Characteristics of the work “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” by A. Solzhenitsyn. History of the creation and appearance in print of A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s work “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” (First version) The original title of the story One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn served almost a third of his prison camp term - from August 1950 to February 1953 - in the Ekibastuz special camp in northern Kazakhstan. There on general works, and on a long winter day the idea of ​​a story about one day of one prisoner flashed through. “It was just such a camp day, hard work, I was carrying a stretcher with my partner and I thought how I should describe the whole camp world“one day,” the author said in a television interview with Nikita Struve (March 1976). “Of course, you can describe your ten years of the camp, the entire history of the camps, but it’s enough to collect everything in one day, as if from fragments; it’s enough to describe only one day of one average, unremarkable person from morning to evening. And everything will be.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” [see. on our website its full text, summary and literary analysis] written in Ryazan, where Solzhenitsyn settled in June 1957 and from the new school year became a teacher of physics and astronomy in high school No. 2. Started on May 18, 1959, completed on June 30. The work took less than a month and a half. “It always turns out like this if you write from a dense life, the way of which you know too much, and it’s not that you don’t have to guess at something, try to understand something, but only fight off unnecessary material, just so that the unnecessary is not climbed, but it could accommodate the most necessary things,” the author said in a radio interview for the BBC (June 8, 1982), conducted by Barry Holland.

While writing in the camp, Solzhenitsyn, in order to keep what he wrote secret and himself along with it, first memorized only poetry, and at the end of his term, dialogues in prose and even continuous prose. In exile, and then rehabilitated, he could work without destroying passage after passage, but he had to remain hidden as before in order to avoid a new arrest. After retyping it on a typewriter, the manuscript was burned. The manuscript of the camp story was also burned. And since the typewriting had to be hidden, the text was printed on both sides of the sheet, without margins and without spaces between the lines.

Only more than two years later, after a sudden violent attack on Stalin launched by his successor N. S. Khrushchev at the XXII Party Congress (October 17 - 31, 1961), A.S. ventured to propose the story for publication. “Cave Typescript” (out of caution - without the name of the author) on November 10, 1961 was transferred by R.D. Orlova, the wife of A.S.’s prison friend, Lev Kopelev, to the prose department of the magazine “ New world"Anna Samoilovna Berzer. The typists rewrote the original, Anna Samoilovna asked Lev Kopelev, who came to the editorial office, what to call the author, and Kopelev suggested a pseudonym at his place of residence - A. Ryazansky.

On December 8, 1961, as soon as the editor-in-chief of Novy Mir, Alexander Trifonovich Tvardovsky, appeared at the editorial office after a month’s absence, A. S. Berzer asked him to read two difficult manuscripts. One did not need a special recommendation, at least based on what I had heard about the author: it was the story “Sofya Petrovna” by Lydia Chukovskaya. About the other, Anna Samoilovna said: “The camp through the eyes of a peasant, a very popular thing.” It was this that Tvardovsky took with him until the morning. On the night of December 8-9, he reads and rereads the story. In the morning, he dials up the chain to the same Kopelev, asks about the author, finds out his address, and a day later calls him to Moscow by telegram. On December 11, on the day of his 43rd birthday, A.S. received this telegram: “I ask the editors of the new world to come urgently, expenses will be paid = Tvardovsky.” And Kopelev already on December 9 telegraphed to Ryazan: “Alexander Trifonovich is delighted with the article” (this is how the former prisoners agreed among themselves to encrypt the unsafe story). For himself, Tvardovsky wrote down in his workbook on December 12: “The strongest impression last days- manuscript of A. Ryazansky (Solonzhitsyn), whom I will meet today.” Real name Tvardovsky recorded the author's voice.

On December 12, Tvardovsky received Solzhenitsyn, calling the entire editorial board to meet and talk with him. “Tvardovsky warned me,” notes A.S., “that he did not firmly promise publication (Lord, I was glad that they did not hand it over to the ChekGB!), and he would not indicate a deadline, but he would not spare any effort.” Immediately the editor-in-chief ordered to conclude an agreement with the author, as A.S. notes... “at the highest rate accepted by them (one advance is my two-year salary).” A.S. earned “sixty rubles a month” by teaching.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn. One day of Ivan Denisovich. The author is reading. Fragment

The original titles of the story were “Shch-854”, “One Day of One Prisoner”. The final title was composed by the editorial office of Novy Mir on the author’s first visit, at the insistence of Tvardovsky, “throwing assumptions across the table with the participation of Kopelev.”

According to all the rules of Soviet apparatus games, Tvardovsky began to gradually prepare a multi-move combination in order to ultimately enlist the support of the country’s main apparatchik, Khrushchev - the only person, who could authorize the publication of the camp story. At Tvardovsky’s request, written reviews of “Ivan Denisovich” were written by K. I. Chukovsky (his note was called “Literary Miracle”), S. Ya. Marshak, K. G. Paustovsky, K. M. Simonov... Tvardovsky himself compiled a brief preface to the story and a letter addressed to the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR N. S. Khrushchev. On August 6, 1962, after a nine-month editorial period, the manuscript of “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” with a letter from Tvardovsky was sent to Khrushchev’s assistant, V. S. Lebedev, who agreed, after waiting for a favorable moment, to introduce the patron to the unusual work.

Tvardovsky wrote:

“Dear Nikita Sergeevich!

I would not consider it possible to encroach on your time on a private basis. literary work, if not for this truly exceptional case.

We are talking about the amazingly talented story by A. Solzhenitsyn “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.” The name of this author has not been known to anyone until now, but tomorrow it may become one of the remarkable names in our literature.

This is not only my deep conviction. The unanimous high assessment of this rare literary find by my co-editors for the New World magazine, including K. Fedin, is joined by the voices of other prominent writers and critics who had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with it in manuscript.

But due to the unusual nature of the life material covered in the story, I feel an urgent need for your advice and approval.

In a word, dear Nikita Sergeevich, if you find an opportunity to pay attention to this manuscript, I will be happy, as if it were my own work.”

In parallel with the progress of the story through the supreme labyrinths, routine work with the author on the manuscript was going on in the magazine. On July 23, the story was discussed by the editorial board. A member of the editorial board, and soon Tvardovsky’s closest collaborator, Vladimir Lakshin, wrote in his diary:

“I see Solzhenitsyn for the first time. This is a man of about forty, ugly, in a summer suit - canvas trousers and a shirt with an unbuttoned collar. The appearance is rustic, the eyes are set deep. There is a scar on the forehead. Calm, reserved, but not embarrassed. He speaks well, fluently, clearly, with an exceptional sense of dignity. Laughs openly, showing two rows of large teeth.

