The political acuteness of the story one day by Ivan Denisovich. Solzhenitsyn, analysis of the work One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, plan

Composition

Solzhenitsyn's major epic works are accompanied by seemingly compressed, condensed versions of them - stories and novellas. Compression of time and concentration of space is one of the basic laws in the artistic world of a writer. That is why his talent gravitates towards the genre of short stories and tales. However, this is a story of a special type: its content is not an episode from a person’s life, but the entire life of this person, seen “through the prism” of such an episode. We can say that this is a story that “remembers” its kinship with the epic.

“One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was written in 1959 in forty days - during a break between work on chapters of the novel “In the First Circle”. The life of a Russian peasant in a camp zone is the immediate reality with which the reader of the story becomes acquainted. However, the theme of the work is not limited to camp life. In “One Day...”, in addition to the details of a person’s “survival” in the zone, there are details of modern life in the village passed through the hero’s consciousness. Brigadier Tyurin's story contains evidence of the consequences of collectivization in the country. In the disputes of camp intellectuals there is a discussion of some phenomena of Soviet art (S. Eisenstein’s film “John the Terrible”, the theatrical premiere of Yu. Zavadsky). Many details of Soviet history are mentioned in connection with the fate of Shukhov’s fellow prisoners.

Thus, the main theme of the story, like all of Solzhenitsyn’s work, is the theme of the fate of Russia. The particular, local themes of the story are organically integrated into its general thematic “map”. The theme of the fate of art in a totalitarian state is indicative in this regard. Thus, camp artists “paint free paintings for the authorities, and in turn go to paint numbers for scams.” According to Solzhenitsyn, the art of the Soviet era became part of the apparatus of oppression. The motif of the degradation of art is also supported by an episode of Shukhov’s reflections on village artisans producing dyed “carpets”.

The plot of the story is chronicle. But although the plot of the story is based on the events of just one day, the memories of the main character allow us to imagine his pre-camp biography. Here is its outline: Ivan Shukhov was born in 1911 and spent the pre-war years in the village of Temgenevo. His family includes two daughters (his only son died early). Shukhov was in the war from its first days. Was injured. He was captured, from where he managed to escape. He was convicted in 1943 on a fabricated case for “treason.” At the time of the plot action, he served eight years (the story takes place on one of the January days of 1951 in a convict camp in Kazakhstan).

Character system. Although most of the characters in the story are depicted in laconic means, the writer managed to achieve plastic expressiveness in the images of Shukhov’s fellow prisoners. Here we see a wealth of human types, a variety of individualities. Sometimes a writer only needs one or two fragments, a few expressive sketches, for a particular character to remain in the reader’s memory for a long time. Solzhenitsyn is sensitive to the class, professional and national specifics of human characters. Even peripheral characters are depicted with that precisely calculated pressure that allows one to discern the essence of his character in a person’s appearance.

Let us quote two sketches that are contrasting in their overall tone. Here is the first: “Dark, long, and frowning - and rushes quickly. He emerges from the barracks: “What are they gathered here?” - You won’t get buried. At first he also carried a whip, like a hand up to the elbow, leather, twisted. In the BUR she was flogged, they say” (chief of the regime, Lieutenant Volkova). Second: “Of all the hunched backs of the camp, his back was extremely straight, and at the table it seemed as if he had put something under himself beyond the bench. ... He had no teeth either above or below: his ossified gums chewed bread by his teeth. His face was all exhausted, but not to the weakness of a disabled wick, but to a hewn, dark stone” (old prisoner Yu-81, about whom Shukhov knows “that he has been in camps and prisons countless times, how much Soviet power is worth”) .

The system of images of “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” reflects the compositional skill of the writer. The relationships between the characters are subject to the strictest camp hierarchy. There is an impassable gulf between the prisoners and the camp administration. Noteworthy is the absence in the story of the names and sometimes surnames of numerous overseers and guards (their individuality is manifested only in the degree of ferocity and forms of violence against prisoners). On the contrary, despite the depersonalizing system of numbers assigned to camp inmates, many of them are present in the hero’s mind with their names and sometimes patronymics. This evidence of preserved individuality does not extend to so-called wicks, idiots and snitches. In fact, Solzhenitsyn shows, the system is trying in vain to turn living people into mechanical parts of a totalitarian machine. In this regard, especially important in the story, in addition to the main character, are the images of the brigadier Tyurin, his assistant Pavlo, the captain Buinovsky, the Latvian Kilgas and the Baptist Alyoshka.

Solzhenitsyn made the main character a Russian peasant, an “ordinary” peasant. Although the circumstances of camp life are obviously “exceptional”, out of the ordinary, the writer deliberately emphasizes “normality” in his hero, the outward inconspicuousness of behavior. According to the writer, which is somewhat consonant with Tolstoy’s views, the fate of the country depends on the natural resilience and innate morality of the common man. The main thing in Shukhov is his indestructible inner dignity. Even while serving his more educated fellow prisoners, Ivan Denisovich does not change his age-old peasant habits and “does not let himself down.”

Shukhov's national character lies in his inability and unwillingness to complain about hardships, in his ability to “settle in” even in a deliberately unfavorable environment. In characterizing Ivan Denisovich, the details of his working skills are very important: how Shukhov managed to acquire his own convenient trowel; and how he hoards pieces of aluminum wire to later cast into spoons; and a mention of a folding knife, which was sharpened and skillfully hidden by Shukhov. Further, at first glance, insignificant details of the hero’s existence, his everyday habits, a kind of peasant etiquette and demeanor - all this receives, in the context of the story, the meaning of values ​​that allow the human element to be preserved in a person. So, for example, Shukhov always wakes up an hour and a half before the divorce. It is in these morning minutes that he belongs to himself. These moments of actual freedom are important to the hero both because “you can always earn extra money,” and because they allow him to be himself, to survive as an individual.

Categories of time and space in the story. Features of subject detail. Solzhenitsyn's prose has the quality of special persuasiveness in conveying life phenomena - what is commonly called the plasticity of the figurative structure. The story told by the writer about one day in the life of a prisoner was perceived by the first readers of “Ivan Denisovich” as documentary, uninvented. Indeed, the images of most of the characters in the story are created on the basis of real prototypes - authentic characters taken from life. According to the writer himself, these are, for example, the images of Brigadier Tyurin, Cavtorang Buinovsky, and many other prisoners and guards. But the main character of the story, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, according to the author, is a composite image: he is composed of portrait signs and details of the biography of an artillery soldier of the battery that the future author of the story commanded at the front, but his camp specialty, the structure of feelings and thoughts are transferred to him from prisoner No. 854 - A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

The descriptive fragments of the story are filled with signs of uninvented reality. It seems that they were transferred here from life directly, “without processing.” These are the portrait characteristics of Shukhov himself (shaved, toothless and seemingly shrunken head; his manner of movement; a crooked spoon, which he carefully hides behind the top of his felt boots, etc.); a clearly drawn plan of the area with a watch, medical unit, barracks; psychologically convincing description of a prisoner's feelings during a search. Every detail of the behavior of the prisoners or their camp life is conveyed almost physiologically specifically. Does this mean that the writer merely faithfully reproduced pictures of real life here?

