One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was written by the Soviet ( and subsequently Russian ) novelist, playwright, historian and the Nobel Laureate in Literature ( 1970 ) , Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It is a book written with the purpose to denounce communist regulation and the subjugations felt by the people under communist regulation, particularly during Josef Stalin ‘s rein. Unlike books with similar subjects like Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is different because it is really based on the personal experiences of the writer Solzhenitsyn, who was a Soviet citizen and an inmate in one of the ill-famed Soviet Union Gulags ( Prison Camp ) . Since George Orwell was ne’er a Soviet citizen, his plants with respects to this subject tend to miss the strong emotions that can be felt in Solzhenitsyn ‘s work. Another of Solzhenitsyn ‘s monumental plants ; The Gulag Archipelago portions an equal step of celebrity as the book that we will be looking at today.
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich concentrates on the battle of one adult male, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, as he attempts to last another twenty-four hours in a Soviet Gulag. Despite the inhospitable and rough conditions that he encountered throughout his stay, he however attempted to draw through it with self-respect. In order to last until their release, inmates have to wholly trust on each other ‘s humor and wisdom, for even the most basic demand for life, nutrient. The inhumane conditions of the Gulag, in a instead dry manner forces inmates to happen agencies to retain their individualism while staying to the rigorous spoken and mute regulations of the cantonment.
For this piece of essay, I will be trying to demo how Solzhenitsyn attempts to portray how society in the Soviet Union really was, by comparing the society to a Gulag, through the supporter, Shukov every bit good as some other characters in this work, Tsezar, Fetyukov, Tyurin and Alyoshka.
Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, the supporter of this piece of work is a hapless and illiterate adult male who belonged to the pre revolution peasant category, a common man, a Proletariat. He represents the bulk of Soviet citizens at that clip, when the policy of free instruction was often interrupted by the unrest that plagued the beginning of the Soviet Union, every bit good as the Second World War. Shukhov ‘s intense battle shows us this nonreader common man ‘s firmness and self-respect in the face of dehumanising interventions and conditions. His speedy credence of his destiny and individuality in the Gulag and strength in which he commits to working and life is admirable. I believe that by portraying Shukhov in such a mode, Solzhenitsyn has got two points that he wants to set across. First he wants to pay an indirect silent testimonial to the bulk of the Soviet on the job category for their resiliency in the face of such troubles. I believe he besides wants to alarm the universe on how “ encephalon washed ” Soviet citizens are ; they are virtually enslaved and yet they still work and live with such energy. At the same clip, he is besides grudgingly demoing a sense of regard on how effectual the Soviet governments could change a individual in such a manner, that he or she will experience proud of the terminal merchandise of the undertakings that was assigned to them as penalty. An illustration can be seen, when Shukhov worked on a brick wall, he is so intently focused on it “ as though he owned every inch of it ” . Although he is technically a slave, in this small country of his being, he reigns supreme.
Tsezar is the Russian word for Caesar, and as the name suggests, he is a instead good connected single and a member of the upper category. Besides having fringe benefits such as eating with the prison officers in the prison office and having nutrient bundles from the outside universe, Tsezar was besides accorded the privilege of have oning a pelt chapeau. In such cold and nutrient scarce conditions, this is the ultimate privilege any of the captives can of all time woolgather of having. Tsezar is the direct antonym of what Shukhov represents and in my sentiment, Solzhenitsyn portrayed Tsezar in such a mode so as to do him touch to the lip service of the Soviet Union ‘s establishing rule of “ equality for all ” . With such discriminatory interventions, Tsezar ‘s life the Gulag is made a batch more endurable when compared to his fellow captives. Hence, his penalty in a sense is a batch less terrible, when compared to that of his fellow inmates. This therefore makes the jurisprudence biased towards Tsezar and therefore “ unequal ” to all. At the same clip, it shows the arbitrary side of Soviet jurisprudence, where penalties and wagess are dished out at the caprice of the Law implementing constitution.
Traveling on, we see Fetyukov as a instead unpopular individual among his fellow captives. He is described by Solzhenitsyn as a shameless mendicant who has got non one spot of self-respect left in him. Solzhenitsyn ‘s contempt for Fetyukov is instead evident. Fetyukov in some ways represents a section of the population who are willing to give up their ego regard and self-respect, in order to accomplish endurance. From this we can see that despite being a Socialistic province, societal ailments such as imploring are present in the Soviet society. On a side note, we can see that Solzhenitsyn dislikes lazy people who abhor difficult work in favour of an easy manner out, imploring.
