The Porcupine

by Julian Barnes

The bestselling, Booker Prize-winning author of The Sense of an Ending trains his laser-bright prose on the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe.

Stoyo Petkanov, the deposed Party leader, is placed on trial for crimes that range from corruption to political murder. Petkanov's guilt—and the righteousness of his opponents—would seem to be self-evident. But, as brilliantly imagined by Barnes, the trial of this cunning and unrepentant dictator illuminates the shadowy frontier between the rusted myths of the Communist past and a capitalist future in which everything is up for grabs.

Genres: Fiction, Historical Fiction, Politics, British Literature, Novels, 20th Century, Literature

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Julian Patrick Barnes is an English writer. He won the Man Booker Prize in 2011 with The Sense of an Ending, having been shortlisted three times previously with Flaubert's Parrot, England, England, and Arthur & George. Barnes has also written crime fiction under the pseudonym Dan Kavanagh (having married Pat Kavanagh). In addition to novels, Barnes has published collections of essays and short stories.
In 2004 he became a Commandeur of L'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. His honours also include the Somerset Maugham Award and the Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize. He was awarded the 2021 Jerusalem Prize.

Reviews

[Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book which I read in the sinkhole of wintertime depression. And it marked my first admiring acquaintance with this great author.

It was March, 2005. I had picked it up, on a lark, with some of my ample severance pay after my retirement in January of that year, at a nearby used book store called Book Mart (you may know it)!

Yikes! How to hit a guy when he's down... I was utterly and badly burnt out after a 31 year career. I sank deeper into my Brown Study.

Oh, well. It was masterfully written.

How well I remember how the Canadian Defence Department trashed its conservative White Paper during the jubilant new liberal regime in 1991. Of course we would recently (this spring) croak a massive mea culpa to NATO!

With another liberal government.

The book, though, cuts us to the quick.

For Barnes wisely uses for inspiration the adage that the devil never sleeps. As we're belatedly seeing now.

Barnes is by no means a Christian but he's wily as us Catholics must perforce be!

No, evil never sleeps. So true to us readers today...
***
The deposed dictator of an Eastern European puppet regime is on trial for war crimes here. And of course he - and his lawyers - are among the sharpest pencils in the box!

And suddenly, horribly, we are led to a Nietzchean transvaluation of every one of our Golden western values. We are radically confused.

In the Nietzschean transvaluation, you see - as we all are seeing now - our values were once sacred, but no more.

Now the liberal West imitates Nietzsche and is earnestly beavering away to spread them around - evenly, to Anyone and Anything!

And then trash them, whenever convenient.

In fact, both Left and Right now exhort us to keep it simple. Simplicity is a tool for impassioned simpletons. As I type this, spellchecker constantly oversimplifies any erudition I once had!

Life is NOT simple. We are no longer kids, folks!

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right -
Here I am!
Stuck in the middle with you...

With an ugly brown 'n bland result. Like bargain-basement peanut butter spread thinly over a bit of bleached white bread, our real values are irretrievably lost.

So we all now tell little white lies to ourselves incessantly, to justify our sins.

And when war comes, our pants are down around our ankles...
***
Shocked, my depression deepened still more.

Not the best kinda vacation escapism, friends!

But, wow, is this novel good.

And SO on the money.

Speaking of which, why not BUY the book?

Barnes will show you the truth about your world.

[Argos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Julian Barnes’in keskin ironik dili, kıvrak zekâ ile birleşince ortaya böyle güzel bir roman çıkmış. “Oklukirpi” gerçekçi kabul edilebilecek bir politik roman. Her ne kadar romanın nerede geçtiği belirtilmemişse de, romanın geçtiği tarih ve bazı gerçek isimler (Stalin, Gorbaçov, Çavuşesku gibi) göz önüne alındığında Bulgaristan ve onun devrik lideri Tudor Jivkov ile ilgili bir roman olduğunu söylemek zor değil.

