What do you think?
Rate this book
We
Before Brave New World...
Before 1984... There was...
We
In the One State of the great Benefactor, there are no individuals, only numbers. Life is an ongoing process of mathematical precision, a perfectly balanced equation. Primitive passions and instincts have been subdued. Even nature has been defeated, banished behind the Green Wall. But one frontier remains: outer space. Now, with the creation of the spaceship Integral, that frontier鈥攚ill be subjugated to the beneficent yoke of reason.
One number, D-503, chief architect of the Integral, decides to record his thoughts in the final days before the launch for the benefit of less advanced societies. But a chance meeting with the beautiful I-330 results in an unexpected discovery that threatens everything D-503 believes about himself and the One State. The discovery鈥攐r rediscovery鈥� of inner space... and that disease the ancients called the soul.
A page-turning SF adventure, a masterpiece of wit and black humor that accurately predicted the horrors of Stalinism, WE is a classic dystopian novel. Its message of hope and warning is as timely at the end of the twentieth century as it was at the beginning.
Before 1984... There was...
We
In the One State of the great Benefactor, there are no individuals, only numbers. Life is an ongoing process of mathematical precision, a perfectly balanced equation. Primitive passions and instincts have been subdued. Even nature has been defeated, banished behind the Green Wall. But one frontier remains: outer space. Now, with the creation of the spaceship Integral, that frontier鈥攚ill be subjugated to the beneficent yoke of reason.
One number, D-503, chief architect of the Integral, decides to record his thoughts in the final days before the launch for the benefit of less advanced societies. But a chance meeting with the beautiful I-330 results in an unexpected discovery that threatens everything D-503 believes about himself and the One State. The discovery鈥攐r rediscovery鈥� of inner space... and that disease the ancients called the soul.
A page-turning SF adventure, a masterpiece of wit and black humor that accurately predicted the horrors of Stalinism, WE is a classic dystopian novel. Its message of hope and warning is as timely at the end of the twentieth century as it was at the beginning.
232 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1924
6,337 people are currently reading
163k people want to read
About the author
Yevgeny Zamyatin
308听books1,433听followersYevgeny Zamyatin (Russian: 袝胁谐械薪懈泄 袟邪屑褟褌懈薪, sometimes also seen spelled Eugene Zamiatin) Russian novelist, playwright, short story writer, and essayist, whose famous anti-utopia (1924, We) prefigured Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932), and inspired George Orwell's 1984 (1949). The book was considered a "malicious slander on socialism" in the Soviet Union, and it was not until 1988 when Zamyatin was rehabilitated. In the English-speaking world We has appeared in several translations.
"And then, just the way it was this morning in the hangar, I saw again, as though right then for the first time in my life, I saw everything: the unalterably straight streets, the sparkling glass of the sidewalks, the divine parallelepipeds of the transparent dwellings, the squared harmony of our gray-blue ranks. And so I felt that I - not generations of people, but I myself - I had conquered the old God and the old life, I myself had created all this, and I'm like a tower, I'm afraid to move my elbow for fear of shattering the walls, the cupolas, the machines..." (from We, trans. by Clarence Brown)
Yevgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin was born in the provincial town of Lebedian, some two hundred miles south of Moscow. His father was an Orthodox priest and schoolmaster, and his mother a musician. He attended Progymnasium in Lebedian and gymnasium in Voronezh. From 1902 to 1908 he studied naval engineering at St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute. While still a student, he joined the Bolshevik Party. In 1905 he made a study trip in the Near East. Due to his revolutionary activities Zamyatin was arrested in 1905 and exiled. His first short story, 'Odin' (1908), was drew on his experiences in prison.
Zamyatin applied to Stalin for permission to emigrate in 1931 and lived in Paris until his death.
"And then, just the way it was this morning in the hangar, I saw again, as though right then for the first time in my life, I saw everything: the unalterably straight streets, the sparkling glass of the sidewalks, the divine parallelepipeds of the transparent dwellings, the squared harmony of our gray-blue ranks. And so I felt that I - not generations of people, but I myself - I had conquered the old God and the old life, I myself had created all this, and I'm like a tower, I'm afraid to move my elbow for fear of shattering the walls, the cupolas, the machines..." (from We, trans. by Clarence Brown)
Yevgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin was born in the provincial town of Lebedian, some two hundred miles south of Moscow. His father was an Orthodox priest and schoolmaster, and his mother a musician. He attended Progymnasium in Lebedian and gymnasium in Voronezh. From 1902 to 1908 he studied naval engineering at St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute. While still a student, he joined the Bolshevik Party. In 1905 he made a study trip in the Near East. Due to his revolutionary activities Zamyatin was arrested in 1905 and exiled. His first short story, 'Odin' (1908), was drew on his experiences in prison.
Zamyatin applied to Stalin for permission to emigrate in 1931 and lived in Paris until his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 8,482 reviews
February 22, 2015
George Orwell, you poser. You punk. You . . . thief! I heard that you had read this before writing 1984. But I didn't expect Zamyatin's writing to be so superior to yours. And it is. It is so much more intriguing than your sterile work. D-503 is so much the better character than Winston. And you rob I-333 of her power and respect by demoting Julia to the role of a sexual object that stirs Winston to action. Yes, D-503 is stirred to action by I-333, but she's the political activist, the intelligent one in this revolution. Besides, Zamyatin had the guts to apply a letter and a name to his characters, while your very English "Winston" makes your work smack of parochialism and, frankly, condescension. D-503 is the universal toadie and I-333 the universal revolutionary.
"Winston"? Really? Were you trying to evoke Churchill? Somehow I sense . . .
Regardless of this, Zamyatin's prose is far better than yours. It never seems hackneyed, and rarely pedantic, though I suppose any novel that portrays rebellion against totalitarianism has to be somewhat pedantic. But because Zamyatin actually lived under a totalitarian state - TWO, actually! - and you only imagined what the Socialists would do in your imaginary world, he avoids much of the rhetoric that you seem to embrace, even while lampooning the imagined society of Big Brother.
You see, despite his impersonal name, D-503 is so much more human than Winston. Yes, Winston is a revolutionary like D-503, but when I read him in comparison with the protagonist of We, Winston comes off as disingenuous. D-503 is the real deal, because Zamyatin was the real deal. The man was exiled by both the Tsar and the Communists for his free-thinking while you were worried about threats from within your country that never materialized. Maybe that's why 1984 feels so forced (remember that awful middle section outlining the world's politics - BORING!), while We feels so much more natural and easy to read.
Furthermore, Zamyatin's prose is beautiful. Yes, you have the occasional turn of phrase that came out well, iconic, even, but Zamyatin's writing is beautiful throughout, even in its stochasticity. It's the writing of a poet who actually lived under totalitarianism, not a vested academic who feared a potential threat. You were fighting despotism, Zamyatin was living with it. You surmised, he knew.
And for these reasons, I am doing the unprecedented (for me, at least): I am taking one of your stars and giving it to Zamyatin. Because, while his work isn't perfect, one must give credit where credit is due. Censorship, along with the the Cold War, gave you your day in the sun of America's high school classrooms, when, all along, those kids, myself included, should have been reading Zamyatin's work.
That's an injustice. Maybe you're not totally to blame. Maybe Western society has to shoulder some of the guilt here. But . . . but . . . you copycat!
"Winston"? Really? Were you trying to evoke Churchill? Somehow I sense . . .
Regardless of this, Zamyatin's prose is far better than yours. It never seems hackneyed, and rarely pedantic, though I suppose any novel that portrays rebellion against totalitarianism has to be somewhat pedantic. But because Zamyatin actually lived under a totalitarian state - TWO, actually! - and you only imagined what the Socialists would do in your imaginary world, he avoids much of the rhetoric that you seem to embrace, even while lampooning the imagined society of Big Brother.
You see, despite his impersonal name, D-503 is so much more human than Winston. Yes, Winston is a revolutionary like D-503, but when I read him in comparison with the protagonist of We, Winston comes off as disingenuous. D-503 is the real deal, because Zamyatin was the real deal. The man was exiled by both the Tsar and the Communists for his free-thinking while you were worried about threats from within your country that never materialized. Maybe that's why 1984 feels so forced (remember that awful middle section outlining the world's politics - BORING!), while We feels so much more natural and easy to read.
Furthermore, Zamyatin's prose is beautiful. Yes, you have the occasional turn of phrase that came out well, iconic, even, but Zamyatin's writing is beautiful throughout, even in its stochasticity. It's the writing of a poet who actually lived under totalitarianism, not a vested academic who feared a potential threat. You were fighting despotism, Zamyatin was living with it. You surmised, he knew.
And for these reasons, I am doing the unprecedented (for me, at least): I am taking one of your stars and giving it to Zamyatin. Because, while his work isn't perfect, one must give credit where credit is due. Censorship, along with the the Cold War, gave you your day in the sun of America's high school classrooms, when, all along, those kids, myself included, should have been reading Zamyatin's work.
That's an injustice. Maybe you're not totally to blame. Maybe Western society has to shoulder some of the guilt here. But . . . but . . . you copycat!
April 25, 2023
It's been a decade since I first read Zamyatin's masterpiece, and even though this book remains unchanged for almost a century now, the person who read it is not. A decade later, I'm a very different person, no longer the wide-eyed undergraduate who thought she had the world all figured out. Time has added a bit more life experience, an overdose of cynicism, a few collisions with the rougher edges of the universe, and a few still subtle grey hairs. Time has dispelled some of the youthful cocky confidence, softened a few edges, sharpened a few more, and helped open my eyes to the areas of life I used to give little thought to before. It managed to keep my love of philosophical discussions intact but greatly decreased the amount of wine I can have fueling those.
In short, I'm no longer the same person as I was a decade ago, reading Zamyatin's masterpiece for the first time.
And this book for me now is very different than it was back then. I can see more of its unsettling depth, and it leaves me almost speechless (just joking, of course, nothing in this world can make me really shut up).
I remember being impressed by the dystopian society, focusing on the idea of One State, the totalitarian oppression and the parallels between it and the soon-to-follow societal changes in Zamyatin's motherland. You know, the obvious, easy stuff, the one that gets quite old after reading a few dystopian books (like Orwell's one, inspired by 'We'), the stuff that causes exasperated sigh of 'Yes, I get it, totalitarian = bad, individualism suits humans, oppression is evil, so what?' And that's right - so what? If that was all there was to Zamyatin's 'We' it would have disappeared from the public eye by now, lingering perhaps only in a few dusty college classrooms.
It's the amazing atmosphere Zamyatin creates through the pen of his protagonist, a little formerly happy cog in the wheel with a few atavistic features and an unexpected development of an incurable condition - a soul. The writing so amazingly reflects the mental state of the confused man - so fractured and frantic and stuttering and urgent and anxious and often disjointed, laden with metaphors and unexpected emotions and full-on scream of soul.
It's the strength of unexpected chaotic emotional outpouring and emotional breakdown from the protagonist, running headfirst into the hitherto unknown to him wall of passion and jealousy and possessiveness, with all the both lovely and frustrating humanity that follows.
It's the prominent in Russian literature motif of search for happiness and attempts to figure out the secret of this elusive happiness for all, the soul search that leads to fewer answers than it inspires questions.
I read this book again. It left me unsettled and confused, it left me uneasy, and for all this I love it. Because it does what literature is meant to do - to disquiet the soul. And for this I love it.
---------
---------
ORIGINAL REVIEW FROM 2012 BASED ON THE MEMORY OF FIRST READINGS OF THIS NOVEL IN 2004-2005:
Zamyatin's masterfully written dystopian masterpiece predated (and likely inspired) the popular Western books that explored the similar themes - Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four.
------------------------------
I read this book in its original Russian, so I really cannot comment on the quality of translation. In Russian, the writing is superb and the narrative voice is unique and fascinating - exaltingly, sickeningly cheerful at the beginning and growing more and more confused as the story progresses. I can only hope that the translations managed to capture at least some of that. 5 stars.
In short, I'm no longer the same person as I was a decade ago, reading Zamyatin's masterpiece for the first time.
And this book for me now is very different than it was back then. I can see more of its unsettling depth, and it leaves me almost speechless (just joking, of course, nothing in this world can make me really shut up).
I remember being impressed by the dystopian society, focusing on the idea of One State, the totalitarian oppression and the parallels between it and the soon-to-follow societal changes in Zamyatin's motherland. You know, the obvious, easy stuff, the one that gets quite old after reading a few dystopian books (like Orwell's one, inspired by 'We'), the stuff that causes exasperated sigh of 'Yes, I get it, totalitarian = bad, individualism suits humans, oppression is evil, so what?' And that's right - so what? If that was all there was to Zamyatin's 'We' it would have disappeared from the public eye by now, lingering perhaps only in a few dusty college classrooms.
What makes 'We' special is not dystopian society alone.