A careful reading of the story reveals that the effect of life-like persuasiveness and psychological authenticity is the result not only of the writer’s conscious desire for maximum accuracy, but also a consequence of his extraordinary compositional skill. A successful formulation about Solzhenitsyn’s artistic style belongs to literary critic Arkady Belinkov: “Solzhenitsyn spoke in the voice of great literature, in the categories of good and evil, life and death, power and society... He spoke about one day, one incident, one yard... Day, the courtyard and the case of Solzhenitsyn are synecdoches of good and evil, life and death, the relationship between man and society.” This statement by the literary critic accurately notes the relationship between the formal-compositional categories of time, space and plot with the nerve nodes of Solzhenitsyn’s problematics.

One day in the writer’s story contains a cluster of a person’s fate, a kind of squeeze out of his life. It is impossible not to pay attention to the extremely high degree of detail in the narrative: each fact is divided into the smallest components, most of which are presented in close-up. Solzhenitsyn loves “cinematic” compositional techniques (in the epic “The Red Wheel,” for example, he introduced the concept of “screen” as a compositional unit of the text). The author is unusually carefully and scrupulously watching how his hero dresses before leaving the barracks, how he puts on a muzzle, or how he eats a small fish caught in the soup to the skeleton. Even such a seemingly insignificant “gastronomic” detail, like fish eyes floating in a stew, is awarded a separate “frame” in the course of the story.

Such meticulousness of the image should make the narrative heavier and slow it down, but this does not happen. The reader's attention not only does not get tired, but is even more sharpened, and the rhythm of the narrative does not become monotonous. The fact is that Solzhenitsyn’s Shukhov is placed in a situation between life and death: the reader is infected with the energy of the writer’s attention to the circumstances of this extreme situation. Every little thing for the hero is literally a matter of life and death, a matter of survival or dying. Therefore, Shukhov (and with him the reader) sincerely rejoices at every little thing he finds, every extra crumb of bread.

In addition, the monotony of careful descriptions is skillfully overcome by the writer through his use of expressive syntax: Solzhenitsyn avoids extended periods, filling the text with rapid chopped phrases, syntactic repetitions, emotionally charged exclamations and questions. Any detail of the description, any look or assessment, fear or relief - everything is conveyed through the perception of the hero himself. That is why there is nothing neutral, purely descriptive in the descriptive fragments: everything forces one to remember the emergency of the situation and the dangers that await the hero every minute.

The day is the “nodal” point through which all human life passes in Solzhenitsyn’s story. That is why chronological and chronometric designations in the text are saturated with symbolic meanings. This is, for example, one of the production scenes at the construction of a thermal power plant: Shukhov determines the time of noon by the sun, but captain Buinovsky corrects him, mentioning the decree adopted by the Soviet government on this matter. We are talking about a decree of the Soviet government in 1930, according to which maternity time was introduced: one hour was added to the standard time of a particular area. The purpose of the innovation is a more rational use of daylight hours. In the text, however, this fact is correlated with the important motive of the unnaturalness of the entire camp practice and, more broadly, of the entire Soviet system. Violence against life turns out to be all-encompassing, which is why the hero asks the question: “Does the sun really obey their decrees?”

Outwardly neutral chronological “marks” mentioned in a conversation about a particular character are one of the ways of demonstrating the author’s position. It is important for Solzhenitsyn to “unnoticeably” inform the reader when Shukhov’s first foreman Kuzemin and his current foreman Tyurin were arrested and began camp life. This is, respectively, 1931 (by 1943, Kuzemin had been in prison for twelve years) and 1932 (by January 1951, Tyurin had already been in the zone for nineteen years). The author counts the era of totalitarianism not from 1937, but from the first years of Soviet power. In this regard, Solzhenitsyn’s position was unusually bold against the backdrop of the “thaw” sixties: unlike critics of the “cult of personality,” the writer was able to tell the whole truth about the Soviet era.

It is especially important that in the text the concepts “day” and “life” come close to each other, sometimes almost becoming synonymous. This semantic convergence is carried out through the universal concept of “deadline” in the story. A term is both the punishment meted out to a prisoner, and the internal routine of prison life, and - most importantly - a synonym for human fate and a reminder of the most important, last term of human life. Thus, temporary designations acquire a deep moral and psychological coloring in the story.

The importance of the category of time in the story is reflected in the fact that its first and last phrases are dedicated specifically to time. The movement of the clock hand itself is an important factor in the movement of the plot (pay attention to the frequency of references to time in the text). The eventual and subject material in the story is composed as if using a metronome.

The location of the action is also unusually significant. The space of the camp is hostile to prisoners, the open areas of the zone are especially dangerous: every prisoner is in a hurry to run across the areas between rooms as quickly as possible, he is afraid of being caught in such a place, and is in a hurry to duck into the shelter of the barracks. In contrast to the heroes of Russian literature, who traditionally love vastness, distance, and unconstrained space, Shukhov and his fellow prisoners dream of the saving closeness of shelter. Barrack turns out to be a home for them, the author shows with hidden irony. The space in the story is built in concentric circles: first the barracks are described, then the zone is outlined, then a transition across the steppe and a construction site are drawn, after which the space is again compressed to the size of the barracks.

The closure of the circle in the artistic topography of the story receives symbolic meaning. The prisoner's view is limited by a circle surrounded by wire. The prisoners are fenced off even from the sky: the spatial vertical is sharply narrowed. From above they are constantly blinded by spotlights, hanging so low that they seem to deprive people of air. For them there is no horizon, no sky, no normal circle of life. But there is also the prisoner’s inner vision - the space of his memory; and in it closed circles are overcome and images of the village, Russia, and the world arise.

Features of the narrative. By recreating the image of a simple Russian person, Solzhenitsyn achieves an almost complete fusion of the author's voice and the speech of the hero. From a compositional point of view, it is interesting that the entire story is structured as an improperly direct speech by Ivan Denisovich. that the whole story is structured as the improperly direct speech of Ivan Denisovich. When talking about camp life, the writer could have chosen a different narrative style. It could be an epic “from the author” narrative, or - the opposite option - a first-person story, entirely focused on the point of view of the hero. Solzhenitsyn preferred a form of narration that made it possible to bring the peasant’s point of view as close as possible to the point of view of the author. This artistic effect is best achieved by using improperly direct speech: it tells not only what the hero of the work himself could put into words, but also things that are hardly accessible to his understanding. At the same time, the very manner of speech expression is determined by the vernacular and dialecticisms inherent in skaz speech, as well as by the moderate use of camp jargon (camp jargon in the character’s improperly direct speech is used minimally - only 16 camp concepts are used).

Solzhenitsyn rather sparingly uses figurative meanings of words in the story, preferring the original imagery and achieving the maximum effect of “naked” speech. At the same time, in the speech structure of the work, the role of proverbs, sayings, folk beliefs and apt figurative statements is great. Thanks to them, the main character is able to extremely concisely and accurately define the essence of an event or human character in two or three words. An example of this kind is the proverb used in relation to one of the camp inmates: “The fast louse is always the first to hit the comb.” Speaking about the constant debilitating feeling of hunger among camp inmates, Shukhov recalls another saying: “The belly is a villain, it doesn’t remember the old good...”.

