Reading the 20th Century discussion

The winner of our The Russian Revolution themed Group Read poll was...


The Noise of Time (2016) by Julian Barnes


This discussion will open on or around 1 December 2019

See you then


A compact masterpiece dedicated to the Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich: Julian Barnes’s first novel since his best-selling, Man Booker Prize–winning The Sense of an Ending.

In 1936, Shostakovitch, just thirty, fears for his livelihood and his life. Stalin, hitherto a distant figure, has taken a sudden interest in his work and denounced his latest opera. Now, certain he will be exiled to Siberia (or, more likely, executed on the spot), Shostakovitch reflects on his predicament, his personal history, his parents, various women and wives, his children—and all who are still alive themselves hang in the balance of his fate. And though a stroke of luck prevents him from becoming yet another casualty of the Great Terror, for decades to come he will be held fast under the thumb of despotism: made to represent Soviet values at a cultural conference in New York City, forced into joining the Party and compelled, constantly, to weigh appeasing those in power against the integrity of his music.

Barnes elegantly guides us through the trajectory of Shostakovitch's career, at the same time illuminating the tumultuous evolution of the Soviet Union. The result is both a stunning portrait of a relentlessly fascinating man and a brilliant exploration of the meaning of art and its place in society.


The Noise of Time (2016) by Julian Barnes

Let the discourse commence


Here's to another splendid discussion

I'm under way with this and really enjoying it - I'm glad that I changed over from listening to the audio book to reading it on paper, as it makes it easier for me to follow the jumps around in time.

I re-read this one, so listened on Audible this time round. I think this is a really interesting novel, as we see events from the point of view of Shostakovitch who, to put it frankly, was in an impossible situation.

I really liked it too.


Like the wonderful film The Death of Stalin, The Noise of Time lays bare the true nature of Soviet Russia and a life lived under tyranny: how power controls and undermines art, the limits of an individual's courage and endurance, and attempting some kind of personal integrity within a totalitarian regime.

Yes, this is the aftermath of revolution gone wrong. It is interesting to have, "October," which is about the unfolding revolution and then looking at what that actually entailed for individuals.

I also cannot recommend the book, Former People: The Final Days of the Russian Aristocracy (such a chilling phrase!) highly enough, for anyone interested in this era.

So far it has really reminded me of The Death of Stalin too, Nigeyb, with the terror over whether Stalin will enjoy a musical performance, and the fear of what will happen to the performers if he doesn't.

Susan wrote: "I also cannot recommend the book, Former People: The Final Days of the Russian Aristocracy (such a chilling phrase!) highly enough, for anyone interested in this era"

Thanks Susan

Your recommendations are always tip top

I'll seek out....

Former People: The Final Days of the Russian Aristocracy by Douglas Smith

Nigeyb wrote: "I'll seek out....


Former People: The Final Days of the Russian Aristocracy by Douglas Smith"

I've just bought a copy of....

Former People: The Final Days of the Russian Aristocracy by Douglas Smith

I picked it up for £4 including p&p on eBay

Looks fab....

Epic in scope, precise in detail, and heart-breaking in its human drama, Former People is the first book to recount the history of the aristocracy caught up in the maelstrom of the Bolshevik Revolution and the creation of Stalin’s Russia. Filled with chilling tales of looted palaces and burning estates, of desperate flights in the night from marauding peasants and Red Army soldiers, of imprisonment, exile, and execution, it is the story of how a centuries’-old elite, famous for its glittering wealth, its service to the Tsar and Empire, and its promotion of the arts and culture, was dispossessed and destroyed along with the rest of old Russia.

Yet Former People is also a story of survival and accommodation, of how many of the tsarist ruling class—so-called “former people” and “class enemies”—overcame the psychological wounds inflicted by the loss of their world and decades of repression as they struggled to find a place for themselves and their families in the new, hostile order of the Soviet Union. Chronicling the fate of two great aristocratic families—the Sheremetevs and the Golitsyns—the book reveals how even in the darkest depths of the terror, daily life went on.

Told with sensitivity and nuance by acclaimed historian Douglas Smith, Former People is the dramatic portrait of two of Russia’s most powerful aristocratic families, and a sweeping account of their homeland in violent transition.

Judy wrote: "So far it has really reminded me of The Death of Stalin too, Nigeyb, with the terror over whether Stalin will enjoy a musical performance, and the fear of what will happen to the performers if he doesn't."