Tvardovsky invited him - in the most delicate form, unobtrusively - to think about the comments of Lebedev and Chernoutsan [an employee of the CPSU Central Committee, to whom Tvardovsky gave Solzhenitsyn's manuscript]. Let’s say, add righteous indignation to the kavtorang, remove the shade of sympathy for the Banderaites, give someone from the camp authorities (at least an overseer) in more conciliatory, restrained tones, not all of them were scoundrels.

Dementyev [deputy editor-in-chief of Novy Mir] spoke about the same thing more sharply and straightforwardly. Yaro stood up for Eisenstein, his “Battleship Potemkin.” He said that even from an artistic point of view he was not satisfied with the pages of the conversation with the Baptist. However, it is not the art that confuses him, but the same fears that hold him back. Dementyev also said (I objected to this) that it was important for the author to think about how his story would be received by former prisoners who remained staunch communists after the camp.

This hurt Solzhenitsyn. He replied that he had not thought about such a special category of readers and did not want to think about it. “There is a book, and there is me. Maybe I’m thinking about the reader, but this is the reader in general, and not different categories... Then, all these people were not in general work. They, according to their qualifications or former position, usually got jobs in the commandant’s office, at a bread slicer, etc. And you can understand Ivan Denisovich’s position only by working in general work, that is, knowing it from the inside. Even if I were in the same camp, but observed it from the side, I would not have written this. If I hadn’t written it, I wouldn’t have understood what kind of salvation work is...”

A dispute arose about that part of the story where the author directly speaks about the position of the katorang, that he - a sensitive, thinking person - must turn into a stupid animal. And here Solzhenitsyn did not concede: “This is the most important thing. Anyone who does not become dull in the camp, does not coarse his feelings, perishes. That's the only way I saved myself. I’m scared now to look at the photograph as I came out of it: then I was fifteen years older than now, and I was stupid, clumsy, my thought worked clumsily. And that’s the only reason I was saved. If, as an intellectual, I was internally tossing around, nervous, worried about everything that happened, I would probably die.”

During the conversation, Tvardovsky inadvertently mentioned a red pencil, which at the last minute could erase something or other from the story. Solzhenitsyn became alarmed and asked to explain what this meant. Can the editor or censor remove something without showing him the text? “To me the integrity of this thing is more valuable than its printing,” he said.

Solzhenitsyn carefully wrote down all comments and suggestions. He said that he divides them into three categories: those with which he can agree, even believes that they are beneficial; those that he will think about are difficult for him; and finally, impossible - those with which he does not want to see the thing printed.

Tvardovsky proposed his amendments timidly, almost embarrassedly, and when Solzhenitsyn took the floor, he looked at him with love and immediately agreed if the author’s objections were well founded.”

A.S. also wrote about the same discussion:

“The main thing that Lebedev demanded was to remove all those places in which the kavtorang was presented as a comic figure (by the standards of Ivan Denisovich), as he was intended, and to emphasize the partisanship of the kavtorang (one must have “ positive hero"!). This seemed to me the least of the sacrifices. I removed the comic, and what remained was something “heroic,” but “insufficiently developed,” as critics later found. Now the captain's protest at the divorce was a little inflated (the idea was that the protest was ridiculous), but this, perhaps, did not disturb the picture of the camp. Then it was necessary to use the word “butts” less often when referring to the guards; I reduced it from seven to three; less often - “bad” and “bad” about the authorities (it was a bit dense for me); and so that at least not the author, but the kavtorang would condemn the Banderaites (I gave such a phrase to the kavtorang, but later threw it out in a separate publication: it was natural for the kavtorang, but they were too heavily reviled anyway). Also, to give the prisoners some hope of freedom (but I couldn’t do that). And, the funniest thing for me, a Stalin hater, was that at least once it was necessary to name Stalin as the culprit of the disaster. (And indeed - he was never mentioned by anyone in the story! This is not accidental, of course, it happened to me: I saw Soviet regime, and not Stalin alone.) I made this concession: I mentioned the “mustachioed old man” once...”

On September 15, Lebedev told Tvardovsky by phone that “Solzhenitsyn (“One Day”) has been approved by N[ikita] S[ergeevi]ch” and that in the coming days the boss would invite him for a conversation. However, Khrushchev himself considered it necessary to enlist the support of the party elite. The decision to publish One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was made on October 12, 1962 at a meeting of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee under pressure from Khrushchev. And only on October 20 did he receive Tvardovsky to report the favorable result of his efforts. About the story itself, Khrushchev remarked: “Yes, the material is unusual, but, I will say, both the style and the language are unusual - it’s not suddenly vulgar. Well, I think it's a very strong thing. And, despite such material, it does not evoke a heavy feeling, although there is a lot of bitterness there.”

Having read “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” even before publication, in typescript, Anna Akhmatova, who described it in “ Requiem“The grief of the “hundred-million people” on this side of the prison gates, she said with emphasis: “I must read this story and learn it by heart - every citizen out of all two hundred million citizens of the Soviet Union."

The story, called a story by the editors in the subtitle for weight, was published in the magazine “New World” (1962. No. 11. P. 8 – 74; signed for publication on November 3; advance copy was delivered to the editor-in-chief on the evening of November 15; according to Vladimir Lakshin, mailing started on November 17; on the evening of November 19, about 2,000 copies were brought to the Kremlin for the participants of the plenum of the Central Committee) with a note by A. Tvardovsky “Instead of a preface.” Circulation 96,900 copies. (with the permission of the CPSU Central Committee, 25,000 were additionally printed). Republished in “Roman-Gazeta” (M.: GIHL, 1963. No. 1/277. 47 pp. 700,000 copies) and as a book (M.: Soviet Writer, 1963. 144 pp. 100,000 copies). On June 11, 1963, Vladimir Lakshin wrote: “Solzhenitsyn gave me the hastily released “One Day...” by “Soviet Writer.” The publication is truly shameful: gloomy, colorless cover, gray paper. Alexander Isaevich jokes: “They released it in the GULAG publication.”

Cover of the publication “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” in Roman-Gazeta, 1963

“In order for it [the story] to be published in the Soviet Union, it took a confluence of incredible circumstances and exceptional personalities,” noted A. Solzhenitsyn in a radio interview on the 20th anniversary of the publication of “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” for the BBC (June 8, 1982 G.). – It is absolutely clear: if Tvardovsky had not been the editor-in-chief of the magazine, no, this story would not have been published. But I'll add. And if Khrushchev had not been there at that moment, it would not have been published either. More: if Khrushchev had not attacked Stalin one more time at that very moment, it would not have been published either. The publication of my story in the Soviet Union, in 1962, was like a phenomenon against physical laws, as if, for example, objects began to rise upward from the ground on their own, or cold stones began to heat up on their own, heating up to the point of fire. This is impossible, this is absolutely impossible. The system was structured this way, and for 45 years it had not released anything - and suddenly there was such a breakthrough. Yes, Tvardovsky, Khrushchev, and the moment - everyone had to get together. Of course, I could then send it abroad and publish it, but now, from the reaction of Western socialists, it is clear: if it had been published in the West, these same socialists would have said: it’s all lies, none of this happened, and there were no camps, and there was no destruction, nothing happened. It was only because everyone was speechless because it was published with the permission of the Central Committee in Moscow that it shocked me.”

