Tag: the noise of time summary

Three: In the Car

The story delves into the inner thoughts and struggles of a composer living under the oppressive regime of Stalinist Russia. The protagonist grapples with questions of identity, truth, and loyalty in a society where propaganda and fear reign supreme. The narrative weaves together memories of childhood hero worship, political manipulation, and artistic compromise.

The composer’s internal conflict is palpable as he navigates the demands of the Party while trying to maintain a sense of self and artistic integrity. The story highlights the absurdity and tragedy of living under a totalitarian regime, where even the most personal choices are subject to political scrutiny. Through the composer’s experiences, the text explores themes of power, art, and the human cost of ideological conformity. The narrative is a poignant reminder of the complexities of living in a society where truth is a commodity and individuality is a threat.

The phrases “Does Stalin know?” and “Stalin knows” were extremely alarming during that time, as Stalin was believed to have supernatural powers and was always watching. The protagonist, referred to as Comrade Troshin, had a certain responsibility towards his tutor and was protected by Stalin.

There were rumors that Stalin said certain individuals were not to be touched, providing them temporary protection. Being noticed by Stalin was more dangerous than being anonymous, as those in favor rarely stayed in favor for long. The protagonist had a history of unfortunate incidents, such as driving with the handbrake on and a girl giving a wrong answer during an examination.

The protagonist believed in the purity and power of music, which could not be cynical or deceptive. The Borodins, a musical group, were rumored to have played a piece strategically to get past musical officialdom, but the protagonist believed this was impossible as music cannot lie. The protagonist believed that music, if strong and true enough, could drown out the noise of time and become a whisper of history.

The protagonist had fraudulent conversations with Comrade Troshin, who praised Stalin and compared the protagonist unfavorably to him. After Stalin’s death, the tutor’s visits came to an end and the protagonist reflected on his desire to own a foreign car.

Prokofiev, another composer, had imported a Ford but had an accident with it, highlighting his tendency to come at the world from the wrong direction. Prokofiev and Stalin died on the same day, showing a strange synchronicity.

Prokofiev and Shostakovich were not friends, despite their admiration for each other’s music. Prokofiev left Russia in 1918 and returned only in 1936, losing touch with Soviet reality. Prokofiev believed he would be applauded for his patriotic homecoming, but he misunderstood the expectations of the Soviet regime.

Prokofiev approached criticism of his own work pragmatically, offering to adjust his style to suit the critics’ preferences Prokofiev enjoyed the trappings of success and understood fame in a Western way. Shostakovich experienced fear and terror under Stalin’s regime, witnessing the murder of his friend Solomon Mikhoels.

The death of Stalin and the emergence of Nikita Khrushchev brought a cautious hope for change, but power and fear persisted. Khrushchev made derogatory remarks about artists and musicians, but dissent was allowed to a certain extent.

The author criticizes Picasso and Sartre for their support of Soviet power while living comfortably abroad. The author expresses admiration for Stravinsky’s music but despises his silence and lack of protest during the Soviet regime. Meetings between the author and Stravinsky were awkward and lacked meaningful conversation.

The protagonist had a meeting with Akhmatova, which was described as a “historic meeting.” They sat in silence for twenty minutes before she left, and she later described it as “wonderful.” The protagonist sometimes compared his situation to that of Sibelius, who stopped writing music in the last third of his life.

The protagonist had encounters with people who brought vodka, made jokes, flattered him, and had expectations. Sometimes he was drunk and unaware of what was happening until later, leading to feelings of self-loathing. Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, an opera, had been banned for twenty years but was revised and submitted for staging. The committee appointed to examine the new version found it morally reprehensible and voted unanimously against its revival.

The protagonist had a meticulous nature and liked to control what he could in his life. He had rituals and routines, such as visiting the barber and dentist regularly, washing his hands, and ensuring things were working properly. The protagonist’s body was nervous, but his mind no longer skittered. He reflected on his younger self and wondered about the aftermath of a Maupassant story about passionate love.

The protagonist believed in the concept of Free Love theoretically but acknowledged the need for accommodation when children were involved. He had his own experiences with flirtations and tried to do his best.

The narrator’s wife, Nina Vasilievna, was a beloved and joyful person who died suddenly while they were in Armenia. The narrator had a close relationship with A., who escorted Nina Vasilievna’s body back to Moscow. The narrator found comfort in the red roses that A. would often leave on Nina Vasilievna’s grave.

