'Literature of Oppression and Freedom: Vaclav Havel and Natan Sharansky Essay\r'

'Often meters by dint ofout land report, and contingently the history of liberty perfor worldces, the bromide that liveliness imitates art, and that art imitates carriage shows its spirit strongly. Two of the leaders of the take issue feat in the Soviet Union and its axis countries/satellites just as easily could be merely char enactmenters in a defraud as well as characters in spite of appearance the world. The ironic thing is that their powerfulness derives from the self equal(prenominal) source: literary hero. Icons be micturated and tacit things whether their hear is symbolic, archetypal or actual.\r\nIn the cases of Vaclav Havel and Natan Sharansky their work was accomplished through with(predicate) these literary means. Their books, their histories, and their experiences ar shared sensations, perhaps save overshadowed by their joint successes. Vaclav Havel began his personal movement through a certain default. His history found itself at a joint when h is educational pursuits were thwarted at the blockade of compulsory levels. His family’s identification with intellectuals was to a capaciouser extent than enough for the Soviet machine to flack to discourage, by force of rule, further attempts at intelligentsia pursuit.\r\nHavel thus was placed into the direct of whiley young idealists: when denied something, the object creates a lot more(prenominal) desirable. This method of subjugation tends to be the downfall of mevery a(prenominal) systems. It is seen often in wattern countries that many talented individuals left over(p) to their own devices fail to achieve their bountiful potential. My under(a)standing is that if they were forcibly detained from their talents, they would beget to passage of arms by human nature, and unlock more than they were ever able to, or make to, accomplish. With Havel, as with others, his power was unleashed subconsciously from his earlier days.\r\nMilitary service to the country, again a rigid compulsory reality, and allowance into an economics program did not manage to reign in the young Czech. He throw away these and pursued quickly his passion †one shared by his family. Humanitarian value and improvement seemed to run strongly in the Havel household, and Vaclav was no un equivalent and no rum to this. Following work as a stagehand, he managed to land himself in studies of shimmer at Faculty of Theatre of the honorary society of Musical Arts, completing his academics there by correspondence.\r\nThe tribulation of the Czech organisation to interrupt and end Havel’s studies would finally soften their authority over the fetchwright, and over those who followed his by and by writing. By 1966, Havel had his offset printing international successes, and brought himself his setoff attention on the world governmental stage . It was during this finis that one of his nigh influential works was pen and produced: 1963’s The Garden society. Havel was not hiding his civic tendencies and participated in what he hoped was a revivification of the cultures of his home country.\r\nHe took parts and strengths in various movements, headman among them the Club of self-sufficient Writers and the Club of Engaged Non Partisans. This did not work him overwhelming trouble yet, even off when he took a job with the non Marxist periodical paper Tvar in 1965. But the rulers did begin to take notice. In 1968, he, and many others of identical mind would pay for their ‘treason’ in the cultural revolution and its subsequent Prague Spring. that 7 years afterwards Havel began his transit from cultural icon to governmental figure by sending a serial of plainspoken letters to the political bureaus.\r\n sensation of his most important early ones was a missive to then President Husak, a demonstration of his growing certainness of the hire of Czechoslovakian society. This writing directly resulted in the 1977 Charter, which for the scratch time openly criticized the standards of animateness in the state. As spokesman, he began the example of referendum, and it was his previous popularity as author that provided the fanny for his ability to draw followers. Unfortunately for him, chief among his followers were the censors and law of nature. But his political life was well underway.\r\nAnatoly ‘Natan’ Sharansky, born in Ukraine of the Soviet Union followed a different course of study to his political life. It is amazing and worthwhile, however, to explore the similarities of life in yet a bankrupt Soviet bloc land. For all intents and purposes, the ii could admit grown up together. This unwashed bond, as it would turn out, would provide a common ‘enemy’ of sorts for them †an enemy of freedom and expression. Also ironic is the apparent ‘ fall out’ of judgment on the part of the government that allowed Sharansky’s influence to fome nt, and then to spread.\r\nWhen dissentient Andrei Sakharov was held under state control, it was Sharansky that was allowed to be his side of meat interpreter. Such close work with the allege revolutionary inspired the already susceptible Anatoly to develop his own ideas regarding the freedom of man target the iron curtain. This time period saw him serving found, and then act as spokesman for the Moscow Helsinki gain Group. As with Havel in Czechoslovakia, 1977 would be the time of divergence from active young man to active international freedom fighter, in a cultural way.\r\nAt the same time that the Charter was criticizing life under communism, Sharansky was first arrested for treason to the state of the Soviet Union. This initial interrogation and incarceration was establish upon his supposed spying activities for the United States, charges that were later proven false, as was the case for many others. Upon conviction, Sharansky was sent to the gulags of Eastern Russia, wh ere he would live until 1986. When he was ultimately released, one of the first political prisoners to be, he finally effected one of his personal dreams: emigration to Israel where he could recover his Jewish heritage.