“If this [submission of the manuscript to Novy Mir and publication at home] had not happened, something else would have happened, and worse,” A. Solzhenitsyn wrote fifteen years earlier, “I would have sent the photographic film with camp things - abroad, under the pseudonym Stepan Khlynov , as it had already been prepared. I didn’t know that in the best case scenario, if it were both published and noticed in the West, not even a hundredth of that influence could have happened.”

The publication of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is associated with the author’s return to work on The Gulag Archipelago. “Even before Ivan Denisovich, I conceived the Archipelago,” Solzhenitsyn said in a television interview with CBS (June 17, 1974), conducted by Walter Cronkite, “I felt that such a systematic thing was needed, a general plan of everything that was , and in time, how it happened. But mine personal experience and the experience of my comrades, no matter how much I asked about the camps, all the fates, all the episodes, all the stories, was not enough for such a thing. And when “Ivan Denisovich” was published, letters to me exploded from all over Russia, and in the letters people wrote what they had experienced, what they had. Or they insisted on meeting me and telling me, and I started dating. Everyone asked me, the author of the first camp story, to write more, more, to describe this whole camp world. They did not know my plan and did not know how much I had already written, but they carried and brought me the missing material.” “And so I collected indescribable material, which cannot be collected in the Soviet Union, only thanks to “Ivan Denisovich,” summed up A.S. in a radio interview for the BBC on June 8, 1982. “So it became like a pedestal for “The Gulag Archipelago”.

In December 1963, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was nominated for the Lenin Prize by the editorial board of the New World and the Central State Archive of Literature and Art. According to Pravda (February 19, 1964), selected “for further discussion.” Then included in the list for secret voting. Didn't receive the award. Laureates in the field of literature, journalism and publicism were Oles Gonchar for the novel “Tronka” and Vasily Peskov for the book “Steps on the Dew” (“Pravda”, April 22, 1964). “Even then, in April 1964, there was talk in Moscow that this story with the vote was a “rehearsal for a putsch” against Nikita: would the apparatus succeed or not succeed in withdrawing a book approved by Himself? In 40 years they have never dared to do this. But they became bolder and succeeded. This reassured them that He Himself was not strong.”

From the second half of the 60s, “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was withdrawn from circulation in the USSR along with other publications by A.S. The final ban on them was introduced by order of the Main Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press, agreed upon with the Central Committee of the CPSU, dated January 28, 1974 Glavlit’s order No. 10 of February 14, 1974, specially dedicated to Solzhenitsyn, lists the issues of the magazine “New World” containing the writer’s works that are subject to removal from public libraries (No. 11, 1962; No. 1, 7, 1963; No. 1, 1966) and separate editions of “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, including a translation into Estonian and a book “for the blind”. The order is accompanied by a note: “Foreign publications (including newspapers and magazines) containing the works of the specified author are also subject to seizure.” The ban was lifted by a note from the Ideological Department of the CPSU Central Committee dated December 31, 1988.

Since 1990, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich has been published again in his homeland.

Foreign feature film based on “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”

In 1971, an English-Norwegian film was made based on “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” (directed by Kasper Wrede, Tom Courtenay played Shukhov). For the first time, A. Solzhenitsyn was able to watch it only in 1974. Speaking on French television (March 9, 1976), when asked by the presenter about this film, he answered:

“I must say that the directors and actors of this film approached the task very honestly, and with great penetration, they themselves did not experience this, did not survive, but were able to guess this painful mood and were able to convey this slow pace that fills the life of such a prisoner 10 years, sometimes 25, unless, as often happens, he dies first. Well, very minor criticisms can be made of the design; this is mostly where the Western imagination simply cannot imagine the details of such a life. For example, for our eyes, for mine, or if my friends could see it, former prisoners (will they ever see this film?), - for our eyes the padded jackets are too clean, not torn; then, almost all the actors, in general, are heavy-set men, and yet in the camp there are people on the very verge of death, their cheeks are hollow, they no longer have the strength. According to the film, it’s so warm in the barracks that there’s a Latvian sitting there with bare legs and arms - this is impossible, you’ll freeze. Well, these are minor remarks, but in general, I must say, I’m surprised how the authors of the film could understand so much and with a sincere soul tried to convey our suffering to the Western audience.”

The day described in the story occurs in January 1951.

Based on materials from the works of Vladimir Radzishevsky.

The work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn’s “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” has a special place in literature and public consciousness. The story, written in 1959 (and conceived in the camp in 1950), was originally titled “Shch-854 (One Day of One Prisoner).” Solzhenitsyn wrote about the idea of ​​the story: “It was just such a camp day, hard work, I was carrying a stretcher with a partner and thought: how should I describe the entire camp world - in one day... it’s enough to collect in one day as if from fragments, it’s enough to describe only one the day of one average, unremarkable person from morning to evening. And everything will be.” The genre of the story was determined by the writer himself, thereby emphasizing the contrast between the small form and deep content of the work. The story was called “One Day...” by A.T. Tvardovsky, realizing the significance of Solzhenitsyn’s creation.

The image of Ivan Denisovich was formed based on the character real person, soldier Shukhov, who fought with the author in the Soviet-German war (and never went to prison), the general experience of prisoners and the author’s personal experience in the Special camp as a mason. The remaining persons are all from camp life, with their authentic biographies.

Ivan Denisovich Shukhov is one of many who fell into the Stalinist meat grinder and became faceless “numbers.” In 1941, he, a simple man, a peasant who fought honestly, found himself surrounded and then captured. Having escaped from captivity, Ivan Denisovich ends up in Soviet counterintelligence. The only chance to stay alive is to sign a confession that he is a spy. The absurdity of what is happening is emphasized by the fact that even the investigator cannot figure out what task the “spy” was given. That’s what they wrote, just a “task.” “Counterintelligence beat Shukhov a lot. And Shukhov’s calculation was simple: if you don’t sign, it’s a wooden pea coat; if you sign, you’ll at least live a little longer. Signed." And Shukhov ends up in a Soviet camp. “...And the column went out into the steppe, directly against the wind and against the reddening sunrise. Naked white snow lay to the edge, to the right and to the left, and there was not a single tree in the whole steppe. A new year began, the fifty-first, and in it Shukhov had the right to two letters...” So it begins - after the exposition, the scene of the prisoners rising in a cold barracks, the hasty absorption of empty gruel, the renewal of the camp number "Shch-854" on a padded jacket - a working day imprisoned peasant, former soldier Shukhov. There is a column of people in pea coats, with rags wrapped around their bodies, this poor protection from the icy wind - washed foot wraps with slits, masks of bondage on their faces. How can you find a human face among the closed numbers, most often zeros? It seems that the person in it has disappeared forever, that everything personal is drowning in the depersonalizing element.

