What do you think?
Rate this book
Candle in the Wind
Candle in the Wind by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1974 Paperback
156 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
9 people are currently reading
228 people want to read
About the author
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
284 books4,076 followersalso known as
Alexander Solzenitsyn (English, alternate)
Αλεξάντρ Σολζενίτσιν (Greek)
Works, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) and The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1975), of Soviet writer and dissident Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970, exposed the brutality of the labor camp system.
This known Russian novelist, dramatist, and historian best helped to make the world aware of the forced Gulag.
Exiled in 1974, he returned to Russia in 1994. Solzhenitsyn fathered of Ignat Solzhenitsyn, a conductor and pianist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksan...
Alexander Solzenitsyn (English, alternate)
Αλεξάντρ Σολζενίτσιν (Greek)
Works, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) and The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1975), of Soviet writer and dissident Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970, exposed the brutality of the labor camp system.
This known Russian novelist, dramatist, and historian best helped to make the world aware of the forced Gulag.
Exiled in 1974, he returned to Russia in 1994. Solzhenitsyn fathered of Ignat Solzhenitsyn, a conductor and pianist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksan...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
February 2, 2018
آزادی به معنای در قفس نبودن نیست.به قول فاضل نظری( به گرفتاران رهایی نتوان گفت آزاد)
آنچه در نزد تو سعادت است در نزد من شقاوت..
دنیا جایی برای ماندن نیست ،بلکه راهی است برای رفتن و هیچ مسافری بر روی جاده خانه نمی سازد...
شخصیت های کتاب ،حول محور دلار میگردند و لذت غذا خوردن و لذت های پست دنیایی را به هر چیزی ترجیح می دهند و می گویند:پول مانند چرک کف دست است و پول اصلا برای ما مهم نیست ما برای زندگی معنوی خودمان این کار را می کنیم!!!!!
در پرده اول،(موری) مردی است که در غدا خوردن است و (آلکس)را مسخره می کندو او را دهاتی می شمارد و به نظر وی سعادت در خیس کردن دست با آب دهان برای شمارش پول است...در حالی که یادش نمی آید آخرین بار کی ماه را دیده است...آخرین شوهر دخترش چه کسی بوده؟حتی عکس دخترش را هم ندارد...
ما فقط یک بار زندگی می کنیم و این جمله بدان معنا نیست که غلط زندگی کنیم،بل به این معناست که آگاهانه زندگی کنیم...
پیشنهاد می کنم که این کتاب را حتما زندگی کنید...
کتابیست بسیار زیبا با معانی ژرف
آنچه در نزد تو سعادت است در نزد من شقاوت..
دنیا جایی برای ماندن نیست ،بلکه راهی است برای رفتن و هیچ مسافری بر روی جاده خانه نمی سازد...
شخصیت های کتاب ،حول محور دلار میگردند و لذت غذا خوردن و لذت های پست دنیایی را به هر چیزی ترجیح می دهند و می گویند:پول مانند چرک کف دست است و پول اصلا برای ما مهم نیست ما برای زندگی معنوی خودمان این کار را می کنیم!!!!!
در پرده اول،(موری) مردی است که در غدا خوردن است و (آلکس)را مسخره می کندو او را دهاتی می شمارد و به نظر وی سعادت در خیس کردن دست با آب دهان برای شمارش پول است...در حالی که یادش نمی آید آخرین بار کی ماه را دیده است...آخرین شوهر دخترش چه کسی بوده؟حتی عکس دخترش را هم ندارد...
ما فقط یک بار زندگی می کنیم و این جمله بدان معنا نیست که غلط زندگی کنیم،بل به این معناست که آگاهانه زندگی کنیم...
پیشنهاد می کنم که این کتاب را حتما زندگی کنید...
کتابیست بسیار زیبا با معانی ژرف
September 25, 2025
A Candle in the Wind, a beautiful metaphor for man’s soul. A reminder of its frailty amidst a world growing cold in a milieu of materialism and science; how much brighter its light shows in the dark, in a cave, in a prison. And once you meet couples like Maurice and Tillie, even Phillip and Annie, you may yet wish to go back in.
November 22, 2023
This didactic play calls us to nourish the soul, but it attacks so many ills that it doesn’t properly problematize any of them or give content to the concept of the soul.
January 3, 2017
اقای حسن ملک ترجمه کردن به فارسی و توسط انتشارات سروش چاپ شده
March 10, 2012
Originally published on my blog here in July 1998.
This play, whose original title translates as the New Testament quote The Light Which is in Thee, was written about the same time as the novel First Circle, in the early sixties. (As the Bible verse is quoted in the play, it seems rather perverse to re-title it.) It is set, unusually for Solzhenitsyn, in a fantastic world, a scientific dystopia rather like George Orwell's 1984 or Zamyatin's We.