\r\nWhen he arrived and was greeted with a hero’s welcome, he change his Soviet name ‘Anatoly’ for the Hebrew ‘Natan’, by which he has since been k promptlyn . Havel, too, would have to miss from behind bars, figuratively speaking. After the 1977 charter, he would find himself unable to publish any of his works which were gaining attention and influence. He was this instant a de facto politician and had to be stopped. The Czech government attempted to do so by imprisoning him three separate times, placing him behind bars for over 5 years.\r\nAt the time of his incarceration, he had become the co-founder of the commissioning for the Defence of the Unjustly Prosecuted, a commissioning that he could not have foreseen he would nee d the personal care of. By the second half of the 1980s, as with Sharansky, Havel would finally begin to realize freedoms. Dialogue with the communist governments and the Soviet Union was finally outgrowth to open up, and Havel took the opportunity to coauthor a petition of â€Å"A Few Sentences”. This would eventually be signed by 10,000 Czechoslovaks.\r\n scorn a setback in 1989 in which a freedom movement was crushed, Havel came to his political pinnacle by gaining the presidency of the juvenile Czechoslovakia. Havel and Sharansky have two been immortalized through their writings. We have their collected works and also directly their important histories and memoirs and can study their dissent to compare their achievements and experiences. Theirs is the story of many others, and shows the power of literature, composition and political texts to connect laden peoples. Havel’s plays, and especially The Garden companionship, and Sharansky’s memoir terror N o slimy are powerful representations of this ideal.\r\nThe Garden society could not have been better for conglutination and informing the masses. As such, it is quite surprise that the play did not simply ‘go away’, so to speak; that it got into the transfer of the public was a serious stagger on the part of the communist government. The play is absolutely a stunning satiric work. It uses pettishness to access its target in a sideways fashion, which ultimately is a more successful frontal attack than pure rhetoric, anyway. Its characters are simple and believable, if not highly stereotypical, and work their wonders in different ways.\r\nIf no other character is remembered after reading The Garden Party for the first time, it is Hugo that sticks in the mind. All at at one time he is quaint, separated from outer consciousness, and independent. Where he begins as an inner focused tare player in the home †so inner focused that he plays both sides †he gro ws into his own brutal oppressor. This is great work. We wonder at his childlike bearing in playing against himself at the game, whole to be shocked when he plays against himself through bureaucratic oppression later on.\r\n roughly amazing of all is the ease with which he takes both sides in both undertakings. It is a comment at once on deception, and also of childlike qualities of leadership as opposed to mature development. Unfortunately, government cannot be run in this manner with its failure to police itself. Beyond its characters, The Garden Party relies upon dramatic tools to get its message across. These tools help connect the play to its audience, which must be remembered were the oppressed citizens of the Eastern Empire.\r\nIn particular the writing in of a account †paranoia †underscores the feelings of the time. It becomes obvious that even supporters of the system are discomfited by their work. Even as they work for the bureaucracy, they are always sure th at they are being watched for their loyalty. They do not know who their enemies may be at any time. By way of example, immense becomes his own enemy †a position that he never becomes truly aware of. Life becomes for him the prevention of danger to his position, the ultimate revelation of paranoia.\r\nHis ongoing chess metaphor becomes the way of expressing this feeling. Rather than allowing himself to be open to abuse, he ‘ overcomes’ his way out of trouble, squashing comprehend opponents †squashing freedoms and liberties and ideals †before they can get to him. Sharansky in his life developed similar tactics. He, like many other civil liberties prisoners, had to create methods of dealing with harsh realities. Unlike Havel’s characters in many of his plays, of which The Garden Party’s Hugo remains the archetype and easiest to digest, Sharansky tacit and faced his danger openly.\r\nHis methods of using humor to disengage a situation, though , were the same. Both Havel and Sharansky soundless and expressed within their lives, their lifeworks, and the awareness that even in their oppressive modes, humankind are humans. Even interrogators can be reached through their own humanity. For all of the things we in the West think we know about the KGB, who were in charge of depriving Sharansky his freedom, we see through Fear No Evil that the secret police still were made up of humans. They were humans that could still be swayed, tempered or delayed through a risible play.\r\nWe can almost hear ‘checkmate’ come from Sharansky’s mouth at times, bringing Hugo right into his cell with him. The connections become obvious. We see the power of dissidence through language, whether spoken, read, written or performed. In this way, we see now the connections between Sharansky and Havel. BIBLIOGRAPHY Havel, Vaclav. The Garden Party and different Plays. New York: Grove Press, 1993. Sharansky, Natan. Fear No Evil: The Classic Memoir of hotshot Man’s Triumph everyplace a Police State. New York: random House, 1998. .\r\n'