The Death of Ivan Denisovich
Like most Americans (and Russians, for that matter), I learned a lot from Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. Russia was a mysterious country when I was growing up, and for most of my childhood the only thing I knew about the place was that they might blow me up and that children in Russia didn't get to decide what they were going to do when they grew up, as I got to do. For these very reasons, I couldn't get enough of Russian literature once I tried some. Crime and Punishment, War and Peace, The Master and Margarita, and, indeed, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Russian novels are a treasure, and I have long treasured them. But, like most Americans, I, too, had a very shallow understanding of Solzhenitsyn. When he came to the US, took up residence in Vermont, and began criticizing the US and the modern world, I was surprised, put off, and then lost interest in what the old man had to say.
But recent obituaries have reminded me that Solzhenitsyn was exactly the thing that a writer has to be -- that his life demonstrated a few essential truths about what writers do, and so, along with everyone else, I would like to pay him tribute.
1. When you read three great novels in a row -- To the Lighthouse, Taras Bulba, Robinson Crusoe -- you are never in danger of mixing them up. Each is utterly distinct, not only in setting and time period, characters and themes, but also in approach. When the writer takes up his subject, he or she does so in his or her own way. He or she can't help it. A novel is a package of idiosyncrasy, individuality. It is the closest a reader comes to reading another person's mind and experiencing something outside of himself or herself.
2. Writers are free. Even writers who don't think about freedom, or don't have to fight for their freedom, are free. They can't help being free, because self-expression is a voluntary act. As soon as any writer begins volunteering for that freedom, he gets in the habit, and can't stop. In this way, he or she CAN become a symbol of freedom in a repressed society, but he or she doesn't have to -- play, pleasure, and enjoyment are other aspects of freedom, and writers give us those, too.
3. A writer makes something of circumstances. What strikes me most forcibly about Solzhenitsyn is that he had a particular life to work with -- his own. Like other Russian writers such as Natalia Ginzburg or Nadezhda Mandelstam, he suffered experiences that we in the west can hardly imagine, and they inspired him. In another era and another time, might he have written drawing room comedies? Maybe. But he did the very same thing that Oscar Wilde did -- he looked around, felt his life coalesce into a story, and he wrote it down. He was true to his unique experience, and so when we read his books, they continue to live for us.
4. He didn't conform to anyone's program. No one could make an ally of Solzhenitsyn, at least for very long. He was prickly, he was opinionated, he was independent, he was peculiar. For this, and this alone, I thank him and honor him.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"A day in the life..." is the antithesis of today's mindlessly obsessive feel-good mania. Some would confuse stark portrayal of a bleak life as being "not uplifting". Well, aiming high, keeping one's head in the stars, up there with the clouds, does make one vulverable to stumbling and ending up in the gutter, injured and vulnerable.
For those interested the 1970 movie staring Tom Courtney as the story's protagonist is a remarkably close in its adherence to the book, itself not a very big book lengthwise, but huge on impact and in exposing the harsh reality of an idealogy feeding on its own foundation.
Anyone, anywhere, who thinks that Marxism works should be required to read Ivan Denisovich.
This is not a defense of out-of-control capitalism, but a statement of how untold millions were betrayed and killed, mangled and oppressed by a pseudo-scientific political philosophy swallowed whole and peddled by many people who should have known better.
Solzhenitsyn was a formative influence on my view of Russia from an early age. He was both a great literary and historical writer with an unswerving dedication to the truth as HE saw it. A true independant mind and modern-day Cyrano de Bergerac. It was that dedication that made his critiques of both the Soviet Bloc and American commercial Capitalism so valid and devastating in their opposite, soul-killing effects. His work introduced me to the poet Anna Ahkmatova among a host of others. I think that it was his unsparing vision in seeing and writing about the world he experienced that, paradoxically, gave hope to me at least. The critiques of his philosophy only serve to show me his total and complete Russianness, the Orthodox mystic, the lover of the land, ala Tolstoy, and the rest put him squarely in the top tier of Russian writers. So rest in peace, Alyosha. I'm sure you're comparing notes with Leo, Fyodor, Nikolai and Alexander and you can feel no shame in their august company.
Pure gold. Moo and November,1916 are two of our favorite books.
The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President
I've read 4 of Alek's books and have another in the pending pile, but One Day still stands out for me as others have said too.
I didn't know he wrote much about the West....so
Funny thing, I used to despise the idea of the Soviet Union in part because of the way their media kept its people in the dark about the rest of the world outside its borders. And now....tha
By his every action, with everything he put to paper, Solzhenitsyn told those in power in the former Soviet Union that "I will not be your dog and I will speak truth to power no matter what you say or do to me." He also made it abundantly clear when he arrived in this country that while he appreciated the many good things that this country has to offer, he did not come here to exchange one master for another. Quite naturally those who were (and still are) unaccustomed to viewing our own country in an unbiased and dispassionate way found his attitude to be 'prickly'--if not downright unfriendly. But Solzhenitsyn was not about to allow himself be used to promote their ideology any more than he could be forced to promote Marxism. He remained true to only one thing--the truth as he saw it. That, and the sanctity of literature. In this he stands shoulder to shoulder with greats of Russian literature and is in every way their equal.
No one died at the hands of Solzhenitsyn.
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn was a giant.
Without his writing about the Gulags and the monsterous Bolsheviks, Americans would still not know that what was done to the Russian people (and the nations which were held captive by the Bolsheviks such as people of BelaRus, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc) far eclipsed the numbers of the holocaust.
Our history classes contained NOTHING about that and in my opinion that was because there were financial and politcal reasons to make Hitler the greatest monster and it was not convenient to teach that Stalin and the Bolsheviks murdered 60 million - FAR surpassing Hitlers numbers.
The costant building of holocaust to the exclusion of events such as the genocide in Ukraine remains so today.
I admire Jane Smiley, but on Solzhenitsyn I must disagree.
The poster who claims that he and Regan were "right" says it all.
When S came to the US he knew nothing about the country and never attempted to learn much.
He preached an ancient stew of religiousity and self-righteousness without real depth or insight.
In no way can he be compared to the great Russian writers who preceded him.
Solzhenitsyn was a monumental and charismatic writer, probably not much more unerstood by masses then Platonov. The masses always preferred the style of fantasy by Bulgakov (or Bible).
Too few people read Solzhenitsyn in Russia or anywhere, he did not write Harry Potter after all thus his level remains unavailable to modern, spoiled, average minds.
I know there are many classic Russian writers who deserve their world class repurtation. But it is Alex's novel I will never forget reading. A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich was a mortal man caught in the gears of a political/military machine that had no soul. But it is the humanity of Ivan that I remember most.
Strange article considering Solzhenitsyn was a major policy factor for Reagan in the late 80's. His was an argument that was polar opposite to the left at the time. US and USSR are morally equal. Obviously in hind site both Solzhenitsyn and Reagan were right. Strange finding this article on this site...but I could not agree more that he needs to be honored.
There was a book by Solzhenitsyn entitled "Letter to the Soviet Leaders" in which he warned that unless their course was altered they would end up with the same fate, the despicable fate of the USA! (if you recall)
Solzhenitsyn was the "darling" of the right wing...unt
Good point, sounds like a mirror image of Chalabi to be honest. It'd be fascinating, and assuredly horrifying, to be able to see W in his own minds eye. Does he dream of world domination or Little League?
Solzhenitsyn's book definitely touched me; Ivan's humanity and relatability were definite literary achievements. Another case where we'll just have to separate the art from the artist, and accept him as the flawed and gifted man he was.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
