The Noise of Time - Part 3 - In the Car and Whole Book, Spoilers Allowed (March 2017)

[Hugh]

This topic may be used to discuss whatever you want to without worrying about spoilers. How successful do you think the book was? Were you happy with the portrait that emerged, or would you have preferred a more linear telling of the story? Any favourite quotes? Feel free to discuss whatever interests you.

I found the final section fascinating, and felt that Barnes was expressing a lot of his own feelings about the doubts that plague the older artist.

[LindaJ^]

I wish I had remembered to bring the book with me as it will be a week before it and I are re-united. I used pieces of a napkin to mark pages where there was language to which I wanted to return.
But the quotes will have to wait.

I also found the final section fascinating. I am sure that Barnes was expressing his own feelings, given the controversy that exists over Shostakovich's actions. See e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/ar....

I thought the book was quite successful in portraying the doubts that may well have portrayed Shostakovich or anyone in a similar position. I liked the way the story was told. It seemed natural to me that the character would look back on how he got himself into the situations that haunted him.

[Hugh]

Thanks Linda. I don't want to put too many of my own thoughts here yet because I don't want to influence the discussion too much, but I'll definitely add more thoughts later...

"Art is the whisper of history heard above the noise of time"

[Hugh]

I thought the consistent use of Power to describe Soviet authority was intriguing - it almost seems to humanise extreme inhumanity...

[Neil]

Two quotes that I highlighted are:

But it was not easy being a coward. Being a hero was much easier than being a coward. To be a hero, you only had to be brave for a moment – when you took out the gun, threw the bomb, pressed the detonator, did away with the tyrant, and with yourself as well. But to be a coward was to embark on a career that lasted a lifetime. You couldn’t ever relax.

And

And part of you believed that as long as you could rely on irony, you would be able to survive

Because I guess a lot of the book is about personal integrity and challenges us to consider whether Shostakovich was weak in the decisions he made or whether circumstances make things more complicated than that kind of simple judgement. The concept of irony plays an important part in the book - but can it become an excuse where you take the easy route and then explain it by saying you were acting ironically?

[LindaJ^]

Neil, do you really think the route he took was an easy one?

[Hugh]

That first quote is great and puts the dilemma in a nutshell. The brave confrontational option may be the best for conscience and integrity but in the circumstances could have led to reprisals on family and friends, not just Shostakovich himself...

[Whitney]

Hugh wrote: "I thought the consistent use of Power to describe Soviet authority was intriguing - it almost seems to humanise extreme inhumanity..."

That's interesting, Hugh. I had the opposite reading as it seemed to completely dehumanize it to me. In a situation where authority refuses to be questioned and doing so can be lethal, you stop asking why something is being done or demanded of you, you just do it because Power has decreed it. If you've seen the John Sayles film "Men With Guns", the title of that film served the same purpose. The main character of that films learns that in a perpetually war-torn country, its pointless to ask "who" has ordered something, the people only answer "men with guns"; which is all you need to or want to know to survive.

I really liked Barnes' use of that impersonal phrase for S's confrontations with authority. I was wondering if it was original, or something he picked up in his research.

[Neil]

LindaJ^ wrote: "Neil, do you really think the route he took was an easy one?"

Hi - I wasn't saying that it was an easy one - I was more pointing out the options. You could interpret it either way, which I think is what Barnes wants us to think about as we read the book. You could say that the brave thing to do would be to stand up for what you believe and that he took the easy option. But I think Barnes wants us to realise that life isn't as simple as that. There's another quote that says: "In Galileo’s day, a fellow scientist was no more stupid than Galileo. He was well aware that the Earth revolved, But he also had a large family to feed." Which is, in effect, saying there are other considerations and it is maybe not the best idea to jump to conclusions about why people make the decisions they do.

[LindaJ^]

Ahhh. Thanks Neil for the elaboration. I agree.

[Neil]

I've just read Exodus and it includes this quote:

W. imagines me in my meetings, a version of Shostakovich before the Politburo, a political prisoner, moving between stupid defiance and servile obedience.

What do others make of "stupid defiance" and "servile obedience"? I think these reflect common views of Shostakovich in what I've read, but possibly not what Barnes is trying to say about him?

[Marc]

When I finished this book, I was left with the feeling of Shostakovich as less an actual person and more of a vehicle for talking about Art vs Power, the Individual vs the State, Integrity vs Survival, etc. I'm not sure I can answer Neil's last question as Barnes seems to straddle the line between the possibility that Shostakovich was a brilliant dissident who fought back through his music and encoded defiances vs. the composer as just doing the best he could with an impossible reality and a few shortcomings of his own.

[Kay]

Neil, I think "stupid defiance" and "servile obedience" were very well pitted agains each other and illuminated subtleties that are not always commented on - you either sacrifice yourself (and your family suffers, and most times directly, i.e prison/death) or you sacrifice your principles to keep your family safe (and maybe resist in more subtle ways). That choice is also very rational to me, few people will sacrifice themselves or even more so, their families, but that is also what keeps Power in power. If everyone resisted, the regime will not survive for long.
Now that I have finished the book, the first part was the best for me - the waiting by the lift was a very powerful metaphor for the time of the terror and how even only fear without outright violence/coercion can keep you in check.

[Hugh]

I have just realised that I have not commented on this thread since its first week, so thanks to all of you for keeping this debate alive - some very interesting and thoughtful contributions. I have some sympathy for all sides in this argument - I agree that to some extent Shostakovich is being used by Barnes to convey his own thoughts and opinions, but since he added his own disclaimer I think he has covered himself. I do think "stupid defiance" and "servile obedience" sum up the core dilemma pretty well.

[Hugh]

Incidentally, I did write down a number of quotes as I was reading, so I will share those here too - these were the ones I appended to my review:

"The system of retribution had been greatly improved, and was so much more inclusive than it used to be"

"Who engineers the engineers?"

"Art is the whisper of history heard above the noise of time"

"It is our destiny to become in old age what in youth we would have most despised"

"Integrity is like virginity: once lost, never recoverable"

"Sarcasm was irony which had lost its soul"

"Well, few lives ended fortissimo and in the major"

[Neil]

Kay - I agree. Part One was really excellent and I loved the tension of it and the noir imagery. I fell out of love with the book in the following two parts but I understand the views here from people who loved it.

[Hugh]

Just a quick note to thank everyone who has contributed to the lively discussions on this book. As usual the discussion will remain open.