Shukhov: A Day Without Controversy

Overall, Shukhov is pleased to be alive and takes advantage of all that camp life has to offer. A day without controversy is a positive one. For Shukhov, no news is good news. Shukhov teaches the reader much, but he undermines some of his teachings and presents a second self in the ending. In Erasmus’ Praise of Folly, the narrator, Folly, invalidates her entire argument toward the end of the book; she says that all of her previous arguments could be false, or true, leading the reader wondering if any of her claims hold any weight. Like Folly, Shukhov preaches attention to the present and the immediate community, but Shukhov represses the idea of freedom, but just before the day ends, the idea arises and all he wants is to be free. “how time …show more content…
He’d often noticed that days in the camp rolled by before you knew it. Yet your sentence stood still, the time you had to serve never got any less” (67). At this point, he is not the entirely Shukhov that we see presented in other areas of the book; while he praises work as it helps time go faster, he qualifies his positivity with a reflection on his sentence as a whole. His focus on the time that he has remaining on his sentence shows that, ironically, Shukhov is infallible, in not practicing the lessons that he preaches. Shukhov, in that instance, cannot stay in the present and does not resist through an appreciation of what is typically not valued. After declaring his contentment with the day, the narrator, through Shukhov, says that day is “just one of the 3,653 days of his sentence, from bell to bell. The extra three were for leap years” (182). The ending reveals the enormity of his sentence and his desire to be free. Shukhov hides his hopes and the only time they are truly revealed is the end, when the narrator expresses his sadness, internally. While we do learn much from Shukhov, Solzhenitsyn ended the novel purposefully, leaving the reader wondering if there is anything he/she can learn from a man who is in such a futile situation who yearns to be free. The …show more content…
Critics may take issue with my rationale for the two Shukhovs. I am aware that there is not as much evidence supporting the claim that there is a Shukhov that we cannot learn from. My claim hinges on Solzhenitsyn’s opposing ending to the book. The majority of One Day details Shukhov’s resistance through survival with a focus on the present whereas the ending contains a different Shukhov, upset with the length of his sentence, and, simply, thirsting to be free. Potentially, a critic may hypothesize that the last lines of the novel are not Shukhov’s words and thus hold no weight. I concede, that, in fact, the last lines are not a direct quote from Shukhov, but rather are free indirect discourse or close third, a literary style in which the narrator moves from his position on the outside to the internal thought process of the character. Solzhenitsyn uses free indirect discourse to display Shukhov’s repressed feelings within the frame of his understanding. Shukhov does not verbalizes these words, but rather, thinks the last lines. Hence, my previous argument that the last lines reveal his internal sadness and desire to be free. Additionally, I appreciate that potential critique that it may be a stretch to say he yearns to be free by simply mentioning the number of days left on his sentence in relation to the day just described. Even using the frame of indirect discourse, some may still not