The plot is concerned with the morality of institutionalised brainwashing. Alex, who's past is based closely on that of Solzhenitsyn himself, has returned home; he had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder he did not commit, and was released when the truth was finally discovered. He meets his cousin Alda on his return, and gets involved in the academic life of the town. This is polarised as far as he is concerned between the music of his uncle Maurice (who seems to represent the disappearing past) and the psychological research of Radagise. He is developing a method to ensure the stability of the personality, which he tries out on Alda at Alex's suggestion. The problem is that this stabilisation amounts to brainwashing; she is no longer the same personality.
A visiting general sees the potential this has to serve the state: a race of docile subjects can be created, ready to do whatever their rulers require of them. Alda is eventually shocked out of her bland mind-state by the death of her father. The really shocking thing, though, is that she wants to return to the stabilised condition; life is so much easier without worrying emotions and responsibilities. The horror this gives Alex is, I think, a large part of the point of the play.
Thus the theme of the play is the battle between individualism and the kind of corporate identity required in the modern totalitarian state, just as it is in the more famous dystopias already mentioned. I'm not sure that Candle in the Wind would work terribly well on stage, and on paper it's shortness means that it can't compete with a novel for examination of the issues in any depth. But it's well worth a read, for characterising the kind of person - whom I suspect to be in the majority - who would rather give up their personal freedom of choice to live an easy life.
This play, whose original title translates as the New Testament quote The Light Which is in Thee, was written about the same time as the novel First Circle, in the early sixties. (As the Bible verse is quoted in the play, it seems rather perverse to re-title it.) It is set, unusually for Solzhenitsyn, in a fantastic world, a scientific dystopia rather like George Orwell's 1984 or Zamyatin's We.
The plot is concerned with the morality of institutionalised brainwashing. Alex, who's past is based closely on that of Solzhenitsyn himself, has returned home; he had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder he did not commit, and was released when the truth was finally discovered. He meets his cousin Alda on his return, and gets involved in the academic life of the town. This is polarised as far as he is concerned between the music of his uncle Maurice (who seems to represent the disappearing past) and the psychological research of Radagise. He is developing a method to ensure the stability of the personality, which he tries out on Alda at Alex's suggestion. The problem is that this stabilisation amounts to brainwashing; she is no longer the same personality.
A visiting general sees the potential this has to serve the state: a race of docile subjects can be created, ready to do whatever their rulers require of them. Alda is eventually shocked out of her bland mind-state by the death of her father. The really shocking thing, though, is that she wants to return to the stabilised condition; life is so much easier without worrying emotions and responsibilities. The horror this gives Alex is, I think, a large part of the point of the play.
Thus the theme of the play is the battle between individualism and the kind of corporate identity required in the modern totalitarian state, just as it is in the more famous dystopias already mentioned. I'm not sure that Candle in the Wind would work terribly well on stage, and on paper it's shortness means that it can't compete with a novel for examination of the issues in any depth. But it's well worth a read, for characterising the kind of person - whom I suspect to be in the majority - who would rather give up their personal freedom of choice to live an easy life.
October 19, 2025
I found this play, published in 1960, to be quite prescient in light of the recent unleashing of Open AI upon the world. The characters in this play wrestle with the moral issues involving “biocybernetics” in society. There is much discussion about computer programming and algorithms and whatnot. 1960! There is even talk about how all the data of an army and its positions and enemy positions would be put into a computer which would therefore tell you exactly how to fight a battle, no generals or analysts needed. Fascinating.
May 23, 2017
This play was very emotionally driven. And very musically audible. I could hear music in the words. It held so many meaningful conversations, so many strong ideas, perhaps too many! I feel the characters were a bit too strong of character, being depressed, energetic, or very neutral (I supposed this was an intentional highlight, but I didn't like it nevertheless).
I think there were too many relationships in the play too. But I absolutely loved the juxtaposition of the scientists and the social scientists. Great visualisation of what each feels towards the other. Contempt, disrespect, distrust, condescension.
Overall, I enjoyed the play as far as the ideas were concerned, but the actual characters were not for me to like.
I think there were too many relationships in the play too. But I absolutely loved the juxtaposition of the scientists and the social scientists. Great visualisation of what each feels towards the other. Contempt, disrespect, distrust, condescension.
Overall, I enjoyed the play as far as the ideas were concerned, but the actual characters were not for me to like.
March 6, 2015
Red Flag #1: My badass Russian literature professor, who has personal ties with the Solzhenitsyn family, has never heard of this play. He didn't even know Solzhenitsyn wrote plays.
Red Flag #2: Solzhenitsyn himself considered this work a failure.
Red Flag #3: The guy who wrote the introduction (ie- the block of text that exists to get you psyched about whatever work of literature you are about to read) couldn't find a single nice thing to say about it.
Red Flag #2: Solzhenitsyn himself considered this work a failure.
Red Flag #3: The guy who wrote the introduction (ie- the block of text that exists to get you psyched about whatever work of literature you are about to read) couldn't find a single nice thing to say about it.
July 2, 2023
I picture this as a bit of a labor of love for Solzhenitsyn, whose work I generally love. There is a lot of sincerity in the words, but it leaves a bit of a stale taste in the mouth when removed from the early 1960s, when it must have been written. Idealism takes many forms, and idealism runs rampant throughout the play in both the part of the protagonist(s) and antagonist(s), clearly at odds with each other because of the flavor of their feelings and intentions.
