The Spiritual Regenerations amidst Crushed Human Dignities: A Comparative Study of Dostoevsky's The House of the Dead & Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Introduction
"Convict," "ex-con," "criminal," "lawbreaker," "menace," "felon," these are only some of the degrading names people use to describe or call those who have served sentences inside prison. Worse, suspected criminals are already considered the same as those who are proven guilty. They are menaces to the society. They are considered animals that deserve whatever punishment they should be given. They are no longer treated as human beings even before they set foot inside the prison cell. More often than not, people treat conversing with them as a disgrace. Affected family members of these people treat them as love ones who have passed away. Not just that, the prisoners themselves think that they have lost whatever self-respect they use to have. Every convict knows this fact, especially those who have to serve a life sentence. Even if one has not talked with a convict before, through merely observing them, one shall notice that it seems like life has been sucked from their soul. They are all dead people walking wherever prison they are in; hence, the term "The House of the Dead."
To this fledgling critic, it is not the prison itself that kills a man; it is not the sentence; it is not condemnation; nor it is not the criminals who are with him all day long, it is the silence of the night. Every night a man is being killed, only to wake up the next morning-the memories that should have been forgotten while doing a sentence keeps haunting a man, torturing him to death endlessly. Who would say that death penalty is harsher than life sentence? A man must be overly dense to say that he would rather serve a life sentence, which would mean to fight his conscience every second the obscenity of his sin visits him. If he indeed has a conscience, he would rather choose to die.
This is not the case of the two novels about prison life-Dostoevsky's The House of the Dead (1862) and Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962). The prisoners are overly amoral in these stories. They do not concern themselves with the memories of the past. They are only concerned with two things: surviving a day in prison and being free. However, though the prisoners in the novels are incapable of remorse, the main characters in both stories were able to maintain their dignity as human beings.
A hundred years is the gap between the publications of the two masterpieces. Yet, one shall discover that hardly anything has changed in the penitentiary system of the 1800's and 1900's. There are new laws passed, new crimes, new dehumanized individuals, but only the names have changed. Readers all over the world know and shall discover further that though the place and time have changed, life in prison will forever be frightening, mortifying and deathly.
Similarities & Differences of the Main Characters
What is the purpose of the jail itself? What happens to a man behind the walls of the penitentiary? Does a man become less human after entering the prison? Some of these questions may not be answered by merely guessing or observing the prisoners. Most probably, and as implied by the novelists, the answers to the many questions in the mystery of life can only be found behind bars, i.e. after suffering the most degrading part of human existence. Would it not raise more questions instead of just answering the previous ones?
Dostoevsky has exemplified his belief that baptism through fire and blood, so to speak, makes a man purer through one of his novel, The Insulted and Injured (1862). And, this recurring theme in his works has become his trademark as a philosophical novelist. However, a number of critics frequently fail to see the Dostoevskian style of writing, i.e. characters that show extreme philosophies in life. This novel has been regarded as a pure reportorial writing of what transpires in jail. It is the characters and not the plot that is significant, if not artistic, in the novel. He ventured in giving details of the other prisoners and not his own opinion. These prisoners, through the eyes of the narrator Alexander Petrovich, are psychologically interesting for him; thus, immortalizing them in his comeback novel. However, compared to Solzhenitsyn's Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, Petrovich is a nobleman (he is Dostoevsky in many ways), he has the plausible ability of observing them as he curiously study each of them; while, Shukhov is a peasant who is just concerned with himself.
This difference in their social status brings out the question of purpose. Though this absolutely goes contradictory to the Intentional Fallacy, mentioning the purposes of the two novels may give clarity to the roles of each hero. Both novels are political in nature, despite the fact that they are both documentary novels. However, One Day is more political for it explicitly criticizes the Stalin government. The House of the Dead is more psychological, i.e. the observations of the prisoners' behaviours.
Moreover, though both novelists have been imprisoned for such a long time, The House of the Dead is more autobiographical than One Day. Both novelists have used their degrading experiences to re-create worlds similar to the camps that they used to live in. In contrast, Solzhenitsyn has chosen to write just a single day as a time setting for his hero. The sufferings of Shukhov may be less compared to the sufferings of Alexander Petrovich at first glance, for according to Dostoevsky thru Petrovich, a nobleman's suffering in prison is greater than the peasants. Looking deeper, a day in the life of Shukhov is just a sample of the daily miseries of a peasant convict. Being a peasant, his worries and pleasures are more of the immediate necessities. He does not concern himself with the problems of the past nor the future. However, this "one day" in Shukhov's life is the same for Petrovich and everyone else in the prison. It stands for the "mechanization of life", since their lives are controlled by the prison rules and regulations, and principally controlled by the government. In other words, as mentioned before, both are not only just autobiographical but also political.
Overlapping Themes of The House of the Dead & One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
A. The Significance of Faith
The novels do not preach any religious doctrine. They are not made to be propagandist novels. Nonetheless, there exists a loud whisper of the significance of faith. Both Petrovich and Shukhov imply this idea. But in contrast, Shukhov only had his epiphany at the end of the novel, the end of the day; while Petrovich had shown that he has kept his faith intact.