On the other hand, a number of proverbs and folk beliefs recalled by the hero characterize the peasant mindset of his worldview. This is what, according to Ivan Denisovich, happens in the sky with the old month when it disappears, being replaced by a new one: “God crumbles the old month into stars.” The hero’s speech sounds especially aphoristic at the end of episodes or descriptive fragments.

Solzhenitsyn showed one, as his hero considers in the finale of the story, a successful day: “they weren’t put in a punishment cell, the brigade wasn’t sent out to Sotsgorodok, at lunch he made porridge, the foreman closed the interest well, Shukhov laid the wall cheerfully, he didn’t get caught with a hacksaw on the search, I worked at Caesar's in the evening and bought some tobacco. And he didn’t get sick, he got over it. The day passed, unclouded, almost happy.”

The author’s final words sound just as epically calm:

“There were three thousand six hundred and fifty-three such days in his term from bell to bell.

Because of leap years, three extra days were added.”

The writer refrains from loud words and frank displays of emotions: it is enough that the corresponding feelings arise in the reader. And this is guaranteed by the entire harmonious structure of the story about the power of life and the power of man.

Other works on this work

Man in a totalitarian state.

Story Analysis

"One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich"

Lesson design: portrait, illustrations for a story, book exhibition.

Lesson Objectives: to arouse interest in the personality and work of the writer, who has become a symbol of openness, will and Russian directness; show the “unusual life material” taken as the basis of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, captivate students by reading the story, lead students to comprehend the tragic fate of a person in a totalitarian state.

Methodical techniques: analytical conversation, commented reading.

Epigraph:

Solzhenitsyn has become the oxygen of our breathless time, and if our society, literature, above all, still breathe, it is because Solzhenitsyn’s bellows are working, pumping air into a suffocating, dehydrated Russia that has almost lost itself.

During the classes:

1.The teacher's word.

Who is he, Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn? Mentor, prophet or intercessor? Why was he seen either as the savior of the Fatherland, or as an enemy of the people, or as a preservative of “dead literary traditions,” or as a violator of the foundations of artistry, or as a teacher of life?

Neither of these roles suits him.

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn is an outstanding Russian writer, publicist, and public figure. His name became known in literature in the 60s of the 20th century, during the “Khrushchev Thaw”, then disappeared for many years.

He, Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, dared to tell the truth about the terrible Stalinist time, to create works about camp life, works that made the author wildly popular. The stories “Matrenin Dvor”, “An Incident at Krechetovka Station”, the novel “In the First Circle”, the story “Cancer Ward” aroused the anger of “domestic literary officials” and ... brought the author world fame. And in 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. It seemed that justice had prevailed.

...But on one of the February days of 1974 (in connection with the release of the 1st volume of the book “The Gulag Archipelago”) Solzhenitsyn was forcibly expelled from Russia. A plane carrying a single passenger landed in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Solzhenitsyn was 55 years old.

What is known about him?

2. Individual performances by students.

a) Solzhenitsyn.

b) Solzhenitsyn and the Great Patriotic War.

c) Solzhenitsyn’s literary debut.

3. Conversation on the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”

-Who is Solzhenitsyn’s hero, Ivan Denisovich?

-Recover his past. How did he get into the camp?

Shukhov worked and lived in the village of Temgenevo, was married and had two children. But the war began, and he became a soldier. “And this is how it happened: in February 1942, their entire army was surrounded in the North-Western... And so little by little the Germans caught and took them through the forests... Shukhov remained in captivity for a couple of days.” Miraculously, he got to his people, but he was accused of treason and put behind bars. Shukhov carried out a task for German intelligence. “What kind of task - neither Shukhov himself nor the investigator could come up with. So they just left it as a task.”

Solzhenitsyn said that the image of Ivan Denisovich was formed from the soldier Shukhov, who fought with him, who was never imprisoned, the general experience of prisoners and personal experience in the Special Camp.

- What would have awaited the hero if he had not signed the “deed”?

“If you don’t sign, it’s a wooden pea coat; if you sign, you’ll at least live a little longer. Signed."

Shukhov chose life by signing documents against himself. Even if it’s a camp life, painful and difficult, it’s still life.

- What kind of life is this in the camp? How does Ivan Denisovich behave? What helps him to resist, to remain human?

Shukhov was sentenced to eight years in the camps. At five o'clock the camp wakes up. A cold barracks, in which “not every light bulb was on, where two hundred people slept on fifty bedbug-lined carriages”...

Kitchen. The prisoners eat their meager gruel with their hats on. “The most well-fed time for a camp camper is June: every vegetable runs out and is replaced with cereal. The worst time is July: they whip nettles into a cauldron.”

It's freezing outside, taking your breath away. And Tyurin’s team (in which Shukhov also worked) is getting ready to go to work... Endless checks and inspections.

Shukhov not only lives (just to survive), but in order to maintain self-respect. He remembers the words of his first foreman, the old camp wolf Kuzemin: This is who dies in the camp: who licks bowls, who hopes in the medical unit, and who goes to knock on his godfather.” Shukhov works conscientiously in the camp, as if in freedom, on his collective farm. For him, this work contains the dignity of a master who masters his craft. When 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.

He doesn’t inform on his fellow prisoners, doesn’t humiliate himself because of tobacco, doesn’t lick other people’s plates... He saves his bread and carries it in a special pocket.

-What character traits does the author value in Ivan Denisovich? And you?

The main character of the story, having gone through all the trials, managed to preserve the traits inherent in his character, characteristic of the Russian peasant: conscientiousness, hard work, human dignity.

Senka Klevshin. He was captured, escaped 3 times, but was “caught.” Even in Buchenwald, “he miraculously deceived death, now he is serving his sentence quietly.”

Kolya Vdovushkin. A former student of the Faculty of Literature...

Baptist Alyoshka...

Brigadier Tyurin...

Captain Buynovsky...

Film director Caesar Markovich...

Sixteen-year-old boy Gopchik...

described a camp day one day. And what?

The hero of the story considered this day successful, almost happy.

“That day he had a lot of successes: he wasn’t put in a punishment cell, the brigade wasn’t sent to Sotsgorodok... the foreman closed the interest well, Shukhov laid the wall cheerfully, he didn’t get caught with a hacksaw on a search... And he didn’t get sick, he overcame it. The day passed, unclouded, almost happy.

Days like these make it scary.

4. Conclusion.Who is to blame for Shukhov's tragedy? And other thousands of people?

There is no opportunity for prisoners to achieve justice and truth. It is useless and pointless in the “downgrade your rights” camp. People are beginning to realize that what happened to them is not just mistakes, it is a well-thought-out system of repression - the tragedy of an entire generation. The tragedy of the state.

For several years now, the great classic of our time, Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, has not been with us. But his life, his fate, his works will always remain for us a symbol of truth, justice, and patriotism. He believed in his people. He believed in a happy and free state.

5. Homework. Formulate the main idea of ​​the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Write down your thoughts.