It's the amazing atmosphere Zamyatin creates through the pen of his protagonist, a little formerly happy cog in the wheel with a few atavistic features and an unexpected development of an incurable condition - a soul. The writing so amazingly reflects the mental state of the confused man - so fractured and frantic and stuttering and urgent and anxious and often disjointed, laden with metaphors and unexpected emotions and full-on scream of soul.
"Because I live now not in our rational world but in the ancient one, senseless, the world of square roots of minus one."
It's the strength of unexpected chaotic emotional outpouring and emotional breakdown from the protagonist, running headfirst into the hitherto unknown to him wall of passion and jealousy and possessiveness, with all the both lovely and frustrating humanity that follows.
鈥淵ou're afraid of it because it's stronger than you, you hate it because you're afraid of it, you love it because you can't master it. You can only love something that refuses to be mastered.鈥�
It's the prominent in Russian literature motif of search for happiness and attempts to figure out the secret of this elusive happiness for all, the soul search that leads to fewer answers than it inspires questions.
鈥淪o here I am in step with everyone now, and yet I'm still separate from everyone. I am still trembling all over from the agitation I endured, like a bridge after an ancient train has rumbled over it. I am aware of myself. And, of course, the only things that are aware of themselves and conscious of their individuality are irritated eyes, cut fingers, sore teeth. A healthy eye, finger, tooth might as well not even be there. Isn't it clear that individual consciousness is just sickness?鈥�
I read this book again. It left me unsettled and confused, it left me uneasy, and for all this I love it. Because it does what literature is meant to do - to disquiet the soul. And for this I love it.
---------
---------
ORIGINAL REVIEW FROM 2012 BASED ON THE MEMORY OF FIRST READINGS OF THIS NOVEL IN 2004-2005:
Zamyatin's masterfully written dystopian masterpiece predated (and likely inspired) the popular Western books that explored the similar themes - Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Written in 1920, before the Soviet Union even existed, it predicted the Stalin and Brezhnev eras with terrifying foresight. Evgeniy Zamyatin did not share the fascination with the new State and the glory of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
鈥淭he only means of ridding man of crime is ridding him of freedom.鈥�With his novel, Zamyatin disagrees. No wonder it was banned in the Soviet Union until late 1980s - since one of his characters brings up the ultimate blasphemy:
"There is no final revolution. Revolutions are infinite."At that time, during the birth of the "new world order" that emphasized the good of the State over the good of individual "cogs in the machine", the beauty of uniformity of unity over individual variations, Zamyatin described the hollowness that replacing soul and love with cold reason and logic and individuals with "numbers" would bring. In this world everything is rationalized, de-individualized, regimented, and oppressively safe. Even the leader, the "Benefactor", is little but a slave to the State.
鈥淣ow I no longer live in our clear, rational world; I live in the ancient nightmare world, the world of square roots of minus one.鈥�Zamyatin's characters try to go against the great tide, try to resist the State. As a result, at least for a short while, his protagonist gets diagnosed with a serious medical condition - developing a soul. But, fittingly for a dystopia, there is no happy ending - just a reader's faint hope that for some of them not all is lost.
------------------------------
I read this book in its original Russian, so I really cannot comment on the quality of translation. In Russian, the writing is superb and the narrative voice is unique and fascinating - exaltingly, sickeningly cheerful at the beginning and growing more and more confused as the story progresses. I can only hope that the translations managed to capture at least some of that. 5 stars.
December 18, 2022
[Edited 12/18/22]
This is a classic Russian science-fiction dystopian novel published in 1924 that influenced many subsequent books such as 1984 and Brave New World, and authors such as Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand. According to Wiki 鈥淲e is generally considered to be the grandfather of the satirical futuristic dystopia genre.鈥�
The book had to be published outside of the USSR because under Stalin the author ended up first imprisoned, and later exiled to France. In an Introduction, Foreword and Preface we are told that the book emphasizes the 鈥渋nsidious pressures for conformity鈥� in the new Russia.
People of the United State are called 鈥楴umbers,鈥� which they all wear on the chests of their 'unifs' as they walk around four abreast. They all wake up at the same time and leave work at the same time. They have a 鈥榩ersonal hour鈥� and sexual days. They live in high-rise glass cubicles, with curtains.
They attend compulsory meetings in auditoriums where they sing hymns to the state and hear from the 鈥榃ell-Dooer鈥� on a big screen. They have to vote for him each year on the Day of Unanimity.
Everyone eats petroleum-based food. Rare resisters are punished by the offender being placed in a machine that dissolves him into water. A 鈥楪reen Wall鈥� separates the urban area from the remaining wild world outside.
The main character is an engineer involved in building a spaceship to conquer other planets. He finds a lover who is involved with a small group of potential rebels. But 鈥榣over鈥� is a bad word because the system does not allow love or permanent pairings 鈥� just hookups.
A corrupt doctor gives the man and his alcohol and nicotine and they find a secret way of getting to the outside world beyond the wall. The main character starts thinking about his soul and about having a child. The rebellion may be spreading but at the same time, the state is introducing a new required lobotomy-type operation to nip this in the bud.
Why a rating of 3? This book has been in my TBR for years but I鈥檒l be honest and say I鈥檓 not a fan of sci-fi or dystopian novels. The author uses math terms in symbolic ways that don鈥檛 help the story along. The dialog seemed herky-jerky to me at times and some of the plot I thought was confusing. Still I鈥檓 glad I read it!
Top image: Le Corbusier鈥檚 1924 plan for Paris envisaged razing the city from Montmartre to the
Seine to build 18 giant skyscrapers. From thetimes.co.uk
Sketch of the author from Wikipedia
This is a classic Russian science-fiction dystopian novel published in 1924 that influenced many subsequent books such as 1984 and Brave New World, and authors such as Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand. According to Wiki 鈥淲e is generally considered to be the grandfather of the satirical futuristic dystopia genre.鈥�
The book had to be published outside of the USSR because under Stalin the author ended up first imprisoned, and later exiled to France. In an Introduction, Foreword and Preface we are told that the book emphasizes the 鈥渋nsidious pressures for conformity鈥� in the new Russia.
People of the United State are called 鈥楴umbers,鈥� which they all wear on the chests of their 'unifs' as they walk around four abreast. They all wake up at the same time and leave work at the same time. They have a 鈥榩ersonal hour鈥� and sexual days. They live in high-rise glass cubicles, with curtains.
They attend compulsory meetings in auditoriums where they sing hymns to the state and hear from the 鈥榃ell-Dooer鈥� on a big screen. They have to vote for him each year on the Day of Unanimity.
Everyone eats petroleum-based food. Rare resisters are punished by the offender being placed in a machine that dissolves him into water. A 鈥楪reen Wall鈥� separates the urban area from the remaining wild world outside.
The main character is an engineer involved in building a spaceship to conquer other planets. He finds a lover who is involved with a small group of potential rebels. But 鈥榣over鈥� is a bad word because the system does not allow love or permanent pairings 鈥� just hookups.
A corrupt doctor gives the man and his alcohol and nicotine and they find a secret way of getting to the outside world beyond the wall. The main character starts thinking about his soul and about having a child. The rebellion may be spreading but at the same time, the state is introducing a new required lobotomy-type operation to nip this in the bud.
Why a rating of 3? This book has been in my TBR for years but I鈥檒l be honest and say I鈥檓 not a fan of sci-fi or dystopian novels. The author uses math terms in symbolic ways that don鈥檛 help the story along. The dialog seemed herky-jerky to me at times and some of the plot I thought was confusing. Still I鈥檓 glad I read it!
Top image: Le Corbusier鈥檚 1924 plan for Paris envisaged razing the city from Montmartre to the
Seine to build 18 giant skyscrapers. From thetimes.co.uk
Sketch of the author from Wikipedia
June 30, 2024
It is a dystopia novel, one of the very first (1923), and which has not aged a bit, it would have inspired George Orwell for 1984. I read it in this new translation, which is undoubtedly more modern, lively, sometimes funny, and told in the present tense. The title is "We," whereas, in the old translation, it was "We others." Already, the title is more peremptory, direct, and, in my opinion, more accurate. The writing is beautiful, refined, sometimes abrupt, not always easy, but fitting perfectly with the main character's thought, lost in his contradictory reflections, writing full of images with a jerky rhythm, which follows the thread of the thought, a thought that gets lost. It is a great success, the description of a logical, cold, mathematical, unified reflection, without nuances, which had confronted with a more ethereal, poetic, fanciful thought inside the very mind of our character. , D-503. language is of paramount importance in this story. This novel criticizes Stalinist communism, the single thought, and capitalist Taylorism. The Science-fiction aspect is then only a pretext, a medium to bring its ideas. He did it with great subtlety. The author manages to put himself on the other side. The poetic soul, the dream, would only be a dangerous illness that one must treat.
This novel transported me and surprised me. But first, we'll have to make room for my desert island.
This novel transported me and surprised me. But first, we'll have to make room for my desert island.
May 12, 2019
Let鈥檚 play 鈥淕uess That Groundbreaking Novel鈥�!
Question: A party functionary who is recording his experiences in a journal lives in a future fascist society which maintains its solidarity by compulsory attendance at public events dominated by a remote, all-powerful leader. He meets a woman, a secret rebel who expresses her revolutionary impulses through her sexuality, and the two of them carry on an affair in room in an old house which symbolizes what life was like in the days before the new society. The man becomes a revolutionary too, but still has doubts, and, after undergoing a mind-violating experience, betrays his lover and the revolution too. Guess that groundbreaking novel!
Answer: George Orwell鈥檚 1984?
Response: Close. But not exactly groundbreaking. The proper answer is Yevgeny Zyamatin鈥檚 We. We was published in English in 1924, and reviewed by Orwell in the Tribune Magazine in 1946; 1984 was not published until 1949.
Yes, it is Zyamatin not Orwell who has the honor of being a groundbreaking dystopian novelist. (As well as the 鈥渉onor鈥� of being one of the first soviet dissidents. His novel could only be published abroad, and he was soon forced into exile.) Still, Orwell鈥檚 novel is clearly superior to Zyamatin鈥檚.
We, unlike 1984, is an honest-to-god science fiction novel, complete with an honest-to-god rocket ship, futuristic buildings, and experimental brain operations. Because of this, it has a charm the Orwell novel lacks, for 1984 is essentially a bleak, clear-eyed vision set in a shabbier version of post-war Britain (plus the totalitarian, of course). Where We fails is precisely where 1984most succeeds: in its treatment of language itself and its effects on pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary consciousness (which in We's case is synonumous with the before and after of love).
The hero of We is a builder of rocket ships, and a typical man of his society. He thinks of everything in terms of logic, quantifiers and physical entities, and his metaphors are filled with numbers and geometrical shapes. Only later, when his heart is touched by sexual passion, does he speak a language more like ours, touched by emotion and the beauties of our natural world. This is all fine in theory, but it results in a prose--at least in the two translations I used--which is often odd and alienating, and sometimes completely baffling. Unfortunately, when our hero falls in love, his language becomes filled with clich茅, and it is difficult to distinguish his revolutionary sentiments from the sentimental outpourings of a second-rate romance novel. The novel buckles under its burden of language, and that is why the plot of We (which thankgoodness Orwell stole and turned into a classic) is more interesting than the novel itself.
December 17, 2024
This book has even a deeper impact on me after the chaos with this year election. I hope we will get through this.
We was the last novel I was yet to read from the Holly Books of Dystopia, which also include 1984, Brave New World, Handmaid Tale and Fahrenheit 451. We is also the inspiration for 1984 and it is one of the first dystopias ever written. Even though it came out in1924, it is still amazing how actual it feels. Not only in terms of subject and themes, but also in terms of writing style. Some satire novels age quite badly, especially if the writing is anchored firmly in the times it was written. It is hard to explain but I felt it with several novels, but not in this case. Ok, maybe during some of the mathematical rants of the main character.
鈥渋n paradise, were given a choice: happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third alternative...鈥�
I copied the blurb below because I have problems with my memory of the book 鈥� In a glass-enclosed city of absolute straight lines, ruled over by the all-powerful 'Benefactor', the citizens of the totalitarian society of OneState live out lives devoid of passion and creativity - until D-503, a mathematician who dreams in numbers, makes a discovery: he has an individual soul.鈥�
鈥淣ow I no longer live in our clear, rational world; I live in the ancient nightmare world, the world of square roots of minus one.鈥�
The novel is written as a journal of the narrator addressed to the future inhabitants of Earth. In it, he tries to explains the brilliance of the OneState policies but, instead, he realizes that something is very wrong with him. He realizes that he is slowly becoming an individual.