The column is not just walking among the bare white snow, against the reddening sunrise. She walks in the midst of hunger. The descriptions of the feeding of the column in the dining room are not accidental: “The table leader does not bow to anyone, and all the prisoners are afraid of him. He holds thousands of lives in one hand...”; “The brigades are pressed up... and they’re marching towards the fortress”; “...the crowd is swaying, suffocating themselves - to get the gruel.”

The camp is an abyss into which the unfortunate fatherland of Solzhenitsyn’s heroes has fallen. What is happening here is a gloomy, bestial act of self-destruction, the “simplicity” of devastation. The accusatory power of Solzhenitsyn’s work lies in its depiction of the ordinariness of what is happening, the habit of inhumane conditions.

Ivan Denisovich is from the breed of “natural”, “natural” people. He resembles Tolstoy's Platon Karataev. Such people value, above all, immediate life, existence as a process. It seems that everything in Shukhov is focused on one thing - just to survive. But how to survive and remain human? Ivan Denisovich succeeds in this. He did not succumb to the process of dehumanization, resisted, and retained his moral foundation. The “almost happy” day did not bring any special troubles, this is already happiness. Happiness is the absence of unhappiness in conditions that you cannot change. They didn’t put you in a punishment cell, you didn’t get caught during a search, you bought some tobacco, you didn’t get sick—what else? If such a day is happy, then what are the unlucky ones?

Shukhov lives in harmony with himself, he is far from introspection, from painful thoughts, from questions: for what? Why? This integrity of consciousness largely explains its resilience and adaptability to inhuman conditions. Ivan Denisovich’s “naturalness” is associated with the hero’s high morality. They trust Shukhov because they know that he is honest, decent, and lives according to his conscience. Shukhov's adaptability has nothing to do with opportunism, humiliation, or loss of human dignity. Shukhov remembers the words of his first foreman, the old camp wolf Kuzemin: “This is who dies in the camp: who licks the bowls, who hopes for the medical unit, and who goes to knock on the godfather.” Shukhov works conscientiously in the camp, just as if he were free, on his collective farm. For him, this work contains the dignity and joy of a master who masters his craft. While working, he feels a surge of energy and strength. He has a practical peasant thrift: he hides his trowel with touching care. Work is life for Shukhov. The Soviet regime did not corrupt him, could not force him to slack off and shirk. The way of peasant life, its age-old laws turned out to be stronger. Common sense and sober look for life help him survive.

The author writes with sympathy about those who “take the hit.” This is Senka Klevshin, Latvian Kildigis, captain Buinovsky, assistant foreman Pavlo and foreman Tyurin. They do not lose their temper and do not waste words, just like Ivan Denisovich. Brigadier Tyurin is a “father” to everyone. The life of the brigade depends on how the “interest” is closed. Tyurin knows how to live himself and thinks for others. The “impractical” Buinovsky tries to fight for his rights and receives “ten days of strict detention.” Shukhov does not approve of Buinovsky’s action: “Groan and rot. But if you resist, you will break.” Shukhov with his common sense and Buinovsky with his “inability to live” are opposed by those who “do not take the blow”, “who evade it.” First of all, this is film director Cesar Markovich. He has a fur hat sent from outside: “Caesar greased someone up, and they allowed him to wear a clean city hat.” Everyone is working in the cold, but Caesar is sitting warm in the office. Shukhov does not condemn Caesar: everyone wants to survive. One of the hallmarks of Caesar's life is "educated conversation." The cinema that Caesar was involved in was a game, i.e. a fictitious, unreal life, from the point of view of a prisoner. The reality remains hidden to Caesar. Shukhov even feels sorry for him: “He probably thinks a lot about himself, but he doesn’t understand life at all.”

Solzhenitsyn singles out another hero, not named - “a tall, silent old man.” He spent countless years in prisons and camps, and not a single amnesty touched him. But I didn’t lose myself. “His face was exhausted, but not to the weakness of a disabled wick, but to the point of a hewn, dark stone. And from his hands, large, cracked and black, it was clear that he had not had much time in all his years of being a moron.” “Assholes” - camp “aristocrats” - lackeys: barracks orderlies, foreman Dair, “observer” Shkuropatenko, hairdresser, accountant, one of the KVCHs - “the first bastards who sat in the zone, these hard workers considered these people lower than crap.”

In the person of the “kindly”, patient Ivan Denisovich, Solzhenitsyn recreated the image of the Russian people, capable of enduring unprecedented suffering, deprivation, bullying and at the same time maintaining kindness towards people, humanity, condescension towards human weaknesses and intransigence towards moral vices. In the finale of “One Day...” Shukhov, not without mocking the truth-seeker Baptist Aleshka, appreciates his call: “Of all earthly and mortal things, the Lord commanded us to pray only for our daily bread: “Give us this day our daily bread.” “To rations, then? - Shukhov asked.”

One Day of Ivan Denisovich grows to the limits of a whole human life, to the scale of the people's destiny, to the symbol of an entire era in the history of Russia.

conceived when I was in the winter of 1950-1951. in the Ekibazstuz camp. He decided to describe all the years of imprisonment in one day, “and that will be all.” Original title story - the writer's camp number.

The story, which was called “Shch-854. One day of one prisoner,” written in 1951 in Ryazan. There Solzhenitsyn worked as a teacher of physics and astronomy. The story was published in 1962 in the magazine “New World” No. 11 at the request of Khrushchev himself, and was published twice as separate books. This is Solzhenitsyn's first published work, which brought him fame. Since 1971, editions of the story were destroyed according to the unspoken instructions of the Party Central Committee.

Solzhenitsyn received many letters from former prisoners. He wrote “The Gulag Archipelago” on this material, calling “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” a pedestal for it.

