Compose a 1500 words essay on A comparison of the two books Matigari by Ngugi and One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see pre

Compose a 1500 words essay on A comparison of the two books Matigari by Ngugi and One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Needs to be plagiarism free!

The narrative structure determines the overall development of the plot and story conflict.'Matigari' and 'One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich' depict problems of racial relations and force readers to rethink the primary impression at the end of the work. The problem that arises in most assessments of political change in Africa is that they focus on the formal aspects of the political order, the structures of governance. the set of legal rules, political norms, and established institutions that together constitute the regime. The narrative structure of a novel helps authors to provide a structural framework that underlines the manner in which the novel is presented to readers. Both books seem to contain restricted timeframes, which allows Ngugi and Solzhenitsyn to focus on every detail and to add emphasis on the inner meaning of the novels. Thesis Both authors address questions of political pressure in a broad context portraying racial differences as a core of social and political relations in modern society.In both works, a restricted timeframe helps the authors to place the main character in specific environments and portray difficulties and oppression faced by the characters in everyday life. The authors show that political structure determines a class location and privileges of people. The story "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" depicts life grievances and hardship caused by Soviet system and Bolshevism to ordinary citizens like Ivan Denisovich Shukhov. In this story, Solzhenitsyn unveils drawbacks and limitations of the Lenin's views and their consequences for an ordinary man. Repressions and spying was a result of Soviet ideology and the suppression of local initiative. Thus, it is possible to find the roots of these problems in Lenin's April Theses promulgated dominance of the working class and struggle against dissidents. The main thesis which influenced the course of Russian history was a strong leadership role of the Party. Solzhenitsyn unveils that the party ruled lives of people and determined their destiny. In both works, characters oppose the society trying to prove their rights on the land and political power in the country. On the other hand, rights are particularly difficult to operationally in legal politics if the object of these rights is to protect indigenous identity. Since rights language is usually attached to the idea that individuals should be protected, it tends not to work well when applied to collectives. Racism also gives rise to conflict when a collective asserts its rights over individuals who also make rights-based claims. The use of "cellule" for the smallest party units, and "rayon" for the next level of regional organization were typical for camps. The horrors of the Soviet system were a result of ideology stipulated by Lenin. Communist party organization became a corollary of colonial classification. Conscientious objection, while courageous, was individualist and unsuitable for mass emulation. The author describes:

He did that every day, but today was different, Shukhov remembered. This Sotsgorodok was a bare field knee-deep in snow, and for a start you'd be digging holes, knocking in fence posts, and stringing barbed wire around them to stop yourself running away. After that - get building (Solzhenitsyn)

Desertion was cowardice and sabotage treason. Lenin taught that the duty of a Communist was to depart for any war into which he had been conscripted and carry on the (party) struggle where circumstances placed him. In order to fulfill this thesis, Stalin introduced concentration camps as the main tool of oppression and civil control. The Party was not against nationalization. But it was fearful of the electoral consequences of too radical an image and stressed that only the largest industries were ripe for takeover. Nothing was sacred except the strong ideology protected with state control.