鈥淎nd everyone must lose his mind, everyone must! The sooner the better! It is essential 鈥� I know it.鈥�
鈥淵ou're afraid of it because it's stronger than you, you hate it because you're afraid of it, you love it because you can't master it. You can only love something that refuses to be mastered.鈥�
He is in a constant struggle with his revelations about feelings, desires, love etc.
鈥淎nd happiness...Well, after all, desires torment us, don't they? And, clearly, happiness is when there are no more desires, not one...What a mistake, what ridiculous prejudice it's been to have marked happiness always with a plus sign. Absolute happiness should, of course, carry a minus sign 鈥� the divine minus.鈥�
鈥淗ere I saw, with my own eyes, that laughter was the most terrible weapon: you can kill anything with laughter - even murder itself.鈥�
I loved the writing, so poetic and fervent. There are many dystopian novels but in this case the writing made the novel something special. There are so many quotations that I could add to this review and that has to be a proof of the beautiful prose.
We was the last novel I was yet to read from the Holly Books of Dystopia, which also include 1984, Brave New World, Handmaid Tale and Fahrenheit 451. We is also the inspiration for 1984 and it is one of the first dystopias ever written. Even though it came out in1924, it is still amazing how actual it feels. Not only in terms of subject and themes, but also in terms of writing style. Some satire novels age quite badly, especially if the writing is anchored firmly in the times it was written. It is hard to explain but I felt it with several novels, but not in this case. Ok, maybe during some of the mathematical rants of the main character.
鈥渋n paradise, were given a choice: happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third alternative...鈥�
I copied the blurb below because I have problems with my memory of the book 鈥� In a glass-enclosed city of absolute straight lines, ruled over by the all-powerful 'Benefactor', the citizens of the totalitarian society of OneState live out lives devoid of passion and creativity - until D-503, a mathematician who dreams in numbers, makes a discovery: he has an individual soul.鈥�
鈥淣ow I no longer live in our clear, rational world; I live in the ancient nightmare world, the world of square roots of minus one.鈥�
The novel is written as a journal of the narrator addressed to the future inhabitants of Earth. In it, he tries to explains the brilliance of the OneState policies but, instead, he realizes that something is very wrong with him. He realizes that he is slowly becoming an individual.
鈥淎nd everyone must lose his mind, everyone must! The sooner the better! It is essential 鈥� I know it.鈥�
鈥淵ou're afraid of it because it's stronger than you, you hate it because you're afraid of it, you love it because you can't master it. You can only love something that refuses to be mastered.鈥�
He is in a constant struggle with his revelations about feelings, desires, love etc.
鈥淎nd happiness...Well, after all, desires torment us, don't they? And, clearly, happiness is when there are no more desires, not one...What a mistake, what ridiculous prejudice it's been to have marked happiness always with a plus sign. Absolute happiness should, of course, carry a minus sign 鈥� the divine minus.鈥�
鈥淗ere I saw, with my own eyes, that laughter was the most terrible weapon: you can kill anything with laughter - even murder itself.鈥�
I loved the writing, so poetic and fervent. There are many dystopian novels but in this case the writing made the novel something special. There are so many quotations that I could add to this review and that has to be a proof of the beautiful prose.
March 10, 2025
Breathtakingly brilliant, like the crystal glass buildings of the One State - in Natasha Randall's 2007 translation (older ones may differ a lot).
Seamlessly switching between beauty and horror:
鈥�In the morning, the sun is rosy, transparent, warm gold. And the air itself is a little rosy, all steeped in the sun鈥檚 gentle blood.鈥�
Laden with oxymorons: simultaneously Utopia and dystopia.
Polychromatic, synaesthetic, hypnotic, and often blurring reality and dreams.
Profound and prophetic, from a century ago.
Unlike anything else I鈥檝e read, yet there are echoes to and from other writers.
Consider
鈥� If you could have only happiness OR freedom, which would you pick?
鈥� Is it possible to be happy without freedom?
鈥� Or perhaps, if you believe you're happy, nothing else matters?
A question not explicitly addressed is how you can have state poetry and music in a society that suppresses and punishes individuality, imagination, and soul?
Setup - no spoilers
After the Two-Hundred Year War, which killed all but 0.2% of humanity, the One State built the Green Wall to separate it from the wilds beyond. It鈥檚 now a thousand years later: the Accumulator Tower protects against major storms, the streets and apartment blocks are made of sparkling glass, everyone lives happily and harmoniously with plenty of food (petroleum-based), work, and clothes, overseen by the Benefactor, elected on the Great Day of the One Vote. It doesn鈥檛 sound too bad, does it?
Image: Futuristic glass skyline, reflected, in blue hues ()
But with a Table of Hours that includes curfew, and nicotine and alcohol prohibited, it鈥檚 almost monastic, except they can have sex, by formal request (which they can't refuse). More sinisterly, health, happiness, and conformity are compulsory. Pregnancy requires permission, and babies go straight to the Children-Rearing Factory. The Bureau of Guardians ensures compliance, but mostly people believe they're happy:
鈥�Even in our thoughts. No one is ever 鈥榦ne鈥�, but always 鈥榦ne of鈥�. We are so identical.鈥�
The horror is mostly clinical and philosophical, rather than bloody and grim (and when it's the latter, it's performed as a beautified ritual).
One State is preparing to launch a rocket called the Integral, with a 鈥�heavy cargo of inescapable happiness鈥�. The dawn of benevolent colonisation?
鈥�If they won鈥檛 understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it will be our duty to force them to be happy.鈥�
D-503 is only thirty-two and is the chief builder, writing this journal for unknown 鈥減lanetary readers鈥�. His mathematical metaphors gradually become more imaginative and lyrical. And crazed. Because imagination is a dangerous flaw in an authoritarian state, with no privacy, where you never know who you can trust.
鈥�How pleasant it was to feel someone鈥檚 vigilant eye lovingly protecting you from the slightest mistake.鈥�
Individuals
Other main characters are O-90 (D's usual sexual partner, who is as round as her identity), R-13 (schoolfriend of D, state poet at executions (beauty and horror, again), and occasional sexual partner of O), I-330 (a singular woman, with agency, who D is repulsed by and attracted to), and S-4711 (with serpentine posture).
鈥�Everything was in its place, so simple, normal, legitimate: glassy buildings, beaming with lights; a glassy, pale sky; a greenish, still night. But underneath all this quiet, chilly glass, the boiling, the crimson, the shagginess drifted inaudibly.鈥�
Inevitably, not all the shiny happy people are quite as happy as they鈥檙e supposed to be, but that鈥檚 revealed gradually, in a narrative that blends cold numbers and facts with ravishing dreams and unconsciousness, creating tense mystery and lush drama.
Image: 鈥淭he Feeling of Darkness鈥� by Raija Jokinen: flax/sewing yarn/starch delicate model of a person ()
I鈥檝e read and watched enough sci-fi that the basic plot contained few surprises, but the telling of this is superlative, and it's better to read the inspiration than just the imitators.
鈥�A person is a novel: you don鈥檛 know how it will end until the very last page.鈥�
The closing words of this translation are suitably nuanced:
鈥�I hope we will win. More than that: I know we will win. Because reason should win.鈥�
Which 鈥渨e鈥�?
Whose definition of 鈥渞eason鈥�?
And that 鈥渟hould鈥� is significant.
Quotes
There are many descriptions and metaphors relating to geometry, equations, glass, crystal, yellow (and, to a lesser extent, blue), and lips, lots of lips (including R's 鈥淎frican lips鈥�, which always repel him). These are all from Natasha Randall's translation.
They are hidden for easy scrolling; no actual spoilers.
Synaesthetic
Architecture
Ideology
Light and sky
Lips
Significance
This is a ground-breaking cornerstone of sci-fi dystopias, but even if it weren鈥檛, it would be worth reading. It was written in 1921, first published in English translation in 1924, and finally published in Russian in 1952 (it was banned for many years because the critique of authoritarian collectivism was so clear).
The style won't appeal to everyone, but for those who enjoy dystopias and ethereal writing, it's a must. I was blown away by its brilliance, especially in comparison with 1984 and Brave New World, which I can't see in the same light after reading this ur-dystopia, which is masterfully superior, although they are important for their wider readership.
鈥� George Orwell鈥檚 1984 borrows heavily in terms of plot, but without the exquisite language or indeed, the physically beautiful city: his Oceania is clearly dystopian from the start and power is maintained by fear and suffering. See my review HERE.
鈥� Aldous Huxley鈥檚 Brave New World also borrows from this, with drug-based happiness being unfulfilling, and where Huxley has Henry Ford as an icon of industrial efficiency, Zamyatin has . See my review HERE.
鈥� The lyrical writing about subtly darkening dystopian horror surely influenced Ray Bradbury, several of whose books I reviewed HERE, as well as Kay Dick鈥檚 They: A Sequence of Unease, which I reviewed HERE.
鈥� Apparently, other works directly inspired by this include:
- Ayn Rand's
- Kurt Vonnegut's
- Ursula K Le Guin's
鈥� Zamyatin鈥檚 father was an Orthodox priest, and although Zamyatin lost his faith quite young, there are clear Biblical analogies, especially Adam and Eve and Mephi(stopholes).
鈥� I wonder if Zamyatin was familiar with Kafka, specifically, the Harrow (like the Gas Bell Jar) in In the Penal Colony, which I reviewed HERE. See all my Kafka many reviews HERE.
Translations and Will Self's introduction
My edition was translated by Natasha Randall, who explained her approach to Zamyatin鈥檚 鈥渟yncopated鈥� style in a useful preface. I鈥檓 told Zilboorg's translation is the one to avoid (United State, rather than One State, for example, and generally clunky and hard to read).
Mine was published with an introduction by Will Self that, when I got home, I discovered had been carefully cut out by the previous owner, and the excision pointed out on the title page. I couldn't find the whole text online, so I had no idea why he hated it so much! But he did write his name and phone number in it, so I'm tempted to get in touch...!
Having loved this book, I was shocked to discover neither my twenty-something nor their spouse, who met via their uni sci-fi society, had read this! So I ordered a copy for them - a new one, with Will Self's introduction, which I copied, read, and put in my book.
The worst thing about Self's piece is that it was OK, but unremarkable. I can鈥檛 understand why it would stir vehement feelings (for or against). The only bit that stood out was this rather pretentious sentence:
鈥�With its plosive language, its prose of stuttering enjambment, its pell-mell transitions of space, time and psychic state, its agonies of ellipsis and its daring synaesthesia, We may be out of this world 鈥� yet it remains profoundly of it.鈥�
Anyway, the kiddos will have a copy by the end of the month, and I hope that at least one of them reads it and loves it as much as I did.
Seamlessly switching between beauty and horror:
鈥�In the morning, the sun is rosy, transparent, warm gold. And the air itself is a little rosy, all steeped in the sun鈥檚 gentle blood.鈥�
Laden with oxymorons: simultaneously Utopia and dystopia.
Polychromatic, synaesthetic, hypnotic, and often blurring reality and dreams.
Profound and prophetic, from a century ago.
Unlike anything else I鈥檝e read, yet there are echoes to and from other writers.
Consider
鈥� If you could have only happiness OR freedom, which would you pick?
鈥� Is it possible to be happy without freedom?
鈥� Or perhaps, if you believe you're happy, nothing else matters?
A question not explicitly addressed is how you can have state poetry and music in a society that suppresses and punishes individuality, imagination, and soul?
Setup - no spoilers
After the Two-Hundred Year War, which killed all but 0.2% of humanity, the One State built the Green Wall to separate it from the wilds beyond. It鈥檚 now a thousand years later: the Accumulator Tower protects against major storms, the streets and apartment blocks are made of sparkling glass, everyone lives happily and harmoniously with plenty of food (petroleum-based), work, and clothes, overseen by the Benefactor, elected on the Great Day of the One Vote. It doesn鈥檛 sound too bad, does it?
Image: Futuristic glass skyline, reflected, in blue hues ()
But with a Table of Hours that includes curfew, and nicotine and alcohol prohibited, it鈥檚 almost monastic, except they can have sex, by formal request (which they can't refuse). More sinisterly, health, happiness, and conformity are compulsory. Pregnancy requires permission, and babies go straight to the Children-Rearing Factory. The Bureau of Guardians ensures compliance, but mostly people believe they're happy:
鈥�Even in our thoughts. No one is ever 鈥榦ne鈥�, but always 鈥榦ne of鈥�. We are so identical.鈥�
The horror is mostly clinical and philosophical, rather than bloody and grim (and when it's the latter, it's performed as a beautified ritual).
One State is preparing to launch a rocket called the Integral, with a 鈥�heavy cargo of inescapable happiness鈥�. The dawn of benevolent colonisation?
鈥�If they won鈥檛 understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it will be our duty to force them to be happy.鈥�
D-503 is only thirty-two and is the chief builder, writing this journal for unknown 鈥減lanetary readers鈥�. His mathematical metaphors gradually become more imaginative and lyrical. And crazed. Because imagination is a dangerous flaw in an authoritarian state, with no privacy, where you never know who you can trust.
