Introduction
To begin with, it is necessary to mention that socialism and communism as a political epoch have left an essential step in the literary sphere of the planet. Thus, different writers described the horrors and happiness of the people who lived in the Soviet Union and the states of the Socialistic camp. Lots of novels and stories were written under the influence of socialism and authoritarian regimes in different countries.
Still, independently of the regime itself, writers chose to write about ordinary people, about their lives, their sorrows and happiness, their love, and despair. This paper is aimed to analyze the influence of the communistic regimes on the two novels written on the matters of communism and the role of a human in the system: “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” by Milan Kundera and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Kundera’s Political Theme
First of all, it is necessary to mention that the political theme in the novel is represented as the background of the main theme and the main occasions of the plot. The chronological sequence of the plot describes the year 1968 in the wake of the Prague Spring. The three characters of the novel, which are regarded to be the most perceptive of the political issues, confess different political views. However, the only feature which unites them in this perspective is their acceptance of the political ideas of Kundera. They suppose that all the diehard political or ideological parties are fundamentally the same. Sabina is an artist and accepts the world through the prism of her artistic realization of the world structure.
She regards the Communists, Fascists, and the extremist parties as to the embodiment of the sentimental kitsch, the origin of the worst ever art and propaganda, which only washes the brains of the people. As for Tomas and his views, it should be stated that he clearly realizes that two antagonistic camps – the Czech regime and the dissident movement – pursue him. He understands that both just wish to misinterpret his words, as he is one of the celebrities in the city.
Tereza, in her turn, was initially attracted by the dissident movements for their glamour thoughts and considerations. However, later she realizes that any political movement is absolutely anti-individualistic, and her privacy and individuality, which she strives for, will be essentially depressed. Kundera describes that none of them will participate in the marches voluntarily by the end of the novel. Thus, they may be regarded as apolitical, independently of their views and preferences.
However, all of them suppose that they have strong political beliefs and views. Eckstein (2000, 58), in her research, states the following: “Tomas’s Oedipus article says ignorance of the law is no excuse and damns the Communist regime because it uses ignorance to explain away its wrongdoing. Sabina requires freedom to pursue experimental painting and finds that freedom in the West, away from the Communists in Prague.”
From this point of view, it should be stated that the military intervention of the Soviet Union in Prague is regarded as something horrifying in the novel. The tanks and the soldiers are regarded as the rapists of the attractive beauty of the city, and all the intellectuals are subjected to exile and permanent political silence. Thus, the cultural world in which Tomas and Sabina lived was destroyed, and the political views of their own, their friends, and the surrounding people had no significance anymore. (PĂchová, 2002, 36)
As for the influence of the communistic regime on the novel, it should be stated that the influence itself can not be regarded as essential. The fact is that it was written in the atmosphere of socialism. Thus, it was difficult not to touch upon these issues. Communism and the attitude towards it just shaped the author’s perception of the surrounding world, which he transmitted to his protagonists.
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
The novel by Alexander Solzhenitsyn was subjected to the essential impact of the communistic regime and views. The author was subjected to the persecution of the communistic regime in the Soviet Union, knew a lot about the inverse side of the authoritarian government, and knew what stood behind the visible happiness and order in the post-war Soviet Union. (Mahoney, 2001, 225)
As for the plot of the novel, it should be stated that the center of the plot is the issues of survival among the inmates of the authoritative oppression and camp survival. It should be stated that the main aim of the author was to describe the cruelty of the humans within the authoritative regime, and these humans were the prison officials. Ivan Denisovich Shukhov is one of the inmates in the Gulag camp. All the events of the novel are represented through the prism of Ivan Denisovich’s thoughts, feelings, visions, etc. He is the victim of authoritarian cruelty, which was directed against the enemies of the people. It is unknown whether his accusation was righteous or faked.
Still, he managed not to lose his humanity and stay human among cruelty and anger. This symbolizes the general struggle of the people for freedom, peace, and happiness all over the world. This is symbolized by means of survival, which is the most crucial factor for the prisoners.
The attempt to dehumanize the prisoners of the gulag symbolizes the general perception of the world by the Soviet Union and the allover global structure: “those who are not with us are against us.” It was absolutely insignificant what the aims and goals of the people were – they were obliged to support the communistic party. Shukhov does not deal with the attempt to dehumanize him or take away his human feelings. Thus, he claims that it is necessary to maintain one’s own humanity by developing and supporting the system of beliefs. Thus, Wood (1999, 178), in his research, states the following: “At mealtime, no matter how hungry he is, he insists on removing his cap before eating.
This practice, a holdover from his upbringing, gives Shukhov a sense that he is behaving in a civilized manner. No matter how ravenous he becomes, he never stoops to Fetyukov’s scrounging and begging for scraps. He scorns Fetyukov’s behavior, which he believes is subhuman.” Thus, he aims to save his humanity in every situation, even in spite of the fact that he is often treated as an animal in a flock. However, he seriously resists this attitude towards him from the side of the Soviet regime and the camp. He insists on his own dignity and declares the silent war for his own dignity and humanity against the system that imprisoned him.
Originally it is regarded as the largest compromise against the cruelty of the Soviet Union against those who did not support the communistic views. The fact is that it was a real discovery for the western intellectuals, who even did not suppose that the political prisons incarcerated so many inmates. The novel was rather revolutionary in the Soviet Union also. The Socialistic regime had essentially affected the view of the world of the author. Still, he expressed surprising courage demonstrating the dedication to preserving the memories of those millions of victims who perished in the camps. (Solzhenitsyn, 1999, 95)
As for the issues of impact, it should be stated that the author of this novel had an opportunity to study the Soviet regime from the inside. For the largest part of his life, he lived in the Soviet Union, and the regime, with its propaganda, cruelties, imprisonments, repressions, left e deep step in his mind.
Conclusion
Finally, it is necessary to mention that both novels were subjected to the Communistic impact. However, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” from the outside and “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich” from the inside. Originally, it is necessary to mention that the regime was mainly regarded as anti-humane and antagonistic to humane values. Socialism as the epoch in world history just could not pass unmentioned. Thus, lots of writers and artists left their own representations and visions of this system. The analyzed novels just describe the lives of ordinary people in the background of the socialistic system.
References
Eckstein, Barbara J. The Language of Fiction in a World of Pain: Reading Politics as Paradox. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.
Mahoney, Daniel J. “The One True Progress Solzhenitsyn’s Alternative to Modern Liberalism.” Perspectives on Political Science 27.4 (2001): 220-227.
PĂchová, Hana. The Art of Memory in Exile: Vladimir Nabokov & Milan Kundera. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002.
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander. “The Righteous Brothers (And Sisters) of Contemporary Russian Literature.” World Literature Today 67.1 (1999): 91-99.
Wood, Michael. Children of Silence: On Contemporary Fiction. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.