One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

[b:გულაგის|17703436|Архипелаг Гулаг|Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1364672837l/17703436._SY75_.jpg|2944012] პირველი 2 წიგნის წაკითხვამ იმედები გამიცრუა და ვიფიქრე სოლჟენიცინს ხელს აღარ მოვკიდებდი, მაგრამ მერე გავიგე რომ ნობელი გულაგისთვის კიარა, ამ მოთხრობებისთვის მისცეს და, მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ნობელი show more ლიტერატურაში ავტორიტეტად არ მიმაჩნია, მაინც რაღაცას ნიშნავს. ხოდა აი, წავიკითხე მაინც და სასიამოვნოდ გაკვირვებული დავრჩი - კარგი მწერალი ყოფილა. თუმცა, ამავე წიგნმა ნათლად დამანახა თუ რატომ მირჩევნია [a:შალამოვი|2905384|Варлам Шаламов|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1408459639p2/2905384.jpg] უპირობოდ:

1. მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ სოლჟენიცინი კარგი მწერალი ჩანს, არ არის გენიალური და სულისშემძვრელი. მისი ისტორიები შეიძლება იყოს პატარა შოკის საფუძველი, მაგრამ მხოლოდ იმიტომ, რომ თვითონ ისტორიაა ჟუტკი. შალამოვი კი გენიოსია და მისი პერსონაჟის დაჩირქებული ფეხი უფრო თავზარდამცემია, ვიდრე სოლჟენიცინთან 1000-ობით დახვრეტილი ადამიანი და პირში ჩაფსმები დაკითხვებზე.

2. შალამოვთან ტრაგედია და საერთოდ ყველაფერი ინდივიდის დონეზეა, სოლჟენიცინის "1 ადამიანის 1 დღე"-ც კი უფრო კოლექტიური ტრაგედიაა და შესაბამისად ნაკლებად "ნამდვილი". მეტიც, სოლჟენიცინთან ამ კოლექტიურ ტრაგედიას აშკარა ეროვნული ნიშნები აქვს და უფრო კონკრეტულად "რუსული სულის" ტკივილია (ყველა სხვა ეროვნების ხალხი აქ თითქოს მხოლოდ რუსი პერსონაჟების ხასიათების გასაშლელადაა, სხვა დანიშნულება არ აქვთ). მე კიდევ მასეთი რამეების არ მწამს, არ მჯერა და опиум для народа-ს კატეგორიაში გამყავს (ეროვნული ნიშნით მიკერძოებულობა რომ არ დამწამოთ, ერთნარი ბოდიალი მგონია "რუსკაია დუშა", "ქართული გენი" და "ემერიქან დრიმ"). შალამოვთან კი, ბაზარი არაა, ფაქტიურად ყველა პერსონაჟი რუსია, მაგრამ მათი ეროვნული თვისებები თვალში არ გეჩხირება და იცი, რომ იგივე სიტუაციაში სხვა ეროვნების ადამიანებზეც ვრცელდება ზუსტად იგივე.

3. ამ კონკრეტული მოთხრობის პერსონაჟი (წიგნში სხვა მოთხრობებიცაა, ზოგი კარგიც) ისეთი ტიპია, რომ იცი არ დაიკარგება და უფრო ნაკლებად შეგტკივა გული. და მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ეს კრებითი პერსონაჟია რამდენიმე ადამიანის, მაინც ავტორისა ყველაზე მეტი აქვს და კარგად ჩანს როგორ ცხოვრობდა სოლჟენიცინი გულაგში. სხვა მოთხრობებიც ხაზს უსვამს მაგას, როცა საჭიროა ბლატნოიცაა, ხალხის დაკერვაც შეუძლია, იცის საიდან მიუდგეს ყველაფერს და კიდევ ერთხელ დასტურდება შალამოვისვე სიტყვები, რომ გულაგი [უკვე იქიდან გამოსვლის მერე] სოლჟენიცინისთვის საქმეა და მასალა და არა გადატანილი ტკივილი. შალამოვის პერსონაჟებს კიდე ყველას პაგალოვნად დანძრეული აქვს და ზუსტად ის პროცესია საინტერესო თუ როგორ კარგავს იქ ადამიანი ადამიანობას და არა ის, თუ როგორ მოერგება ადამიანი ამ სიტუაციას - ასეთი ტიპები ყველგან არიან და არ უნდა ამას გულაგი. ობიექტურობისთვის დავამატებ, რომ შალამოვს "ივან დენისოვჩი" ძალიან მოსწონდა, როგორც ჩანს მერე და მერე სოლჟენიცინმა ამის დონის არაფერი რომ არ დაწერა და თავის პრაგმატულ საქმიანობას რომ მიაწვა, ეგ გაუტყდა (მგონი სამართლიანადაც).