鈥�How pleasant it was to feel someone鈥檚 vigilant eye lovingly protecting you from the slightest mistake.鈥�
Individuals
Other main characters are O-90 (D's usual sexual partner, who is as round as her identity), R-13 (schoolfriend of D, state poet at executions (beauty and horror, again), and occasional sexual partner of O), I-330 (a singular woman, with agency, who D is repulsed by and attracted to), and S-4711 (with serpentine posture).
鈥�Everything was in its place, so simple, normal, legitimate: glassy buildings, beaming with lights; a glassy, pale sky; a greenish, still night. But underneath all this quiet, chilly glass, the boiling, the crimson, the shagginess drifted inaudibly.鈥�
Inevitably, not all the shiny happy people are quite as happy as they鈥檙e supposed to be, but that鈥檚 revealed gradually, in a narrative that blends cold numbers and facts with ravishing dreams and unconsciousness, creating tense mystery and lush drama.
Image: 鈥淭he Feeling of Darkness鈥� by Raija Jokinen: flax/sewing yarn/starch delicate model of a person ()
I鈥檝e read and watched enough sci-fi that the basic plot contained few surprises, but the telling of this is superlative, and it's better to read the inspiration than just the imitators.
鈥�A person is a novel: you don鈥檛 know how it will end until the very last page.鈥�
The closing words of this translation are suitably nuanced:
鈥�I hope we will win. More than that: I know we will win. Because reason should win.鈥�
Which 鈥渨e鈥�?
Whose definition of 鈥渞eason鈥�?
And that 鈥渟hould鈥� is significant.
Quotes
There are many descriptions and metaphors relating to geometry, equations, glass, crystal, yellow (and, to a lesser extent, blue), and lips, lots of lips (including R's 鈥淎frican lips鈥�, which always repel him). These are all from Natasha Randall's translation.
They are hidden for easy scrolling; no actual spoilers.
Synaesthetic
Architecture
Ideology
Light and sky
Lips
Significance
This is a ground-breaking cornerstone of sci-fi dystopias, but even if it weren鈥檛, it would be worth reading. It was written in 1921, first published in English translation in 1924, and finally published in Russian in 1952 (it was banned for many years because the critique of authoritarian collectivism was so clear).
The style won't appeal to everyone, but for those who enjoy dystopias and ethereal writing, it's a must. I was blown away by its brilliance, especially in comparison with 1984 and Brave New World, which I can't see in the same light after reading this ur-dystopia, which is masterfully superior, although they are important for their wider readership.
鈥� George Orwell鈥檚 1984 borrows heavily in terms of plot, but without the exquisite language or indeed, the physically beautiful city: his Oceania is clearly dystopian from the start and power is maintained by fear and suffering. See my review HERE.
鈥� Aldous Huxley鈥檚 Brave New World also borrows from this, with drug-based happiness being unfulfilling, and where Huxley has Henry Ford as an icon of industrial efficiency, Zamyatin has . See my review HERE.
鈥� The lyrical writing about subtly darkening dystopian horror surely influenced Ray Bradbury, several of whose books I reviewed HERE, as well as Kay Dick鈥檚 They: A Sequence of Unease, which I reviewed HERE.
鈥� Apparently, other works directly inspired by this include:
- Ayn Rand's
- Kurt Vonnegut's
- Ursula K Le Guin's
鈥� Zamyatin鈥檚 father was an Orthodox priest, and although Zamyatin lost his faith quite young, there are clear Biblical analogies, especially Adam and Eve and Mephi(stopholes).
鈥� I wonder if Zamyatin was familiar with Kafka, specifically, the Harrow (like the Gas Bell Jar) in In the Penal Colony, which I reviewed HERE. See all my Kafka many reviews HERE.
Translations and Will Self's introduction
My edition was translated by Natasha Randall, who explained her approach to Zamyatin鈥檚 鈥渟yncopated鈥� style in a useful preface. I鈥檓 told Zilboorg's translation is the one to avoid (United State, rather than One State, for example, and generally clunky and hard to read).
Mine was published with an introduction by Will Self that, when I got home, I discovered had been carefully cut out by the previous owner, and the excision pointed out on the title page. I couldn't find the whole text online, so I had no idea why he hated it so much! But he did write his name and phone number in it, so I'm tempted to get in touch...!
Having loved this book, I was shocked to discover neither my twenty-something nor their spouse, who met via their uni sci-fi society, had read this! So I ordered a copy for them - a new one, with Will Self's introduction, which I copied, read, and put in my book.
The worst thing about Self's piece is that it was OK, but unremarkable. I can鈥檛 understand why it would stir vehement feelings (for or against). The only bit that stood out was this rather pretentious sentence:
鈥�With its plosive language, its prose of stuttering enjambment, its pell-mell transitions of space, time and psychic state, its agonies of ellipsis and its daring synaesthesia, We may be out of this world 鈥� yet it remains profoundly of it.鈥�
Anyway, the kiddos will have a copy by the end of the month, and I hope that at least one of them reads it and loves it as much as I did.
November 19, 2021
(Book 707 from 1001 books) - 袦褘 = We, Yevgeny Zamyatin
We, is 1924 dystonia novel by Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin. The novel describes a world of harmony and conformity within a united totalitarian state.
We is set in the future. D-503, a spacecraft engineer, lives in the One State, an urban nation constructed almost entirely of glass, which assists mass surveillance.
The structure of the state is Panopticon-like, and life is scientifically managed F. W. Taylor-style.
People march in step with each other and are uniformed. There is no way of referring to people except by their given numbers.
The society is run strictly by logic or reason as the primary justification for the laws or the construct of the society.
The individual's behavior is based on logic by way of formulas and equations outlined by the One State.
賲丕 - 蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 (賳卮乇 丿蹖诏乇) 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 乇賵爻蹖赖貙 毓賱賲蹖 鬲禺蹖賱蹖貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 趩賴丕乇丿賴賲 賲丕賴 賲蹖 爻丕賱2012賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 (爻丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳)貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 亘賴乇賵夭 賲卮蹖乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 丿蹖诏乇貨 爻丕賱1352貙 丿乇220氐貨 賲賵囟賵毓 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 乇賵爻蹖赖 - 爻丿賴20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 (爻丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳)貨賲鬲乇噩賲: 丕賳賵卮蹖乇賵丕賳 丿賵賱鬲卮丕賴蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 丿蹖诏乇貙 爻丕賱1379貙 丿乇266氐貨 卮丕亘讴 丕蹖讴爻-964718803貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 蹖賵賳诏蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘丕亘讴 卮賴丕亘貨 賵蹖乇丕爻鬲丕乇 賲乇蹖賲 賮乇賳丕賲貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘蹖丿诏賱貙 爻丕賱1399貨 丿乇419氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786226863483貨
丿鈥屫ж池з� 芦賲丕禄貙 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 丕夭 乇賵丨 倬蹖趩蹖丿鈥屬団€� 蹖 丕賳爻丕賳貙 丿鈥屫� 乇賵蹖丕乇賵蹖蹖 賵 诏蹖乇 賵 诏乇賮鬲貙 亘丕 賳賲丕丿賴丕蹖 芦賯丿鈥屫必烩€� 丕爻鬲貨 丿鈥屫ж池з� 丕夭 丿鈥屰屫€屭з� 丕賵賱 卮禺氐貙 賵 亘賴 卮讴賱 芦趩賴賱 蹖丕丿鈥屫€屫ж簇� 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌€屫� 丿鈥屫� 讴卮賵乇蹖 鬲禺蹖賱蹖貙 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦蹖讴鬲丕讴卮賵乇禄貙鈥� 讴卮賵乇蹖 讴賴 丿鈥屬堌必ж€屬堌必� 乇丕 丿鈥屰屬堌ж臂� 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 丿乇 亘乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵 丿鈥屫ж必й� 禺蹖丕亘丕賳鈥屬囏ж� 賵 讴賵趩賴鈥� 賴丕蹖蹖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 賴賲賵丕乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘丕 丌倬丕乇鬲賲丕賳鈥屬囏й屰屫� 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賳蹖夭貙 亘丕 丿鈥屰屬堌ж辟囏й屰� 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 倬賵卮蹖丿鈥屬� 卮丿鈥屬団€� 丕賳丿鈥屫� 賲丨丕賮馗丕賳貙 亘賴 賵丕爻胤賴鈥� 蹖 賴賲蹖賳 丿鈥屰屬堌ж辟囏ж池� 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀€屫� 丕賲賵乇 賲賲賱讴鬲 乇丕貙 夭蹖乇 讴賳鬲乇賱 禺賵丿 丿鈥屫ж簇� 亘丕卮賳丿鈥�
蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳貙 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘乇噩爻鬲賴 蹖 芦乇賵爻蹖赖禄 乇賲丕賳 芦賲丕禄 乇丕貙 丿乇 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 倬乇 丕賱鬲賴丕亘貙 倬爻 丕夭 芦丕賳賯賱丕亘 乇賵爻蹖赖禄貙 亘賳诏丕卮鬲賳丿貨 蹖毓賳蹖 丿乇 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賳馗丕賲 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲乇 芦卮賵乇賵蹖 (倬蹖卮蹖賳)禄貨 乇賲丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 丕夭 賳馗丕賲 亘爻鬲賴 蹖 芦卮賵乇賵蹖禄貙 丿乇 丌賳 讴卮賵乇 丕噩丕夭賴 趩丕倬 賳蹖丕賮鬲貙 賵賱蹖 亘賴 趩賳丿蹖賳 夭亘丕賳 丿乇 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 讴卮賵乇 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 丿乇 芦賲丕禄 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 乇丕 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴促嗀� 讴賴 賲乇丿賲丕賳卮 丿乇 丌賳噩丕貙 賳賴 亘丕 賳丕賲貙 讴賴 亘丕 卮賲丕乇賴 賵 丨乇賮 (丨乇賮 賲氐賵鬲 亘乇丕蹖 夭賳丕賳 賵 丨乇賮 氐丕賲鬲 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇丿丕賳) 禺賵丕賳丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 丌賳丕賳 丿乇 卮賴乇蹖 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 賵 睾乇賯 丿乇 賳賵乇貙 丿乇 禺丕賳賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賲讴毓亘 卮讴賱 亘賴 賴賲 趩爻亘蹖丿賴貙 亘賴 爻乇 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀� 亘乇賳丕賲賴 蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇賵夭丕賳賴鈥� 卮丕賳 倬蹖卮丕倬蹖卮 鬲毓蹖蹖賳貙 賵 丿乇 噩丿賵賱 爻丕毓丕鬲貙 噩夭卅蹖鈥屫臂屬� 讴丕乇賴丕 賲卮禺氐 诏乇丿蹖丿賴 丕賳丿貨 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賳丕讴噩丕丌亘丕丿貙 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳鈥屬囏� 賳賮乇 賴賲趩賵賳 鬲賳蹖 賵丕丨丿貙 丕夭 禺賵丕亘 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫屫操嗀� 賴賲爻丕賳 睾匕丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌辟嗀� 賵 賴乇 賱賯賲賴 乇丕 胤亘賯 鬲噩賵蹖夭 噩丿賵賱 爻丕毓丕鬲貙 倬賳噩丕賴 亘丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀� 賵 賮乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 丿乇 賱丨馗賴鈥� 丕蹖 賲毓蹖賳 賴賲趩賵賳 鬲賳蹖 賵丕丨丿 亘賴 爻乇 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堎嗀� 賵 亘丕夭 賲蹖鈥屭必嗀� 丿乇 亘乇賳丕賲賴 乇丕賴鈥屬聚屬呚й屰� 卮乇讴鬲 賲蹖鈥屫堐屬嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 丌賲賵夭卮 丿乇 鬲丕賱丕乇賴丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲 丨丕囟乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌жㄙ嗀� 乇賵丕亘胤 噩賳爻蹖 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲貙 賵 丌夭賲丕蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 倬夭卮讴蹖 鬲賳馗蹖賲 卮丿賴貙 賵 芦讴賵倬賳蹖禄 丕爻鬲貨 賳诏丕賴亘丕賳丕賳 丕夭 丿蹖賵丕乇賴丕蹖 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖 禺丕賳賴鈥� 賴丕貙 鬲賲丕賲 丨乇讴丕鬲 賵 爻讴賳丕鬲 丕賮乇丕丿 乇丕 夭蹖乇 丿蹖丿 丿丕乇賳丿貙 鬲丕 賲亘丕丿丕 亘丕 禺賵丿乇丕蹖蹖貙 丕夭 賲毓蹖丕乇賴丕蹖 噩丿賵賱 爻丕毓丕鬲貙 毓丿賵賱 賵乇夭賳丿貙 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲卮丕賳 亘賴 禺胤乇 丕賮鬲丿貨 亘丿蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘貙 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 亘賴 诏賵賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 丨蹖乇鬲鈥� 丕賳诏蹖夭貙 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 蹖 丨丕讴賲 賵 丌蹖賳丿賴 讴卮賵乇 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴貙 禺亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 芦夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳禄 亘賴 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賳丨賵 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賯賴乇賲丕賳 夭賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�: (丕賳賯賱丕亘 賳賴丕蹖蹖 丿乇 讴丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲貙 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏� 賳丕賲丨丿賵丿賳丿...貨 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐� 讴爻蹖 亘賴 噩丕蹖 賲賳 亘禺賵丕賴丿 賲賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐� 禺賵丿賲 亘禺賵丕賴賲)貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 10/10/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 27/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
We, is 1924 dystonia novel by Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin. The novel describes a world of harmony and conformity within a united totalitarian state.
