-
The perfect novel. Nov 4, 2001 (62 of 64 found this helpful)
The theme of this book is not prison camps: it is nothing more narrow than life itself. And it is almost as rich in characters and stories within stories (here Solzhenitsyn is very like Tolstoy) as life: constancy in love, artistic integrity, the whimspy of fate, literacy in Medieval Novgorod, the prison in the Count of Monte Cristo, snow, how to sew, the law of unintended consequences.
A few major abiding themes run like threads throughout the book, providing unity: First, the life of the "zek," the prisoner in Stalin's camps. Second, loneliness: not just of prisoners longing for a woman or lost loved ones, or of persecuted wives trying to make lives for themselves, but ultimately of each person. Every conversation carries a different meaning for the people involved. The author "gets inside of peoples heads" in an amazing way -- from the janitor Spiridon to the "Best Friend of Counter-Intelligence Operatives," Joseph Stalin himself. Third, and on a deeper level, integrity, both artistic and moral.
Fourth, and I don't know if this was the conscious intent of the author or not, the book reminds us of the unity of Western civilization. Aside from mentions of Tolstoy, Dostoevski, Pushkin, and Lermontov, (which, I might add, also describes the company Solzhenitsyn belongs in, with honor), the book is honeycombed with references to the great thinkers and artists of European civilization -- from the ancient Greeks and the Gospels, to Dante, the Holy Grail, Bach and Beethoven. The Marxist Rubin even quotes Luther. Primarily, no doubt this is a reflection of the fact that the prisoners in the "sharashkas," the top-secret scientific work camps, were educated men, unlike, say, the hero of his shorter novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. (The contrast Solzhenitsyn draws to their well-paid Neanderthal captors is just one form of the irony that is his most distinctive and powerful stylistic weapon. But even the Neanderthals, including Stalin himself, are portrayed not as cardboard villains, but with insight and imagination.) These references also remind us that, as much as Solzhenitsyn has been accused of being a "Slavophobe," as if that were an insult, the Russian culture he loves is an integral part of Western civilization. This iconic dialogue of the ages, similiar to the works of great Chinese painters, also adds another layer of delight to the book.
The final and greatest thread that unifies this work is the idea of achieving humanity, of becoming what a person ought to be, of heroism. The prisoners are poets, eccentric, and philosophers (though there are also scoundrels, and everyone is tempted that way), beaten down by life and the forces of disolution within, trying to preserve their souls, or civilization, from the barbarians who are their masters. In describing the simple heroism of some of his characters, Solzhenitsyn achieves brilliance. In my opinion, First Circle is the greatest of his works, and one of the most powerful pieces of writing of the 20th Century, at least. And it is not about the Gulag, primarily: it is about what it means to be human, and the choices we all face.
Aside from the characters and stories, many of the scenes are wonderful (again like Tolstoy): of Rubin standing in the courtyard at night in the snow when he hears the train whistle, of the party at the prosecutor's house, of the arrest of the diplomat. If life is sometimes too strange for fiction, (and it is) there are also pieces of fiction that seem truer than life. First Circle is a marriage of style and substance made in heaven, or at least, the highest circle of hell.
author, Jesus and the Religions of Man
-
If you like to read...read this Apr 22, 2001 (51 of 54 found this helpful)
I was first introdced to Solzhenitsyn's works when I was a freshman in high school, far too many years ago in a little town. The book was the Volume 1 of The Gulag Archipelago. It was really an eye-opener for me in so many ways, given that it was the first "really serious" book that I'd read.
I believe that Solzhenitsyn is the best writer of the 20th century, or at least he's the top writer I've read so far (and I've read a lot of books). Maybe that's influenced by my early exposure, but I don't think so; I find his works just as compelling now as I did then.
The First Circle is one of his most "accessible" works (that is, you can just jump in and start reading) and probably one of his best. A very compelling story; his portraits of the various vile creatures of the Soviet government have been shown to be quite accurate, and the way the various plots intertwine and are resolved is wonderful.
The First Circle gives great insight into a culture totally foreign to most US citizens, as the book's a mixture of spy novel, guide to life in a Gulag camp, and brief introduction to Soviet society of the 1950s. A depressing place to be sure, but fascinating. Well worth reading.
-
Its the pure delight of irony merged in tragedy and humor Mar 17, 1999 (20 of 20 found this helpful)
No other book will summarize so brilliantly the absurdity of a system in which the quest for the common good was just a trap for the independence and free will of each person. All the events during the novel take place in just one week. Nevertheless during that brief period the author manages to convey the dark existence for millions of citizens of the USSR during the whole Stalinst period, so the overall impression is that the novel drags on for years and years.
