Full title: The Festival of Insignificance
Milan Kundera is 86 years old this
year. Before publishing The Festival of
Insignificance he hadn’t published a single book in 13 years. The communist
realities he used to write about have turned into memories so distant you can’t
even scare kids with them anymore.
Author: Milan Kundera, translated by Linda Asher
Between 0 and 1: Zero (i.e. borrowed from local library)
Genre: Novel
Attributes: 115 pages, hardcover
Publisher: Harper (2015)
Attributes: 115 pages, hardcover
Publisher: Harper (2015)
One may or may not ignore these
facts. If one doesn’t, one is likely to go on reading this novel so as to enjoy
it. If one does, though, one will certainly make the mistake of expecting to
find in it the Kundera of a few years back, when he was writing book after book
with ease, and most importantly, when what he was writing about mattered to the
world.
The first and most important
impression I had from reading The
Festival of Insignificance was that Kundera wrote it being aware that all
of the above were problematic things. And he wrote so as to lay some traps. But
traps that have gone, with the occasional exception,
largely unnoticed.
The novel is about four friends who
get together at a party thrown by a fifth man, who doesn’t quite sit well in
their company but who offers them the right pretext for their meeting. In
counterbalance, the novel also follows an episode involving Stalin,
Khrushchev, and Kalinin. Present and past, France and the
Soviet Union, friendship and comradeship, freedom and tyranny – these are
trademark things in Kundera literature.
But it’s the question of
insignificance that makes the book what it is, from title onward. Stalin lost
in the usual (for Kundera) game of memory and forgetting, the queens of France
immortalized as statues barely acknowledged in the Luxembourg Gardens;
references to Hegel and Kant that lead nowhere; a party that doesn’t acquire
anything of note. All these episodes and images form a collection of
insignificant things. But this is not the insignificance of daily life, where a
lot gets lost in a sea of small significances. On the contrary, we’re in the
territory of historical insignificance, where things, when put in perspective, are
likely to mean little. That’s why, perhaps, the most important episode of the
novel is the party thrown by a man who pretends he’s about to die of cancer. His
lie is in itself a question of individual significance. His party, a question
of social insignificance. That party is placed against another one, in which Stalin
tells an anecdote about some partridges he shot when he was young. This one
is even closer to the essential questions regarding significance: when the
world was a mess, with the Stalinist regime at a peak, what his acolytes find
important is the truthfulness of his anecdote; not reality (the history before
their eyes) but fiction (a reality from an uncertain, highly insignificant
past). Stalin tells his acolytes how one day in his youth, when out hunting, he
saw twenty four partridges perched on a tree. He aimed to shoot but realized he
had only twelve bullets. So when he shot, only half of the partridges fell to the
ground. He rode back home and came back a few hours later with twelve more rounds, and shot the rest of the birds. His attendants listen to the story and,
in the spirit of the Stalinist cult, fake admiration. But when they’re alone,
in the toilets built especially for them in the Kremlin, they express their
outrage. They are enraged by the story. They find it ridiculous as well as
cruel. But all things considered, nobody sees the joke in Stalin’s anecdote. And
as Kundera suggests through his novel, one requires historical perspective to
be able to see the obvious. It’s only years later, in Paris, when the four
friends discuss the Stalin episode, that the essence surfaces:
“After a pause, Caliban says: ‘The one thing I find unbelievable in that whole story is that nobody understood that Stalin was joking.'
‘Of course not,’ said Charles, and he laid the book back on the table. ‘Because nobody around him any longer knew what a joke is. And in my view, that’s the beginning of a whole new period in history.’”
The period Charles is talking about
is later described as “the twilight of joking,” or better still, “the post-joke
age.”
One needs to read this time-after-the-joke
knowing Kundera, because with this book he makes statements about himself. These
statements are hidden. They need to be found if one wants to read the book
adequately.
The insistence throughout the novel
on the fact that the new generations don’t know who Stalin was, that they’ve
never heard of Kant or Hegel – all this is self-referential. Behind these
suggestions lies the actual question: have you heard of Milan Kundera? It’s
like a little piece of bait thrown to the critics. Is it not?
“Time moves on. Because of time, first we’re alive – which is to say: indicted and convicted. Then we die, and for a few more years we live on in the people who knew us, but very soon there’s another change; the dead become the old dead, no one remembers them any longer and they vanish into the void; only a few of them, very, very rare ones, leave their names behind in people’s memories, but, lacking any authentic witness now, any actual recollection, they become marionettes.”
I’m not sure that the critics have
seen this. When I first read the passage, as though it were about Stalin, I
thought: okay, this must be Kundera being nostalgic (at the end of the day he
started his career as an enthusiastic supporter of the communist cause). But
reading it again I changed my mind. This is not about Stalin. This is about
Kundera himself. Read it again through this filter and you’ll see.
Milan Kundera. Source: RTE |
Some reviewers have expressed their
discontent. They didn’t like the style of
the novel, they didn’t like its lack of newness.
But at the same time they didn’t see the joke: Kundera putting himself into the
book, one character among the others (not only among the French friends in
contemporary Paris, but also as a participant at the Soviet meetings, back in
the Stalinist era). As the center of a joke, he becomes the center of the very age
when the right allusion (the essence of a punch line) is no longer at hand; when the joke
itself needs to be dug out of history, dusted, polished, and told again.
There are other clues in the novel
that point in the same direction. One of them is the metanarrative element: the
intervention of the narrative voice at random points in the story, and also the
characters’ awareness that they are mere characters, that there is a “master”
(they use that word a couple of times!) who handles them as if they were
marionettes (see above). All this is about Kundera himself, can’t you see it? Arrows
pointing back at him, as if in saying I’m here, it’s me you’re reading about.
Precisely because he’s used these techniques so many times before it becomes,
once more, important to see that The
Festival of Insignificance is mostly about something characteristic to his work, something about him.
I don’t know why the reviewers avoid
discussing these things. The narrative elements, the games played under the
surface of the actual story, the references to things that are not there. Is
that because they’re stuck in the insignificance of Kundera’s old age, the
insignificance (in 2015) of his past, the insignificance, of course, of his
present? Of the fact that this is, perhaps, his last book? And of the other,
more significant thing: that maybe he wrote it knowing that this might be his last book? If such is the case then
let’s read The Festival of Insignificance
again. Let’s read it as if it were a book of ill laughter and of un-forgetting.
No comments:
Post a Comment