We is set in the future. D-503, a spacecraft engineer, lives in the One State, an urban nation constructed almost entirely of glass, which assists mass surveillance.
The structure of the state is Panopticon-like, and life is scientifically managed F. W. Taylor-style.
People march in step with each other and are uniformed. There is no way of referring to people except by their given numbers.
The society is run strictly by logic or reason as the primary justification for the laws or the construct of the society.
The individual's behavior is based on logic by way of formulas and equations outlined by the One State.
賲丕 - 蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 (賳卮乇 丿蹖诏乇) 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 乇賵爻蹖赖貙 毓賱賲蹖 鬲禺蹖賱蹖貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 趩賴丕乇丿賴賲 賲丕賴 賲蹖 爻丕賱2012賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 (爻丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳)貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 亘賴乇賵夭 賲卮蹖乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 丿蹖诏乇貨 爻丕賱1352貙 丿乇220氐貨 賲賵囟賵毓 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 乇賵爻蹖赖 - 爻丿賴20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 (爻丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳)貨賲鬲乇噩賲: 丕賳賵卮蹖乇賵丕賳 丿賵賱鬲卮丕賴蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 丿蹖诏乇貙 爻丕賱1379貙 丿乇266氐貨 卮丕亘讴 丕蹖讴爻-964718803貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 蹖賵賳诏蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘丕亘讴 卮賴丕亘貨 賵蹖乇丕爻鬲丕乇 賲乇蹖賲 賮乇賳丕賲貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘蹖丿诏賱貙 爻丕賱1399貨 丿乇419氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786226863483貨
丿鈥屫ж池з� 芦賲丕禄貙 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 丕夭 乇賵丨 倬蹖趩蹖丿鈥屬団€� 蹖 丕賳爻丕賳貙 丿鈥屫� 乇賵蹖丕乇賵蹖蹖 賵 诏蹖乇 賵 诏乇賮鬲貙 亘丕 賳賲丕丿賴丕蹖 芦賯丿鈥屫必烩€� 丕爻鬲貨 丿鈥屫ж池з� 丕夭 丿鈥屰屫€屭з� 丕賵賱 卮禺氐貙 賵 亘賴 卮讴賱 芦趩賴賱 蹖丕丿鈥屫€屫ж簇� 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌€屫� 丿鈥屫� 讴卮賵乇蹖 鬲禺蹖賱蹖貙 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦蹖讴鬲丕讴卮賵乇禄貙鈥� 讴卮賵乇蹖 讴賴 丿鈥屬堌必ж€屬堌必� 乇丕 丿鈥屰屬堌ж臂� 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 丿乇 亘乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵 丿鈥屫ж必й� 禺蹖丕亘丕賳鈥屬囏ж� 賵 讴賵趩賴鈥� 賴丕蹖蹖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 賴賲賵丕乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘丕 丌倬丕乇鬲賲丕賳鈥屬囏й屰屫� 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賳蹖夭貙 亘丕 丿鈥屰屬堌ж辟囏й屰� 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 倬賵卮蹖丿鈥屬� 卮丿鈥屬団€� 丕賳丿鈥屫� 賲丨丕賮馗丕賳貙 亘賴 賵丕爻胤賴鈥� 蹖 賴賲蹖賳 丿鈥屰屬堌ж辟囏ж池� 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀€屫� 丕賲賵乇 賲賲賱讴鬲 乇丕貙 夭蹖乇 讴賳鬲乇賱 禺賵丿 丿鈥屫ж簇� 亘丕卮賳丿鈥�
蹖賵诏賳蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳貙 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘乇噩爻鬲賴 蹖 芦乇賵爻蹖赖禄 乇賲丕賳 芦賲丕禄 乇丕貙 丿乇 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 倬乇 丕賱鬲賴丕亘貙 倬爻 丕夭 芦丕賳賯賱丕亘 乇賵爻蹖赖禄貙 亘賳诏丕卮鬲賳丿貨 蹖毓賳蹖 丿乇 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賳馗丕賲 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲乇 芦卮賵乇賵蹖 (倬蹖卮蹖賳)禄貨 乇賲丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 丕夭 賳馗丕賲 亘爻鬲賴 蹖 芦卮賵乇賵蹖禄貙 丿乇 丌賳 讴卮賵乇 丕噩丕夭賴 趩丕倬 賳蹖丕賮鬲貙 賵賱蹖 亘賴 趩賳丿蹖賳 夭亘丕賳 丿乇 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 讴卮賵乇 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 丿乇 芦賲丕禄 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 乇丕 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴促嗀� 讴賴 賲乇丿賲丕賳卮 丿乇 丌賳噩丕貙 賳賴 亘丕 賳丕賲貙 讴賴 亘丕 卮賲丕乇賴 賵 丨乇賮 (丨乇賮 賲氐賵鬲 亘乇丕蹖 夭賳丕賳 賵 丨乇賮 氐丕賲鬲 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇丿丕賳) 禺賵丕賳丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 丌賳丕賳 丿乇 卮賴乇蹖 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 賵 睾乇賯 丿乇 賳賵乇貙 丿乇 禺丕賳賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賲讴毓亘 卮讴賱 亘賴 賴賲 趩爻亘蹖丿賴貙 亘賴 爻乇 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀� 亘乇賳丕賲賴 蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇賵夭丕賳賴鈥� 卮丕賳 倬蹖卮丕倬蹖卮 鬲毓蹖蹖賳貙 賵 丿乇 噩丿賵賱 爻丕毓丕鬲貙 噩夭卅蹖鈥屫臂屬� 讴丕乇賴丕 賲卮禺氐 诏乇丿蹖丿賴 丕賳丿貨 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賳丕讴噩丕丌亘丕丿貙 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳鈥屬囏� 賳賮乇 賴賲趩賵賳 鬲賳蹖 賵丕丨丿貙 丕夭 禺賵丕亘 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫屫操嗀� 賴賲爻丕賳 睾匕丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌辟嗀� 賵 賴乇 賱賯賲賴 乇丕 胤亘賯 鬲噩賵蹖夭 噩丿賵賱 爻丕毓丕鬲貙 倬賳噩丕賴 亘丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀� 賵 賮乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 丿乇 賱丨馗賴鈥� 丕蹖 賲毓蹖賳 賴賲趩賵賳 鬲賳蹖 賵丕丨丿 亘賴 爻乇 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堎嗀� 賵 亘丕夭 賲蹖鈥屭必嗀� 丿乇 亘乇賳丕賲賴 乇丕賴鈥屬聚屬呚й屰� 卮乇讴鬲 賲蹖鈥屫堐屬嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 丌賲賵夭卮 丿乇 鬲丕賱丕乇賴丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲 丨丕囟乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌жㄙ嗀� 乇賵丕亘胤 噩賳爻蹖 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲貙 賵 丌夭賲丕蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 倬夭卮讴蹖 鬲賳馗蹖賲 卮丿賴貙 賵 芦讴賵倬賳蹖禄 丕爻鬲貨 賳诏丕賴亘丕賳丕賳 丕夭 丿蹖賵丕乇賴丕蹖 卮蹖卮賴鈥� 丕蹖 禺丕賳賴鈥� 賴丕貙 鬲賲丕賲 丨乇讴丕鬲 賵 爻讴賳丕鬲 丕賮乇丕丿 乇丕 夭蹖乇 丿蹖丿 丿丕乇賳丿貙 鬲丕 賲亘丕丿丕 亘丕 禺賵丿乇丕蹖蹖貙 丕夭 賲毓蹖丕乇賴丕蹖 噩丿賵賱 爻丕毓丕鬲貙 毓丿賵賱 賵乇夭賳丿貙 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲卮丕賳 亘賴 禺胤乇 丕賮鬲丿貨 亘丿蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘貙 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 亘賴 诏賵賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 丨蹖乇鬲鈥� 丕賳诏蹖夭貙 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 蹖 丨丕讴賲 賵 丌蹖賳丿賴 讴卮賵乇 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴貙 禺亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 芦夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳禄 亘賴 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賳丨賵 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賯賴乇賲丕賳 夭賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�: (丕賳賯賱丕亘 賳賴丕蹖蹖 丿乇 讴丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲貙 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏� 賳丕賲丨丿賵丿賳丿...貨 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐� 讴爻蹖 亘賴 噩丕蹖 賲賳 亘禺賵丕賴丿 賲賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐� 禺賵丿賲 亘禺賵丕賴賲)貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 10/10/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 27/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
October 17, 2017
We by Yevgeny Zamyatin is a must read for fans and students of the Dystopian genre.
Published in 1920, before and well before (which could even be considered a second generation 1984 as Orwell began his seminal work after reading a French translation of We) Zamyatin鈥檚 vision is well before his time.
Writing in response to his experiences with the Bolsheviks but without a direct link to the communists, We takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where pockets of 鈥渃ivilized鈥� humanity survive in a totalitarian state. We, however, is not timeless as Huxley鈥檚 and Orwell鈥檚 works may be. Perhaps some of his original meanings have been lost in the cultural and generational translations as well as from the original Russian, We can be a difficult story to follow and lacks some of the malevolent charm and suspense of the more recognized works.
The glass house is at once a statement about the loss of individualism and privacy and also a metaphor for socialism that Pasternak would poetically describe years later.
Published in 1920, before and well before (which could even be considered a second generation 1984 as Orwell began his seminal work after reading a French translation of We) Zamyatin鈥檚 vision is well before his time.
Writing in response to his experiences with the Bolsheviks but without a direct link to the communists, We takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where pockets of 鈥渃ivilized鈥� humanity survive in a totalitarian state. We, however, is not timeless as Huxley鈥檚 and Orwell鈥檚 works may be. Perhaps some of his original meanings have been lost in the cultural and generational translations as well as from the original Russian, We can be a difficult story to follow and lacks some of the malevolent charm and suspense of the more recognized works.
The glass house is at once a statement about the loss of individualism and privacy and also a metaphor for socialism that Pasternak would poetically describe years later.
August 5, 2017
The prototype of dystopian fiction - a vivisection of monolithic faith and cruelty in the name of 鈥淲e鈥�!
Dystopian science fiction never analyses the future, even though it is the supposed topic of the novel. It looks at the past, and follows the road that humanity has already embarked on, to its logical next step. When Zamyatin wrote 鈥淲e鈥�, the society he knew was rapidly changing, breaking apart, one authoritarian structure was being replaced with another, through the means of a violent clash, a revolution, supported by a technological jump to modernity, delivering tools to control ideology through mass propaganda and effective weapons.
What triggers revolutions? What makes human beings accept authority? What defines collective and individual identity? How does power make use of human needs to control society? All these questions are raised in the voice of a member of a monolithic state, OneState, a futuristic powerhouse that has managed to create a system that guides its citizens towards collective sameness. The community of 鈥淲e鈥� is protected from the outer world - the freedom of choice - by a great Green Wall. Yes! A wall!
Ever since the beginning of time - and in Zamyatin鈥檚 traditional mythological context, that means since the beginning of Christian tales in the paradise of the all-powerful, authoritarian god - a wall has protected the collective in possession of truth from the evil of freedom, or diversity. According to OneState鈥檚 dogma, Adam and Eve were stupid to choose freedom over 鈥渉appiness鈥�, and since they were expelled from the beautifully walled-in paradise, (Christian fundamentalist) believers in monolithic conformity have strived to re-establish the chains that deliver complete safety, which is falsely labelled 鈥渉appiness鈥�.
In the automatised, regulated OneState, this 鈥渦topian鈥� idea of a new paradise is accomplished, and everything is done according to the collective need, in complete disregard of personal identity and emotions. Sexuality is regulated to the point of absurdity, and each individual follows a strict schedule for the benefit of the superior Benefactor, who is the authoritarian leader or monotheistic god of OneState.