From the first act, we're very clear on which character Solzhenitsyn infused his own leanings. I wondered how he would try to reconcile his political tendencies and the Solzhenitsyn-character's efforts to deal with the machinery of science and industrialization all around him. The book was written in the 60s, but not published until 1972 - before he was invited to leave - so he was still very much under the scrutiny of the Soviet leadership when penning and publishing this. It pales (literarily and politically) with 'Cancer Ward' and 'First Circle' but could it have been the final straw?
A previous reviewer was quick to point out that this would be hell to actually stage - couldn't agree more. But with a good producer and cast, I could see the characters fleshed out a bit to make a really decent small-budget film.
Not a bad read, just a little more sanctimonious than I'd hoped for or expected.
From the first act, we're very clear on which character Solzhenitsyn infused his own leanings. I wondered how he would try to reconcile his political tendencies and the Solzhenitsyn-character's efforts to deal with the machinery of science and industrialization all around him. The book was written in the 60s, but not published until 1972 - before he was invited to leave - so he was still very much under the scrutiny of the Soviet leadership when penning and publishing this. It pales (literarily and politically) with 'Cancer Ward' and 'First Circle' but could it have been the final straw?
A previous reviewer was quick to point out that this would be hell to actually stage - couldn't agree more. But with a good producer and cast, I could see the characters fleshed out a bit to make a really decent small-budget film.
Not a bad read, just a little more sanctimonious than I'd hoped for or expected.
May 12, 2020
کتاب جالبی بود.داستان در حد متوسط بود. اگه وقت آزاد داشتین بخونینش
July 30, 2011
Maybe a change of pace and setting is tolerable and even welcomed in other authors' works, but my love for Solzhenitsyn took a beating after finishing this play. To some level, I got where he was going setting the play in upper-middle class (non-Russian) people talking science and philosophy instead of acting them out. But compare this to Cancer Ward and the genius Ivan Denisovich where the political dissenter hero in labour camps had more pull. In Candle, the hero Alex at first seemed interesting, but the play soon cut short any idea of character development, placing him in a fly on the wall role. I guess it actually scored 3 stars for being so damned irritating: Alda and Nika begged to be developed; Sinbar is irritating, Annie and Philip remain ignorant idiots. The play ends suddenly. Half a star more for the last line from Nika - which made me see what the play could have been.
April 7, 2014
The issues raised in this play regarding "personality stabilization" to create people who can exist within the norms of society without care or concern bring to the forefront the risks posed by science and technology when used by some who assume a moral authority over others.
Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn is far better as a novelist than a playwright. Had he written this a novel it most certainly would have had far more depth and impact in its execution and would likely be ranked up with Orwell's 1984 as classic anti-utopian literature. As it stands, the story ends up being a bit too shallow for the topics covered.
Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn is far better as a novelist than a playwright. Had he written this a novel it most certainly would have had far more depth and impact in its execution and would likely be ranked up with Orwell's 1984 as classic anti-utopian literature. As it stands, the story ends up being a bit too shallow for the topics covered.
August 17, 2023
Devo ringraziare la mia migliore amica che ha deciso di prendere questo libro in biblioteca basandosi su nessun criterio razionale e ha pensato che mi sarebbe in qualche modo piaciuto.
Lo so che questa è la prima recensione a questo libro e per dovere morale dovrei scrivere qualcosa di sensato e relativo all'opera. Ci ho anche provato, lo giuro! Sta di fatto, però, che io sono completamente digiuna sia di teatro che di letteratura russa contemporanea per cui non posso dare un giudizio più profondo di "mi è piaciuto". L'unica cosa che mi sento di poter dire è che mi ha toccato molto la riflessione sulla scienza, sul suo scopo e sulle sue conseguenze.
Lo so che questa è la prima recensione a questo libro e per dovere morale dovrei scrivere qualcosa di sensato e relativo all'opera. Ci ho anche provato, lo giuro! Sta di fatto, però, che io sono completamente digiuna sia di teatro che di letteratura russa contemporanea per cui non posso dare un giudizio più profondo di "mi è piaciuto". L'unica cosa che mi sento di poter dire è che mi ha toccato molto la riflessione sulla scienza, sul suo scopo e sulle sue conseguenze.
July 25, 2016
Found this little known play by Solzhenitsyn at a second hand book store which was first published in 1973. Many of the issues regarding the individual, the masses (one sacrifice for the many), science and technology are still relevant today. The characters in the play are relatable (although some make you want to SCREAM!) but all in all I found the read to be an interesting one and I think I will refer back to it in time.
December 12, 2008
short play about ...biomedically engineering human emotion, experience, perception. Interesting and ahead of its time, and nothing to do with the Elton John song.
July 18, 2018
Didn't stand out.
June 3, 2024
ALEX: Noi non abbiamo perso niente, nel cosmo. È sulla terra che stiamo perdendo quello che ci rimane.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews