Home Releases № 15. 2021

ORDERS IN CAMPS (АLEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN’S “ONE DAY OF IVAN DENISOVICH” AND “FATELESSNESS” BY IMRE KERTESZ)

Literary Сriticism , UDC: 82.09 DOI: 10.25688/2619-0656.2021.15.06

Authors

  • Kondrat’eva Viktoriya Candidate of Philology
  • Molnar Angelika HD (Humanities, Philology)

Annotation

The author of this paper examines the general methods of creating metaphors and similes for the manifestation of experience in the outstanding works of camp prose “One Day of Ivan Denisovich” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and “Fatelessness” by Imre Kertész. The analysis focuses on such contrasting images of the presentation of campmen and guards, as the chaotic flow and murderous order, hard labor and peaceful life. Solzhenitsyn’s frugal camp prose is balanced not only by the stylistic peculiarities of the narrator’s speech, but also by the tropes that reinterpret traditional poetic means. In our analysis, the focus is on the tropes in the text of the novel “One Day of Ivan Denisovich.” We selected the verbal constructions that echo the most famous work of Hungarian camp literature. Thus, metaphorization serves in modern literature also for intertextual tasks. But the Hungarian writer, on the other hand, faces the problem of how to tell his own story, which is shared by millions of people, without the cliches of the literary canon. “Staying in Hell” is how the character’s days in the labor camp are described. The protagonist of “Fatelessness” by Imre Kertész, is Gyuri Köves, an adolescent, who must understand the purpose of his hard work in the camp. For this he first has to familiarize himself with the alien world and master the terms and reinvent them. This process is presented through similes and metaphors related to human actions. It may seem strange to compare the works of two writers who have little in common: both Nobel laureates are writing about genocide, both writers experienced the horrors of concentration camp life. At first glance, the authors talk about different camps: Imre Kertész depicts the deportation of Hungarian Jews to fascist concentration camps ordered by the German occupiers, in Solzhenitsyn’s story the place of action is one of the Gulag camps, in which there were political prisoners, “unreliable” people, condemned as enemies of the Soviet people. However, with a seemingly obvious difference, the essence of the camps is the same: in both cases it is a mechanism of repression, a means of physical and moral destruction of a human being. In the works of Russian and Hungarian writers, a common place is found — when depicting the life of prisoners, the authors pay a lot of attention to the description of the work. For Solzhenitsyn and Kertész, labor becomes a means of revealing the personality of the prisoner, it is in the situation of work that the philosophy of the hero, his attitude to the world and to others is revealed. Thus the typological similarity of the two authors lies in the fact that they show their characters in the circumstances of unfreedom and labor for them becomes the essence of being primarily human and, of course, social.

How to link insert

Kondrat’eva, V. . & Molnar, A. . (2021). ORDERS IN CAMPS (АLEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN’S “ONE DAY OF IVAN DENISOVICH” AND “FATELESSNESS” BY IMRE KERTESZ) Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 15. 2021, 92-109. https://doi.org/10.25688/2619-0656.2021.15.06
References
1. Kertesz I. (2004) Bez sud’by [Fatelessness]. Moscow: Text. URL: http:// loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=39018&p=1. Accessed: 29.09.2021. (In Russ.).
2. Solzhenitsyn A. (2010). Odin den’ Ivana Denisovicha [One Day of Ivan Denisovich]. Rasskazi [Novels]. Moscow: AST Moscow. (In Russ.).
3. Vajl’ P.L., Genis A.A. (1990). Poiski zhanra A. Solzhenicynym [Search for a genre by A. Solzhenitsyn]. Oktjabr’ [October]. № 6. Pp. 197–202. (In Russ.).
4. Gulak A.T., Jurovskij V.Ju. (2006). Sluzhenie real’nosti: o formah povestvovanija v rasskaze A.I. Solzhenicyna “Odin den’ Ivana Denisovicha” [Serving reality: about the forms of narration in the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn “One day of Ivan Denisovich”]. Russkaja rech’ [Russian speech]. № 1. Pp. 39– 48. (In Russ.).
5. Knjazhickij A.I. (2009). “Odin den’ Ivana Denisovicha” A.I. Solzhenicyna: opyt medlennogo chtenija [One Day of Ivan Denisovich by A.I. Solzhenitsyn: the Practice of Slow Reading]. Russkaja slovesnost’ [Russian literature]. № 2. Pp. 34–43. (In Russ.).
6. Kondrat’eva V.V. (2020). Model’ mira v povesti A.I. Solzhenicyna “Odin den’ Ivana Denisovicha” [The model of the world in the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn «One day of Ivan Denisovich»]. Slavica. № 49. Pp. 34–40. doi https://doi. org/10.31034/049.2020.03. (In Russ.).
7. Kuz’min V. (2019). Hudozhestvennyj monizm Aleksandra Solzhenicyna. Problemy pojetiki [The artistic monism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Problems of poetics]. Ekaterinburg: Ridero, 200 p. (In Russ.).
8. Lakshin V.Ja. (1964). Ivan Denisovich, ego druz’ja i nedrugi [Ivan Denisovich, his friends and foes]. Novyj mir [New World]. 1964. № 1. Pp. 223–245. (In Russ.).
9. Latynina A. (1990). Krushenie ideokratii: ot «Odnogo dnja Ivana Denisovicha» k “Arhipelagu GULAG” [The collapse of the ideocracy: from “One Day of Ivan Denisovich” to “The Archipelagо GULAG”]. Literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Observer]. № 4. Pp. 3–8. (In Russ.).
10. Lejderman N.L., Lipoveckij M.N. (2003). Aleksandr Solzhenicyn. Sovremennaja russkaja literatura, 1950–1990-e gody: uchebnoe posobie dlja vuzov: V 2 t. [Modern Russian literature, 1950–1990s: study guide for universities: In 2 vols.]. Moscow: Izdatel’skij tsentr “Аkademiya”. Vol. 1. Pp. 260–315. (In Russ.).
11. Lifshic M. (1990). O povesti A.I. Solzhenicyna “Odin den’ Ivana Denisovicha” [About the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn “One day of Ivan Denisovich”]. Voprosy literatury [Russian Studies in Literature]. № 7. Pp. 74–75. (In Russ.).
12. Murashova O. (2010). Rol’ i mesto povesti A.I. Solzhenicyna “Odin den’ Ivana Denisovicha” v istorii russkoj literatury [The role and place of the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn “One day of Ivan Denisovich” in the Russian literature history]. Literatura [Literture]. № 2. Pp. 13–16. (In Russ.).
13. Tempest R. (1998). Geometrija ada: pojetika prostranstva i vremeni v povesti “Odin den’ Ivana Denisovicha”: per. s angl. [The geometry of hell: the poetics of space and time in the story “One Day in Ivan Denisovich”: trans. from Eng.]. Zvezda [The Star]. № 12. Pp. 128–135. (In Russ.).
14. Fridlender G.M. (1993). O Solzhenicyne i ego jestetike [About Solzhenitsyn and his aesthetics]. Russkaja literature [Russian Literatrure]. № 1. Pp. 92–99.
15. Bojtár Е. (2003). Sziszüphosz téli utazása. «2000». Januar. Pp. 40–46.
16. Congdon L. (2017). Solzhenitsyn: The Historical-Spiritual Destinies of Russia and the West. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press. 163 p.
17. Földényi F. László. (2007). “Az irodalom gyanúba keveredett:” Kertész Imreszótár. Budapest: Magvetô. 335 p.
18. Kalocsai Katalin. (2002). Még létre sem jött, mikor már elveszett. Az identitás építésének nehézségeiről egy szélsőségesen fenyegetett helyzetben. Az értelmezés szükségessége. Tanulmányok Kertész Imréről. Szerk. Scheibner tamás — Szűcs Zoltán: l’Harmattan, Budapest. Pp. 53–66.
19. Kennedy E. (2006). Secularism and Its Opponents from Augustine to Solzhenitsyn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 278 p.
20. Kertész Imre. (1985). Sorstalanság. Budapest: Szépirodalmi. 292 p.
21. Kisantal Tamás. (2009). Túlélő történetek. Budapest: Kijárat. 340 p.
22. Lukács György. (1990). Szolzsenyicin-tanulmányok. Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó. 120 p.
23. Szirák Péter. (2003). Kertész Imre. Pozsony: Kalligram. 217 p.
Download file .pdf 119.75 kb