There are cracks in the wall, though, as people still think and feel. Even though it is supposedly illegal, a precursor to Orwell鈥檚 idea of thoughtcrime, free will is not completely suppressed, and there is resistance. The enemies of happiness, no less! In the narrator鈥檚 character, the two concepts clash. Submission under authoritarian dictatorship stands against humanity鈥檚 longing for freedom of choice, for genuine love, for diverse experience. In the chilling end, the state has found a solution to make individuality obsolete: an 鈥淥peration鈥� to remove imagination from the human brain.
The outlook on the world therefore is bleaker than anything I have read so far: not only brainwashed with propaganda and scared into submission by external enemies and fear of punishment, but biologically reduced to prehuman thinking capacity, the world has become inhuman. And thus a paradise for an authoritarian godlike leader. 鈥淲e鈥� believe in 鈥淗im鈥� as soon as our imagination is no longer threatening to make us to see two sides of the story, alternatives, a plurality of choices, equally possible and justified.
This scares me more than anything else, for it touches on the fundamental need of human beings to conform in groups, to cruelly suppress individual longing in order to function as an unthinking mob, as witnessed over and over again in the 20th century, in One Party (or One Religion) states around the world. describes the unfolding of Zamyatin鈥檚 dystopia with almost perfect accuracy.
It also emphasises the fact that monotheistic belief is not compatible with a pluralistic, tolerant society if if is in power. As it relies on a concept of itself as a saving truth, it will never be able to fully accept a pluralistic worldview. The danger of losing its followers to any other lifestyle is too great. The walls of the world are built to keep followers of certain dogmas (political or religious) in order, out of touch with freedom and choice, as well as separated from an overarching, comparative education that opens up perspectives rather than spreading populist slogans of 鈥渢ruth鈥�.
There is no happiness in paradise, is the lesson I learned from this novel. If you can鈥檛 choose, you are not fully human. Sheep are not happy, regardless of how well the shepherd guides them. They do not understand the concept of happiness as they cannot think in abstract terms. Be a sheep in paradise, or a human beyond the wall! That鈥檚 the choice. And being a human involves many different scenarios that cannot be regulated. It will sometimes include pain and chaos, and certainly unhappiness, which is the only means to even grasp the idea of happiness.
To deal with freedom in a responsible way without hurting others, that is the challenge of democracy. It is vulnerable, as godlike populists use ancient shepherd methods to gather their sheep and lock them into paradise, - but it is possible to resist the urge to conform in order to feel safe. Carrying out routines prescribed by authority is a soothing medicine for sheeplike nonthinkers, but it does not really make humanity more safe. It is an illusion: like planning next week鈥檚 regulated work schedule while you are sitting on a plane that is about to crash, as the narrator puts it. Knowing what is going on gives you a choice. But for the narrator, it is too late, a temporary new wall is already being erected around him, and his imagination is removed.
There is always hope, however. After all, Zamyatin thought, and created, and imagined, and wrote this masterpiece in the middle of Armageddon! And it survived several waves of religious (political) fundamentalist rule.
Recommended to all people who believe that you can learn more from books than from sheep, as opposed to the wisdom of !
Dystopian science fiction never analyses the future, even though it is the supposed topic of the novel. It looks at the past, and follows the road that humanity has already embarked on, to its logical next step. When Zamyatin wrote 鈥淲e鈥�, the society he knew was rapidly changing, breaking apart, one authoritarian structure was being replaced with another, through the means of a violent clash, a revolution, supported by a technological jump to modernity, delivering tools to control ideology through mass propaganda and effective weapons.
What triggers revolutions? What makes human beings accept authority? What defines collective and individual identity? How does power make use of human needs to control society? All these questions are raised in the voice of a member of a monolithic state, OneState, a futuristic powerhouse that has managed to create a system that guides its citizens towards collective sameness. The community of 鈥淲e鈥� is protected from the outer world - the freedom of choice - by a great Green Wall. Yes! A wall!
Ever since the beginning of time - and in Zamyatin鈥檚 traditional mythological context, that means since the beginning of Christian tales in the paradise of the all-powerful, authoritarian god - a wall has protected the collective in possession of truth from the evil of freedom, or diversity. According to OneState鈥檚 dogma, Adam and Eve were stupid to choose freedom over 鈥渉appiness鈥�, and since they were expelled from the beautifully walled-in paradise, (Christian fundamentalist) believers in monolithic conformity have strived to re-establish the chains that deliver complete safety, which is falsely labelled 鈥渉appiness鈥�.
In the automatised, regulated OneState, this 鈥渦topian鈥� idea of a new paradise is accomplished, and everything is done according to the collective need, in complete disregard of personal identity and emotions. Sexuality is regulated to the point of absurdity, and each individual follows a strict schedule for the benefit of the superior Benefactor, who is the authoritarian leader or monotheistic god of OneState.
There are cracks in the wall, though, as people still think and feel. Even though it is supposedly illegal, a precursor to Orwell鈥檚 idea of thoughtcrime, free will is not completely suppressed, and there is resistance. The enemies of happiness, no less! In the narrator鈥檚 character, the two concepts clash. Submission under authoritarian dictatorship stands against humanity鈥檚 longing for freedom of choice, for genuine love, for diverse experience. In the chilling end, the state has found a solution to make individuality obsolete: an 鈥淥peration鈥� to remove imagination from the human brain.
The outlook on the world therefore is bleaker than anything I have read so far: not only brainwashed with propaganda and scared into submission by external enemies and fear of punishment, but biologically reduced to prehuman thinking capacity, the world has become inhuman. And thus a paradise for an authoritarian godlike leader. 鈥淲e鈥� believe in 鈥淗im鈥� as soon as our imagination is no longer threatening to make us to see two sides of the story, alternatives, a plurality of choices, equally possible and justified.
This scares me more than anything else, for it touches on the fundamental need of human beings to conform in groups, to cruelly suppress individual longing in order to function as an unthinking mob, as witnessed over and over again in the 20th century, in One Party (or One Religion) states around the world. describes the unfolding of Zamyatin鈥檚 dystopia with almost perfect accuracy.
It also emphasises the fact that monotheistic belief is not compatible with a pluralistic, tolerant society if if is in power. As it relies on a concept of itself as a saving truth, it will never be able to fully accept a pluralistic worldview. The danger of losing its followers to any other lifestyle is too great. The walls of the world are built to keep followers of certain dogmas (political or religious) in order, out of touch with freedom and choice, as well as separated from an overarching, comparative education that opens up perspectives rather than spreading populist slogans of 鈥渢ruth鈥�.
There is no happiness in paradise, is the lesson I learned from this novel. If you can鈥檛 choose, you are not fully human. Sheep are not happy, regardless of how well the shepherd guides them. They do not understand the concept of happiness as they cannot think in abstract terms. Be a sheep in paradise, or a human beyond the wall! That鈥檚 the choice. And being a human involves many different scenarios that cannot be regulated. It will sometimes include pain and chaos, and certainly unhappiness, which is the only means to even grasp the idea of happiness.
To deal with freedom in a responsible way without hurting others, that is the challenge of democracy. It is vulnerable, as godlike populists use ancient shepherd methods to gather their sheep and lock them into paradise, - but it is possible to resist the urge to conform in order to feel safe. Carrying out routines prescribed by authority is a soothing medicine for sheeplike nonthinkers, but it does not really make humanity more safe. It is an illusion: like planning next week鈥檚 regulated work schedule while you are sitting on a plane that is about to crash, as the narrator puts it. Knowing what is going on gives you a choice. But for the narrator, it is too late, a temporary new wall is already being erected around him, and his imagination is removed.
There is always hope, however. After all, Zamyatin thought, and created, and imagined, and wrote this masterpiece in the middle of Armageddon! And it survived several waves of religious (political) fundamentalist rule.
Recommended to all people who believe that you can learn more from books than from sheep, as opposed to the wisdom of !
April 10, 2024
A city of glass 1,000 years in the future, domed, with a green wall to keep out all the undesirable, primitive life forms. Animal, human, vegetable or insect...A clean and sparkling place for its millions of citizens, everything and everyone has a schedule, the perfect "One State". No privacy, people have numbers for names they dress (light blue uniforms) , and eat the same food, live in small sparse apartments, which are transparent. No drinking or smoking, even sex regulated by yes an appointment. Regular daily walks, pep talks at auditoriums to keep all motivated. Thousands sing and listen to the sacred words they have heard countless times before. Guardians to help the "Benefactor's" rules be followed, timetables are enforced! Any deviations are rigorously crushed, D-503 is the chief in charge, of building the spaceship Integral, now the perfect society can conquer space, soon bringing happiness and order to a chaotic universe. D-503, has a regular sex partner 0-90, but she falls in love with the mathematician, the State doesn't approve emotional entanglements. It causes disorder in a strict culture, no more conflicts. The blue planet, was devastated after the 200 - year - long war, 99% of the population died. Then he sees 1-330, a Will -o'-the- Wisp forever coming and going, befuddling D-503. He can never differentiate reality from a mirage when she's around, a brilliant man...when he returns to Earth. Love reduces people to silliness, misery and sometimes a little euphoria but there is something strange going on, a secret, she has an agenda. His best friend R-13, is somehow connected, the poet is full of big dreams, what ? Mad Revolution unthinkable, "Unfreedom" is paradise, D-503 is scared ... He is taken by her amazingly outside the walls, he feels naked, uncomfortable . Seeing crawling things, always moving about in the frightening and unknown green environment, is the vegetation very unhealthy ? Yellow fruit which D-503 recognized, from ancient books in old museums. The hot sun shining down, nothing to regulate it here, humans too dressed unalike ... Weird, they don't look any different from us. The wise man is drawn deeper into a plot, he just can't say no to the beautiful, 1-330. Causing much turbulence between he and dear, jealous 0-90 yet he is being watched closely by the Guardians. Does he risk torture and death for the woman he loves, who may just be using D-503 for her own, personal ambitions? However the builder is a romantic at heart, in a civilization that doesn't believe or tolerate such nonsense. What will it be a bland but safe existence, all the worries taken care of by the suffocating, inhuman State. Not a very fulfilling or exciting prospect, maybe an unfamiliar, perilous world ... And Birds are seen inside the city ...
January 17, 2020
Sci-fi's in my top 3 least favorite fiction genres. However, this one is thankfully not Brave New World, has traces of madness and poetry both, and possesses the Waltmanesque quality of being organic, though the theme of Dystopian Machinery should be inevitably super-structured. The protagonist's POV is impressive. As builder of a space ship that will provide aliens (or: us) with an account of the glass metropolis (see: communism), he transitions from zombie troglodyte to someone infected with a "soul." This was one of the "landmark" classics of science fiction, and along with the aforementioned "World" (sorry, just not a fan) & 1984 (haven't read it) makes up a celebrated trilogy.
The protagonist becomes human & his confusion infuses the work with a sense of wonderment, of a certain etherealness. There are events that both the reader and the hero do not fully understand, and this is my favorite thing about this work. Some things are overexplained, others oversimplified. That nouns are described geometrically and in terms of mathematics is quite a unique interpretation of the fall of a machine society. Well beyond its time, this is tellingly an important brick in the wall of the Global Lit/ Sci-Fi fortress.
The protagonist becomes human & his confusion infuses the work with a sense of wonderment, of a certain etherealness. There are events that both the reader and the hero do not fully understand, and this is my favorite thing about this work. Some things are overexplained, others oversimplified. That nouns are described geometrically and in terms of mathematics is quite a unique interpretation of the fall of a machine society. Well beyond its time, this is tellingly an important brick in the wall of the Global Lit/ Sci-Fi fortress.
February 27, 2024
"El hombre dej贸 de ser un animal salvaje s贸lo cuando construy贸 el primer Muro. Cuando nosotros construimos este muro verde, aislamos nuestro mundo mecanizado del mundo irracional y monstruoso de los 谩rboles, de los p谩jaros, de los animales...."
Siempre hay un escritor pionero, un fundador, alguien que instala un g茅nero literario y al que otros grandes autores siguen, copian o admiran.
En este caso hablamos de Evgeny Zamiatin quien en 1924 escribe lo que se conoce como la primer distop铆a de la literatura. Inconscientemente siempre cre铆 que "Un mundo feliz" de Aldous Huxley y "1984" de George Orwell eran las primeras, pero no.
"Nosotros" fue la distop铆a que influy贸 directamente a Orwell a escribir "1984" y aseguran que le brind贸 ciertas herramientas a Huxley para su propia novela "Un mundo feliz" y el mismo Orwell, luego de leer la traducci贸n francesa hizo una excelente cr铆tica y comenz贸 a escribir la suya hacia 1948.
Este libro reaccionario de Zamiatin contra el comunismo, Stalin y ese concepto equivocad铆simo que instalaron de que "El Estado es Dios" hizo que para Zamiatin se transformara en un aut茅ntico dolor de cabeza y sufriera, al igual que su colega Mija铆l Bulg谩kov que fuera perseguido y censurado y que ambos escritores le enviaran cartas a Stalin pidi茅ndole clemencia y la posibilidad de emigrar de la Uni贸n Sovi茅tica.
