The Full Life - Part 2

This Part 2 has been a while in the making.

As I said before, I have digressed but I will soon get back on subject - you'd be surprised.

Ivan Denisovich, then, is this prisoner (reason unknown) in a labor camp. In the course of that day in his life, he meets with different characters, each of whom deals with the "situation" in his (no "zer" here, for they are all men) own way with one ultimate goal: survival.

But what about Denisovich himself? From aloft spirituality to abject cowardice, he has seen it all among his inmates attempting to get through the day.

Yet, the turning point in the novel is his own transformation when assigned the task of rebuilding a wall for a purpose he himself isn't really sure about. When the end of the working day is signaled, he is unable to interrupt his work and keeps piling up brick after brick until he runs out of mortar.

There is no reward for him to expect; only - literally - the satisfaction of a job well done. As he lies down in his bunk for the night, he observes that that has been a good day, including - but not only - because he has managed to get extra food (which he didn't need).

Conclusion: Denisovich is definitely the best worker of he day - if only by his own standards alone - and that is all that matters. Forgotten is his envy of Tsezar, forgotten his pity towards the meek or his admiration of the spiritually-inclined. Even the lowest form of gratification from immediate survival and material luxury has vanished from his mind.

A slave to work, as many critics have pointed out? A dehumanized being? But here, once more, we are faced with the problem of defining "human". And besides, why is there so much emphasis on this particular epiphany experienced by the main protagonist, rather than the rigid sets of traditional or inherited beliefs by other protagonists?

What does it mean to deserve the title "good man", to have had a full life? In the utter absurdity, by our standards, that Ivan Denisovich's life has become, he still manages to be happy. More than a critique of totalitarianism under socialism, there is a truly revolutionary truth in this tale: one of a truly contemporary revolution - that of the lower classes.

So, enough of this bourgeois-impregnated stereotype of heroes seeking to better themselves. The individual can only have value as part of a whole: to be the best part possible for the best whole.

That is to have had a full life: to have been the best at one's job without the promise of remuneration or promotion.