![]() |
|
Book Description
Here is a book about a man, supposedly a writer, who tries to write a novel, because he promised his readers he would. But he doesn’t have anything to say. He keeps erasing what he writes, and rewriting it, without having the slightest idea where he’s going with it. Soon enough he realizes that looking out of the window, sitting in front of his typewriter, describing anything and everything, is not enough to write a novel. His three friends, Edmond, Edgar, and Edouard, will aid him in his task . . .
Pigeon Post will be the second book Dalkey Archive has published by the Romanian writer Dumitru Tsepeneag (after the critically acclaimed Vain Art of the Fugue), and we will be publishing more of his works in the years to come.
This forthcoming title is available for preorder.
About the Author
|
Dumitru Tsepeneag is one of the most innovative Romanian writers of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1960 and '70s, he and the poet Leonid Dimov led the country's only literary movement in opposition to the official socialist realism. In 1975, while he was in France, his citizenship was revoked by Ceausescu, and he was forced into exile. In the 1980s, he started to write in French. He then returned to his native language after the Ceausescu regime ended, but continues to write in his adopted language as well. |
![]() |
About the Translator
| Jane Kuntz has translated Everyday Life and The Power of Flies by Lydie Salvayre, as well as Hotel Crystal by Olivier Rolin, all of which are available from Dalkey Archive Press. |
Praise
“[Vain Art of the Fugue] is a work of singular invention and joy, a successful experiment in every aspect of the novel, especially delight.”—The Believer“With his metaphors and traps, Dumitru Tsepeneag reminds me of a magician who pulls flowers, animals, and strange objects out of his hat. He lays comical stories over a poignant, and often grim, background.”—Journal de Geneve
“[Tsepeneag] induces the sense that memory, time, and consciousness are both mutable and, ultimately, unknowable.”—Elizabeth Hand, Village Voice
“Reading Romanian writer Dumitru Tsepeneag’s Vain Art of the Fugue is like having a dream, and then remembering it in that diaphanous, vague, next-morning way a dream is recollected. This is a good thing.”—The Quarterly Conversation
I’m looking out the window : black, skeletal trees. White doves, no, gray pigeons among the branches, flying, roosting, feeding, ho hum. A ray of sunshine . . . On the wall enclosing the vast garden, a grand estate, evergreen ivy. The faded red bricks of the house opposite . . . there are several, gray with green or yellow shutters, others whitish. So, back to the bricks . . .
A certain stiffness.
From my window, I have a delightfully lofty view. I live up in a garret, sixth floor, no elevator. I could invite him up. Despite his graying around the temples, he’s not too old to handle the six flights.
The pigeons, if you examine them closely with binoculars: there, that one’s stopped moving, perching motionless, a big one, or fat, or maybe just puffing up in the sun, contented, leaving me time to observe the blue grooves in the wings, the white collar with tiny orange grains, and the purplish skin of its feet. A gray pigeon is never really gray. There’s a fact to put in quotation marks, as if to suggest its future entry into common usage. What matters is how sharp your vision is, and of course, the instruments you use to enhance your visual faculties: I’ve also discovered a little green spot in the middle of the throat, and on the stomach, some yellow down, bright lemony. A little like parrot colors, actually . . .
White doves on black branches. That’s what I should have written, without fretting about oversimplification, which is inevitable in any case.
Alright, I’ll start over. So, here we go, a robust double stroke in the form of an X. Don’t you just love fine-looking rough draft?
I’m gazing out the window: the tree branches in flower. A fine day. The sky is blue, almost green. Why not turquoise? I feel like going out. Quicker to it than I am – it’s the fate of the writer, bogged down in his paperwork, to live in slow motion, pathetic voyeur – punctual, abiding by a kind of tradition, at five o’clock on the dot, Madame Maryse, who lives in the house across the way, is going out to walk her Pekinese.
I’d better first describe the glass canopy above the entrance to the villa situated just opposite my window, but below, of course, I’m on the fifth floor; the villa is lost in the greenery of the estate, with its silly four-stair stoop, its stone weathered away, the lady is clearly afraid as she steps down, especially today since it’s raining, she’s firmly gripping her umbrella, a leash in the other hand, the pooch appears to detest this compulsory outing.
Too bad the windows of the houses don’t have wipers! I pass blind over the steamy glass, moving through the fog. Or maybe I should wait until the weather clears. Alright. This page is in shreds: a mass of cross-outs, circled additions like cartoon bubbles swept along in the general flow with the help of insert wedges, arrows and other correction devices, all of which are threatened at any moment by yet another slash, this time definitive. Definitive?
The preceding sentence is crossed out with a bold, authoritative stroke; but then, no, after a while, it gets revived thanks to dotted lines: disjointedness triumphant, rising Christ-like from the dead!... yet overloading the page with ever more numerous signs, sometimes contradictory . . . I should crumple it up and toss it in the wastebasket. Or copy it over again, make corrections here and there, mending it in such a way that the contradictions get ironed out, more or less: to suggest that, sometimes, dissonance creates harmony, or rather, it allows for a structure, a bit more complicated, I’ll grant, but capable of procuring subtle forms of gratification. But I’m too sluggish . . . And I lack imagination. Not to mention that it might prove unwise to do so: promising the moon and the stars in this nouvelle cuisine lingo is not the best tack for attacking a text. What to do?
I’m adding little drawings, an imp riding a turtle dove, a sunflower, a parasol, a carrot that looks like a dog penis, a stingray.
Start over?
She’s a widow, Maryse.
Birdsong . . . I can hear the cry of night raptors. Rain. I’m alone, and am relishing the solitude. It’s my vice. I write in order to stay alone as long as possible. I keep everything, down to the last doodle. Later on, I’ll decide what to get rid of, for efficiency’s sake. What I mean is, in the dialogue, in the exchange with the public that writing entails . . . Anyway, at least I pay scrupulous respect to punctuation: I swore I would, promised myself. And yet it would be more in keeping with my style, and undoubtedly much simpler, even for the reader, to remove this arbitrary corset. Well, I won’t labor the point. I prefer to think that if someone dares to highlight the arbitrariness of his own text, he’s more likely to escape being accused of arbitrariness. Well, too bad! I’m holding onto everything, even if it’s confusing and I lose my pen (my Bic? – my beak!) in the layers of notes, bits of paper that I can hardly decipher, let alone understand. How to choose among them?
How to process all this raw material, how to rid the pure ore of its slag? Until I come up with some method for purging, or grinding, if not, fusing, I’m transcribing even this expression, this formulation that I’ve found in the margin of a very earliest draft (itself recovered and re-written almost in its entirety): didactic project.
What exactly was I thinking?
The first pages might consist of, might come across more generally as a kind of preface, a forward, let’s say, to the kind readers who scan the page wisely, suspiciously, no, attentively, insightfully, humph, radiantly, hmm, hypocritically, or rather, superficially, yes, dully and lifelessly . . . they thus scan the text while moving their lips imperceptibly, or rather, nodding their head along each line, finding words that instill in them this simple notion: our thoughts, dear friend, are doomed to deletion, our words are but fleeting and never quite right, quite accurate, writing is but the stammering of the soul, that word which, even more than all others, must be read under erasure, of course, and so anything that is in any way related . . .
They used to taunt me, shouting: Stingray-head! Stingray-head!


