Trujillo 1

Samantha Trujillo
Ms. Schwartz
English 10H B1
Sep.14, 2013
Solzhenitzyns Speech
In 1970, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn recited his Noble Prize acceptance speech. His speech
addresses that writers and artists should speak out against the injustice people perceive literature
to be. His speech brought forth much controversial discussion about literature amongst the
community and the world. Solzhenitsyn not only open the eyes of many upcoming artists, writers
and people. But people were able to address that literature was what held and tied the world
together. Only the people who took a stand could save literature voiced Solzhenitsyn. Today the
world has change and so has societys literature. If Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was writing his
speech today his language, imagery, and tone would drastically change in order to appeal to the
global audience today.
Aleksandrs speech would change today because of how language has adapted over the
past decade. English or any other language comes with many dialogues and accents. Yet these
accents and different talks on diverse language make the world unique. It applies to how
Aleksandrs speech would be revised and edited. In his speech he uses a great deal amount of
figurative language to express literature. A figurative language he includes in his speech is
metaphor and hyperbole. Metaphor and hyperbole is still use the same way as it was in the past
and now. However, the way Solzhenitsyn words his metaphor is quite different than the average
person would say it now. An example of how he used it in his speech is this quote he voices.
Trujillo 2

This I have understood and felt that world literature is no longer an abstract anthology, nor a
generalization invented by literary historians, it is rather a certain common body and a common
spirit, a living heartfelt, unity reflecting the growing unity of mankind. (Nobel Prize Acceptance
Speech 1970).
This line can be perceived as a metaphor. Solzhenitsyn describes what literature is like without
using the terms like or as. One way his figurative language could change in order to appeal to
todays audience, is not using too much run-on-sentences. Another way his speech could have
been change if he was writing it during this time would be using common words such because,
furthermore and however. In the quote above he uses words that are un common in today society
like the word nor. Furthermore his word choices and ideal of thought would be different compare
to what he wrote in 1970. His speech probably would be right to the point and more
understandable to the public ears. Another example of how his speech could have been written
differently today is the hyperbole he uses in his speech.
State Frontiers still turn crimson, heated by electric wire and bursts of machine fire; and various
ministries of internal affairs still think that literature too is an internal affair Falling under their
jurisdiction; newspaper headlines still display; No right to inter in our internal affairs . (Nobel
Prize Acceptance Speech 1970).

This quote is a hyperbole because its an exaggeration. If he were writing it now he could relate
literature to things relevant today then what was back then. One example is that he could relate
literature to is a war today. Maybe he could use the Iraq war or third world countries that arent
lucky enough to learn more about literature. He could say how unfair it is that they cant
experience learning literature.
Trujillo 3

Aleksandrs speech uses a lot of imagery to describe his thoughts of literature and to
explain to artists that they should take a stand. Some imagery he used in his speech was visual,
touch, smell and emotional imagery. An emotional imagery he uses is in this quote.
And no sooner will falsehood be dispersed than the nakedness of violence will be revealed in
all its ugliness- and violence, decrepit, will fall. That is why my friends, I believe that we are
able to help the world in its white-hot hour. (Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech 1970).
This quote shows emotional imagery towards violence and it helps the readers be able to tell his
emotional thoughts. One way his writing could of change was his word choice and his
description of violence. Another way his imagery could of change in his speech is the
comparison he makes between literature and violence. One example of visual imagery is in this
quote :
State frontiers turn crimson, heated by electric wire and burst of machine fire (Nobel Prize
Acceptance Speech 1970).
This quote shows visual imagery. The readers can visualize the comparison the writer is making.
The way Solzhenitsyn might of tailor the sentence is by describing machines that were invented
in this time. Perhaps he could of use weapons, expulsions, or anything that would catch the
global audience today.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns tone in the speech is motivated, descriptive and informative.
He introduces the topic and gets right to the point. The readers and audience in the world can tell
from the tone in the speech that he cares about literature and getting a say for it. The speech tone
was also indignant because he thought that it was unfair how people were treating literature and
not learning it. A quote to describe how it was indignant was used in the speech.
Trujillo 4

If not writers, are to pass judgment-not only on their unsuccessful government, but also on the
people themselves, in their cowardly humiliation or self-satisfied weakness? Who is to pass
Judgment on light weight sprints of youth, and on the young pirates brandishing their knives?
(Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech 1970).
This quote describes that he doesnt agree that people should be judgmental instead they should
be encouraging literature learning upon the youths. If he were writing his speech today his tone
would probably be more whimsical and more optimistic about the future. His tone would be
encouraging because he would want people today and especially youths to agree with his
discussion.
All in all Solzhenitzyns speech would have been different if it were written today. His
speech would have been shown throughout the internet and Tv- stations. His speech was targeted
towards Russia but I believe if his speech was written today he would talk about more countries,
including countries that are in war or are not lucky enough to learn literature. His tone, imagery,
and language would change.