B. The Inequality of Punishment for the Same Crime
The novels keep on repeating the issue of the inequality of punishment for the same crime. Observations that crimes and punishments may be the same but they never have the same effects on the people involve are prevalent. Some crimes mentioned in One Day sound less like crimes; and some crimes in The House are sound reasonable, yet all people who committed these should be punished. It does not matter whether the crime is "little" and "reasonable,"-a crime is a crime. That sounds perfectly fine; however, we do not live in Utopia. Most "superior" people who commit crimes do not get punished, or punished less than they ought to be, compared to the common people who do not have influences. This reality of life is not only true in the old Russia, but all over the world. Petrovich even stated bluntly that even then that he was already free; still, he cannot solve this mystery of life. Worse, in One Day, no one seems to have done any criminal act-like it was made to show that everyone in jail was just a victim of a rotten judicial system (which is the purpose of the novel).
Another reality of life is mentioned, i.e. when a man is given the right to be superior over his fellow man, he would abuse it. The people in authority depicted in the novels have shown this brutality. As Petrovich realizes, there are indeed people who need "somebody to oppress, something to take away from somebody, somebody to deprive of his rights, in short, an opportunity to wreak havoc (Part I, Ch.11)." Sounds familiar? This critic does not need to mention any solid example of these kinds of people in the society. What is important is the realization that we do not see these kinds of people only inside the penitentiary, but also outside-or is it the other way around?
Spiritual Regenerations amidst Crushed Human Dignities
Still, the questions were not answered: what is the purpose of jail? What happens to a man inside the penitentiary? Does a man become less human in prison?
The prisons in both novels (and even in any country for that matter) do not serve as a catalyst for the reformation of the individuals convicted of crimes. Neither do they serve as an agent of epiphany so criminals would develop conscience. Prisons are graveyards. The prison is the only place for those who have died a social death, those who are threats to a social structure, and those who deviate from the norms. There may be innocent victims inside these prisons, but who can say who is innocent and who is not? Every prisoner is innocent in his own eyes. For each of them, they just did what has to be done: like a man who brings milk to freedom fighters in the woods; or like a man who kills his wife after catching her in bed with another man. No one is guilty in his own eyes.
Yet, as the memory of these sins sinks in, a man can only turn to God. Remorse may not be openly heard from these prisoners, but deep inside some of them desire forgiveness. Everyone wants God's blessings, i.e. freedom and a chance to start anew. This is clearly seen in the character of Petrovich and some of his fellow inmates. He is more openly hopes to have a better life outside prison when he was about to go free. He keeps on thanking God and asks God for blessings. This may be the case of Dostoevsky when he got out of jail. Whatever it may be, the moments we see Petrovich thanking God is the moment we see that despite the loss of dignity throughout the prison, here is a person who rises from the dead-like a phoenix, reborn from his own body's ashes.
Though it was just shown once, Shukhov also displays this kind of reincarnation after being encouraged by Alyoshka to chase the cravings of the soul and not of the flesh, when he impulsively hands Alyoshka a biscuit. In this one day, among the 3,653 days of his sentence, i.e. the date setting of the novel, sparks a hope-a hope that despite his selfish and materialistic nature, he would transform into a dignified individual. Though it may sound like this critic is forcing the issue, the only probable reason for bringing out that part is Solzhenitsyn's belief that a man can change.
Conclusion
Blessed are those who have discovered the meaning of their lives without even laying their eyes on the prison gate; blessed are those whose self-respect, dignity and pride are not tainted by those who have lost theirs; and, blessed are those who have found God amidst the noise and chaos of the world, even outside the penitentiary. Life-indeed, one just need that single word to answer the question of all questions: why do we suffer? Surely, those who are blessed can quickly accept that fact; but not those who have been "insulted and injured." Remember the "thousand injuries of Fortunato" that were borne? Yet, when "he ventured on insult," revenge must be done. But, to whom should those who have been insulted take their revenge? No, revenge cannot be done with impunity-Life is like that, there goes the clich? again, and this fledging critic is starting to sound like a preacher-to push it further, the Lord said, "Do not avenge yourself; for it is written, vengeance is mine." The novels do not teach, nor preach vengeance. They do not imply any hint of getting back to those who have imprisoned them; or, those who have sued them. They do not even malign or defame anybody. They are not written to serve those purposes. They are, as mentioned before, autobiographical and political at the same time. However, when one thinks about the injuries and insults inflicted to him, would he not think of vengeance? Man is just man, after all; yet, in the novels, vengeance has no place. With that in mind, one might even tempted to think if those who are imprisoned are indeed "the strongest, and, in one way or another, the most gifted of our people."
In conclusion, these novels are enlightening as well. They do not just narrate stories from different people, but they tell stories of suffering. These sufferings that were told objectively seem to be more touching than when they are told with emotions. Especially The House, being told without any mixture of emotions makes it more compelling. Being concerned more on details, Dostoevsky sacrificed his style; yet, this sacrificed is indeed worth it for he was able to depict not just his observations but each man's struggle to be respected even in the midst of "disrespectful people."