Ivan Denisovich

1491 Words3 Pages

In the novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the author’s intention to communicate the state of the Soviet Union can be examined from several aspects. The novel has a third person narrative that enables the audience to see the entire picture by being exposed to more background information, rather than just the protagonist Shukhov’s limited knowledge. Also the fact that the novel is fiction based on the author’s experience in the camp suggests that the scenes, characters and information depicted in the novel all have a significance in communicating a message to the audience about the state of the Union in the compacted time period of a day. The characters in the novel undertake an important role to reflect and …show more content…

Among them, many occupations in the field of arts can be observed, which conveys the Soviet authority’s regime to create a deceitful external image. The author Solzhenitsyn’s technique to use a third person narrative gives the audience access to Shukhov’s actions, emotions and background information that would not be available to the protagonist himself. At the beginning of the day, the audience is introduced to Vdovushkin, a zek who had been a student of literature before being convicted and worked as the doctor’s assistant in the camp. The narrator explains that Stepan Grigorych, the doctor who advocated work therapy ‘wanted him to write when in prison what he’d been given no opportunity to write in freedom (p.22)’. The author’s technique to explain the relationship between Stepan and Vdovushkin through a third person narrative conveys Solzhenitsyn’s intentions to demonstrate the conflict that the liberals had to deal with: to obey the authorities by praising the Soviet Union’s external success, or to express their speculation about the real state of the country and risk getting imprisoned for it. The situation that the liberals were placed in conveys how the Soviet authorities suppressed the citizens, taking away the opportunity from those like Vdovushkin to communicate opinions that questioned their way of running the country in order to embellish their reputation, influencing communicators …show more content…

The majority of the zeks in troupe 104 were middle class men with mediocre occupations such as an office worker, a soldier or a fisherman. Shukhov was a soldier who was able to escape the German captivity but was forced to testify that he had committed ‘high treason (p.58)’ which he had not. The narrator explains that, ‘If he didn’t sign he’d be shot. If he signed he’d still get a chance to live, (p.59)’. From this, the Soviet government’s lack of support towards their soldiers, fear of internal treason and measures to acquire free labour can be observed. Although the reason for Senka’s conviction is not mentioned in the novel, it is explained that he was captured and escaped German captivity three times and that now he was serving his sentence in the Soviet Union. Because his situation is similar to Shukhov’s, it is likely that he had also been convicted of high treason. During the scene where Shukhov is trying to catch up to his team before dinner, the narrator says that ‘Senka would never leave anyone in a jam, (p.92)’. This information demonstrates Solzhenitsyn‘s intentions to inform the audience that he is a loyal man, suggesting it is hardly likely that he would betray his own country to become a spy. Also the fact that ‘one of his eardrums had been smashed in ’41 (p.45)’ eliminates the possibility of Senka being a useful spy.

Open Document