all a sham?

If you think it might be interesting I can post a "programme note" I'd once written for a performance of the 5th - I know that this is a literature forum not a music forum, but it might help with getting into the mood of the novel...

[LindaJ^]

Joseph, I would love to read the program note. I found the links to the music that Hugh provided in the general thread useful.

[Hugh]

Joseph, thanks for that (and thanks to the rest of you for your comments). I think your programme note would be very interesting. I think maybe I should create another thread to allow a free discussion of Shostakovich's music.

[Ends of the Word]

Hugh wrote: "Joseph, thanks for that (and thanks to the rest of you for your comments). I think your programme note would be very interesting. I think maybe I should create another thread to allow a free discus..."

Ok Hugh, that's great. I'll post my programme note in the separate thread then... just to get discussions going!

[Marc]

I think reading The Big Green Tent a month or so ago is actually what introduced me to Shostakovich and served as a pseudo primer on pre- and post-Stalin life. Something I had read prior to starting this book made me expect a more experimental, stream-of-conscious approach to the portrayal of Shostakovich, so I was a bit surprised by the more removed, conservative approach Barnes took thanks to these erroneous expectations.

Thanks for sharing your programme note, Joseph!

[Carl]

Barnes is superbly talented and this "stream of consciousness" style that is not really stream of consciousness is a fantastic fit for the topic, but he totally missed on Shostakovich. Most people won't care about that, but Shostakovich is my hero and the reason I went to music school instead of doing something smart, and Barnes totally screwed up Shostakovich. I kept remembering that there was plenty of intention with the words "A Novel" in the title so it doesn't bother me so much.

[Hugh]

Carl,

Thanks for that. I know we are talking about part 1 here, but Barnes does anticipate your kind of reaction in his postscript, and you are right that this is the major difference between biography and historical fiction...

[Jill]

Carl wrote: "Barnes is superbly talented and this "stream of consciousness" style that is not really stream of consciousness is a fantastic fit for the topic, but he totally missed on Shostakovich. Most people ..."

I have almost finished the book, and I know this is supposed to be for part 1, but I am wondering if Carl can add some more detail to his comment. I am not that familiar with Shostakovich's life, so can you tell me how Barnes' interpretation is inaccurate? I know it is a novel, but what are the major points that you felt were "screwed up" in his representation ?

[Carl]

Jill, I would like to finish and then come back to this. I will say that I love the writing as I have in the past with Barnes.

[Kay]

I finally got a hold of the book, and am happy to find out you are already discussing my concern of how accurately presented Shostakovich is in the book. I am always apprehensive of books fictionalizing real people.
There is no way to read this book without listening to the music. As Carl said somewhere in the discussion threads, you cannot separate the man from the music, and I am not yet sure how Barnes is doing on that front (even though his writing is wonderful). The presentation of Stalin's regime is quite well done, though.

[Violet]

I think Barnes would be a really boring novelist to edit. Essentially because he so scrupulously edits himself. He’s a very dry controlled writer. Never a superfluous or even an adventurous word. I think he succeeds really well at establishing character and theme and I’m enjoying the novel’s structure a lot. Sharing the vodka with the legless man is a great touch. Shows he empathises rather than sympathises with the man and as such we get a poignant sense of him as a crippled man, at least in his own view. Most of us, after all, throw coins to beggars, which establishes a divide in perception between our plight and theirs.

[Hugh]

Violet - you are right. Barnes anticipated most of the objections we have seen in his afterword and is clearly aware of the subjectivity of his standpoint.. I am possibly straying beyond part 1 again!

[Bernadette]

I think The Noise of Time is a brilliant book. The prose is excellent and so quotable, for example: ‘Integrity is like virginity; once lost, never recoverable.’

In this book, Julian Barnes paint an utterly believable picture of what it’s like to live under a government that reigns by terror. So, I don’t think it matters whether you know anything about Shostakovich or his music.

[Suzy]

I've just finished listening to this book and really loved it, but I feel this wasn't the best book to listen to. I now have a hard copy and will revisit the 3 sections to make more thoughtful comments. I agree with Violet that Barnes writes with such economy. Never a superfluous or even an adventurous word. The book says so much in under 200pp!!