It's such a powerful film isn't it Judy?

I somehow a comedy too

Having just finished George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four it is also clear just how informed that was by Stalinism.

I did not particularly care for this book. I already knew about Stalin, and this was just a rehash of how horrible is Communism at its worst. (Not that Communism/Socialism is appealing at its best.) The one thing I did like was the presentation, that somehow Barnes had me feeling Shostakovich was telling his own story, though referring to himself in the third person.

Although of course many argue that Stalinism was a criminal betrayal of the revolution and of Marxist ideals.

Their assertion would be that Stalin's commitment to Marxism, and even to socialism, was only a way of establishing his despotic totalitarian regime.

I'm not sufficiently informed to state to what extent this might be accurate although, instinctively, it seems hard to imagine Karl Marx would have been anything other than appalled at Stalinism.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I did like the presentation .... Barnes had me feeling Shostakovich was telling his own story, though referring to himself in the third person."

I agree.

Although this is a work of fiction, the thoughts and feelings Shostakovich expresses felt entirely credible.

The impossibility of Shostakovich's circumstances were convincingly evoked.

For such a short book, The Noise of Time packs a lot in and is a fascinating read.

Nigeyb wrote: "Although of course many argue that Stalinism was a criminal betrayal of the revolution and of Marxist ideals. "

And so it continued under Khrushchev, or, as Shostakovich calls him, Nikita the Corncob. Communism works only on a very small scale, such as the Kibbutz's in Israel, where people choose to belong and can leave when it doesn't suit them. The more power government has, the less opportunity there is for an individual to determine his own life. Communism denies any rights of the individual.

And yet, Stalin didn't practice pure Communism. After all Shostakovich got his dacha. No, communism rewards those who the committee decides to reward, most especially themselves. It is inherently a despotic and unequal form of government.

Nigeyb wrote: "Although of course many argue that Stalinism was a criminal betrayal of the revolution and of Marxist ideals."

Absolutely. We might offer, more positively, the 'Nordic model' of socialism encompassing a universal welfare state, a high degree of unionism, high levels of education and therefore social mobility, a high percentage of workers in the public sector... and Nordic countries regularly score very highly on indices of personal happiness.

And, I might add that people continue to disappear in Russia today, just not on the same scale as under Stalin.

Roman Clodia wrote: "We might offer, more positively, the 'Nordic model' of socialism encompassing a universal welfare state, a high degree of unionism, high levels of education and therefore social mobility, a high percentage of workers in the public sector... and Nordic countries regularly score very highly on indices of personal happiness."

Yes. As you say, their version of socialism, if that is an accurate label, seems to offer an effective way of ensuring a fair distribution of wealth and higher levels of social mobility.

And of course, everyone, regardless of personal wealth, gets free higher education, free medical services, free care for old people, and so on.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "And, I might add that people continue to disappear in Russia today, just not on the same scale as under Stalin."

Few people would defend the conduct of the Russian governments since the revolution. The question is whether it is Communism as Marx conceived it?


Back to The Noise of Time, at the start of the book there's there is a scene with a legless beggar.

To what extent do you think this was a foreshadowing of what the regime would do to Shostakovich?

One other question I want to pose...


Who is actually a Shostakovitch fan?

Who is familiar with Shostakovitch's music?


I am neither and am wondering to what extent it would another layer of richness to The Noise of Time

I’m a fan of Shostakovich and have read a fair amount about him and his work. I have this book planned for the end of the month as I have a few others to read first.

That's wonderful Clare - I eagerly await your more informed comments

Nigeyb wrote: "To what extent do you think this was a foreshadowing of what the regime would do to Shostakovich?"

I think it typified what it did to every citizen, not just Shostakovich.

So excited to hear you ordered, Former People, Nigeyb. Can't wait to hear your thoughts, when you get the chance to read it.

Came across Symphony for the City of the Dead: Dmitri Shostakovich and the Siege of Leningrad (great cover)

I loved Leningrad: Siege and Symphony: The Story of the Great City Terrorized by Stalin, Starved by Hitler, Immortalized by Shostakovich

Nigeyb wrote: "To what extent do you think this was a foreshadowing of what the regime would do to Shostakovich?"


Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I think it typified what it did to every citizen, not just Shostakovich."

Interesting. Thanks Elizabeth.