Roman aslında Bulgaristan’da yaşanmış bir olayı, yani Tudor Jivkov’un yargılanması olayını, baskıcı rejimlerde hukukun işleyiş biçimi ile liberal sistemlerde hukukun kurgulanması temelinde mizahi bir dille anlatıyor. J. Barnes bir söyleşide Oklukirpi’yi “Komünizm gibi, kendini her şeyin çaresi olarak gören bir rejimin kesinliği karşısında liberalizmin zayıf düşmesini konu eden politik bir roman” olarak tanımlamıştır (Guignery, 2006).

Romanın iki kahramanı vardır biri Stoyo Petkanov yani T. Jivkov diğeri davanın başsavcısı Petro Solinsky (kurmaca bir kişilik). Barnes bu iki kişi arasında mahkemede yaşanan hesaplaşmayı ilginç bulmuş olacak ki, Oklukirpi romanını kendi penceresinden bu dava nasıl olmalıydı şeklinde yeniden kurgulamış. Malum tutuklandığında Jivkov devrik bir lider olarak yaşlı ve kanserdir. Yaşını ve hastalığını merhamet uyandırabilmek ve cezasını hafifletebilmek için kullanır. Bu nedenle hata yaptığını pişman olduğunu sıklıkla dile getirip adeta savunduğu rejim ve ilkeleri reddetmiştir. İşte J. Barnes bunun tersi olsaydı yani Jivkov merhamet dilenmek yerine cesurca yaptıklarının arkasında dursa ve hiçbir pişmanlık belirtisi göstermeseydi, bu mahkeme nasıl seyrederdi sorusunun cevabını veriyor.

Romanda iki karakter üzerinden (Petkanov ve Solinsky) komünizm, demirperde ülkelerindeki totaliter rejimler, kapitalist rejimler, demokrasi, ekonomi, insan hakları gibi kavramlar tartışılmaktadır. Savcı Solinsky Sovyetler Birliği çöktükten sonra orada ve diğer Doğu Bloğu ülkelerinde ortaya çıkan liberal yenidünya düzeninin temsilcisiyken Petkanov (Jivkov) ise geçmişin, yıkılan komünist rejimin sözcüsüdür.

Gerçekte Jivkov 7 yıl hapis alır ama yaşı ve hastalığından bu ceza ev hapsine döndürülür. Kısa bir süre sonra da ölür. Roman, kimin kimi mahkûm ettiğinin belli olmadığı bir diyalogla biter.

Kitabın adının neden “oklukirpi” olduğunu ve ne kadar yakıştığını okuyunca göreceksiniz. Çok rahat okunan bu romanı yakın tarihe ilgi duyan herkese öneririm.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Could a nation lose its capacity for scepticism for useful doubt? What if the muscle of contradiction simply atrophied from lack of exercise?'

This is a very short novel, it took me about two hours or so pootling along the Shropshire Union Canal during the break between lifting bridges and one or two locks on holiday last month. In fact, it was quite surreal. Reading a novel about the trial of an imaginary Party leader of a former Soviet satellite country, a country riven with hatred, mistrust and rampant economic implosion...........oh actually quite topical when I put it like that !!

Anyway, Julian Barnes wrote this in 1992 when the domino effect across the appallingly repressive and moribund Eastern European states was still fresh in the minds of most of the world and it was before the monstrous viciousness of the rise of Serbia and all that was to bring about had really begun. As a result there is an almost lightheartedness about the book it seemed to me. I do not mean by that, that Barnes underestimates or belittles the reality of the suffering and horror of repression and violent rule but in the novel he appears to offer four thoughts, 'take them or leave them' he says and does so tongue in cheek. (This may be a total misunderstanding on my part but this is how it appeared to me).

Barnes appears to be intimating that

a) One man's vicious repression is another's secure rule.....which I suppose is obvious when we hear different sides in any civil war.
b) The human race can sometimes appear to seek out certainty and then after a while often find it unsatisfactory and unfruitful and has a tendency to cast that certainty over so as to seek out the next.......... if not done with certainty exactly, much of society does appear to embrace fads as if they are the Holy Grail and totally necessary for life until the next one appears.
c)There is a circle, vicious or otherwise, to the movement of society and the show trials of one repressive government can easily morph into self-righteous action on the part of the ousting power where 'truth and reconciliation' can appear to be the scheme but the truth is of a very specific kind and the reconciliation is a chimera. South Africa would appear to be an exception to prove the rule here but other states not so where the government is replaced not with a total new vision but the same men but with different glasses, medals or badges
d) Where there is blind faith or belief of any kind, whether theistic, political or moral....arguments have no effect and with certain types of people it only serves to entrench and reinforce. Debate works only where there is real freedom and Barnes appears to be saying that the democratic credentials of a society are nothing unless incorporated into the individual hearts of the ones who make up that society..........A no brainer really

