Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of censorship in literature
Heart of a dog bulgakov allegory
Effects of censorship in literature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of censorship in literature
This paper seeks to review the themes found in the book entitled Heart of a Dog, which has been authored by Mikhail Bulgakov. In summary, the themes of the book are a satirical representation of the state of affairs in the Soviet Union under the leadership of Joseph Stalin. The book was written during the era in which censorship was in full force throughout the country. Mikhail was therefore forced to write his book in a satirical and subtle manner in order to himself from the dictatorial leadership (Bulgakov, 1988). To begin with, the theme that Mikhail expresses in the book entails that of creation. This is a major theme, and it is evident throughout the story. The theme of creation is exemplified through the acts of Philip Philippovich Preobrezhensky, …show more content…
Mikhail displays the dire state of economic affairs that the Soviet downfalls that the author outlines in the story include a shortage of proper housing facilities, crisis of food shortage for the people of Soviet Union as well as high levels of poverty. The socio-economic policies formulated and implemented at the time were only meant to benefit the rich economic. Nobody cared about the welfare and standard of living of the people below the middle class further displaying how lost the leadership of the country was (Bulgakov, …show more content…
Mikhail wrote the book at a time when censorship was practiced throughout the corners of Soviet Union. People were not allowed to express divergent opinions and views with regard to the leadership of the country. Only views deemed positive to the revolutionary approach that was taking place in Russia were permitted. Mikhail, therefore, shades light into the stringent measures that were taken to curb critics of the government of the day from expressing their views freely. In addition, the theme expounds on the lack of privacy that the people of Russia were facing during the reign of Stalin. The intrusion of private privacy was seen as a norm in the mainstream society (Bulgakov,
This was, of course, only a humorous exaggeration, a case of political satire. Yet beneath the humor, there lies a very profound testament to the belief that Russia's political culture has been inherited from its czarist days and manifested throughout its subsequent development. The traditions from the pre-Revolution and pre-1921 Russia, it seems, had left its brand on the 70-years of Communist rule. The Soviet communism system was at once a foreign import from Germany and a Russian creation: "on the one hand it is international and a world phenomenon; on the other hand it is national and Russian…it was Russian history which determined its limits and shaped its character." (Berdyaev, "Origin")
The use of mass terror was one of the most representative characteristics of the Stalinist regime. The Gulag embodied the constant and large scale use of fear by the Bolsheviks to administer the population. Varlam Shalamov’s Kolyma Tales and Fyodor Mochulsky’s Gulag Boss stood out by their treatment of the question. While relating the same events, namely the daily routine of an arctic Gulag, these two works dealt with this topic from two diametrically opposed perspectives. Indeed, Shalamov was a political prisoner for seventeen years while Mochulsky was a supervisor in the camp. Therefore, their experience of the Gulag diverged in nearly every aspect. Furthermore, Mochulsky and Shalamov pursued different designs. On the one hand, Shalamov attempts to depict the Gulag’s ability to dehumanize prisoners. On the other hand, Mochulsky wrote his book after the fall of the USSR. As a former guard, he attempted to justify his past behavior, not to say exonerate himself.
Mau, Vladimir. " The road to 'perestrokia': economics in the USSR and the problem of
Yuri Trifonov chronicled the life of a Soviet conformist named Vadim Aleksandrovich Glebov in his novel, “The House on the Embankment.” Vadim Glebov leads a life in support of the Soviet Union’s tyranny and oppression of human rights in order to gain the high social status and power he envied beginning in childhood. The novel is a narrative that revolves around Glebov’s education and success, and it depicts what life was like as a Soviet citizen between the 1930’s and 1970’s. Through Glebov’s revealed repressed memories, we see the ultimate example of conformity.
Before the Stalin, the Soviet Union was backward, medieval type country full of unmade roads and people who lived without electricity in wooden homes. The Five Year Plans changed thi...
In the late 1930’s while the United States was going through The Great Depression the Soviet Union was going through its own turbulent times. This would be known as the Moscow Show Trials, which took place under the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. The book Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler takes place during this time period. The main character Nicholas Rubashov has been imprisoned even though he always has been loyal to the goals of the party (Koestler). This showed a shift that was happening in the country and an attempt by Stalin to eliminate any possible opposition even if they were heroes in the revolution. In the text two different concepts come to light vivisection morality where the party comes before the individual and anti-vivisection morality where the individual is sacred. Rubashov in the beginning does not embrace individualism however throughout the novel he begins to adopt individualism that he refers to as grammatical fiction. Vivisection morality is never a justifiable political system. Suppressing the rights of human beings is not only inhumane but also counter productive in creating an effective and wealthy society.