კარგი წიგნია მოკლედ, იმდენადაც კარგი, რომ შეიძლება [b:გულაგის|17703436|Архипелаг Гулаг|Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1364672837l/17703436._SY75_.jpg|2944012] დანარჩენი წიგნებიც წამაკითხოს ოდესმე. show less

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich should be required reading. When everything you read and hear and watch is stained with a hyper-politicized Us v. Them mentality, it's enlightening to see what true tyranny looks like. Starting with the author's bio ("In 1945 [Solzhenitsyn] was arrested and imprisoned in a labor camp for eight years because he had allegedly made a derogatory remark about Stalin."), the book highlights the mindless brutality of a true totalitarian state. Solzhenitsyn masterfully depicts Shukov's powerlessness as he struggles just to fill his stomach, stay warm, and avoid notice. He shows the petty corruption that permeates the prisoners' lives, the payoffs to guards and mail clerks and cooks just to get a portion of show more what's rightfully theirs. He gives you reason to hate them the way the prisoners do. Simultaneously he shows the shared misery, revealing that in spite of warmer clothes and better food the guards suffer at the camp too. There is a bond between the prisoners and their tormentors that rings true as they help each other in small ways, such as the guards taking only a portion of the prisoners' purloined scraps of firewood so that both groups can have some warmth in their sleeping quarters. The power of this book lies in the irony of Shukov's feeling of content with this almost happy day as Solzhenitsyn grimly reminds us that his protagonist will serve ten years worth of these almost happy days. show less

The most striking aspect of this novel is its ability to extract humanity from the minutiae of what would otherwise be an expectedly harrowing experience of the Soviet Gulag. Make no mistake, it is still a recount of the latter, but Solzhenitsyn manages to highlight this by the very act of juxtaposing it with what a "great" day Ivan Denisovich manages to have despite his circumstances.

Every day is torturously the same but some days, instead of one bowl of unfilling gruel, you might get two; instead of being sent to work outdoors exposed to -27 degrees, you get to build a wall - and a good job of it too! - inside an uninsulated, windowless, doorless house; instead of receiving a care package from your family whom you haven't seen for show more eight years because you'd rather they benefit than the officials you'd have to bribe to receive the package, you might get a bit of a sausage from someone else's for doing them a favour.

And it's days like these that allow you to stash a little bit of what passes for bread inside your mattress. And it's days like these that allow your hidden bread to be overlooked in the daily checks by the guards. And it's days like these that makes Solzhenitsyn's message even more powerful than it'd be if he went the worst or even the most average day of Ivan Denisovich's sentence. And what a great day it is. show less

"Almost a happy day."--Ivan Deisovich Shokhov

There is no doubt that the Siberian gulags, implemented under Stalin who, it has been estimated, killed 7 million of his own people, were absolute horrors. But in this novel, depicting just one day, no one dies. They are merely grossly mistreated while serving ten and twenty-five year sentences for minor, sometimes illogical infractions. For example, men were sent to the gulag after surviving a Nazi camp. They were sent to the gulag because they had spent time around "foreigners" in those camps and thus could not be trusted. (There's Stalin's famous paranoia for you.) Whatever the infraction, the prisoners at the end of their sentences, if they lived to see that day, will either be exiled, show more have more years tacked on, or they will be dead. None will ever go home again and they know it.

This day, a day in 1951, nothing extraordinarily horrific happens: the camp's 400 men are merely under-clothed, under-fed. Like all the days before and the days after, they spend this day freezing, working, and hungry. And being counted.

What I found discombobulating was how I reacted to the story. It was awful, God yes, but it didn't invoke tears or major fear. There are men easily given to violence in the camp but this day no one is grossly assaulted. Tragedies are mentioned in passing without hyper focus or sting, told off-screen, so to speak.

Rather, the day is spent by the main character, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, being careful, being wily. He has figured out how to survive one more day, and this day with tiny additions of luxury: another 6 ounces of bread, an extra bowl of thin cabbage soup, and a cigarette.

In my reading journal, I even made a list from his thoughts of survival which I titled, "Rules for Surviving the Gulag," which included:

"...you never put your feet near the flame if you're wearing boots," "...never be conspicuous. The main thing was never to be seen by a camp guard on your own, only in a group..." and "When you work for the knowing you gave them quality; when you worked for a fool you simply gave him eyewash."

Dozens of small things like those meant the difference between living another day or starting your spiral toward terrible misery and then inevitably, terrible death. No one can save you.