I thought Barnes, if anything, was just making a specific reference to Shostakovitch's compromised career as described in the book. I hadn't considered that Barnes might be making a broader point about life under Stalin for every Soviet citizen.

Do you see the whole novel as being more about life under Stalin than about Shostakovitch?

Susan wrote: "So excited to hear you ordered, Former People, Nigeyb. Can't wait to hear your thoughts, when you get the chance to read it."

I'll keep you posted Susan

Those other books sound fab too, however I'll resist the urge to snap them up too

Yes, just throwing titles out - one book always makes me think of another!

Nigeyb wrote: "One other question I want to pose...


Who is actually a Shostakovitch fan?

Who is familiar with Shostakovitch's music?"

I like Shostakovich, especially his vocal music and his arrangements for poetry. Even though I just don't get on with Barnes, I read this book in ARC when it came out but in my memory there was little about the music itself and that the protagonist could have been any artist in a repressive regime - it was a few years ago now so that might be wrong?

Nigeyb wrote: "Do you see the whole novel as being more about life under Stalin than about Shostakovitch?"

Yes, I do. I don't know that is what Barnes intended. Not everyone, of course, was called up on to give speeches, for example, but no one could speak other than the party line. The problem with that, of course, is that what was the party line one day might not be the party line the next. So everyone lived in fear.

Shostakovich had more freedom to travel than ordinary citizens, and in this way it is more Shostakovich's story. We learn that Stravinsky wouldn't come to the so-called Peace Conference, refusing to give even lip-service to the lie. And on and on.

I said in my review that I almost gave up on this about the halfway mark, and would have done so had I not read Hugh's review. I should have anyway.

I don't know much Shostakovich music, but have been listening to some while reading, and really like what I've heard so far.

Judy wrote: "I don't know much Shostakovich music, but have been listening to some while reading, and really like what I've heard so far."

Where did you find some? I clicked on one link and heard very discordant stuff and quickly closed it.

I noted a couple of times Shostakovich heard a whistle or horn as F#. It quickly brought to mind that my sister has perfect picth. She played the piano by ear but had no creative abilities. One day after we were adults, and long after I'd touched a piano, I was at her house and decided to see if I could plunk out some Christmas carols. When I made a mistake, she called out from the other room - F#!!!

There are a lot of his works on Amazon Prime music, if you have access to that. I'm enjoying his String Quartets.

Judy wrote: "There are a lot of his works on Amazon Prime music, if you have access to that. I'm enjoying his String Quartets."

I probably do, but have never used that feature.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Judy wrote: "I don't know much Shostakovich music, but have been listening to some while reading, and really like what I've heard so far."

Where did you find some? I clicked on one link and heard ..."

There is some pretty discordant music. It’s more likely to be pre-1936, when his music was attacked by the Soviet hierarchy.

His most accessible work includes the Second Piano Concerto, a late work written for his son and with a gorgeous slow movement. The Jazz Suite and some of his film music are also good introductions.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I almost gave up on this about the halfway mark, and would have done so had I not read Hugh's review. I should have anyway"

Ah well. At least you gave it a try.

Thanks Judy...


Judy wrote: "There are a lot of his works on Amazon Prime music, if you have access to that. I'm enjoying his String Quartets."

Thanks Clare....

Clare wrote: "His most accessible work includes the Second Piano Concerto, a late work written for his son and with a gorgeous slow movement. The Jazz Suite and some of his film music are also good introductions"

I'll follow up on those top tips

The Noise of Time is another example of the hybrid literary form, the fictional biography....


What are your thoughts about fictional biographies?

How effective was The Noise of Time compared with a more conventional biography?

What are the strengths of a fictional biography?

Shostakovich can be discordant, but not as much as many of his early 20th century contemporaries. For me the string quartets are more personal, and some of the slow movements are very lyrical.
I didn't see this book as a biography, more as a series of snapshots and philosophical musings that complement the wealth of biographical material that is already available.

Hugh wrote: "I didn't see this book as a biography, more as a series of snapshots and philosophical musings that complement the wealth of biographical material that is already available"

Yes. I see what you mean.

I suppose it also depends on how you define biography.

I am unlikely to ever pick up a biography of Shostakovich, and know little about him or his work, and yet, within this slim novel, I felt I got a real feel for his life. The three snapshots appear to be at critical moments and are particularly revealing.

I liked the form of this fictional biography and when, like this, it's done so well it's incredibly powerful, revealing and informative.