Secondary general education

Literature

Analysis of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”

The textbook is included in the educational complex for grades 10-11, which provides teaching according to the literary education program of V.V. Agenosov, A.N. Arkhangelsky, N.B. Tralkova, and complies with the Federal State Educational Standard. Designed for schools and classes with in-depth study of literature. Students are offered a system of multi-level tasks aimed at developing meta-subject skills (planning activities, identifying various features, classifying, establishing cause-and-effect relationships, transforming information, etc.) and personal qualities of students.

Publication and success of the story Solzhenitsyn was helped with the publication of the story by his friend and former cellmate in the special prison of the Ministry of Internal Affairs “Research Institute of Communications,” literary critic L. Z. Kopelev. Thanks to his connections, Kopelev transfers the manuscript of the story to the then editor-in-chief of the literary magazine “New World” Alexander Tvardovsky. “I haven’t read anything like this for a long time. Good, clean, great talent. Not a drop of falsehood...” - this was Tvardovsky’s first impression of the author. Soon, the magazine seeks permission to publish the story “One Day...”. Anticipating the success of the story, A. A. Akhmatova asked Solzhenitsyn: “Do you know that in a month you will be the most famous person on the globe?” And he replied: “I know. But it won't be for long." When the work was published at the end of 1962, the entire reading public was stunned by the revelation story about the inhumanity of the Soviet system.

Ivan Denisovich Shukhov The reader looks at the world of camp life through the eyes of a simple man, peasant Ivan Denisovich Shukhov. A family man - a wife, two daughters, before the war he lived in the small village of Temgenevo, where he worked on the local collective farm. It is curious that throughout the narrative, Shukhov does not have memories of his past - the latter were simply erased from him by the prison regime. Shukhov also finds himself in war: a combat wound, then a hospital, from which he escapes to the front earlier than expected, again war, encirclement, German captivity, escape. But Shukhov, who returned from captivity, was arrested as an accomplice of the Nazis. Accordingly, he faces a prison sentence for aiding the occupiers. This is how Shukhov ends up in the camp.

The textbook introduces students to selected works of Russian and foreign literature of the 20th-21st centuries in theoretical and critical articles; promotes the moral and ideological development of the individual; shows the possibilities of using the Internet in solving communicative, creative and scientific problems. Corresponds to the federal state educational standard of secondary general education (2012).

Features of the image of heroes The story depicts a whole string of prisoners' characters, which represents a cross-section of Solzhenitsyn's contemporary social system: military men, workers, people of art, representatives of religion. All these characters enjoy the author's sympathy, in contrast to the prison guards and staff, whom the author does not hesitate to call “morons” and “lackeys.” Solzhenitsyn emphasizes the moral aspect of the prisoners’ characters, this is revealed in scenes of disputes and clashes between the heroes and shows the complex relationships between the prisoners. Another feature is that the characters are endowed with their own unique portrait features, which reveal the inner side of a person. Solzhenitsyn does not give a detailed, detailed portrait of Ivan Denisovich, but according to his statement, the essential character traits of the hero are responsiveness and the ability to compassion.

The largest Russian writers, contemporaries of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, greeted his arrival in literature very warmly, some even enthusiastically. But over time, the attitude towards him changed dramatically. A. Tvardovsky, who spared no effort and effort to publish an unknown author in “New World,” then told him to his face: “You have nothing sacred...” M. Sholokhov, having read the first story of a literary newcomer, asked Tvardovsky from his name on occasion to kiss the author, and later wrote about him: “Some kind of painful shamelessness...” The same can be said about the attitude of L. Leonov, K. Simonov towards him... Having read the book of one of the most authoritative publicists of our time, Vladimir Bushin, If you personally knew the writer, you will understand what Solzhenitsyn sacrificed for the sake of fame.

Author's assessment Shukhov, even in the most dramatic situations, continues to be a person with soul and heart, believes that someday justice will triumph again. The author talks a lot about the people and their instinct for moral preservation in the demoralizing conditions of the camp. Solzhenitsyn seems to be saying: there is something incorruptible in each of us that no evil can completely destroy. In the most difficult and terrifying living conditions, people manage to maintain their human dignity, kindness towards people, tolerance and inner freedom. One day from the life of the camp, described by the author in all the smallest details, becomes a day in the life of the entire country, symbolizes a historical stage - the time of total state violence, and poses a bold challenge to it.

Solzhenitsyn Alexander Isaevich

During the classes

Analysis of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”

The purpose of the lesson: show the journalistic nature of the story, its appeal to the reader, and evoke an emotional response when analyzing the story.

Methodical techniques: analytical conversation, commented reading.

During the classes

1. Teacher's word. The work “One Day...” has a special place in literature and public consciousness. A story written in 1959 (and conceived in the camp in 1950), originally bore the name “Shch-854 (One day of one prisoner).”

2. Why is the story about the camp world limited to describing one day? Solzhenitsyn himself writes 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 day of one average, unremarkable person with morning until evening. And everything will be. This idea came to me in 1952. In the camp. Well, of course, it was crazy to think about it then. And then the years passed. I was writing a novel, I was sick, I was dying of cancer. And now... in 1959, one day I thought: it seems that I could already apply this idea. For seven years she lay there just like that. Let me try to describe one day of one prisoner. I sat down and how it started pouring! With terrible tension! Because many of these days are concentrated in you at once. And just so as not to miss anything.” Written in 40 days.

3. Why did the author define the genre as a story? This emphasized the contrast between the small form and deep content of the work. Tvardovsky called the story “One Day...”, realizing the significance of Solzhenitsyn’s creation.

4. This work opened the patient to the public consciousness of the Thaw period. the theme of the country's recent past associated with the name of Stalin. The author was seen as a man who told the truth about a forbidden country called the “GULAG Archipelago.”

5. At the same time, some reviewers expressed doubts: Why did Solzhenitsyn portray as his hero not a communist who undeservedly suffered from repression, but remained true to his ideals, but a simple Russian peasant?

6. Plot- the events of one day are not the author’s fiction. The compositional basis of the plot is clearly lined time, determined by the camp regime.

7. Problematic question: Why does the hero consider the day depicted in the story to be happy? At first glance, because nothing happened that day that would worsen the hero’s situation in the camp. On the contrary, even luck accompanied him: he cut some porridge, bought some tobacco, picked up a piece of a hacksaw and didn’t get caught with it during a search - 54 , Caesar Markovich received the parcel ( 87-88), therefore, something was interrupted, the brigade was not sent to build the social town, he overcame it, did not get sick, the foreman closed the interest well, Shukhov laid the wall cheerfully. Everything that seems ordinary to Ivan Denisovich, to which he has become accustomed, is essentially terribly inhuman. The author’s assessment sounds completely different, outwardly calmly objective and therefore even more terrible: “ There were 3,653 such days in his period from bell to bell. Due to leap years, 3 extra days were added.”

8. And now here was the reason for Solzhenitsyn’s polemics with the official criticism of the 60s.

9. Solzhenitsyn writes seriously about the fact that this day is a good one, without any irony. There is absolutely no intonation here that, they say, what a person’s requests!

10. And negative criticism blamed Solzhenitsyn for this very thing, labeling him “a non-Soviet person”: no struggle, no high demands: he has messed up the mess, he is waiting for handouts from Caesar Markovich: 98 – 99 .