The whole book is geared around a trial and the insane progression of the defence begins to infect more and more the integrity, the honest pronouncements of the prosecution. At the end, the question is not so much who was telling the truth, I do not think at any time that is much at issue, but you are left with the question or the uncomfortable feeling that guilt has been pronounced and perhaps rightly so but that manipulation and obfuscation have become the watchwords of the new state just as much as of the old.

There is then a sheen of greyness at the end which has changed from the dank, dire, depressing grey of soviet repression and has become more lifeless or at least not life enhancing. So maybe not so much grey as beige.

[Eylül Görmüş · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Kadınlarını mutfakta tutamayan bir hükümet mahvolmuş demektir."

Julian Barnes'dan pek leziz bir post-Sovyet hikayesi okudum. Barnes iyi bildiğimiz ve çok sevdiği işi yine yapıyor; tarihi didiklemek, onun tek ve bir olmadığını, nasıl anlatıldığına göre pekala değişebileceğini ortaya koymak işi. Fakat bu defa bunu yıllarca sosyalizmle yönetildikten sonra liberal ekonomiye geçen adını vermediği bir devlette (Bulgaristan olduğunu anlıyoruz) gerçekleşen eski Başkan'ın yargılaması üzerinden yapıyor, haliyle okuduğum Barnes eserleri arasında en politik olanı buydu.

Büyük yazarlığın en önemli ölçütlerinden biri karakter geliştirme becerisi bence. Bu küçücük romandaki karakterler öyle iyi çizilmiş, hepsi öyle derinleştirilmiş ki, her birini tanımış gibi oluyorsunuz, bu da bence acayip bir saygı uyandırıyor. Hiçbiri siyah ya da beyaz değil, ne yargılanan eski başkan, ne de eski rejimin bir neferiyken şimdi demokratik ve liberal değerlerin savunucusu oluvermiş olan başsavcı.

Konu politik de olsa, Barnes'ın malzemesi her zamanki gibi insan, haliyle insana ve insanın türlü hallerine dair çok fazla şey bulmak mümkün bu kitapta. Ben çok sevdim.

Söz konusu yargılamada başsavcının ettiği şu müthiş cümleyle bitireyim. Tanıdık, değil mi? "Pekala, bay Başkan. Bu ceza davasının sürdüğü birkaç hafta boyunca sizin savunmanızla bir hayli içlidışlı olduk. Bütün suçlamalara ve ithamlara karşı savunmanızla. Anladık ki şayet yasadışı bir şey yapılmışsa, siz bunu bilmiyordunuz. Ve bunu biliyor idiyseniz, o zaman bu otomatik olarak yasal demekti."

[Daphna · Rating 3 out of 5]

This novel presents as a political novel looking at the fall of an aging dictator of one of the satellite states of the Soviet Union. He was once part of the Communist revolution in his country, has been ruling it with an iron fist for three decades and is now being prosecuted for his crimes by the new regime. The trial’s outcome is of course known from the outset, and it is no less a show trial than were those carried out by the former regime.

Despite the clearly political trial at its center, this novel, as are all of Julian Barnes’s novels, is first and foremost about people and their motivations.
The trial is a battle of wits between Solinsky, the Grand Prosecutor of the new Order, and Petkanov, the overthrown dictator. From the outset it is painfully clear, both from their private meetings and from the process of the trial, that Solinsky is the weaker man, debater and intellect. He is a rather mediocre man and lawyer, formerly an apparatchik of the Petkanov regime and a loyal member of the Communist party. He opportunely switched sides just in time for the counter revolution. Obviously he is not a man of strong convictions.
Petkanov on the other hand, although uneducated is a charismatic, witty and savvy debater who throughout seems to be at the top of his game. He is, and always has been, a communist idealist remaining staunch in his beliefs throughout the years. And if he had to take extreme measures to protect these beliefs, he does not regret them nor does he pander to the new regime.