The main character Ivan Denisovich has no prototype. His character and habits are reminiscent of the soldier Shukhov, who fought in the Great Patriotic War Patriotic War in Solzhenitsyn's battery. But Shukhov never sat. The hero is a collective image of many prisoners seen by Solzhenitsyn and the embodiment of the experience of Solzhenitsyn himself. The rest of the characters in the story are written “from life”; their prototypes have the same biographies. The image of Captain Buinovsky is also collective.

Akhmatova believed that every person in the USSR should read and memorize this work.

Literary direction and genre

Solzhenitsyn called “One Day...” a story, but when published in Novy Mir, the genre was defined as a story. Indeed, in terms of volume, the work can be considered a story, but neither the duration of action nor the number of characters correspond to this genre. On the other hand, representatives of all nationalities and segments of the population of the USSR are sitting in the barracks. So the country seems to be a place of confinement, a “prison of nations.” And this generalization allows us to call the work a story.

The literary direction of the story is realism, not counting the mentioned modernist generalization. As the title suggests, it shows one day of a prisoner. This typical hero, generalized image not only a prisoner, but also a Soviet person in general, a survivor, not free.

Solzhenitsyn's story, by the very fact of its existence, destroyed the harmonious concept of socialist realism.

Issues

For Soviet people the story opened up a taboo topic - the life of millions of people trapped in camps. The story seemed to expose Stalin’s personality cult, but Solzhenitsyn mentioned Stalin’s name once at the insistence of the editor of Novy Mir, Tvardovsky. For Solzhenitsyn, a once devoted communist who was imprisoned for scolding “Godfather” (Stalin) in a letter to a friend, this work is an exposure of the entire Soviet system and society.

The story raises many philosophical and ethical problems: human freedom and dignity, the justice of punishment, the problem of relationships between people.

Solzhenitsyn turns to the traditional problem of the little man in Russian literature. The goal of numerous Soviet camps is to make all people small, cogs in a big mechanism. Those who cannot become small must die. The story generally depicts the entire country as a large camp barracks. Solzhenitsyn himself said: “I saw the Soviet regime, and not Stalin alone.” This is how readers understood the work. The authorities quickly realized this and outlawed the story.

Plot and composition

Solzhenitsyn set out to describe one day, from early morning to late evening, ordinary person, an unremarkable prisoner. Through the reasoning or memories of Ivan Denisovich, the reader learns the smallest details of the life of prisoners, some facts of the biography of the main character and his entourage, and the reasons why the heroes ended up in the camp.

Heroes of the story

Shukhov- peasant, soldier. He ended up in the camp for the usual reason. He fought honestly at the front, but ended up in captivity, from which he escaped. This was enough for the prosecution.

Shukhov is the bearer of folk peasant psychology. His character traits are typical of a Russian common man. He is kind, but not without cunning, hardy and resilient, capable of any work with his hands, an excellent craftsman. It’s strange for Shukhov to sit in a clean room and do nothing for 5 minutes. Chukovsky called him the brother of Vasily Terkin.

Solzhenitsyn deliberately did not make the hero an intellectual or an unjustly injured officer, a communist. This was supposed to be “the average soldier of the Gulag, on whom everything falls.”

The camp and Soviet power in the story are described through the eyes of Shukhov and acquire the features of the creator and his creation, but this creator is the enemy of man. The man in the camp resists everything. For example, the forces of nature: 37 degrees Shukhov resists 27 degrees of frost.

The camp has its own history and mythology. Ivan Denisovich recalls how they took away his boots and gave him felt boots (so that he didn’t have two pairs of shoes), how, in order to torment people, they were ordered to pack bread in suitcases (and they had to mark their piece). Time in this chronotope also flows according to its own laws, because in this camp no one had an end to their term. In this context, the statement that a person in a camp is more valuable than gold sounds ironic, because instead of a lost prisoner, the warden will add his own head. Thus, the number of people in this mythological world does not decrease.

Time also does not belong to the prisoners, because the camp inmate lives for himself only 20 minutes a day: 10 minutes at breakfast, 5 at lunch and dinner.

There are special laws in the camp according to which man is a wolf to man (no wonder the surname of the head of the regime, Lieutenant Volkova). This harsh world has its own criteria of life and justice. Shukhov is taught them by his first foreman. He says that in the camp “the law is the taiga,” and teaches that the one who licks the bowls, hopes for the medical unit and knocks “kuma” (Chekist) on others perishes. But, if you think about it, these are the laws of human society: you cannot humiliate yourself, pretend and betray your neighbor.

The author, through the eyes of Shukhov, pays equal attention to all the characters in the story. And they all behave with dignity. Solzhenitsyn admires the Baptist Alyoshka, who does not give up prayer and so skillfully hides a little book in which half the Gospel is copied into a crack in the wall that it has not yet been found during a search. The writer likes Western Ukrainians, Banderaites, who also pray before eating. Ivan Denisovich sympathizes with Gopchik, a boy who was imprisoned for carrying milk to Bandera’s men in the forest.

Brigadier Tyurin is described almost lovingly. He is “a son of the Gulag, serving his second term. He takes care of his charges, and the foreman is everything in the camp.

The former film director Caesar Markovich, the former captain of the second rank Buinovsky, and the former Bandera member Pavel do not lose their dignity in any circumstances.

Solzhenitsyn, along with his hero, condemns Panteleev, who remains in the camp to snitch on someone who has lost his human appearance; Fetyukov, who licks bowls and begs for cigarette butts.

Artistic originality of the story

The story removes language taboos. The country became familiar with the jargon of prisoners (prisoner, shmon, wool, download license). At the end of the story there was a dictionary for those who were lucky enough not to recognize such words.

The story is written in the third person, the reader sees Ivan Denisovich from the outside, his whole long day passes before his eyes. But at the same time, Solzhenitsyn describes everything that happens in the words and thoughts of Ivan Denisovich, a man of the people, a peasant. He survives by cunning and resourcefulness. This is how special camp aphorisms arise: work is a double-edged sword; for people, give quality, but for the boss, show off; you have to try. so that the warden does not see you alone, but only in a crowd.

"One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" summary Solzhenitsyn's stories

The impact of a hammer on the rail near the headquarters barracks at 5 a.m. meant a rise in the prisoner camp. The main character of the story, peasant Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, prisoner number Shch-854, could not force himself to get up, because he was either shivering or aching. He listened to the sounds coming from the barracks, but continued to lie until the guard, nicknamed Tatar, tore off his padded jacket. He announced to Shukhov for not getting up on the rise, “three days of confinement with withdrawal,” that is, a punishment cell for three days, but with a walk and a hot lunch. In fact, it turned out that the floor in the guard's room needed to be washed, so they found the “victim.”