Es que hab铆an cometido el error de "rebelarse" contra el sistema; ese absurdo, obsoleto y detestable sistema comunista que mantuvo sometido al pueblo ruso durante tantas d茅cadas.
En la novela ambientada en el futuro, todos los ciudadanos, al igual que en "1984", viven bajo un f茅rreo control estatal denominado "Estado 脷nico" como en la Ocean铆a de la novela de Orwell, supuestamente protegidos por un muro de cristal y al "amparo" del "Benefactor", que equivale al famoso "Gran Hermano" de la novela de Orwell o al semi dios Ford de "Un mundo feliz".
Con esto no quiero afirmar que Orwell o Huxley hayan plagiado el libro de Zamiatin sino que a mi entender, perfeccionaron lo que Zamiatin hab铆a denunciado en su momento.
Es indudable las similitudes entre estas tres novelas, tanto en las caracter铆sticas del ambiente en que viven como de las instituciones y los m茅todos de control que se aplican sobre la poblaci贸n.
En el caso de esta novela, los personajes no tienen nombres sino c贸digos, tal es el caso de quien narra su propio diario, me refiero a D-503, de O-90 que es la primera pareja de D-503 y fundamentalmente de I-330, una hermosa mujer que se enamora de D-503, algo parecida a la Julia de "1984" y que forma parte de una revoluci贸n subversiva para derrocar al Benefactor.
Seg煤n lo impuesto por el Estado 脷nico, la libertad es sin贸nimo de estado salvaje y de esta manera es como controla a la poblaci贸n quien acepta -como en el caso de "Un mundo feliz"- la comodidad que se les ofrece. El "yo" ha dejado lugar al "nosotros", contribuyendo la deshumanizaci贸n de los habitantes del Estado 脷nico.
Tienen pocos privilegios como "Las horas personales de la tabla" y una asignaci贸n para "encuentros sexuales vigilados" que equivalen al famoso "Minuto del odio" de "1984" y algunos pocos beneficios m谩s. Despu茅s, solo saben trabajar y ser dominados como ovejas.
D-503 es el constructor del "Integral", un cohete espacial con el que el Estado 煤nico planea conquistar otros mundos y dentro de todo este contexto comienza a desarrollarse la historia.
Debo reconocer que me encontr茅 con cierta complicaci贸n:
el modo en que Zamiatin narra el diario es de una forma realmente intrincada. Su prosa es cr铆ptica, po茅tica, herm茅tica, con frases que quedan inconclusas y creo que despu茅s de la jerga "nadsat" utilizada por Anthony Burguess en "La naranja mec谩nica" es de esas lecturas qu茅 m谩s necesitaron de mi atenci贸n para entender lo narrado.
De hecho, Zamiatin se vale en demas铆a de dos recursos literarios como lo son la met谩fora y la metonimia para describir todo aquello que D-503 ve o percibe. El narrador se expresa como si fuera un logaritmo, una especie de aut贸mata con c贸digo ling眉铆stico propio.
Dentro del Estado 脷nico nos encontramos con la "Oficina de los Guardianes", que se asemejan a los Ministerios de la Paz, Amor, Abundancia y Verdad que dominan la Inglaterra de "1984".
Todos estos sistemas de abuso burocr谩tico hechos para vigilar y castigar lograr谩n torciendo a los pocos ciudadanos que se revelan al sistema -y recuerdo a Morphius y Trinity de la primer Matrix- para generar una filtraci贸n, una anomal铆a, una fisura dentro de la hermeticidad y supuesta perfecci贸n y conformismo del Estado 脷nico y as铆 forzar la posibilidad de un foco sedicioso que quiebre al sistema.
Es indudable el coraje que tuvo Zamiatin para escribir la novela en plena fiebre roja del comunismo, lo que le vali贸 que lo encarcelaran por segunda vez, ya que tambi茅n hab铆a estado preso durante las 茅pocas del 煤ltimo zarismo, pero a la vez posibilit贸 que otros escritores como los nombrados aqu铆 junto con Ray Bradbury y Margaret Atwood alzaran la voz y a trav茅s de la literatura nos enviaran sendos mensajes de advertencia de lo que est谩 mal y especialmente de todo aquello a lo que sabemos que no deber铆amos volver nunca m谩s.
Siempre hay un escritor pionero, un fundador, alguien que instala un g茅nero literario y al que otros grandes autores siguen, copian o admiran.
En este caso hablamos de Evgeny Zamiatin quien en 1924 escribe lo que se conoce como la primer distop铆a de la literatura. Inconscientemente siempre cre铆 que "Un mundo feliz" de Aldous Huxley y "1984" de George Orwell eran las primeras, pero no.
"Nosotros" fue la distop铆a que influy贸 directamente a Orwell a escribir "1984" y aseguran que le brind贸 ciertas herramientas a Huxley para su propia novela "Un mundo feliz" y el mismo Orwell, luego de leer la traducci贸n francesa hizo una excelente cr铆tica y comenz贸 a escribir la suya hacia 1948.
Este libro reaccionario de Zamiatin contra el comunismo, Stalin y ese concepto equivocad铆simo que instalaron de que "El Estado es Dios" hizo que para Zamiatin se transformara en un aut茅ntico dolor de cabeza y sufriera, al igual que su colega Mija铆l Bulg谩kov que fuera perseguido y censurado y que ambos escritores le enviaran cartas a Stalin pidi茅ndole clemencia y la posibilidad de emigrar de la Uni贸n Sovi茅tica.
Es que hab铆an cometido el error de "rebelarse" contra el sistema; ese absurdo, obsoleto y detestable sistema comunista que mantuvo sometido al pueblo ruso durante tantas d茅cadas.
En la novela ambientada en el futuro, todos los ciudadanos, al igual que en "1984", viven bajo un f茅rreo control estatal denominado "Estado 脷nico" como en la Ocean铆a de la novela de Orwell, supuestamente protegidos por un muro de cristal y al "amparo" del "Benefactor", que equivale al famoso "Gran Hermano" de la novela de Orwell o al semi dios Ford de "Un mundo feliz".
Con esto no quiero afirmar que Orwell o Huxley hayan plagiado el libro de Zamiatin sino que a mi entender, perfeccionaron lo que Zamiatin hab铆a denunciado en su momento.
Es indudable las similitudes entre estas tres novelas, tanto en las caracter铆sticas del ambiente en que viven como de las instituciones y los m茅todos de control que se aplican sobre la poblaci贸n.
En el caso de esta novela, los personajes no tienen nombres sino c贸digos, tal es el caso de quien narra su propio diario, me refiero a D-503, de O-90 que es la primera pareja de D-503 y fundamentalmente de I-330, una hermosa mujer que se enamora de D-503, algo parecida a la Julia de "1984" y que forma parte de una revoluci贸n subversiva para derrocar al Benefactor.
Seg煤n lo impuesto por el Estado 脷nico, la libertad es sin贸nimo de estado salvaje y de esta manera es como controla a la poblaci贸n quien acepta -como en el caso de "Un mundo feliz"- la comodidad que se les ofrece. El "yo" ha dejado lugar al "nosotros", contribuyendo la deshumanizaci贸n de los habitantes del Estado 脷nico.
Tienen pocos privilegios como "Las horas personales de la tabla" y una asignaci贸n para "encuentros sexuales vigilados" que equivalen al famoso "Minuto del odio" de "1984" y algunos pocos beneficios m谩s. Despu茅s, solo saben trabajar y ser dominados como ovejas.
D-503 es el constructor del "Integral", un cohete espacial con el que el Estado 煤nico planea conquistar otros mundos y dentro de todo este contexto comienza a desarrollarse la historia.
Debo reconocer que me encontr茅 con cierta complicaci贸n:
el modo en que Zamiatin narra el diario es de una forma realmente intrincada. Su prosa es cr铆ptica, po茅tica, herm茅tica, con frases que quedan inconclusas y creo que despu茅s de la jerga "nadsat" utilizada por Anthony Burguess en "La naranja mec谩nica" es de esas lecturas qu茅 m谩s necesitaron de mi atenci贸n para entender lo narrado.
De hecho, Zamiatin se vale en demas铆a de dos recursos literarios como lo son la met谩fora y la metonimia para describir todo aquello que D-503 ve o percibe. El narrador se expresa como si fuera un logaritmo, una especie de aut贸mata con c贸digo ling眉铆stico propio.
Dentro del Estado 脷nico nos encontramos con la "Oficina de los Guardianes", que se asemejan a los Ministerios de la Paz, Amor, Abundancia y Verdad que dominan la Inglaterra de "1984".
Todos estos sistemas de abuso burocr谩tico hechos para vigilar y castigar lograr谩n torciendo a los pocos ciudadanos que se revelan al sistema -y recuerdo a Morphius y Trinity de la primer Matrix- para generar una filtraci贸n, una anomal铆a, una fisura dentro de la hermeticidad y supuesta perfecci贸n y conformismo del Estado 脷nico y as铆 forzar la posibilidad de un foco sedicioso que quiebre al sistema.
Es indudable el coraje que tuvo Zamiatin para escribir la novela en plena fiebre roja del comunismo, lo que le vali贸 que lo encarcelaran por segunda vez, ya que tambi茅n hab铆a estado preso durante las 茅pocas del 煤ltimo zarismo, pero a la vez posibilit贸 que otros escritores como los nombrados aqu铆 junto con Ray Bradbury y Margaret Atwood alzaran la voz y a trav茅s de la literatura nos enviaran sendos mensajes de advertencia de lo que est谩 mal y especialmente de todo aquello a lo que sabemos que no deber铆amos volver nunca m谩s.
March 19, 2021
This book is a work of art and my first five-star read this year. While consuming every word and savoring each page I've noticed my pencil's point vanish by the end of the first few chapters.
We (1920) is written by the Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884-1937) who was a one of the first Soviet dissidents and whose We earned the title as the first book to be banned by the Soviet censorship board.
The premise of the story takes place several hundred years in the future. In which the protagonist, a mathematician and engineer, is developing a spaceship for his 'One State' government. The space mission's purpose is to conquer the extraterrestrial planets and impose on its inhabitants the One State system of government that is exclusively dictated by rationalism.
The characters in the story are nameless. But they are all assigned a number; something that resembles a serial number: for the male characters they start with a consonant followed by a rigid prime number, and for the female characters they begin with a vowel attached to a beautifully rounded even number.
The entire One State is made of transparent glass structures dominated by curveless geometry and enclosed by a green wall. The people live by a predetermined daily schedule, outlined by the authority, which is precisely defined by an almost perfect equation with barely any unknown variables. Everyone is under constant surveillance by the Benefactor and his "guardian angels" for the benefit of the We, rather than the I.
Every citizen's life is a mechanical one; dreamless and devoid of passion. Any involvement in asymmetrical art, music or poetry is punishable by execution. The only melody permitted is the one in tune with the mathematical notes.
The State has to approve for everyone a brief visits by their partner, where the State usually assigns two or three companions for each person all for the sake of mimicking a triangle or square. During the protagonist's short impersonal walk with his assigned companion, he spontaneously meets another, free-spirited woman, with whom he becomes infatuated with and eventually falls in love. This leads him to develops a sense of self-awareness, and as a result, he is diagnosed by the State's doctor with a terrible illness; the birth of a soul. What will happen to the space mission? What鈥檚 behind the green wall? Will his "illness" ever be cured and will his love endure it all?
This compelling read is a fusion of dystopian science fiction and political satire with religion root metaphors. It reads like a poetic prose with beautifully crafted expressions, with the right dose of sarcasm, and Zamyatin's unfinished sentences that leave you wondering...
We (1920) is written by the Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884-1937) who was a one of the first Soviet dissidents and whose We earned the title as the first book to be banned by the Soviet censorship board.
The premise of the story takes place several hundred years in the future. In which the protagonist, a mathematician and engineer, is developing a spaceship for his 'One State' government. The space mission's purpose is to conquer the extraterrestrial planets and impose on its inhabitants the One State system of government that is exclusively dictated by rationalism.
The characters in the story are nameless. But they are all assigned a number; something that resembles a serial number: for the male characters they start with a consonant followed by a rigid prime number, and for the female characters they begin with a vowel attached to a beautifully rounded even number.
The entire One State is made of transparent glass structures dominated by curveless geometry and enclosed by a green wall. The people live by a predetermined daily schedule, outlined by the authority, which is precisely defined by an almost perfect equation with barely any unknown variables. Everyone is under constant surveillance by the Benefactor and his "guardian angels" for the benefit of the We, rather than the I.