11. And according to Solzhenitsyn, this is really a happy day for Shukhov, although happiness is in a negative form: he didn’t get sick, he didn’t get caught ( 14 ), not expelled, not imprisoned. It was the truth, which did not tolerate half-truths. With this angle of view, the author guaranteed the complete objectivity of his artistic testimony, and the more merciless and sharp the blow was. From N. Sergolantsev’s article No. 4 – 1963 “October”: “ The hero of the story I.D. is not an exceptional person. This is an ordinary person. His spiritual world is very limited, his intellectual life is not of particular interest.

And by life itself, and throughout the history of Soviet literature we know that the typical national character, forged by our entire life, is the character of a fighter, active, inquisitive, active. But Shukhov is completely devoid of these qualities. He does not resist tragic circumstances in any way, but submits to them soul and body. Not the slightest internal protest, not a hint of a desire to understand the reasons for his difficult situation. Not even an attempt to learn about them from more knowledgeable people. His entire life program, his entire philosophy is reduced to one thing - to survive. Some critics were touched by such a program, they say, a man is alive, but in essence, a terribly lonely man is alive, having adapted to hard labor conditions in his own way, and truly not even understanding the unnaturalness of his position. Yes, Ivan Denisovich was muzzled, in many ways dehumanized by extremely cruel conditions. It's not his fault. But the author of the story is trying to present him as an example of spiritual fortitude. And what kind of resilience is there when the hero’s circle of interests does not extend beyond an extra bowl of gruel, poor earnings and warmth?

If summarize critic's judgments about Shukhov,

1) Ivan Denisovich adapts to non-human life, which means he has lost human traits,

2) Ivan Denisovich is the essence of animal instincts. There is nothing conscious, spiritual left in him,

3) He is tragically lonely, disconnected from other people and almost hostile to them.

4) And the conclusion: no, Ivan Denisovich cannot lay claim to the role of the folk type of our era. (The article is written according to the laws of normative criticism and relies little on the text).

12. Temporary organization.

What is the point of mentioning maternity time (Shukhov’s conversation with Buinovsky at the construction of a thermal power plant)? Time in the camp, scheduled minute by minute by the regime, does not belong to the person (“and the sun obeys their decrees»).

Why does Ivan Denisovich always get up when he wakes up, an hour and a half before the divorce? Why does he always eat slowly? Why is time so valuable after the recount?

Time in the camp does not belong to a person. That is why the morning moments are so significant for the hero.” 1.5 hours of your own time, not official time", and meal time - " 10 minutes at breakfast, 5 at lunch, 5 at dinner", When " the camp inmate lives for himself", and the time after recalculation, when " the prisoner becomes a free man».

Find chronological details in the story. Importance time categories The story is emphasized by the fact that its first and last phrases are dedicated specifically to time.

The day is the “nodal” point through which all human life passes in Solzhenitsyn’s story. That is why chronological designations in the text also have symbolic meaning. It is especially important that the concepts of “day” and “life” come closer to each other, sometimes almost becoming synonymous.

In which episodes do the narrative framework (memories of the characters) expand?

13. Spatial organization. Find the spatial coordinates in the story. What is special about the organization of space? The space in which the prisoner lives is closed, limited on all sides by barbed wire. And from above it is covered with the light of spotlights and lanterns, which “ so many... were stumbled upon that they completely brightened the stars.” The prisoners are fenced off even from the sky: the spatial vertical is sharply narrowed. For them there is no horizon, no sky, no normal circle of life.

The space in the story is built in concentric circles: first the barracks are described, then the zone is outlined, then there is a passage across the steppe, a construction site, after which the space is again compressed to the size of the barracks. The closure of the circle in the artistic topography of the story receives symbolic meaning. The prisoner's view is limited to a circle surrounded by wire.

Find verbs of motion in the text. What is the motive in them? Small areas open space turn out to be hostile and dangerous, it is no coincidence that in verbs of motion ( hid, fussed, jogged, stuck, climbed, hurried, overtook, sneaked etc.) the moment of shelter is often heard. The heroes of the story are faced with a problem: how to survive in a situation where time doesn't belong to you, A space is hostile(such isolation and strict regulation of all spheres of life is evidence not only of the camp, but of the totalitarian system as a whole).

In contrast to the heroes of Russian literature, who traditionally love vastness, distance, and unconstrained space, Shukhov and his fellow prisoners dream of the saving closeness of the shelter. Barack turns out to be home for them.

How does the narrative space expand? But there is also the prisoner’s inner vision - the space of his memory; in it closed circles are overcome and images of Russia, the countryside, and the world arise.

14. Subject detail. Give examples of episodes in which the substantive detail, in your opinion, is the most detailed.

· psychologically convincing description of the prisoner’s feelings during the search;

· spoonwith a tattoo Ust-Izhma, 1944, which he carefully hides behind the boot of his felt boots).

· Climb - With. 7 ,

· a clearly drawn plan of the area with a watch, medical unit, barracks;

· morning divorce;

· the author unusually carefully, scrupulously watches how his hero dresses before leaving the barracks - 19 how he puts on a cloth muzzle;

· or how he eats a small fish caught in the soup to the skeleton. Even such a seemingly insignificant “gastronomic” detail, like fish eyes floating in a stew, is awarded a separate “frame” during the story;

· Scenes in the dining room – 50/1 ;

· detailed image of the camp menu – 13, 18, 34, 48, 93 ,

· samosad,

· about boots and felt boots – 10,

The hacksaw episode

· with receiving parcels, etc.

· What is the artistic function of detailed detailing?

There can be no trifles for a prisoner, because his life depends on every little thing(note how the experienced prisoner Shukhov noticed Caesar’s mistake in not handing over the parcel to the storage room before the check - 104 ). Every detail is conveyed psychologically specifically.

Such meticulousness of the image does not slow down the narrative, the reader's attention is further sharpened. The fact is that Solzhenitsyn's Shukhov is placed in a situation between life and death: the reader is charged with the energy of the writer’s attention to the circumstances of this extreme situation. Every little thing for the hero is literally a matter of survival or death.

Moreover, the monotony of careful descriptions is skillfully overcome by the writer's use of expressive syntax: Solzhenitsyn avoids extended periods, saturating the text in short chopped phrases, syntactic repetitions, emotionally charged exclamations and questions.

Any detail of the description is transferred through the perception of the hero himself– that’s why everything makes you remember the emergency of the situation and the every-minute dangers that await the hero.

15. Character system. What parameters are set? Determine the main steps of the camp hierarchy. Clearly into 2 groups :guards and prisoners. But even among the prisoners there is a hierarchy (from the foreman to the jackals and informers).

What is the hierarchy of heroes in terms of their attitude towards captivity? They differ and attitude towards captivity. (From Buinovsky’s attempts at “rebellion” to Alyosha’s naive non-resistance).

What is Shukhov's place in these coordinate systems? In both cases, Shukhov finds himself in the middle.

What is unique about Shukhov’s portrait? The portrait sketches in the story are laconic and expressive (portrait of Lieutenant Volkovy - 22, prisoner Yu-81 (94 pages), head of the table (89), foreman Tyurin (31).