Throughout the novel there is a sort of Greek chorus of four students who are the voice of the new generation as they follow the trial and comment on it. They present as shallow and rather pathetic especially when juxtaposed with the old grandmother, a quiet voice on the edges of this Greek chorus, who fought and sacrificed for the revolution. She watches this young generation with disdain, still strong in her revolutionary beliefs and confident that as before, “men and women will rise and shake themselves, recovering their dignity and starting again the whole glorious cycle of revolution”.

It’s a very quick read but all in all falls short of the other Julian Barnes novels I have read.

[Katie Lumsden · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favourite Julian Barnes so far. This is a well-paced and engagingly written novella, a really interesting examination of Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the fall of communism.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I liked about this book was the complexity of its characters. It tells the story of a former Communist dictator being put on trial by the new democratic government. In another author's hands, it could have been unbearable. The Cold War is often viewed in simplistic terms: we won, they lost, democracy=good, communism=evil. It would have been easy to make the characters into cardboard cutouts, the dictator into some kind of James Bond villain.

The reality, of course, is that nobody thinks of himself as evil. We might think others are evil, but for our own actions there is always a justification. It's the way human beings operate: we act, and then our brains go into overdrive telling stories and rewriting history with ourselves as the heroes. The main character in this book, former dictator Stoyanov, is no different. He has been a dictator for decades, has spied on his own people, jailed those who opposed him, stifled freedom of expression, etc etc. But in his eyes, he was serving his country, building Socialism, doing what needed to be done. As he writes in a letter to the new government:

"I have done everything in the belief that it was good for my country. I have made mistakes along the way, but I have not committed crimes against my people. It is for these mistakes that I accept political responsibility."

Reading this book, in fact, I was reminded of Tony Blair's resignation speech:

"Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That is your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country."

Blair, of course, was democratically elected and did not infringe his people's freedoms in the way an Eastern Bloc dictator did. That's not what I'm trying to say. I just mean that in many people's view, including mine, he committed serious crimes while in office. Whichever way you look at it, he's certainly responsible for many thousands of deaths. There's even a campaign to have him arrested. But he retells the story to make himself the hero. I may have made mistakes, but I honestly tried to do the right thing. Listen out for it - it's a common line people use when they're accused of doing wrong. I've probably used it myself a few times.

The other characters in the book are well fleshed out as well, from the prosecutor to the random people watching on TV. Everyone has their ambiguities, their own personal mix of higher motives and blatant self-interest. The trial delivers a verdict, but fails to deliver what people really want, because what they want is unattainable. An oppressive regime affects the whole society for generations, corrupts and co-opts ordinary people, blurs the distinctions between right and wrong. Justice is hard enough to attain in a simple criminal trial. When it's an entire nation's policies for half a century that's being put on trial, it's not surprising that the results often fail to satisfy.

So Barnes does a good job of bringing out the complexities of a particular political moment. His writing is also very engaging, very smooth and elegant right from the beginning. The plot was not the most compelling, because it basically just follows the trial, and apart from a few twists and turns along the way, you know more or less where things are heading. Thankfully it's a relatively short book, otherwise I think it could have started to drag. But at the length it is (138 pages), the interesting characters, clever observations and elegant prose were enough to sustain my interest. I definitely want to read more Julian Barnes books now, with A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters being top of the list.

[Burak Göral · Rating 4 out of 5]

Julian Barnes ismini vermese de Bulgaristan gibi bir ülkede 30 küsur yıl sonra nihayet iktidardan indirilen bir diktatörün yargılanışını ve savcıyla giriştiği çekişmeyi anlatıyor.
Eski başkan Petkanov, eski partili orta yaşlı savcı Solinski’yi öyle zorluyor ve konuları öyle ustalıkla manipüle ediyor ki kitabın özellikle bu bölümleri çok başarılı. Günümüz otoriter post-truth liderlerine de sık sık göndermeler yapan lezzetli bir alegori sunuyor bize Barnes.
Belki bazı bölümleri daha vurucu olabilirdi ama okuyucuyu gayet tatmin eden kısa bir roman. Özellikle finale bayıldım. Sinemaya uyarlasam eski başkan rolünü Al Pacino'ya, savcı rolünü de Cillian Murphy'e götürürdüm, tadından yenmeyen bir film çıkabilirdi ortaya...