Ivan Denisovich was going to go to the medical unit, but after the “punishment cell” he changed his mind. He learned well the lesson of his first foreman, the camp wolf Kuzemin: he argued that in the camp “he dies”, “who licks the bowls, who hopes for the medical unit” and “knocks” to the authorities. Having finished washing the floor in the guard's room, Shukhov poured water on the path where the camp authorities walk, and hurried to the dining room.

It was cold there (after all, it was 30 degrees below zero outside), so we ate with our hats on. The prisoners ate slowly, spitting out the bones of the fish from which the gruel was cooked onto the table, and from there they were thrown onto the floor. Shukhov did not go into the barracks and did not receive a ration of bread, but this made him happy, because then the bread can be eaten separately - it is even more satisfying. The gruel was always cooked from fish and some vegetables, so it didn’t make you full. For the second course they gave magara - corn porridge. It didn’t add satiety either.

After breakfast, Ivan Denisovich decided to go to the medical unit, but his temperature was low (only 37.2), so the paramedic advised Shukhov to go to work after all. He returned to the barracks, received his ration of bread and divided it into two parts: he hid one in his bosom, and the second he sewed into the mattress. And as soon as he managed to sew up the hole, the foreman called the 104th brigade to work.

The brigade went to its previous work, and not to the construction of Sotsbytgorodok. Otherwise, we would have to go out into a bare snow field, dig holes and string barbed wire for ourselves. This is in thirty-degree frost. But, apparently, their foreman made a fuss and took a piece of lard to someone who needed it, so now other brigades will go there - stupider and poorer ones.

At the exit, a search began: they checked that they did not take food with them. At the entrance to the zone they searched more strictly: they checked that no pieces of iron were brought in. Today it turned out that they check everything down to the undershirt to see if anything unnecessary has been removed. Kavtorang Buinovsky tried to appeal to conscience: he said that the guards do not have the right to undress people in the cold, that they are not Soviet people. For this he received 10 days of strict regime in the BUR, but in the evening, so as not to lose the employee.

In order not to completely freeze after the bustle, Shukhov covered his face with a rag, raised his collar, lowered the front flap of his hat onto his forehead and, together with the column, moved towards the piercing wind. After a cold breakfast, his stomach was growling, and Shukhov, in order to distract himself, began to remember the contents of the last letter from his wife. She wrote that young people strive to leave the village and get a job in the city at a factory or peat mining. Only women carry the collective farm, and the few men who returned after the war did not work on the collective farm: some work on the side, while others have put together an artel of “dyers” and paint pictures using stencils directly on old sheets. Such a picture costs 50 rubles, so “the money is coming in in the thousands.”

The wife hoped that Ivan, after his release, would become such a “painter”, so that they could then get out of poverty, send their children to a technical school and build a new hut instead of a rotten one, because everyone had already built new houses for themselves - not for 5 thousand, as before, but 25. To Shukhov, such easy income seemed dishonest. Ivan Denisovich understood that easily earned money would just as easily go away. Over his forty years, he was used to earning money, albeit hard, but honestly.

He left home on June 23, 1941 to go to war. In February 1942, he was surrounded and then captured by the Nazis - for just two days. Soon the five of them managed to escape, but let it slip that they were in captivity. They, supposedly fascist agents, were put behind bars. Shukhov was beaten a lot to get him to admit what assignment he received, but he couldn’t say it, and the investigator never came up with an idea. To avoid being beaten to death, Shukhov had to sign a lie against himself. I served seven years in the north, almost two years here. I couldn’t believe that a year later he could walk free with his own feet.

To reminisce about his memories, Ivan Denisovich took out a piece of bread and began biting and chewing little by little. Previously, they ate a lot - from the belly, but now the former peasant only realized the real value of bread: even raw, black, it seemed so fragrant. And there are still 5 hours until lunch.

We arrived at an unfinished thermal power plant, and the foreman divided us into groups of fives so that they could push each other on. With their small team, they set up the place of work: they covered the windows with roofing felt to keep the cold out, and lit the stove. Kavtorang and Fetyukov carried the solution on a stretcher, but it was slow. At first Buinovsky could not adjust, and then Fetyukov began to tilt the stretcher and pour out the solution to make it easier to carry up the ladder. The captain got angry, then the foreman assigned Fetyukov to shift the cinder blocks, and sent Alyoshka the Baptist to the mortar.

Shukhov hears screams below. Construction foreman Dair came. They said he used to be a minister in Moscow. He saw that the windows were closed with tar paper and threatened Tyurin with a third term. All the members of the brigade came up: Pavlo raised the shovel with a backhand, healthy Sanka put his hands on his hips - it was scary to watch. The foreman then quietly said to Deru that if he wants to live, he should remain silent. The foreman turned pale, stood away from the ladder, then became attached to Shukhov, as if he were putting a thin seam. You have to take it out on someone.

Finally, the foreman shouted to Deru to get the lift fixed: pay for a wheelbarrow, but they carry mortar and cinder blocks on a stretcher, the work is moving slowly, you can’t earn much money. The foreman always tried to close a good percentage - the rations for at least a week depended on this. For lunch there was the best porridge - oatmeal, and Shukhov managed to “mow” two extra servings. One went to Cesar Markovich, a young film director. He was on special conditions: He received parcels twice a month and sometimes treated his cellmates.

Shukhov happily ate one extra portion himself. Until lunch was over, Brigadier Tyurin talked about his difficult life. Once upon a time he was kicked out of a military school because of his kulak father. His mother was also exiled, and he managed to arrange for his younger brother to join the thieves. Now he regrets that he did not pester them. After such a gloomy story, we left for the laying. Shukhov had his own trowel hidden away, which was easy for him to work with. And today, while building the wall brick by brick, Ivan Denisovich was so carried away by this process that he even forgot where he was.

Shukhov had to level the walls, so only five rows were raised. But they mixed a lot of mortar, so he and Sanka had to continue laying the brickwork. And time is running out, all the other brigades lined up to return to the zone. The foreman was able to explain their lateness, but one person was missing. It turned out that it was in the 32nd brigade: the Moldovan hid from the foreman on the scaffolding and fell asleep. He took away the time of five hundred people - and he heard plenty of strong words, and received a slap on the withers from the brigadier, and the Magyar kicked him in the ass.

Finally the column moved towards the camp. Now the evening bustle is ahead. Padded jackets and peacoats need to be unbuttoned, arms raised to the sides so that clapping at the sides is comfortable. Suddenly Ivan Denisych put his hand in the pocket on his knee, and there was a piece of a hacksaw. During the day I picked it up “out of housekeeping” in the middle of the work area and didn’t even intend to bring it into the camp. And now I have to throw it away, but it’s a pity: I’ll need to make a knife later, either a tailor’s knife or a shoemaker’s knife. If I had decided to pick it up right away, I would have figured out how to bring it in, but now there’s no time. For a hacksaw they could get 10 days in a punishment cell, but that was income, it was bread!

