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.
2 Replies to “The Noise of Time Summary (Three)”