[Sorin Hadârcă · Rating 4 out of 5]

Literatura desidenței este, în general, destul de bogată, dar despre procesul comunismului s-a scris foarte rar. E un mister de ce această temă a fost abordată de un scriitor din vest, dar poftim: versiunea ficționalizată a procesului asupra dictatorului bulgar. Poate că Barnes a văzut ceea ce noi nu eram antrenați să vedem. Și anume că pentru orice față există și un revers. Poate de asta am ratat revoluția - am schimbat interfața și am ales să credem în idolii noi fără a-i examina critic. Nu eram obișnuiți cu pluralismul, cu agree to disagree, cu drepturile omului, economia de piață, semitonuri. Habar nu aveam. În schimb eram învățați că există un singur adevăr. Ca societate, și acum suntem repetenți la acest capitol. Poate de asta e o cărțulie importantă pentru noi: să-l înțelegem pe Celălalt.

[Jan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is difficult to maintain integrity as a prosecutor who can barely hold his position against the charm and intelligently wrapped lies of a former dictator against whom a trial is being held. Barnes has provided an intriguing and surprisingly evolving cast of roles in the trial, which enjoys very high public interest. It is a novel to think about. Beautifully played out. JM

[Julia Rubtsova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant as always (well, almost always)

[Jonathan Pool · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anticipating his new novel Elizabeth Finch in 2022, the publicity blurb for Julian Barnes promises: “His work explores themes of history, philosophy, truth and love.” . The Porcupine was the first of Barnes’s novels that I have read that focuses on history. That’s said, its history with the human touch and introspection that is Barnes familiar (for example in The Only Story ).

The book sleeve informs the reader that The Porcupine ‘was first published in Bulgarian under the title Bodlivo Svinche’. That tells you the (unnamed) country on which this fictional is based.
Reading this at a time when Putin in Russia is seemingly set on re-annexing land and countries which moved away from the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s, its particularly relevant. Barnes wrote the book in 1992 so Gorbachev’s perestroika was very recent (Gorbachev’s name comes up in The Porcupine several times), and an appreciation of the quality of this work needs to take account of the times in which it was written, I think.

The book is set around a court room and the submissions (with plentiful advice in his ear, and the appearance of hitherto unseen documents) of State Prosecutor, Peter Solinsky, and the former President (for thirty three years), Stoyo Petkanov.
It's an interesting battle of wills in which the two men grapple with their private anxieties while presenting a more managed face to the public (who are watching the trial live on television).
I thought Barnes managed the exchanges between the two men well- to the extent that it was possible to examine both perspectives on the effects of the Soviet Union philosophy. It’s a story of corruption and coercion set against a vision of a better world. Petkanov cites Marx as he mounts his defence of socialism/communism and the present situation (meaning the breakdown of the union) is merely a first step as part of inevitable historical determinism, he muses.

The story is not, though, academic critique in novel form. Barnes throws in some amusing anecdotes to lighten the tone of the book. For example, Petkanov supposedly sleeps with a wild geranium under the bed (his superstition).
The latter part of the book contains a roll call of honours bestowed upon Petkanov, and personal commendations he received from world leaders. This catalogue of awards runs to ten pages in the book. It’s so ridiculous that’s its amusing.
Poignantly the Alyosha monument (a recurring reference throughout the book) retains its allure for some, and this symbol starts and concludes the story.

The Porcupine does not seem to have received a lot of love judging from the reviews on Goodreads and its relative obscurity within Barnes’s catalogue. It exceeded my expectations

[Kirsty · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have read around four of Barnes’ books to date, and simply cannot make my mind up as to whether I enjoy him as an author. Some of his works have definitely been better than others, although I must admit that my favourite so far has been The Sense of an Ending, which I only gave a three-star rating. I borrowed The Porcupine from the library because it looked interesting and was relatively short. I must admit that I wasn’t overly sold on it.