And Shukhov came up with an idea: he hid the scrap in his mitten, in the hope that the mittens would not be checked, and he obsequiously lifted the hems of his pea coat and padded jacket so that they could “sneak around” faster. Luckily for him, the next brigade was approaching, and the warden did not probe the second mitten. The light had already been high in the sky for a month when the 104th entered the camp. Shukhov went into the parcel room to see if there was anything for Tsezar Markovich. He was on the list, so when he appeared, Shukhov quickly explained who it was his turn and ran to the dining room to slurp the gruel while it was hot. And Caesar graciously allowed him to eat his portion. Lucky again: two servings for lunch and two for dinner. I decided to leave four hundred grams of my bread and two hundred grams of Caesar’s for tomorrow, because now I was full.

Ivan Denisovich felt good, and he decided to get some more tobacco from the Latvian. The money he had earned long ago was sewn into the lining. The tobacco turned out to be good: “it’s both tart and fragrant.” In the barracks, many had already laid down on the bunks, but then they came for the cavalry: for the morning incident with the warden - 10 days in a punishment cell in the cold, on bare boards, and the gruel is hot only on the third, sixth and ninth days. You will lose your health for life. Caesar laid out his parcel: butter, sausage, cookies. And then there's the evening check. Shukhov again suggested to Caesar how to hide it better so that it would not be taken away. For this I received two cookies, sugar and a circle of sausage.

Ivan Denisovich fell asleep completely satisfied: today turned out to be an almost happy day. There were a lot of successes: they weren’t put in a punishment cell, they weren’t sent to Sotsgorodok, the interest rate was well closed, Shukhov didn’t get caught on a search, he ate two portions each, and earned extra money. And most importantly, I didn’t get sick.

“One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was written during the period when Solzhenitsyn was doing camp work. A day of harsh life is described. In this article we will analyze the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, consider different sides works – history of creation, problematics, composition.

The history of the creation of the story and analysis of its problems

The work was written in 1959, during a break from writing another major novel, in forty days. The story was published by order of Khrushchev himself in the magazine "New World". The work is classic for this genre, but the story comes with a dictionary of slang words. Solzhenitsyn himself called this work a story.

When analyzing the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” we note that the main idea is the problem of morality. The description of one day in the life of a camp prisoner describes episodes of injustice. In contrast to the hard everyday life of the convicts, the life of the local authorities is shown. Commanders punish for the slightest duty. Their comfortable life is compared to camp conditions. The executioners have already excluded themselves from society, because they do not live according to the laws of God.

Despite all the difficulties, the story is optimistic. After all, even in such a place you can remain human and be rich in soul and morality.

An analysis of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” will be incomplete if we do not note the character of the main character of the work. The main character is a real Russian man. It became the embodiment of the author’s main idea - to show the natural resilience of man. He was a peasant who found himself in a confined space and could not sit idle.

Other details of the analysis of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”

In the story, Solzhenitsyn showed Shukhov’s ability to survive in any situation. Thanks to his skill, he collected wire and made spoons. His manner of behaving with dignity in such a society is amazing.

Camp themes were a forbidden topic for Russian literature, but this story cannot be called camp literature. One day resembles the structure of the entire country with all its problems.

The history and myths of the camp are cruel. Prisoners were forced to put bread in a suitcase and sign their piece. The conditions of detention at 27 degrees below zero were hardening and so strong in spirit people.

But not all heroes were respectable. There was Panteleev, who decided to stay in the camp in order to continue to hand over his cellmates to the authorities. Fetyukov, who had completely lost any sense of dignity, licked the bowls and finished smoking cigarette butts.

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn is a writer and publicist who entered Russian literature as an ardent opponent of the communist regime. In his work, he regularly touches on the theme of suffering, inequality and the vulnerability of people to Stalinist ideology and the current state system.

We present to your attention an updated version of the review of Solzhenitsyn’s book – One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

The work that brought A.I. Solzhenitsyn's popularity became the story "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." True, the author himself later made an amendment, saying that according to genre specifics This is a story, albeit on an epic scale, reproducing the gloomy picture of Russia at that time.

Solzhenitsyn A.I. in his story, he introduces the reader to the life of Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, a peasant and military man who ended up in one of Stalin’s many camps. The whole tragedy of the situation is that the hero went to the front the very next day after the attack of Nazi Germany, was captured and miraculously escaped, but when he reached his own people, he was recognized as a spy. This is precisely what the first part of the memoirs is devoted to, which also includes a description of all the hardships of the war, when people had to eat corneas from the hooves of dead horses, and the command of the Red Army abandoned them without remorse. ordinary soldiers die on the battlefield.

The second part shows the life of Ivan Denisovich and hundreds of other people staying in the camp. Moreover, all the events of the story take only one day. However, the narrative contains a large number of references, flashbacks and references to the life of the people, as if by chance. For example, correspondence with my wife, from which we learn that in the village the situation is no better than in the camp: there is no food and money, the residents are starving, and the peasants survive by dyeing fake carpets and selling them to the city.

As we read, we also learn why Shukhov was considered a saboteur and a traitor. Like most of those in the camp, he was convicted without guilt. The investigator forced him to confess to treason, who, by the way, couldn’t even figure out what task the hero was performing, allegedly helping the Germans. In this case, Shukhov had no choice. If he had refused to admit to something he never did, he would have received a “wooden pea coat,” and since he cooperated with the investigation, then “at least you’ll live a little longer.”

Numerous images also play an important part in the plot. These are not only prisoners, but also guards, who differ only in how they treat the camp inmates. For example, Volkov carries with him a huge and thick whip - one blow of it tears a large area of ​​skin until it bleeds. Another bright one, though minor character- Caesar. This is a kind of authority in the camp, who previously worked as a director, but was repressed without ever making his first film. Now he is not averse to talking with Shukhov on topics contemporary art and throw in a little work.

In his story, Solzhenitsyn very accurately reproduces the life of prisoners, their drab life and hard work. On the one hand, the reader does not encounter blatant and bloody scenes, but the realism with which the author approaches the description makes him horrified. People are starving, and the whole point of their life comes down to getting themselves an extra slice of bread, since they won’t be able to survive in this place on a soup of water and frozen cabbage. Prisoners are forced to work in the cold, and in order to “pass the time” before sleeping and eating, they have to work in a race.

Everyone is forced to adapt to reality, find a way to deceive the guards, steal something or secretly sell it. For example, many prisoners make small knives from the tools, then exchange them for food or tobacco.