The narration of the story takes place in several different fronts which seem to connect at the end, but that never happens. Each character goes on with his life, and the reader is left to wonder what happened. Oddly enough this is part of the beauty of this novel and makes a lot of sense because Solzhenitzyn will stress until the end the lack of right for any person or system to deny a person of its individuality and abrogate for itself the power to guide other's destiny. Threfore, how could he do the same to the members of its novel? So he refuses to place a final point to their development.
To put it more briefly, just read it is a great book.
-
Modern Russian Classic Aug 19, 2005 (15 of 15 found this helpful)
Solzhenitsyn has written for the benefit of the rest of us, a work that recreates the madness that was life under Stalin. The First Circle is a story about what happens when the talents of a nation are wasted because those in power happen to be incompetent men (that tends to be generally the case, except New Zealand). At the heart of it, it is a testament to the power of a free market to value resources and direct them to where they are most valued.
Well, no, not really. Solzhenitsyn is not a capitalist at heart and his work does not disparage communism. It is a non-partisan look at a cross section of society that had to suffer the loss of lives, loved ones and youth. It is about their hope in spite of the circumstances surrounding them.
Solzhenitsyn's earlier work _One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich_ made Soviet society realize the genius that was in their midst. The First Circle cements Solzhenitsyn reputation as one of the greats of modern Russian literature. This book deserves to be in your collection.
Trust me, you will not regret reading this. A definite must read!
-
A Low-Tech Matrix Jan 2, 2005 (11 of 11 found this helpful)
This novel is set in what passes for the best of the worst: Research duty for ex-Gulag inmates who know what misery really is. Working on idiotic deadlines set in response to Stalin's quirks, the prisoner-scientists live in a world of denial and unreality akin to Dilbert on crack. A worse fate befalls their jailer-managers, who are "free," agents of the government, and must justify repeatedly failing to meet the ridiculous deadlines that their bosses set out of fear of offending The Boss, which typically ends in either immediate execution or in joining the ranks of those in chains.
Some things that stood out as I read this book were the universality of the bureaucratic mindset: avoidance of responsibility, inertia as a policy, stonewalling, and turfmanship, all in place of actual achievement or progress in any meaningful way. Another thing is the prevalence of a false-accuser culture, where anonymus denouncements can destroy the innocent quickly, without explanation or even a trace. (Given the state of our own society today, and the risk/reward calculus that favors the accuser, this trait appeared even more ominous to me as I read the book.) The denial that gripped some of the inmates, either wholly (Rubin) or partially (Nehrzin, in the beginning, and others) about why they were in prison reminded me of "The Matrix," in that they were dreamwalking through life in a mist of Marxist/Communist mumbo-jumbo, rationalizing their fates as random chance, a mistake, the failing of the system even, but almost never as an understanding of their suffering being inherent in the System itself. As Nehrzin awakes to this, to a degree (and the author may be semi-autobiographical in his sketch of this character, like himself a decorated artillery officer imprisoned over virtually nothing), he opens his eyes to the existence of the matrix of lies, false theory supporting false gods, etc., that has fully ensnared Russia and all within her power, hostage not only to Stalin's perversity, creeping madness, and hurbis, but to a system that is itself a reflection of all of these characteristics, too. The xenophobic search for American spies undermining Motherland security under every bush, the rewriting of history to support the current lies, and the occasional mind that breaks free by rejecting those lies, as Nehrzin did, starting in his youth, reminds one of Ayn Rand's "We the Living."
Echoing "1984," the older prisoners remember things as they were before the official history filled men's minds. Things had been different than they were being told, better, materially and spiritually. The prisoners themselves were frequently veterans - those who had done the most for the State reaping an unlooked-for reward, like Belisarius blinded by a jealous Justinian, left to beg in the streets. The theme of war and survival is a thread that binds the veterans, either prisoner or "free," to each other. A bond of another kind exists between the inmates and their women - the latter mostly loyal, giving up their youth, and the possibility of starting a family, waiting for a release that may never come, sustained by the rare visit that bureaucratic stonewalling and trickery tries to prevent, their love provides a flicker of hope in the ashes of their ruined lives, where even being suspected of marriage to a political criminal was enough to make earning a living an impossibility, since the State was sole employer.
Something else that seemed relevant to America today was the culture war that Yaralov, an ex-prisoner now running a research lab as a Colonel, remembers while pondering his posible return to zek status, from his youth. He gave up the love of a Christian girl because while the Orthodox Church was legal in the 1920s, it was not politically correct. As an ambitious young man with a future, Yaralov was torn between his woman and his career. As the Church was chased out of the public square, it suffered fr