The narrator envied A.’s foreign car, a Buick, as he was not allowed to have one himself due to restrictions. The narrator reflects on the role of a chauffeur in Soviet society and the respect they were given. The narrator criticizes Tikhon Khrennikov, a composer who aligned himself with those in power, for recounting a humiliating experience with enthusiasm.

The narrator contemplates death and the importance of thinking about it to avoid making mistakes in life. The narrator reflects on his second marriage, which ended in divorce, and his loneliness after the deaths of Nina Vasilievna and his mother. The narrator acknowledges his naivety in believing in the promises of change after Stalin’s death.The narrator is approached by the Party, who wants him to acknowledge that they have changed and improved his life.

Dmitri Dmitrievich, a composer faces a pressure to join the Party and accept a prestigious position. Pospelov, a Party member, tries to persuade him to become chairman of the Union of Composers. Despite his reluctance, Pospelov insists, citing the need for public declarations to support the changes under the new leadership. Dmitrievich, however, raises concerns about his lack of political nature, religious beliefs, and the banning of his music.

Pospelov attempts to reassure him, emphasizing the benefits of Party membership for his career and the possibility of getting his opera performed. Ultimately, Dmitrievich stands firm on his principles, refusing to join a party that goes against his values. The text highlights the internal struggle faced by individuals in navigating political pressures and personal integrity.

Pospelov argues that the Party has changed and no one is being killed anymore. He asks for help in joining the camp of progress. The protagonist is exhausted from constant meetings with Pospelov and feels driven to madness.

The protagonist’s nerves are shredded and he contemplates suicide but lacks the self-respect to go through with it. He submits to joining the Party as a dying man submits to a priest or a traitor submits to a firing squad. He flees to Leningrad to be with his sister but is eventually required to attend the official announcement of his Party membership in Moscow.

The protagonist reflects on his cowardice and the complexities of being a coward. The protagonist’s love for football and his disillusionment with the corruption of power in the sport. The protagonist finds solace in the orderliness of chiming clocks and chandeliers. The protagonist enjoys privileges and benefits as a member of the Party and the cultural elite.

The protagonist, Dmitri Dmitrievich Shostakovich, was known for his music but was often judged by those who didn’t know him. Shostakovich attended Party meetings and followed instructions, even if he didn’t pay attention to the speeches. Despite criticisms, Shostakovich’s opera was approved and premiered in Moscow, leading to other successful productions.

Shostakovich had regrets about the operas he could have written if his career hadn’t been influenced by the Party. The story of “The Portrait” explores the themes of integrity and corruption, and the protagonist’s choice between the two.

The protagonist reflects on the loss of integrity in the real world and the lack of conscience in modern tyrants. Shostakovich married again and found happiness with his wife, Irina Antonovna. Power continued to control Shostakovich’s life, even dictating what articles he should sign.

Shostakovich felt guilt for signing denunciations against Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, betraying his own beliefs. Shostakovich’s health declined, and he faced pity and praise from others, which embarrassed him. The protagonist reflects on the internal contradictions of capitalism and communism and speculates on how history will remember these times.

The protagonist struggles with his memories, unable to forget his failings, humiliations, and bad decisions. He wishes he could selectively remember only the positive aspects of his life. As he grows older, his tics and mannerisms increase, making it difficult for him to remain calm in public settings. The protagonist fondly remembers his father, a gentle and humorous man who brought joy to his life. He reflects on his past relationships, particularly his first love Tatyana, and wonders how different his life would have been if they had met earlier.

The protagonist is now married to Irina, who goes to great lengths to care for him, but he feels that his possibilities in life have been greatly reduced. He recalls a disastrous performance of his First Symphony, which was ironically praised by an ignorant audience. The protagonist’s son, Maxim, entertains others with a comedic sketch that reflects the farcical nature of life under Stalin’s rule.

He compares the Soviet Union to a house with disproportionate proportions, giving rise to dreams, nightmares, and fear. The protagonist questions the extent of his talent and the amount of bad music he has created. He contemplates the point at which pessimism turns into desolation, as reflected in his final chamber works.

The protagonist has relied on irony throughout his life as a defense mechanism and a way to navigate the gap between expectations and reality. Irony allows him to express dissent and criticism while maintaining a facade of conformity. However, he begins to question the effectiveness and limitations of irony, realizing that it can be vulnerable and lose its impact over time.