Find character sketches. Shukhov's appearance is barely outlined; he is absolutely inconspicuous. Portrait description of Shukhov himself(shaved, toothless and seemingly shrunken head; his way of moving);

16. Reproduce the hero’s biography, compare her with biographies of other characters.

His biography is the ordinary life of a man of his era, and not the fate of an oppositionist, a fighter for an idea - 44 . Solzhenitsyn’s hero is an ordinary person, a “man in the middle,” in whom the author constantly emphasizes normality and unobtrusive behavior.

What makes Shukhov the main character? Ordinary people, according to the writer, ultimately decide the fate of the country and carry the charge of folk morality and spirituality.

· An ordinary and at the same time extraordinary biography of the hero allows the writer to recreate the heroic and tragic fate of the Russian man of the twentieth century. Ivan Denisovich was born in 1911, lived in the village of Temgenevo, with a characteristic Russian name, fought honestly, like millions of Russian soldiers, honestly, wounded, without treatment, he hurried to return to the front.

· Escaped from captivity and ended up in a camp along with thousands of poor fellows from his encirclement - allegedly carrying out a task from German intelligence.

· 8 years of wandering around camps, while maintaining inner dignity.

· Doesn't change age-old peasant habits And " doesn't drop himself", does not humiliate himself over a cigarette (unlike Fetyukov, he stands as if indifferently next to the smoking Caesar, waiting for a cigarette butt), because of rations, and certainly does not lick plates and does not denounce his comrades for the sake of improving his own fate.

According to a well-known peasant habit, Shukhov respects bread, carried in a special pocket, in a clean cloth; when he eats - removes hat.

· He does not disdain extra money, but always earns by honest work. And therefore, they are not able to understand how they can charge a lot of money for hack work (for painting “carpets” under a stencil).

· Conscientiousness, reluctance to live at someone else’s expense, or to cause inconvenience to someone force him to forbid his wife from collecting parcels for him in the camp, to justify the greedy Caesar and “ don’t stretch your belly for other people’s goods».

17. Compare Shukhov’s life position with the positions of other characters in the story: Buinovsky, Caesar Markovich, etc.

1) Caesar Markovich , an educated person. Intelligent, he received exemption from general labor and even the right to wear fur and a hat, because “ everyone stuck it to whoever needs it" But it is not this completely natural desire to alleviate one’s lot that causes the author’s condemnation, but his attitude towards people. He for granted accepts Shukhov's services (he goes to the canteen to get his rations, and takes a turn for the parcel). And although sometimes he treats Shukhov to a smoke and shares his rations, Ivan Denisovich interests him only when he needs him for some reason. The scene in the foreman's room is indicative in this regard. The characters argue about truth and beauty in art, but do not notice a living person, who for the author is the measure of all values.

Shukhov, who with difficulty obtained a bowl of porridge for Caesar, hurried through the frost to the foreman's room, patiently waits to be noticed and hopes to receive a smoke for his service. But the arguers sitting in the warmth are too engrossed in their conversation : 54.

2) Caesar will continue his debate about art with kavtoragng (conversation on watch) - 75-76 . Perhaps, from the point of view of an art critic, Caesar’s view of Eisenstein’s skill is more fair than Buinovsky’s rude words, but the correctness of the captain’s rank is determined by his position: Caesar came out of a flooded office, and Buinovsky worked all day in the cold. His position here is closer to Shukhov’s.

However, we note that rank in many ways and opposed Shukhov. Should be analyzed behavior Buinovsky in the morning bustle scene ( 23 – 24 ) and Shukhov’s assessment of his actions. Shukhov himself does not rebel because he knows: “ Groan and rot. But if you resist, you’ll break,”- but also does not obey circumstances.

3) If we compare Shukhov with such heroes as Der (64), Shkuropatenko, Panteleev, we will notice that they, the same prisoners, themselves participate in the evil done to people, which the main character of the story is incapable of.

4) Which of the characters in the story professes moral principles similar to Shukhov? Tyurin, Kuzemin.

5) Analyze the words of foreman Kuzemin: page 5 . Are there any analogues to these principles in Russian classical literature? Does Shukhov agree with his first foreman? Humiliate themselves (“ lick bowls"), saving your life at the expense of others (" knock") has always been unacceptable for folk morality; the same values ​​were affirmed in Russian classical literature, but one should not expect help or compassion (" And don’t rely on the medical unit") is already a sad experience of the twentieth century. Shukhov, realizing that informers are the ones who survive, nevertheless, does not agree with his former foreman, since for him it is not about physical, but about moral death.

Shukhov’s task is not to become free, and not even just to survive, but to remain human even in inhuman conditions.

18. The originality of the story. Analyzing improperly direct speech as the leading method of narration, we will find out why, bringing his position closer to the position of the hero, Solzhenitsyn abandons the skaz form. Find episodes where the author's point of view takes precedence over the hero's point of view.

As a rule, these are episodes where we are talking about things that are beyond the understanding of the hero, so the author’s point of view here cannot coincide with the point of view of the hero. For example, in disputes about art, the hero cannot judge who is right.

In this case, the composition of the scenes itself becomes a means of expressing the author’s position.

19. Features of the language. Find proverbs in the text of the story. What is their originality and artistic function? How are the signs of peasant speaking and camp jargon combined in Ivan Denisovich’s language? In Ivan Denisovich's speech there are more dialect words and only 16 words of camp jargon than in the speech of other characters. The socially and individually colored, expressive peasant language turns out to be more resistant to camp vocabulary than neutral speech.

Indicative in this regard is the scene in which the brigade is waiting for a late Moldovan. The indignant crowd shouts a lot of abuse. Ivan Denisovich, indignant along with everyone else, limited himself to the word "plague».

Preservation of a word that could be classified as a means of linguistic expansion. What word formation methods does the author use? Match the found words with commonly used synonyms. What is the expressiveness, semantic capacity, richness of shades of Solzhenitsyn’s vocabulary?

Uses most often traditional ways of word formation and the morphemic composition existing in the language, but the unusual combination of morphemes makes the word exceptionally laconic, expressive, and creates new shades of meaning:

warmed up, got ready, got sick, squeezed, examined, settled down (the brigade not only sat down around the stove, but also tightly surrounded it), passed over (deceived and passed at the same time), in the pocket, testing, restraint, in the calm, haze, non-spill, drinking, trampled, annoyed) (-sya adds a shade of fussiness), rushing, little, little snow, scrunching up hardened fingers, attentive (slowly, attentively and thoughtfully), stumblingly, stridingly; zakoroykom (not just the edge, but the very edge), a burnt-out, a non-extractor (an extremely laconic designation of a person who is unable to get anything), a non-smoker (a cigarette butt that can be finished smoking); self-thinking, strong-willed, quick-witted; captivity (i.e. captivity)

20. Reflection of the era in the story , pp. 293 – 294, textbook.

21. The originality of Solzhenitsyn's hero. Created a special type of hero. This is not a fighter against the system, or even a person who has risen to the point of understanding the essence of his era (only a few are capable of this), but a “simple” person, a bearer of that people’s morality, on which, according to the author, the fate of the country depends. For a writer, the criterion for assessing a person is not his social significance, but his ability carry through his inhumane trials pure soul.