One thing that struck me is the ongoing exploration about "what is art" and the pessimism/optimism struggle that Shostakovich has with what he's being asked to do by "power". He firmly believes that great Russiain artists are pessimistic by nature and that to make great art he needs to be true to his pessimistic temperament. But does he have the strength to fight the dictates of power? That to me is one of the key dilemmas of this book.

[Hugh]

Thanks Suzy - interesting thoughts. I won't say more on them here because your themes are discussed in more detail in the later topics...

[Mark]

Suzy wrote: "I've just finished listening to this book and really loved it, but I feel this wasn't the best book to listen to. I now have a hard copy and will revisit the 3 sections to make more thoughtful comm..."
Hi Suzy - Your comments about Shostakovich's inner and outer struggles with being a Russian artist in a ultra repressive totalitarian state, reminds me of something I find most interesting about his music. That for all the struggle and torment and violence that he was forced to survive - so antithetical to being an Artist/Genius - that we do find in many of his works glimpses of a warm, romantic, and loving man. The best example that comes to mind is the Passacaglia, the 3rd movement, from the great a-minor Violin Concerto. With the orchestra rather quietly contributing an almost minimal background, a dialogue develops between the soloist, an English Horn, the Baritone Horn and the Timpani. (A very unique combination of instruments.) What transpires, is for me, one of the most beautiful, heroic and powerfully positive statements that one can find anywhere in the symphonic repertoire. All from this poor, pathetic, tormented man. It is grand stuff: thrilling and heart warming and wonderful all in one! - )

[Suzy]

Mark wrote: "Suzy wrote: "I've just finished listening to this book and really loved it, but I feel this wasn't the best book to listen to. I now have a hard copy and will revisit the 3 sections to make more th..."

I appreciate your perspective, Mark, and will definitely look for that. I have a road trip coming up this weekend, so have some CDs to listen to. I think no matter how tormented, poor or pathetic he felt, he is a great example that artists simply must do their art. Even in tormented, repressive times, and even though he agonized over the compromises he felt he was making with his art, he was still compelled to create music.

[Mark]

Suzy wrote: "Mark wrote: "Suzy wrote: "I've just finished listening to this book and really loved it, but I feel this wasn't the best book to listen to. I now have a hard copy and will revisit the 3 sections to..."
Yes, exactly. That is what the great ones have to do: release the demon, what ever the personal cost. There is, or used to be a very fine, inexpensive Naxos recording of the Concerto.

[James E.]

it's obvious that S. is an attractive figure to fictionalize. His life was dramatic, to put it mildly, & it's tempting to make him into a poster child for the artistic struggle against totalitarianism. Luckily, he had plenty of all too human flaws that sink such inclinations. A very interesting depiction of his life is a major part of William Vollmann's powerful novel "Europe Central". It would be interesting to compare the two depictions (I mean Vollmann's & Barnes').

[Suzy]

James E. wrote: "it's obvious that S. is an attractive figure to fictionalize. His life was dramatic, to put it mildly, & it's tempting to make him into a poster child for the artistic struggle against totalitarian..."

Europe Central sounds interesting, and I'm chuckling a little that these books are at opposite ends of the page count pole! 811 pages for EC. I'm glad to see that it's available in audio, the only way that this slow reader will read books over 500pp!

[Hugh]

I think we have strayed a little from part one here!

[Suzy]

Hugh wrote: "I think we have strayed a little from part one here!"

Good reminder!

[Mark]

Hi Lisa - Thanks for the thank you! Not quite sure from your note whether this would/will be your first introduction to Shostakovich or Classic Music in general. It is - the Violin Concerto - a bit "edgy". But upon repeated listenings it can become very entertaining. - )

[James E.]

Hugh wrote: "I think we have strayed a little from part one here!"

Good point. I do think, though, that when considering the Q about how well S was characterized in this novel, it's interesting to think about how this was done by other writers. I do see some commonalities and maybe these depictions are starting to get mixed together in my mind!