The protagonist reflects on the complexities of living under tyranny and the compromises one must make to survive. He contemplates the role of art and the artist in society, grappling with the pressure to conform to political ideologies. The protagonist acknowledges his own self-doubt and the disillusionment that comes with age.

He ponders the legacy of his music and hopes that it will be appreciated on its own merits, free from the influence of his personal life and political context. The story ends with a poignant anecdote about a moment of beauty and harmony amidst the chaos of war, suggesting that art and music can transcend the hardships of life.

Search Your Notes Here

Two : On the Plane

The story provides a glimpse into the inner turmoil and external experiences of a Soviet delegate on a flight back from America. The protagonist grapples with fear, shame, and the desire to forget the recent events. The narrative delves into his expectations of America, his encounters with American journalists, and the cultural differences he observes.

Despite some positive experiences, such as meeting American artists and attending musical performances, the protagonist feels a sense of humiliation and self-disgust due to his prominent role in the Soviet delegation. The text also touches upon the impact of tyranny, war, and political manipulation on individuals, highlighting the complex dynamics at play during this period. Ultimately, the protagonist’s journey reflects a mix of personal struggles, political pressures, and cultural clashes that shape his perceptions and experiences.

Then there is a description of the complex relationship between Wagner, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Hitler’s invasion of Russia. Wagner’s reputation as a composer fluctuated depending on the political climate of the time. These part explores the idea that genius and evil are incompatible, using Wagner as an example. It argues that Wagner’s anti-Semitism and racial attitudes make him evil and therefore not a true genius.

Then it provides insight into Shostakovich’s personal life, including his anxieties, his role as a father, and his interests outside of music. It highlights the tension between Russian pessimism and Soviet optimism, suggesting that the Soviet regime’s attempts to engineer a new society were ultimately futile. Shostakovich’s also experience during the war, including his exile in Kuibyshev and his involvement in sports and physical activities. It discusses the consequences of Shostakovich’s past sins, particularly his composition of “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk,” and how he was constantly reminded of his mistakes by the Soviet regime.

The Soviet regime attempts to direct and control Shostakovich’s music, particularly in the realm of film music, as they believed it had more value and usefulness to the people than opera. It suggests that if Shostakovich continued to follow the regime’s direction, he would receive more honors and rewards for his work.

The political and artistic climate in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin’s rule is described. It mentions Vano Muradeli’s opera, “The Great Friendship,” which celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the October Revolution. However, Muradeli’s portrayal of the Georgians and Ossetians rising up against the Red Army conflicted with Stalin’s understanding of history. Muradeli’s inclusion of a lezghinka dance, albeit in his own style, further displeased Stalin.

The conference called by Zhdanov was to discuss the influence of formalism in music. Composers such as Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Khachaturian, Myaskovsky, and Shebalin were criticized for their music, which was compared to a “musical gas chamber.” The congress of composers targeted Shostakovich’s Eighth Symphony and Prokofiev’s Sixth Symphony, criticizing their war themes and perceived pessimism.

Shostakovich, feeling pressured to save his career, attended the congress and made a public recantation, promising to follow Party directives and write melodic music for the people. Despite his efforts, he was dismissed from his professorships and faced disgrace. To maintain his sanity, he decided to write preludes and fugues, which were initially condemned for not aligning with the surrounding reality.

After a year of disgrace, Shostakovich had a conversation with Stalin, who assured him that his works were not forbidden and that the banning order was a mistake. Shostakovich then attended the Cultural and Scientific Congress for World Peace in New York, despite his concerns about his music being played in the Soviet Union. Lenin also criticised Stalin’s rudeness and Shostakovich’s dislike of conductors being described as dictators.

Stalin and his entourage attended Vano Muradeli’s opera, “The Great Friendship,” which celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the October Revolution. Muradeli’s portrayal of historical events did not align with Stalin’s knowledge, leading to criticism and accusations of formalism. Composers like Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Khachaturian were targeted for their music’s alleged formalist nature. Shostakovich faced public recantation and dismissal from professorships, leading to a period of disgrace and self-reflection.

Despite initial condemnation, Shostakovich’s works were eventually allowed to be played again after Stalin intervened. The conversation between Stalin and Shostakovich highlighted the power dynamics and fear prevalent in the artistic community under Stalin’s rule. Shostakovich’s reluctance to attend events due to fear of repercussions and censorship of his works reflected the oppressive environment of the time.