I liked the idea of a crumbling Soviet state described in the blurb far more than I enjoyed Barnes’ execution. He can definitely write, but The Porcupine simply did not grab me at all. It might perhaps had been better had it been longer, but if I’m honest, I’m not sure I would have had the patience to complete it had that been the case. This novella could have presented some originality, but it read like rather a dull semi-historical account. There is no real flair to the piece, as I have found with the majority of Barnes’ books which I have read. To cut a long story short, he is an author whom I’m going to move to my ‘please avoid in order to avoid reading disappointment’ pile.

[Sanja · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ima tih knjiga koje su dosadne ali su dobro napisane, pa ih ne možeš odbaciti. E, pa, Bodljikavo prase nije dosadno (ok, jeste na momente) ali sama tema (post socijalističko društvo i suđenje bivšem predsedniku) mi nije naročito privlačna. Međutim, Barns je užasno dobar pisac. I Paunović je isto toliko dobar prevodilac. Lepe rečenice, proste i složene u isto vreme, predivan stil. Plus, svaki put kad čitam Barnsa imam osećaj da nema oblasti koju taj čovek ne poznaje. On sve zna, ne pametuje.

Sve u svemu, veoma dobra knjiga. Ne bi mi bila prva preporuka za Barnsa, ali eto. Uživala sam.

[Natia Morbedadze · Rating 3 out of 5]

ჯულიან ბარნსის ინტერესი საბჭოეთის მიმართ ჯერ კიდევ "დროის ხმაურიდან" გვახსოვს. თუ იქ დიმიტრი შოსტაკოვიჩის შიშით სავსე ყოფაზე გვიყვებოდა, ამჯერად საბჭოთა ბლოკის ერთ-ერთი ქვეყნის (დეტალებით ადვილად ამოვიცნობთ ბულგარეთს) ცვლილებების ხანა აირჩია და ჩვენს თვალწინ "საჩვენებელი სასამართლო პროცესის" ფონზე გააცოცხლა ორი მხარის დაპირისპირება - ყოფილი პრეზიდენტის, რომელიც წლების მანძილზე ადგილობრივ რეჟიმს ("დიდი ძმის" სატელიტს) ედგა სათავეში (რას ნიშნავს ეს და რისი ჩამდენია ასეთი ადამიანი, ჩვენ არ გვესწავლება) და თავი გმირად უნდა წარმოაჩინოს და ახალი დემოკრატიული სახელმწიფოს გენერალური პროკურორის, რომელმაც ნელ-ნელა უნდა დაივიწყოს კომუნისტური ბავშვობა, ახალგაზრდობა და მტკიცებულებების არქონის პირობებში სამაგალითოდ დასაჯოს "ბელადი".

[Cathérine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Julian Barnes beschrijft het (moeizame) proces van een afgezette partijleider in een Oost-Europese staat. De wrange relatie tussen de partijleider en de openbaar aanklager, die het spel volgens de regels wil spelen maar bijna niet op kan tegen de leugens en de zelfverzekerdheid van de partijleider.
Iets heel anders dan wat ik tot nu toe gelezen heb van Barnes maar zeker niet minder interessant.

[Magdalena Revlis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cartea de față este unul dintre cele mai bune exemple, pentru mine cel puțin, de a înțelege ideologia socialismului. Deși romanul lui Barnes se încadrează la ficțiune, povestea fiind plasată într-o țară fictivă, ideea de la care s-a pornit a fost una genială.
Procesul de condamnare a unui fost conducător comunist, după căderea regimului. Narațiunea merge pe două planuri întrepătrunse, condimentate cu anumite comentarii făcute de un grup de tineri ce urmăresc cu interes ”Procesul Penal Numărul 1”.
Mi-a plăcut în mod deosebit jocul de-a șoarecele și pisica/ Fostul lider comunist Petkanov îl pune în mare dificultate pe procurorul-șef Solinski, pozând într-un fel sau altul într-o victimă a propriului sistem. Pe de altă parte Solinski, însărcinat cu o condamnare răsunătoare, deși verdictul îl cunosc toți, trebuie să demonstreze lumii că fostul lider e exact monstrul pe care toți îl cunosc și îl judecă.
Subscriu acestei idei: „O bijuterie de satira politica: plina de forță, amuzantă și înfricoșătoare.“ (Robert Harris).