Shukhov and everyone else in these terrible conditions look like wild animals. They can be punished, shot, beaten. All that remains is to be more cunning and smarter than the armed guards, try not to lose heart and be true to your ideals.

The irony is that the day that constitutes the time of the story is quite successful for the main character. He was not put in a punishment cell, he was not forced to work with a team of construction workers in the cold, he managed to get a portion of porridge for lunch, during the evening search they did not find a hacksaw on him, and he also worked part-time at Caesar’s and bought tobacco. True, the tragedy is that during the entire period of imprisonment, three thousand six hundred and fifty-three such days accumulated. What's next? The term is coming to an end, but Shukhov is sure that the term will either be extended or, worse, sent into exile.

Characteristics of the main character of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”

The main character of the work is a collective image of a simple Russian person. He is about 40 years old. He comes from an ordinary village, which he remembers with love, noting that it used to be better: they ate potatoes “in whole frying pans, porridge in cast iron pots...”. He spent 8 years in prison. Before entering the camp, Shukhov fought at the front. He was wounded, but after recovery he returned to the war.

Appearance character

There is no description of his appearance in the text of the story. The emphasis is on clothing: mittens, pea coat, felt boots, cotton trousers, etc. Thus, the image of the main character is depersonalized and becomes the personification of not only an ordinary prisoner, but also a modern resident of Russia in the mid-20th century.

He is distinguished by a feeling of pity and compassion for people. He worries about the Baptists who received 25 years in the camps. He feels sorry for the degraded Fetikov, noting that “he won’t live out his term. He doesn’t know how to position himself.” Ivan Denisovich even sympathizes with the guards, because they have to strong wind be on duty at the towers.

Ivan Denisovich understands his plight, but does not stop thinking about others. For example, he refuses parcels from home, forbidding his wife to send food or things. The man realizes that his wife has a very hard time - she raises children alone and looks after the household during difficult times of war and post-war years.

Long life in the convict camp she didn’t break it. The hero sets certain boundaries for himself that cannot be violated under any circumstances. It's corny, but he makes sure not to eat fish eyes in his stew or always take off his hat when eating. Yes, he had to steal, but not from his comrades, but only from those who work in the kitchen and mock his cellmates.

Ivan Denisovich is distinguished by honesty. The author points out that Shukhov never took or gave a bribe. Everyone in the camp knows that he never shirks from work, always tries to earn extra money and even sews slippers for other prisoners. In prison, the hero becomes a good mason, mastering this profession: “with Shukhov you won’t be able to dig into any distortions or seams.” In addition, everyone knows that Ivan Denisovich is a jack of all trades and can easily take on any task (patches padded jackets, pours spoons from aluminum wire, etc.)

A positive image of Shukhov is created throughout the entire story. His habits as a peasant, an ordinary worker, help him overcome the hardships of imprisonment. The hero does not allow himself to humiliate himself in front of the guards, lick the plates or inform on others. Like every Russian person, Ivan Denisovich knows the value of bread, carefully storing it in a clean rag. He accepts any work, loves it, and is not lazy.

What then is such an honest, noble and hardworking man doing in a prison camp? How did he and several thousand other people end up here? These are the questions that arise in the reader as he gets to know the main character.

The answer to them is quite simple. It's all about an unjust totalitarian regime, the consequence of which is that many worthy citizens find themselves prisoners of concentration camps, forced to adapt to the system, live away from their families and be doomed to long torment and hardship.

Analysis of the story by A.I. Solzhenitsyn "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"

To understand the writer’s intention, it is necessary to pay special attention to the space and time of the work. Indeed, the story depicts the events of one day, even describing in great detail all the everyday moments of the regime: getting up, breakfast, lunch, dinner, leaving for work, the road, the work itself, constant searches by security guards and many others. etc. This also includes a description of all prisoners and guards, their behavior, life in the camp, etc. For people, real space turns out to be hostile. Every prisoner does not like open places, tries to avoid meeting the guards and quickly hide in the barracks. Prisoners are limited by more than just barbed wire. They don’t even have the opportunity to look at the sky - the spotlights are constantly blinding them.

However, there is also another space - internal. This is a kind of memory space. Therefore, the most important are the constant references and memories, from which we learn about the situation at the front, suffering and countless deaths, the disastrous situation of the peasants, as well as the fact that those who survived or escaped from captivity, who defended their homeland and their citizens, often in the eyes of the government they become spies and traitors. All these local topics form the picture of what is happening in the country as a whole.

It turns out that artistic time and the space of the work is not closed, not limited to just one day or the territory of the camp. As it becomes known at the end of the story, there are already 3653 such days in the hero’s life and how many will be ahead is completely unknown. This means that the title “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” can easily be perceived as an allusion to modern society. A day in the camp is impersonal, hopeless, and for the prisoner it becomes the personification of injustice, lack of rights and a departure from everything individual. But is all this typical only for this place of detention?

Apparently, according to A.I. Solzhenitsyn, Russia at that time was very similar to a prison, and the task of the work becomes, if not to show deep tragedy, then at least categorically to deny the position of the one described.

The merit of the author is that he not only amazingly accurately and with a large number describes what is happening in detail, but also refrains from openly displaying emotions and feelings. Thus, he achieves his main goal - he allows the reader to evaluate this world order himself and understand all the meaninglessness totalitarian regime.

The main idea of ​​the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”

In his work A.I. Solzhenitsyn recreates the basic picture of life in that Russia, when people were doomed to incredible torment and hardship. A whole gallery of images opens before us that personify the fate of millions of Soviet citizens who were forced to pay for their faithful service, diligent and diligent work, faith in the state and adherence to ideology with imprisonment in terrible concentration camps scattered throughout the country.

In his story “Matrenin's Dvor,” Solzhenitsyn depicted a situation typical for Russia, when a woman has to take on the cares and responsibilities of a man.

Be sure to read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s novel “In the First Circle,” which was banned in the Soviet Union, which explains the reasons for the author’s disappointment in the communist system.

IN a short story the list of injustices of the state system is extremely accurately revealed. For example, Ermolaev and Klevshin went through all the hardships of the war, captivity, worked underground, and received 10 years in prison as a reward. Gopchik, a young man who recently turned 16, becomes proof that repression is indifferent even to children. The images of Alyosha, Buinovsky, Pavel, Caesar Markovich and others are no less revealing.

Solzhenitsyn’s work is imbued with hidden but evil irony, exposing the other side of life Soviet country. The writer touched upon an important and pressing issue, which had been taboo all this time. At the same time, the story is imbued with faith in the Russian people, his spirit and will. Having condemned the inhumane system, Alexander Isaevich created a truly realistic character of his hero, who is able to withstand all the torment with dignity and not lose his humanity.