After many years of dominance in literature by a strong man who thirsted for freedom, going against circumstances and leading people with him, Solzhenitsyn returned to it the hero in whom he embodied peasant thoroughness And work habit, patience And prudence, ability to adapt to inhuman conditions, without humiliating himself, without participating in what is happening evil, ability to stay internally free in an atmosphere of total lack of freedom, to preserve your name, your language, your individuality.

Summing up results On his happy day, Shukhov often notes not what happened to him, but what did not happen to him: 111.

But among these “nots,” he is silent, perhaps, about the most important thing: on that day he did not cease to be human.

The narrative is structured as a documented, accurate, detailed story about one of the 3653 days of the camp life of Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, who was serving a sentence in 1951, and had a personal camp number Shch-854. From the memoirs of the hero and the words of the author-narrator, we learn that Shukhov is a peasant who went to war as a private on June 23, 1941, was surrounded in February 1942 and spent 2 days in fascist captivity, from which he fled “to his own people.” During 2 days of captivity, he was sentenced for “treason to the Motherland” for 10 years, of which 7 years he was in a logging camp in the North, and now, during the action of the story, he works as a mason in a new camp. The action develops over 17 hours - from rising at 5 a.m. to lights out at 10 p.m. The author shows the routine of life in the camp and the relationship between commanders and prisoners in typical daily repeating situations - getting up, breakfast, lining up prisoners and sending them to work, the work of Shukhov and his team on the masonry of the walls of a thermal power plant under construction, a lunch break, finishing work, building and returning to camp, dinner, evening check and lights out. The depiction of the hero’s actions in these situations, his reactions to the environment, the study of his thoughts and feelings become the author’s way of creating Shukhov’s character. A kind of commentary on the fate of the main character, expanding the scope of the story, is the memoirs of Shukhov’s comrades in prison and the author’s judgments about their destinies, which make it possible to show a picture of the tragedy of the people in a totalitarian era. The hero appears as a person who has survived, who has retained wonderful human qualities in himself despite the era and fate.

The circumstances of the publication of the story are a striking and unprecedented example of the existence of art in the Soviet era. The story was written in 1959 and was called “Shch-854 (One day of one prisoner).” According to the author, this was an attempt to “write something that may not be published, but at least you can show it to people!” At least you don’t have to hide!” After the 22nd Party Congress, Solzhenitsyn decides to transfer the manuscript to Novy Mir to editor-in-chief A. T. Tvardovsky. He and the editorial board of the magazine decided to publish the manuscript, but Solzhenitsyn’s story, despite all the efforts of Tvardovsky, could not overcome censorship. Even changing the author's title of the story to a more neutral one - "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" - did not help. Tvardovsky managed to convey the story to Khrushchev for reading. Khrushchev liked the story, but even he decided to carry out the decision to publish it through the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee - the material of the work was so unprecedented. In October 1961, at a meeting of the Politburo, the decision to publish the story was made. The story was first published in the November 1962 issue of Novy Mir. “One Day...” made a deafening impression on its first readers; it became an event of great importance not only in literature, but also in the public life of the era. What caused this?

First of all, Solzhenitsyn based his story on the material of the recent terrible historical past, which was carefully hushed up. This was the first true word of truth about the tragedy experienced by the people. In this word of truth, contemporaries saw hope for the final overcoming of the past.

At the same time, the writer addressed in the story a new topic that seemed impossible in the officially existing literature of the Soviet era - the fate of the individual, the fate of the people under totalitarianism.

The author's precise choice of the social status of the protagonist was of fundamental importance. Ivan Denisovich Shukhov is a former peasant collective farmer, a former ordinary soldier in the Red Army. He is the one who, first of all, constitutes the concept of “people”. But according to the official terminology of the era, Shukhov is an “enemy of the people.” “Enemies of the people” in the story are also people of different social status, nationality, and religion. Solzhenitsyn led his readers to the idea that in the era of totalitarianism, through the efforts of the authorities, the people themselves were declared the enemy of the people, and one of the goals of the regime, which called itself “people's power,” was the extermination of its own people. Neither the liberal social thought of the era of the 60s nor Soviet literature was ready for such an understanding of the historical past, for such an assessment of it.

In addition, the literature of the Soviet era included works that entered into a confrontational relationship with the canons of socialist realism. Solzhenitsyn highlighted the private, the individual, in the complete absence of the context of the struggle for a common bright future. The writer gave a clear preference to the eternal, unchanging, rather than new temporary class “values.” In the story, the concept of humanism changed, its only possible positive definition at that time was “socialist.”

The “positive hero” of the story did not have the required set of qualities necessary for a positive hero in the literature of socialist realism. Shukhov has neither “ideological maturity” and “selfless devotion to the cause of the Communist Party”, nor the desire to prove his devotion to communist ideals and affirm them in life; in his mind, class and social do not dominate over the personal.

In the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” Solzhenitsyn set out to show the life of the people at the limit of the possible, to show the suffering and pain of the people who, despite everything, retained their courage, did not break, and did not waste their souls.

What character traits and properties does the writer give to the main character?

The “cornerstone” of Shukhov’s personality is his attitude to work. For the hero, physical labor is a natural state in life, a familiar sphere of existence. In the camp, the prisoner encounters only hard, exhausting and exhausting physical labor. This is the main sphere of camp existence. But thanks to his attitude to work, his life experience, Shukhov turns out to be a person who is not knocked out of the rut of life. The hero is used to working honestly, conscientiously, forgetting where and why he works. This attitude towards work gives the hero inner freedom. This is how Shukhov works in the scene of laying a wall at the construction of a thermal power plant.

Solzhenitsyn's hero has an affinity for crafts. Formerly a peasant, he becomes a first-class mason. Even in “his own, non-official” time - an hour and a half a day, he sews “someone a mitten cover from an old lining”, sews slippers “from the rags of a vendor”, patches someone’s padded jacket, makes tools for his crafts. Thus, the hero forms strong, diverse connections with the surrounding life, he finds himself firmly rooted in it.

In addition, the habit of work imparts the nobility of Shukhov’s personality. He, like others in prison, lacks the basic necessities. But to make life easier and satisfy the most modest needs, Shukhov does not become either an informer or a “six”, and does not stoop to licking bowls and raking garbage pits in search of scraps. He gets everything he needs in the only honest way possible - he sells his labor. The hero even has a special word that defines his actions - “earn extra money.” So, with the two rubles he earned on the side, he buys tobacco from a Latvian, and when he queues for a parcel for Caesar Markovich, he receives an extra ration of bread in gratitude.

Ivan Denisovich is not capable of decisive confrontation and desperate resistance. He is endowed with long-suffering. All the terrible and cruel injustices that happened to the hero did not cause bitterness in him, did not turn him into a misanthrope or an oppositionist. The hero lives in such conditions where the optimal principle of existence turns out to be the one that sounds in the story: “...groan and rot. But if you resist, you will break.” Adaptation to the camp life of Ivan Denisovich is an adaptation of millions of Russian people to a harsh and dramatic history, an adaptation to the eternal lack of wealth, the harsh difficulties of life, and trials. Adaptation is a feature of a society living under totalitarian rule.