[Aljoša · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5
It is well written, but it's not as interesting as the other works of Julian Barnes. But it's certainly much better than "Before she met me". And the topic is different. What I do like is how Barnes never takes a side. We see the pros and cons of communism/socialism as well as democracy.

[Florin Pitea · Rating 3 out of 5]

An ironic reversal of Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon". Worth reading and keeping.

[Bahadır Eren · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Stalin Kirov'u öldürtmüştü: Modern dünyaya hoş geldiniz."
Üzerine uzun uzun düşündüğünüzde ne kadar doğru ve mükemmel bir cümle. Üzerine sayfalarca makale yazılabilinir...

[Karn Kher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Barnes is just so readable. Complex enough but not incomprehensible. There is a sense of never-ending wheel of time budding flowering maturing drooping of society to this book. A person broken a nation reborn.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this short novel was published in 1992 and contains numerous references to world events and figures from the 1980s, it feels fresh and relevant more than three decades later, due in part to the excellence of Barnes's writing, but also to its focus on weighty themes - justice, truth and reconciliation, personal responsibility and integrity - that are as significant in today's political world order as they were in the days of the fall of the Soviet Union and the communist states of eastern Europe. But The Porcupine is not a ponderous book: just as long as it needs to be, incisive in its characterization, and with a wryly but not cynically satirical stance. One minor weakness: largely a two-hander consisting of verbal confrontations between former leader Petkanov and prosecutor Solinsky, and trial scenes with choric comments from a group of citizens watching on TV, at times I felt that it could have been a stage play rather than a novella.

[Kris McCracken · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Porcupine is a novel by Englishman Julian Barnes that was originally published in Bulgarian [ Бодливо свинче]. This should give us a very strong clue as to the identity of which post-communist country the story takes place.

The novel concerns the trial of the former communist leader of Bulgaria, and its effects on both the central protagonists of that trial, as well as the broader community. The real strength of the book is the complexity of its characters. There is no clear ‘black and white’ here and the tones in which the former dictator and the new democratic government’s representatives are painted are very much grey. Barnes has done an excellent job of overcoming the certainties of Cold War triumphalism and creating human characters (especially given that the book was released in 1992, with events still very fresh in the mind).

The point of the book seems to be more than exploring complexities of a particular political moment (although it does do this incredibly well). It surveys the ambiguities of our own motives and self-interests; the ways in which ‘justice’ can and can’t be had; and ultimately the net effect of forty years of totalitarian rule on a people who just want to get on with their lives.

As ever, Barnes writes very well. He has an acute sense of history and the central premise of the prosecution of the former dictator as, in effect; another ‘show trial’ is one with amply demonstrated. That is, the trial represents an edifying exercise in ‘democratic accountability’ just as stage-managed and self-serving as any of the show trials conducted under the Communists.

I think that this book is a great success, and should be of interest to both fans of history and good literature. Highly recommended.

[Ярослава · Rating 4 out of 5]

Зацікавлення Барнза ділами нашими східноєвропейськими і скорбними, що докотилося до українського читача перекладом "Шуму часу", насправді сягає на 20 років у минуле, коли він написав "Їжака" (в сенсі, похідне від "єжових рукавиць"). Початок 1990-х у пострадянській країні, безнадійна зима й епоха, пам'ятники тягають туди-сюди, бульвари обрамляють голі дерева й стовпи (дерева чекають весни, щоб обрости листям, стовпи - політичної стабільності, коли до них приколотять нові назви вулиць). У столиці судять колишнього правителя країни, який понад 30 років вів її до світлого соціалістичного майбутнього.

