BIOGRAPHY and SUMMARY, by Maria Feijoo
Julian Barnes is an English writer, born in Leicester
in 1946. He is now 78 years old and has been living in London since he was a
child. His parents were both French teachers. He studied Modern Languages in
Oxford and then worked as a lexicographer for the Oxford English Dictionary,
also as a reviewer and literary editor. After that, he began to write articles
for several daily and weekly papers.
In 1979, he married Pat Kavanagh. She would be both his wife and his literary agent until she died in 2008.
In parallel to his work as a journalist, he wrote a first novel, Metroland, and a crime novel, Duffy, both published in 1980.
Therefore, he entirely dedicated himself to literary creation and wrote numerous novels, short stories, and essays. He also continued publishing some crime novels that he signed as Dan Kavanagh.
His first novel already won a prize, but his real breakthrough was his third novel, Flaubert’s parrot. This novel was widely acclaimed and translated, especially in France, where he received two important prizes. This public appreciation would be a constant in his career, accumulating countless awards and honours, not only in England and France, but worldwide.
His writing has earned him considerable respect as an author who deals with deep themes like history, reality, truth and love, but always with an original and often hilarious approach.
SUMMARY
This is a story about writers. Mostly three writers, two of them speaking about a third one.
The narrator, an English writer, has no name and could easily be seen as an alter ego of Julian Barnes.
The second one, Marian Tirac, is a Romanian dissident who left Romania in 1951 and lives in the exile. His view of the world is despaired, but with a huge sense of humour. Finally, there is a Romanian writer, called Nicolai Petrescu, who chose to remain in Romania and is probably still living there at the time of the story. But we cannot be sure, as he had no more contact with Tirac, although they were close friends before the dissident writer left the country. The story was published in 1982, and we can reasonably think that it takes place at this same time, therefore during the Ceaucescu dictatorship.
The story begins with a kind of theory by the English writer: in his opinion, Romania is only able to produce one important artist per artistic field (“One of a kind”). When he meets Marian Tiriac at a literary party, he explains to him his “Romanian theory”, and Tiriac seems to agree, but his adding examples in a sarcastic crescendo makes it doubtful. Nevertheless, the English writer insists in asking about great Romanian novelists, whose existence is denied by the Romanian dissident.
A year after, the narrator goes to Bucharest, invited to a conference of young writers. The last day, he has some free time and takes a walk through the city with an Italian colleague. They visit mainly churches and the Art Museum. Passing along shops in the main street, they see a bookshop with a whole window dedicated to a single writer, a novelist. As there is also a small picture, the narrator can confirm that surprisingly he was not invited with the other writers, although he seemed an important Romanian author.
When some months later, the narrator meets Marian Tiriac again, he tells him he discovered that there was a great Romanian novelist. With some reluctance, the exiled Romanian admits that Nicolai Petrescu was a good friend of his and that he knew his intention to become a big novelist. He explains what he knew about Petrescu’s wishes to remain in Romania, despite he neither agreed with the regime. His friend wanted to write a novel that would be called The Wedding Cake, a book that would seem to be in conformity with the Romanian communist ideology, but that, in reality, would be like a Trojan horse that he would take into the core of the regime. A kind of very private joke, that would allow him to avoid the exile and simultaneously make true his dream of becoming an author, but of a single novel. Tiriac could not maintain a correspondence with his friend because he would have put him in danger, but he was told by his old mother that Petrescu had successfully published his book, The Wedding Cake.
At that point, the English writer is very surprised because he does not remember any book with this title in the library window. In fact, he remembered that one had a woman’s name in his title and that there were “six or seven other titles by Petrescu.” After a big and uncomfortable silence, Tiriac admits that Petrescu is for sure “one of a kind,” but one great ironist, not one great novelist.
PERSONAL OPINION
I found this story very representative of the way Julian Barnes introduces a lot of deep themes in a funny way. Even if the story is about three writers, there is no idle chatter about literature. For example, the theory that give its tittle to this short story is enunciated by one of the writers and ridiculed by the other, but it is not a mere intellectual joke: this idle theory gives all its strength to the twist of the plot in the ending.
In this short story, we can find themes like friendship and loyalty to oneself. Also, an example of how literature is impacted by history, revolutions, power and politics. But all these themes are put together in a frame that is like silk, light but solid. And pleasantly coloured through the subtle irony that is characteristic of Julian Barnes’s style.
In 1979, he married Pat Kavanagh. She would be both his wife and his literary agent until she died in 2008.
In parallel to his work as a journalist, he wrote a first novel, Metroland, and a crime novel, Duffy, both published in 1980.
Therefore, he entirely dedicated himself to literary creation and wrote numerous novels, short stories, and essays. He also continued publishing some crime novels that he signed as Dan Kavanagh.