Anton Chekhov’s Selected Stories portray the Russian people as they were not how he wished they were; which is why he never “lived in his works”. Instead Chekhov acted as a moral compass for the Russian generation. His brilliance laid on the reliance of “impressionistic realism” and the ever-present after mass of the official end of serfdom in (1861), allowing him to encompass more aspects of Russian life. His stories are under constant study because of the individuality of his writing techniques. While Chekhov's use of irony, characterization and imagery provides insight into 19th-century Russia, it is through characterization that we understand the minds of contemporary Russians.
The arena for this ideological contest is Petersburg, full of slums, revolutionary students and petty titular councilors. Scientifically and artificially constructed in the midst of marshland, the city itself is a symbol of the incompatibility of logical planning with humankind's natural sensibilities. The city did not grow randomly or organically, but entirely by czarist decree. Nonetheless, it is a dank and depressing place to live, at least for those in the vicinity of Haymarket Square, where the story takes place. Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky's biographer, says of ...
The general perspective of the Soviet Union was that the country was a dictatorship, specifically, an oppressive, brutal, top-down autocracy that guided all aspects of life of its people. From grocery stores having set quantities of goods, only purchasable by ration card, to strict, set times of work and off-duty hours, to censored press, The Soviet Union was indeed a dictatorial state. However, the people of the Soviet Union did not simply fall into line with the established rules of society- They had diaries, they wrote down their opinions about the government or their job, they wrote detailed memoirs of their life within the USSR. The people of the Soviet Union had some freedom, and it was even codified in the Constitution of 1936. Yet, scholars and most people in general still widely accept the notion that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship. The question then arises: Why did the Soviet people have freedom, otherwise known as sociological ‘agency,’ to denounce others or write down their views about society, if the country was perhaps one of the most totalitarian and dictatorial countries to exist in human history? By analyzing Totalitarianism as scholars perceive it, as well as the Soviet system, along with examples from the people of the USSR, one will be able to realize that totalitarianism set the rules for society within the Soviet Union and provided its people with a distribution of power, which was used by those that understood the system and could act within the framework of the system.
...instead of rebelling against the landlady that oppresses them, Teresa and Faldoni fight among themselves, something contrary to the idea of the proletariat uniting against their masters. In addition, the middle-class poverty is depicted through the death of Gorshkov’s son who dies because of hunger and the impoverished conditions in which his family lives (McDuff 50). In conclusion, as Dostoyevsky expresses his ideas as being submissive to authority, even if it is oppressive, he also demonstrates the poverty in Russia.
In the article “A Dog Who Was Pure Muscle and All Heart”, Ben Rehder explains reasons why he loves Ezzy- a pit bull dog. First, Rehder points out that Ezzy was an awesome companion, where she would do whatever the activity. For example, Ezzy could understand and respond quickly to words like “walk”, “ride”, and “squirrel”. Second, Rehder mentions that Ezzy had some impressive skills. For instance, Ezzy could tear a aluminum can without cutting herself. Last, Rehder states that Ezzy had a lack of killer instinct. As an example, a cat came in the house one day, while expecting a dead cat, it turns out that Ezzy didn’t kill the cat. Instead, Ezzy began to wrestle playfully with the
Evidence that characters managed to maintain their dignity can be found through the author’s use of allegory. The novel is an allegory itself, as on the surface it is one day in the life of a prisoner, but in reality it is meant to be a call to the Soviet
The theme of wealth is much like a veil for A Doll's House and The Cherry Orchard. Although the audience may be inclined to believe that the lack of wealth is the main conflict, both plays refute this with their resolutions. Nora escapes from gender inequality, and Lopakhin destroys the only link to his serf heritage. Indeed, both Ibsen and Chekhov initially provided evidence that wealth is the dominant theme, but freedom was only achieved for Nora and Lopakhin by escaping from their respective social roles, a psychological freedom. This complies with the authors' original purposes - not to comment on wealth, but to promote feminism and examine Russia's class structure.
Furthermore, in the contradiction with the constitution issued in 1936 that gave citizens freedom of speech and stated that, “ No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court,” the Soviet people were denied their rights and treated immorally. This ambience of terror caused Soviet Commander Kolosov to write in 1937, “I am afraid to open my mouth. Whatever you say, if you say the wrong thing, you're an enemy of the people. Cowardice has become the
... of his seventeenth store selling exclusive French men’s shirts and ties, he is considered as a successful demonstration with the new Russia system. It is perhaps because unlike those four, Andrei knows how to adapt to the new society. Instead of lament the collapse and childhood, Andrei moves on. Sharing a contradict viewpoint to Olga, he believes that this new society creates a better living condition. If in the past, nobody was able to achieve his or her dreams; dreams were merely fantasies. The new regime enables the impossible.