Shukhov has a lively practical mind and ingenuity, which is revealed primarily in his approach to work and attitude towards the environment. The hero is ready to resort to cunning when he manages to snag two extra portions. But the hero’s cunning is never aimed at harming his neighbor, and never aims to deceive his comrade.

Solzhenitsyn's forty-year-old hero has amazing worldly wisdom and an internal harmonious moral measure. He is not merciless and not reckless in condemning human vices and weaknesses. So, Shukhov was still able to figure it out and feel sorry for the “jackal” Fetyukov. Ivan Denisovich, a poorly educated person, is capable of finding answers to the most complex moral and philosophical problems of existence. This is evidenced by the dispute between Alyosha the Baptist and Shukhov about faith. “Willingly believing in God”, “sharply, sublimely” in a desperate moment praying to himself “Lord! Save! Don’t give me a punishment cell!” Because God is the hero’s last hope, Ivan Denisovich refuses to believe in heaven and hell. At first glance, the hero denies traditional ideas about good and evil, virtue and sin. But what caused this and by what moral laws does Shukhov live? The author shows that the hero, under the influence of his contemporary era, the hero who has terrible life experience, finds that traditional ideas about hell and heaven are compromised in his consciousness. He experienced “earthly hell” - a camp, and in this hell, next to true sinners - criminals, there were innocent people, like himself. For an honest person like Shukhov, there is only one moral commandment left - to live according to his conscience. For Shukhov, conscience is a moral law implanted by God in a person’s soul. Solzhenitsyn’s hero lives honestly, according to his conscience, in harmony with God.

Ivan Denisovich soberly assesses his present and future. He “doesn’t really believe” that his sentence will end in two years, that his release is approaching: “When you run out of ten, they’ll say you’ll get another one. Or into exile." Shukhov understands this intellectually, but hope continues to live in his soul. All the days that he must spend in prison were precisely calculated: “There were three thousand six hundred and fifty-three such days in his sentence from bell to bell. Because of leap years, three extra days were added.” The internal conflict of the hero's mind and feelings creates a special tragic effect of the story: Ivan Denisovich, innocently suffering and remaining human in the inhumane conditions of the camp, does not expect a quick release from his torment. However, throughout the course of the story, Solzhenitsyn proves that a hero like Shukhov, and the people of which he is a representative, deserve a better life. The hero's fate becomes an indictment of the historical era.

Solzhenitsyn recalled the genesis of the idea for the story: “It was just such a camp day, hard work, I was carrying a stretcher with my partner, and I thought about how I should describe the entire camp world - in one day. Of course, you can describe your ten years of the camp, there, 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... person from morning to evening. And everything will be.”

By what artistic means did Solzhenitsyn manage to show the heroes’ entire lives in one day, and more broadly - in one camp day - the tragedy of the people in a totalitarian era?

The author expands the plot framework of the story, introducing the memories of the characters and the judgments of the narrator. So, from Shukhov’s memoirs and the narrator’s words, we learn the hero’s life story. Solzhenitsyn uses the same technique when talking about the fate of the foreman Tyurin, the cavalry rank, the Latvian Kildigs and other heroes.

The function of expanding the scope of the narrative is carried out in the story by episodes of camp life. Even a small episode is endowed with the most important meaning. This happens when, during dinner, Shukhov notices an old convict who belongs to the noble class and is strikingly different from the rest of the prisoners. We only learn his camp number - Yu-81, which takes on a symbolic meaning in the story. The number is a sign of destruction of a personal name, a sign of an attempt to destroy a person’s identity. But a truly strong personality is indestructible. It is said about the convict: “he sits in camps and prisons, countless times, how much Soviet power is worth.” It becomes a kind of living milestone in the countdown of mass repressions. At the same time, mass repressions appear as a characteristic feature and obligatory sign of Soviet power.

Terrible milestones in the history of the Soviet era appear before the reader from the memories of the characters. So, from Tyurin’s story we learn about the tragedy experienced by the people during collectivization, and about repressions in the army. The brigadier's story will be supplemented by the memories of captain Buinovsky about the events in the fleet during the war. The narrator's stories about the fate of the Latvian Kildigs and the Estonians and Ukrainians-Bandera will show the tragedy of the peoples “annexed” to the USSR.

The terms served by the prisoners (10, 19, 25 years) show the blunt cruelty of the totalitarian regime. The reader also learns about other camps, about the existence of the Gulag Archipelago, which allows one to judge the scale of repression.

The horror of life, the tragedy of human existence under totalitarianism are conveyed by Solzhenitsyn in that the blatant appears in the perception of the heroes of the story as the norm of life. The terrible day that Shukhov lived in the camp seems to the hero unclouded, “almost happy.”

One of the author’s ways of expanding the scope of the narrative is that Solzhenitsyn tells the hero Shukhov his personal camp number - Shch-854 and his camp profession - mason. The voice of the author-narrator sounds on a par with the voices of the heroes of the story, his knowledge of the vicissitudes of their destinies is explained by general life experience, his assessments coincide with the position of the heroes, as noted above, and, in particular, with the views of Shukhov. Thus, the author joins his own fate to the fate of the heroes of the story, and, ultimately, to the fate of the people.

The composition of the work and its language perform an important ideological and artistic function in the implementation of the story's concept. Solzhenitsyn does not divide the work into chapters and parts. The story about one day in the hero’s life appears as a time stream that lasts continuously and relentlessly. The writer manages to convey the special tense atmosphere of camp life. The chronological development of the plot, where each subsequent event is inevitably determined by the previous one, is intended to emphasize the special moral and psychological stress experienced by the heroes. Prisoners have no room for error. One wrong step can become fatal and inevitably change the rest of your life. Nothing can be fixed. Not all heroes of the story pass this test. Shukhov, Tyurin, Kildigs and other heroes cope with it.

The language of the characters in the story and the author is a special element of the work, full of richness, originality and plasticity. The author’s language is indistinguishable from the language of the main character, Shukhov, everything in the story seems to be seen through his eyes. The nature of the narration is close to that of a tale. Solzhenitsyn models the features of oral speech, widely using colloquialisms, vulgarisms, proverbs and sayings in his vocabulary. However, the author's vernacular is masterfully combined with modern literary language. This combination makes the story tangible, immediate and sincere.

The author assigns a special role to camp jargon in the language of the story. Solzhenitsyn introduces jargon in doses and in a measured manner. Their task is not to shock the reader and not to demonstrate fluency in specific vocabulary. The purpose of introducing camp jargon into the language of the story is to create in the reader the impression of the authenticity of the events described. The story ends with a dictionary of jargon compiled by the author and translating the meanings of words from the “camp language” into Russian. This is a special author’s technique, which not only allows the reader to better understand the work, but also leads to the idea of ​​the existence of a special world, the inhabitants of which even created their own language - the language of the Gulag Archipelago.

The story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” demonstrated the skill of the writer, who, within such small limits, managed to achieve a wide scope of life, to reveal a multifaceted and living world in which we recognize people who carry the typical features of the era, essential for understanding historical time, a world with many shades , relationships that go beyond the “camp theme”.