This novel--based on Solzhenitsyn's own years in labor camps--made a big impact in the Soviet Union and in the world when it was published in 1962, approved by Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin now dead and no hero of Khrushchev's. It was the first time the Stalin Terrors were openly acknowledged. A couple of years later the novel became banned again after Khrushchev was ousted in 1964, but the cat was out of the bag. Solzhenitsyn continued secretly writing and publishing outside of the USSR. In 1970, Solzhenitsyn was award the Nobel Peace Prize, which gave him a whole new set of political headaches, and exile.

Very complicated, all that.

That makes me wonder if that is why the novel seemed to pull its punches.

Or was there some other subversive message from Solzhenitsyn? Was it a message to the Soviet government about its short-sightedness toward its own valuable resources? (Ivan Denisovich Shukhov was a kulak, one of the thousands of peasants who had their lands taken from them and made into collectives). Was the message that the true strength of the Union was the hard working and skilled people, a major resource they stupidly abused and murdered by the millions?

In the Afterword, Eric Bogosian writes, "The individual cannot detach himself from the matrix of his society." In this case, it was the societal matrix of the USSR and equally the matrix of the gulag.

P.S. Hey 2024, the good guys don't create thousands of interment camps. show less

The real significance of this novel lies in its exposure of the political system that fostered and supported the gulags of Soviet Russia. The writing is stark and matter-of-fact, just like the life of the gulag. It is weighty and yet there is no despair in the character of Shukhov. He brims with hope and appreciation. He is grateful when the weather is warm enough that the mortar doesn’t freeze. “It is a good day for bricklaying” he says.

What offence lands a man in such a prison? Very small infractions or none at all can draw a ten years sentence, and frequently that is extended, again without any explanation or reason. The injustice of the system is paled against the suffering inflicted in the camp, being worked at hard labor in show more freezing conditions, without proper clothing, with little food, and without any possibility of escape or rescue.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that prisoners become used to this life and come to value the small bits of joy they can squeeze from a crust of bread or a tobacco butt passed to them by a more fortunate inmate. And yet, that is what speaks to the spark of humanity that even these kinds of conditions cannot stifle...where there is hope there is life, without it how could any of them endure even a "good" day. show less

My favorite passage in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is when the titular character sees an older man sit down across from him in the mess hall. The man has clearly been through numerous camps and prisons, and he is described in a few sentences as being worn down, but not broken. As I was reading, I heard the ghosts of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy licking their chops. Had this man featured in one of their tomes, his description would be followed by a 10-page slobberfest over the Russian people or the current state of Russia as a whole or something of that ilk. Instead, Solzhenitsyn simply states, "However, [Ivan] couldn't go on watching the old man - he had other things to do." Take that, verbosity.

The rest of the novel plays out in show more the same way. There is never anything particularly flowery (In the introduction, Yevgeny Yevtushenko alleges that this is partially due to the translation, but I don't quite buy that) and in a book about life in a Siberian labor camp, that's probably how it should be. The language is all straightforward, and only hiccup for me was the occasional shift in pronouns. After not appearing anywhere in the first half, "we" begins to appear in places that feel awkward or just wrong. I don't know if Solzhenitsyn was alluding to his own experiences as a prisoner when he would drop a "we" but it wasn't consistent enough to work.

Throughout the story, the reader is always waiting for the other shoe to drop on Ivan, but it never does. He gets some extra food, doesn't get busted during the pat-down, and buys some high-quality tobacco without incident. What makes his story heartbreaking is how pitiful his "good day" was and how few days would ever be like this one, and what brings a grain of hope is his attitude, a combination of realism and a determination to survive. He may not go home anytime soon (or ever), but he'll approach tomorrow in the same way he did today, and that will keep him alive.

If you're looking for a reminder of the importance of perspective, check this one out. However, as Yevtushenko points out in the introduction, the influence of Solzhenitsyn's novel in the West was far more political in nature than literary. Throw it on the list, don't expect too much, and don't forget to take off your hat five paces before you reach a guard. show less

What was life like for political prisoners in Stalin era Soviet labor camps? You could read a memoir and let a former prisoner tell you. Or you could read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and let Solzhenitsyn show you. Readers follow Ivan Denisovich Shukov through a typical day sometime in January from morning to evening roll call. Shukhov and his fellow prisoners exist in the bottom tier of Maslow’s hierarchy, and it’s painful to experience even vicariously.

I’d like to think that the Soviet labor camps are a thing of the past and that what’s depicted in this book would not be possible in the 21st century. I’d like to think that, but human nature hasn’t really changed in the seventy-some years since Stalin’s death.