Я, звичайно, заздрю британцям та іншим людям з історично благополучніших країн, для яких це суто інтелектуальна вправа. Для них від часів, нмд, Кромвеля це все дуже абстрактно, вони можуть бавитися в те, чи відрізняється чимось відкритий процес над людожером від відкритого процесу, який той людожер організовував? чи можна судити людожера за натягненими обвинуваченнями у корупції (за якими найпростіше винести обвинувачувальний вирок) і чи не перетвориться це на судилище, якщо насправді йдеться радше про необхідність зробити висновки й винести (чи не винести) вирок цілій системі?

Себто роман дуже гарний і дуже тривожний, але я надто українка, щоб бути його цільовою авдиторією.

[David Sogge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Today, a quarter-century after its publication, there is something oracular about this book. The collapse of communist party rule in Eastern Europe, slightly more than a quarter-century ago, has proven to be a mixed blessing. Writing in the immediate aftermatch of the collapse, Barnes captured the ambivalent feelings and mixed motives at play. As his characters recollect and dispute their roles in this little country's past (the ex-strongman ticks off the fulsome honours bestowed upon the him by foreign powers, for example, while young people make coarse sotto voce remarks about him and his subservience to those powers), Barnes hints at a vulnerable post-communist order that would deliver less than advertised. He could foresee that Eastern Europe's greyish past was not going to be eclipsed by a bright future. In this nuanced, prescient book, everyone's propaganda falls under shadows of doubt.

[Kim Hakkenberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intriguing little book about the fall of one of the communist dictators in eastern Europe.... you get to guess which one!

[Sergiu Pop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read it in one sitting. It was a good book, especially if you come from an ex-communist country.
Really says some things about human nature.

[Ferran Benito · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this short but compelling novella, Julian Barnes portrays the end of Communism through the fall and trial of Stoyo Petkanov, a fictive version of the Bulgarian dictator Todor Zhikov.

Intelligently, Barnes stages the story adopting three different points of view: that of Petkanov, imprisoned and defending himself before the court, that of Peter Solinsky, General Prosecutor in charge of the case, and that of four students who witness all the proceeding on TV and act as commentators of the dialectical clash. Thus, the author gives voice to three main standpoints of that historical moment: the old communist ideas embodied by Petkanov; the democratic perspective of the new (or rather recycled) leading figures; and finally, the global perception of common people, who take part in the events only passively and from a distance.

Julian Barnes wisely avoids oversimplification and manicheism and doesn't create a ridiculous Dictator Petkanov, but rather a smart and sly one; a bit cynical perhaps, yet also devoted to some extent to his principles. Barnes does that to such an extent that the discussions between Petkanov and Solinsky, together with the psychological depictions of both of them, are some of the most brilliant passages of the book: while Petkanov is convinced of the strength of his ideas, Solinsky doesn't find so easy to condemn him as he thought before hand.

Following this contrast, it is interesting how the author suggests that merely overthrowing a bad and corrupt government is not enough to guarantee that what will come next will be better, and that it is not easy to uproot bad governance and corruption and have clean start without being stained.

Moreover, as Barnes highlights, it would be insincere to consider that everybody accepted the dictatorship out of fear and not out of conviction. That is precisely what the shrewd Petkanov conveys in his last encounter with Solinsky when he asks: "Tell me, Peter, [...] do you think me a monster?' [...] 'Either I am a monster or I am not. Yes? If I am not, then I must be someone like you, or someone you might be capable of becoming. Which do you want me to be? It is up to you to decide. [...] If I am a monster, I will come back to haunt your dreams, I will be your nightmare. If I am like you, I will come back to haunt your living days. Which do you prefer?'".

A brief and sharp reflection that summarises the moral dilemma and burden of those countries that, having lived in a dictatorship, need to face their ghosts and learn from them.

[Mariana David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Prima încercare de a citit ceva de Barnes. I-am pus 2* pentru ca pentru mine subiectul e bine cunoscut și nu m-a prins. Scrierea autorului totuși îmi place. Mai am vreo 2 cărți de-a lui Barnes și nu mă voi opri la aceasta ca să îmi fac o părere finală despre scrierile lui.

[Christopher Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable account and dissection of the criminal trial that followed the overthrow of a Communist dictator in Eastern Europe. Makes some clever comments on the provability of the biggest crimes, and on what you have to do if you want to win.