I used to read far more fictional biographies and I do enjoy them. They can make a life become more real sometimes, as this novel does. As you say, there are just three, pivotal, moments, but they say so much. From the very beginning, you really understand what the Terror meant - standing by a lift, in the night, with your suitcase packed. How many others, were awake in those, long nights?

In the last chapter, you see how impossible his position was. It is interesting that he admits to not being brave. So many central characters are heroic, so it makes a change to have someone who, understandably, just wants to live through events and protect his family.

I'm also often drawn to read fictional biographies, and I think sometimes they come at someone's life from a different angle and make you realise things about him/her that don't always come across in a conventional biography.

I've now finished part 2, the section following Shostakovich's visit to America - I thought his thoughts at times become a little abstract and confusing if you don't know much about his life. But the moment when he discovers that he has denounced Stravinsky in the pre-written speech, and realises he can't do anything to change it, is very powerful.

Judy wrote: "....the moment when he discovers that he has denounced Stravinsky in the pre-written speech, and realises he can't do anything to change it, is very powerful..."

That's a terrible moment isn't it?

I agree with your observations about how fictional biographies can help the reader to see someone from a different perspective - that's their real strength and, by the end of this book, I felt I had a better feel for Shostakovich, both as a person, and for the challenges he had to face.

Judy wrote: "But the moment when he discovers that he has denounced Stravinsky in the pre-written speech, and realises he can't do anything to change it, is very powerful."

I wonder if anyone was fooled into thinking that these were really Shostakovich's words.

I am more of a fiction reader than a nonfiction reader, and fictional biographies work for me. Not only do I learn something about the person, but the world in which they lived is clearer to me. But I agree with Hugh, that this was less a biography and more philosophical musings. I find it hard to know how much of that was Shostakovich.

I'm getting towards the end now, and am excited by all the mentions of Anna Akhmatova, such a great poet.

I love her poetry in translation and also enjoyed the biography Anna of All the Russias: A Life of Anna Akhmatovaby Elaine Feinstein, one of the poets who has translated her work.

Here is a link to one of her great poems, Lot's Wife, translated by Stanley Kunitz and Max Hayward:
https://poets.org/poem/lots-wife

I'm ashamed to say I'd never heard of Anna Akhmatova before - thanks for the information Judy

Elizabeth, I would have thought a few people took Shostakovich at face value, but I don't really know.

I have no inkling of how to define "formalism" when it comes to music despite having read this twice.

Why was it considered so bad? Indeed life threatening to some individuals.

Nigeyb wrote: "Elizabeth, I would have thought a few people took Shostakovich at face value, but I don't really know."

I was questioning if the thoughts attributed to Shostakovich in this were ever voiced by him. I'm not going to go do the research. I just questioned if he had ever expressed himself this way in his lifetime, why he was allowed to live. There were plenty in the USSR who would have magically disappeared for even thinking thusly, let alone expressing it. And so I wondered if Barnes (or others) had projected some of it on him.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Nigeyb wrote: "Elizabeth, I would have thought a few people took Shostakovich at face value, but I don't really know."

I was questioning if the thoughts attributed to Shostakovich in this were eve..."

I haven’t read this book yet as I need to finish October: The Story of the Russian Revolution first. I do know that Shostakovich did not publicly voice any doubts - that would have been too dangerous. To the outside world, he was seen as a fairly loyal Soviet citizen. That began to change with the publication of Testimony: The Memoirs in 1979. This book purported to be the memoirs of Shostakovich, as told to Solomon Volkov in the last years of his life. In the book, the fear and strain of living under totalitarianism are laid bare. His family denied its accuracy, although since Gorbachev’s reforms and the fall of the USSR, they have rowed back from that position.

I have finished this now and I think the last third is particularly powerful, showing how Shostakovich's self-esteem is actually destroyed by acclaim, as he is in effect seduced by the regime. I don't know anything about the composer's real life, but, as a novel, I think it is a compelling portrait of an artist living under totalitarianism

I thought one of the most interesting things was the way he starts to doubt his own art, wondering how much his music has been affected by his compromises with "power".

Yes indeed Judy. I agree with all of that. It's hard to conceive what living in such an environment would do to anyone, let alone a high profile artist

I agree Judy. I thought it was a very powerful portrait of Shostakovich and of what Stalinism did, even to those who were not technically called, 'victims.' He survived, but it was certainly at a cost.