The Gulag ‘s Camp chief Tyurin is portrayed as a tough and unmerciful adult male who has a bosom of rock. To the captives, he is the panic of the Gulag. In the narrative Shukov describes Tyurin as person who “ did n’t even squinch as he stood looking into the air current. His tegument was like the bark of an oak ” . Taking into history that the temperature in the Gulag is about negative 30 grades centigrade, this illustration shows how tough a individual Tyurin was. A surprise turn in the narrative occurred when Tyurin, after a good twenty-four hours of work decided to state Shukov and friends about his yesteryear. It turned out that Tyurin was the boy of Kulak ( A affluent provincial ) and despite his parts to the Soviet Army during the Second World War ; he was however punished by Stalin ‘s authorities on the evidences of “ association with an unwanted ” , this is so because, Stalin explicitly ordered the entire rub out of anyone who belonged to the Kulak category. After Tyurin was dishonorably discharged from the Army, he was ab initio left to hunger to decease but with some speedy thought he managed to mouse onboard a place edge train with the aid of several female pupils who “ conceal me ( him ) under their coats ” . After he was caught in one of the purgings he was sent to the Gulags foremost as a captive and so as a prison officer. Although he is now an officer, his life is no better than that of the inmates because foremost, he is an guiltless adult male who is condemned to a long life of adversity and agony because of his household ‘s societal position. Second, from the book we can see that unlike the captives, the chumminess between the Prison guards is about none existent and this will merely decline Tyurin ‘s already suffering province of being. By making a character like Tyurin, I believe that Solzhenitsyn wants to demo us the human face of the employees of the Soviet justness system, and to force across the message that no 1 is genuinely free in the Soviet Union and to emphasize one more clip about the unfairness of the justness system at that place.
Under the Soviet Constitution, freedom of spiritual worship is guaranteed. However I reality, this is non put into pattern. Hence, I believe Solzhenitsyn created the character, Alyoshka to exemplify this fact. Alyoshka is best described as a devout spiritual figure with a altruistic bosom. And as Shukov notes that although, “ Alyoshka, ne’er earned a thing, but ( he still ) did favours for everybody ” In kernel, Alyoshka is in the Gulag because he is a priest ; a farther damning of the Soviet Union ‘s self contradictory fundamental law.
From the five characters that I have chosen to analyze in this piece of work, we can acquire the image that Solzhenitsyn is seeking to convey to the readers, about life in the Soviet Union ; a society in ironss, where justness is dished out in an arbitrary and inconsistent mode. A society governed by prevarications and subjugation, where the authorities ‘s influence pervades every individual corner of society.
Word Count: 1500
Bibliography & A ; Works Cited
Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn ( Author ) , John Bayley ( Translator ) , H. T. Willetts ( Translator ) ( 1995 ) One twenty-four hours in the life of Ivan Denisovich, Everyman ‘s Library
Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn ( Author ) , Ronald Harwood ( Translator ) ( 1971 ) The devising of One twenty-four hours in the life of Ivan Denisovich, Ballantine Books
Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn ( Author ) , The Glencoe literature library ( Translator ) ( 2000 ) One twenty-four hours in the life of Ivan Denisovich and related readings, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill
Lukas, George ( 1971 ) Alexander Solzhenitsyn, MIT Press ( Cambridge, MA )
“ 1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR ( Adopted December 1936 ) ” hypertext transfer protocol: //www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons02.html # chap04 ( accessed 21st June 2010 ) ( Note: Sometimes referred to as “ Stalin ‘s Constitution ” )
Andropov, McDean, Tan, Wong & A ; Zhou. Book Discussion Session on “ One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich ” . Private Reading Club.
Singapore City. 15th July 2010.
A particular note to the examiner/s:
Greetings to you! You may detect that I have included different versions of the same book. An illustration will be “ One twenty-four hours in the life of Ivan Denisovich ” by Everyman ‘s Library, Ballantine Books and Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. Please note that this is knowing.
For translated plants, I prefer to read the same book, but by different transcribers, so as to acquire a better thought of the original thought or significance that the writer wishes to convey in the plants original linguistic communication of composing.