His first novel already won a prize, but his real breakthrough was his third novel, Flaubert’s parrot. This novel was widely acclaimed and translated, especially in France, where he received two important prizes. This public appreciation would be a constant in his career, accumulating countless awards and honours, not only in England and France, but worldwide.
His writing has earned him considerable respect as an author who deals with deep themes like history, reality, truth and love, but always with an original and often hilarious approach.
SUMMARY
This is a story about writers. Mostly three writers, two of them speaking about a third one.
The narrator, an English writer, has no name and could easily be seen as an alter ego of Julian Barnes.
The second one, Marian Tirac, is a Romanian dissident who left Romania in 1951 and lives in the exile. His view of the world is despaired, but with a huge sense of humour. Finally, there is a Romanian writer, called Nicolai Petrescu, who chose to remain in Romania and is probably still living there at the time of the story. But we cannot be sure, as he had no more contact with Tirac, although they were close friends before the dissident writer left the country. The story was published in 1982, and we can reasonably think that it takes place at this same time, therefore during the Ceaucescu dictatorship.
The story begins with a kind of theory by the English writer: in his opinion, Romania is only able to produce one important artist per artistic field (“One of a kind”). When he meets Marian Tiriac at a literary party, he explains to him his “Romanian theory”, and Tiriac seems to agree, but his adding examples in a sarcastic crescendo makes it doubtful. Nevertheless, the English writer insists in asking about great Romanian novelists, whose existence is denied by the Romanian dissident.
A year after, the narrator goes to Bucharest, invited to a conference of young writers. The last day, he has some free time and takes a walk through the city with an Italian colleague. They visit mainly churches and the Art Museum. Passing along shops in the main street, they see a bookshop with a whole window dedicated to a single writer, a novelist. As there is also a small picture, the narrator can confirm that surprisingly he was not invited with the other writers, although he seemed an important Romanian author.
When some months later, the narrator meets Marian Tiriac again, he tells him he discovered that there was a great Romanian novelist. With some reluctance, the exiled Romanian admits that Nicolai Petrescu was a good friend of his and that he knew his intention to become a big novelist. He explains what he knew about Petrescu’s wishes to remain in Romania, despite he neither agreed with the regime. His friend wanted to write a novel that would be called The Wedding Cake, a book that would seem to be in conformity with the Romanian communist ideology, but that, in reality, would be like a Trojan horse that he would take into the core of the regime. A kind of very private joke, that would allow him to avoid the exile and simultaneously make true his dream of becoming an author, but of a single novel. Tiriac could not maintain a correspondence with his friend because he would have put him in danger, but he was told by his old mother that Petrescu had successfully published his book, The Wedding Cake.
At that point, the English writer is very surprised because he does not remember any book with this title in the library window. In fact, he remembered that one had a woman’s name in his title and that there were “six or seven other titles by Petrescu.” After a big and uncomfortable silence, Tiriac admits that Petrescu is for sure “one of a kind,” but one great ironist, not one great novelist.
PERSONAL OPINION
I found this story very representative of the way Julian Barnes introduces a lot of deep themes in a funny way. Even if the story is about three writers, there is no idle chatter about literature. For example, the theory that give its tittle to this short story is enunciated by one of the writers and ridiculed by the other, but it is not a mere intellectual joke: this idle theory gives all its strength to the twist of the plot in the ending.
In this short story, we can find themes like friendship and loyalty to oneself. Also, an example of how literature is impacted by history, revolutions, power and politics. But all these themes are put together in a frame that is like silk, light but solid. And pleasantly coloured through the subtle irony that is characteristic of Julian Barnes’s style.
QUESTIONS
-What do you know about Romania? And about Ceaucescu?
-According to your opinion, why are nations / times
with a lot of artists, and other ones without any, or only a few?
-Tell us something about Brancusi, Ionesco, Enuscu,
Steinberg, Eminescu, Rebreanu, Sadoveanu
-What kind of books does Tiriac write?
-What are the “benefits” of a bit of repression in arts? Doesn’t it spur on creation?
-Can you do a description of Van Eyck painting in the
Art Museum? How can a work of art, or any other object, become an icon or an
idol? Do you have an idol or an icon? Why is it your idol or icon?
-What would you do if you had to live in a faraway
country: would you adopt the new habits and culture, or would you rather keep the
old ones?
-In your view, what is the meaning of this sentence:
“You must not necessarily believe everything I say because I knew him very
well”?
-For you, what is more important in an artist, talent
or temperament? Why do you believe so?
-What do you imagine the “wedding cake architecture”
is?
-Petrescu write more books after The Wedding Cake.
So what is the morality of the story?
-What happened to The Wedding Cake? Why wasn't it in the window library??
VOCABULARY
sallow, swished, genially, sending me up, wheeled out,
aim off, hard line, spit, foul, clodheads, rock the boat, jeopardy, vetted, chuckle,
swig
Brutalism
.jpg)