The author’s negative opinion of the conductor Toscanini and his frustration with the conductor’s style and approach to music. The author also reflects on the behavior of conductors in general, describing them as harsh and demanding, often mistreating orchestras. The author draws parallels between the behavior of conductors and the oppressive nature of the Soviet regime, highlighting the irony and disguise used to express dissent in a dangerous environment.

The author has an upcoming trip to America and the potential consequences of expressing his true thoughts in a letter to the Great Leader. The author contemplates the role of irony in protecting what he values, including music, family, and love, in a tyrannical society. There is metaphorical reflection on the destructive nature of tyranny and the fear that love may be lost in such an environment.

There is a description of love for Shakespeare and music, as well as the challenges faced by artists under Soviet power. Shakespeare’s profound understanding of the human soul and the human condition is highlighted, with references to his works like King Lear and Hamlet. The audience’s reaction to Shakespeare’s Sonnet 66 is described, emphasizing the defiance against authority.

The tyrants’ hated poetry, theatre, and music, as they feared the reflection of their actions in art. The struggles of artists under Soviet power, the demand for optimism in art, and the role of political skills in survival are explored. The power dynamics within the artistic community, exemplified by Tikhon Nikolayevich Khrennikov, are discussed, showcasing the manipulation of talent and suppression of creativity. The concept of art belonging to the people and the circular nature of defining art is examined, emphasizing the universal appeal of true art. There is reflection on the value of all professions and the importance of recognizing talent and dedication in any field.

Stalin loved Beethoven because he saw him as a true revolutionary and admired his exalted nature. Stalin believed that the Red Beethoven, a composer who embodied the ideals of the Soviet Union, should exist. Alexander Davidenko was initially considered a potential Red Beethoven due to his popular song celebrating the Red Army’s victory. However, Davidenko’s lack of further success prevented him from being crowned the Red Beethoven.

The search for the Red Beethoven was taken seriously and any failure to find him was attributed to sabotage by formalist musicologists. The protagonist, Shostakovich, faced humiliation and moral shame during a visit to New York for a congress. He contemplated suicide but realized that it would only allow those in power to control his story. The presence of Nicolas Nabokov, a Russian exile, further added to Shostakovich’s discomfort and nervousness.

The composer was given speeches to deliver but did not prepare them, leading to awkward and unconvincing deliveries. The composer criticized American militarism and praised the Soviet music system, while also admitting his own faults in straying from the Soviet composer’s path. He faced tough questions about his views on Western music and composers, ultimately succumbing to pressure and agreeing with the Soviet regime’s stance.

The story of Zhdanov’s music lesson, though likely fictional, highlights the oppressive atmosphere for composers in the Soviet Union. The composer’s internal struggle and eventual capitulation to authority underscore the challenges faced by artists under totalitarian regimes. The text serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of artistic censorship and political interference in creative expression.

There are also struggles faced by the composer in the Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin’s regime. It emphasizes the challenges of creating music in a politically oppressive environment, where individual freedom is severely restricted. The composer’s interactions with Western humanitarians who fail to grasp the true nature of the situation are also discussed.

There are some complexities of being an artist under such circumstances, where even basic supplies like manuscript paper are controlled by the state. The composer’s reluctance to become a martyr for the cause and the unrealistic expectations of his supporters are also explored. The narrative sheds light on the harsh realities of artistic expression in a totalitarian regime, where creativity is stifled and dissent is met with severe consequences.

The protagonist had worn garlic amulets during the war to survive, and now he needed them as protection against power, enemies, hypocrites, and even well-meaning friends. He admired those who spoke truth to power and envied their bravery and moral integrity, but also envied their death as an escape from the agony of living.

The deaths of these heroes and martyrs often resulted in the destruction of those around them, making the situation complex. Saving oneself could also mean saving loved ones, leading to moral corruption and betrayal. The protagonist felt he had betrayed Stravinsky and music by his actions.

During a trip to Iceland, the protagonist’s plane broke down and they had to wait for a replacement, leading to an unexpected visit to Stockholm where he received records by local composers. After returning to Moscow, an article appeared under his name in a magazine, discussing the success of a congress and the State Department’s decision to cut short the Soviet delegation’s stay. The protagonist reflects on the fear of truth by the rulers of Washington and quotes lines from Pasternak’s poem about Hamlet, expressing a sense of loneliness and falsehood in life.

Search Your Notes Here

The Noise of Time Part Three Summary