Every citizen's life is a mechanical one; dreamless and devoid of passion. Any involvement in asymmetrical art, music or poetry is punishable by execution. The only melody permitted is the one in tune with the mathematical notes.
The State has to approve for everyone a brief visits by their partner, where the State usually assigns two or three companions for each person all for the sake of mimicking a triangle or square. During the protagonist's short impersonal walk with his assigned companion, he spontaneously meets another, free-spirited woman, with whom he becomes infatuated with and eventually falls in love. This leads him to develops a sense of self-awareness, and as a result, he is diagnosed by the State's doctor with a terrible illness; the birth of a soul. What will happen to the space mission? What鈥檚 behind the green wall? Will his "illness" ever be cured and will his love endure it all?
This compelling read is a fusion of dystopian science fiction and political satire with religion root metaphors. It reads like a poetic prose with beautifully crafted expressions, with the right dose of sarcasm, and Zamyatin's unfinished sentences that leave you wondering...
May 3, 2021
丕诏乇 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 1984 賵 丿賳蹖丕蹖 賯卮賳诏 賳賵 (賵 丨鬲蹖 賲蹖乇丕) 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴鈥屫й屫� 賵 丿賵爻鬲卮丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫й屫� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 賴賲 亘禺賵丕賳蹖丿. 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖 讴賴 賴乇 爻賴 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴 丕蹖丿 亘賴 讴鬲丕亘 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 賵 丕賳賯賱丕亘 (賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 乇賵爻)貨 蹖賵乇诏賳 乇賵賱賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 毓賱蹖 丕氐睾乇 丨丿丕丿貙 氐賮丨丕鬲 73 鬲丕 85 賲乇丕噩毓賴 讴賳蹖丿 賵 亘禺卮 噩丕賱亘蹖 乇丕 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 賵 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 蹖 賲禺鬲氐乇 爻賴 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 賴賲貙 賲胤丕賱毓賴 讴賳蹖丿
"丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵夭蹖 丕夭 亘賵夭蹖賳诏蹖 丿爻鬲 讴卮蹖丿 讴賴 丕賵賱蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿. 亘賵夭蹖賳诏丕賳 賴乇诏夭 丕蹖賳 鬲丨賯蹖乇 乇丕 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賳讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀�: 讴丕賮蹖 丕爻鬲 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賴 丿爻鬲 亘賵夭蹖賳賴鈥屫й� 亘丿賴蹖丿貙 賮賵乇蹖 丌賳 乇丕 讴孬蹖賮貙 禺乇丕亘 賵 倬丕乇賴 倬丕乇賴 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿." 丕夭 倬蹖卮诏賮鬲丕乇 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 賳卮丿賴. 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖. 氐 9 讴鬲丕亘
夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 囟毓賮 丿爻鬲诏丕賴 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賲乇丿賲 賲蹖鈥屫屫� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丿蹖诏乇 賳賴 讴丕乇蹖 丕夭 丿爻鬲 噩乇丕丨丕賳 賲睾夭 亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 賵 賳賴 丕夭 丿爻鬲 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴鈥屰� 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 "賲賴賳丿爻丕賳 乇賵丨 賲乇丿賲". 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 鬲讴賳爻蹖賳貙 倬夭卮讴貙 卮丕毓乇 賵 丨鬲蹖 賲兀賲賵乇 丕賲賳蹖鬲蹖 丕蹖賳 丿賵賱鬲貙 毓賱蹖賴 丌賳鈥屫з嗀�. 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖. 氐 11 讴鬲丕亘
丕賲乇賵夭賴 丿乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 賴夭丕乇賴鈥屰� 丿賵賲 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇丕賳{丨丕讴賲 蹖讴鬲丕讴卮賵乇} 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丿賳蹖丕 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 亘賴鈥屬嗁堌观屫� 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐嗀� 亘丕 鬲丨賲蹖賱 爻毓丕丿鬲 亘賴 卮賴乇賵賳丿丕賳 禺賵丿 亘賴 氐丿賵乇 丌賳 賳蹖夭 亘倬乇丿丕夭賳丿. 丕賳鬲诏乇丕賱鈥屬囏� {爻賮蹖賳賴 賮囟丕蹖蹖 賵 賲賵卮讴}貙 爻毓丕丿鬲 賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 乇丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵 賵 丌賳 爻賵蹖 噩賴丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀�. 丕賲丕 禺賵卮亘禺鬲丕賳賴 賴賳賵夭 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵丨卮蹖丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐嗀� 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲 "賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇賮乇賲賵丿賴" 乇丕 亘賴 倬卮蹖夭蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭屫辟嗀�. 禺賵卮亘禺鬲丕賳賴 賴賳賵夭 賴爻鬲賳丿 丌夭丕丿丕賳丿蹖卮丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇丕賳 乇丕爻鬲 賯丕賲鬲丕賳賴 賲蹖鈥屫й屫池嗀� 賵 禺丕胤乇 禺胤蹖乇卮丕賳 乇丕 丌卮賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫池ж操嗀� 賵 胤賱爻賲 賯丿乇鬲卮丕賳 乇丕 丿乇 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫蹿┵嗁嗀�. 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖. 氐 12 讴鬲丕亘
夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘蹖鈥屫必呚з嗁� 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲丕乇蹖爻賲 丿乇 丨丕賱 賳囟噩 乇丕貙 鬲賲賱賯鈥屬囏й� 丨賯丕乇鬲 亘丕乇 丌賳 乇丕貙 爻賱胤賴鈥屰� 爻鬲賲诏乇丕賳賴鈥屫ж� 乇丕貙 亘蹖鈥屫辟呚� 賵 賳丕亘賵丿爻丕夭蹖 乇賵丨 禺賱丕賯 賵 丌夭丕丿 亘卮乇蹖 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 亘丕丿 丨賲賱賴 賵 賲爻禺乇賴 賲蹖鈥屭辟佖�. 倬蹖卮丕倬蹖卮 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫屫�: 賵丨卮鬲 乇丕貙 禺蹖丕賳鬲鈥屬囏� 乇丕貙 夭丿賵丿賳 氐賮丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 乇丕貙 倬丕爻丿丕乇丕賳 賴賲賴 噩丕 丨丕囟乇 乇丕貙 卮爻鬲 賵 卮賵蹖 賲睾夭蹖 丿丕卅賲 乇丕 讴賴 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屫ж� 蹖丕 丌丿賲鈥屬囏й� 賲丕卮蹖賳鈥屬堌ж� 亘賵丿貙 蹖丕 賲賳丕賮賯丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 禺丕胤乇 亘賯丕 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭佖嗀�. "賲毓乇賮蹖"貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖貙 賲蹖乇丕 诏賳爻亘乇诏. 氐 22 讴鬲丕亘
丌蹖丕 亘丿蹖賴蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 爻毓丕丿鬲 賵 丨爻丕丿鬲貙 氐賵乇鬲 賵 賲禺乇噩 讴爻乇蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘賴 賳丕賲 乇囟丕蹖鬲責 氐 48 讴鬲丕亘
賳蹖丕讴丕賳 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池嗀� 讴賴 禺丿丕- 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇鬲乇蹖賳 卮讴丕讴 亘蹖鈥屫堌蒂勝団€屫簇з�- 丌賳 噩丕 亘賵丿. 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬� 讴賴 丌賳噩丕 趩蹖夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 噩夭 毓丿賲 亘乇賴賳賴鈥屰� 亘蹖鈥屫屫й� 卮賮丕賮 丌亘蹖. 丕賲丕 丨丕賱丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬� 丌賳噩丕 趩蹖爻鬲: 禺蹖賱蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕 丌賲賵禺鬲賴鈥屫з�. 丿丕賳卮蹖 讴賴 禺胤丕賳丕倬匕蹖乇蹖 丌賳 賲爻賱賲 亘丕卮丿貙 丕蹖賲丕賳 丕爻鬲. 氐 86 讴鬲丕亘
賲乇诏 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丿賯蹖賯 讴賱賲賴貙 讴丕賲賱鈥屫臂屬� 丕賳丨賱丕賱 賳賮爻 丿乇 讴丕卅賳丕鬲 丕爻鬲. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丕诏乇 丨乇賮 L 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 毓卮賯 賵 丨乇賮 D 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇诏 丿乇 賳馗乇 亘诏蹖乇蹖賲: L=f(D) 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲蹖 丿蹖诏乇 毓卮賯 鬲丕亘毓蹖 丕夭 賲乇诏 丕爻鬲... 氐 160 讴鬲丕亘
亘丿蹖賴蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 "乇賵夭 賵丨丿鬲 讴賱賲賴" 丕氐賱丕賸 卮亘丕賴鬲蹖 亘賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 亘蹖鈥屬嗀纲� 賵 鬲卮讴賱 賳蹖丕讴丕賳賲丕賳 賳丿丕乇丿貙 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳- 诏賮鬲賳卮 賴賲 賲爻禺乇賴 丕爻鬲- 賳鬲丕蹖噩 倬蹖卮丕倬蹖卮 賲毓賱賵賲 賳亘賵丿. 亘蹖鈥屬呚官嗃� 鬲乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�: 鬲卮讴蹖賱 丿賵賱鬲 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 讴丕賲賱丕賸 倬蹖卮鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃� 賳卮丿賳蹖貙 讴賵乇讴賵乇丕賳賴責... 賳蹖丕夭蹖 亘賴 诏賮鬲賳 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿貙 賲孬賱 爻丕蹖乇 賲賵丕乇丿貙 亘蹖賳 賲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲貙 亘乇丕蹖 賵賯賵毓 丨賵丕丿孬 賳丕賲賳鬲馗乇貙 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿. 賵 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 賮蹖 賳賮爻賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 爻賲亘賵賱蹖讴 丿丕乇丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴 賲丕 蹖丕丿丌賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 賲丕 鬲賳賴丕 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳 蹖丕禺鬲賴鈥屫й� 賴爻鬲蹖賲... 賲丕 賲乇丕爻賲 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 乇丕 毓賱賳蹖貙 氐丕丿賯丕賳賴貙 丿乇 乇賵夭 乇賵卮賳 亘乇诏夭丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬呚� 賲賳 賴賲賴 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗁� 讴賴 亘賴 "賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇" 乇兀蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賴賲賴 賲乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗁嗀� 讴賴 亘賴 "賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇" 乇兀蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囐�. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 睾蹖乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 趩賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 亘丕卮丿貙 趩賵賳 "賴賲賴" 賵 "賲賳" 蹖讴 "賲丕" 賴爻鬲蹖賲. 氐賮丨丕鬲 162 賵 163 讴鬲丕亘
讴爻蹖 趩賴 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 丌丿賲 賲孬賱 乇賲丕賳 丕爻鬲: 鬲丕 丌禺乇蹖賳 氐賮丨賴貙 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴丕乇 賲毓賱賵賲 賳蹖爻鬲. 丿乇 睾蹖乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 丕乇夭卮 禺賵丕賳丿賳 賳禺賵丕賴丿 丿丕卮鬲... 氐 187 讴鬲丕亘
倬爻 趩胤賵乇 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 丕賳賯賱丕亘 丌禺乇蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿責 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖 丌禺乇蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貨 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏� 賳丕賲鬲賳丕賴蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 氐 199 讴鬲丕亘
"賲蹖鈥屫з嗁� 讴賴 毓丕丿鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 賳丕亘賴鈥屫й� 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 丿丕乇賲 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 丨賯蹖賯鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁� 鬲丕 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賲孬賱丕賸 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賱丨馗賴 亘賴 賲氐賱丨鬲 亘丕卮丿. 亘賴 亘蹖丕賳 丿賯蹖賯鈥屫� 賴乇诏夭 賳馗乇賲 乇丕 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賳賵讴乇 氐賮鬲蹖 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲貙 趩丕倬賱賵爻蹖 賵 乇賳诏 毓賵囟 讴乇丿賳 亘賵賯賱賲賵賳 氐賮鬲丕賳賴 倬賳賴丕賳 賳丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з�: 倬賳丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з�- 賵 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屬举嗀ж辟�- 讴賴 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賴賲 禺賵丕乇卮賲丕乇蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賴賲 丕賳賯賱丕亘." 賳丕賲賴鈥屰� 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘賴 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳. 氐 261 讴鬲丕亘
"丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵夭蹖 丕夭 亘賵夭蹖賳诏蹖 丿爻鬲 讴卮蹖丿 讴賴 丕賵賱蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿. 亘賵夭蹖賳诏丕賳 賴乇诏夭 丕蹖賳 鬲丨賯蹖乇 乇丕 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賳讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀�: 讴丕賮蹖 丕爻鬲 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賴 丿爻鬲 亘賵夭蹖賳賴鈥屫й� 亘丿賴蹖丿貙 賮賵乇蹖 丌賳 乇丕 讴孬蹖賮貙 禺乇丕亘 賵 倬丕乇賴 倬丕乇賴 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿." 丕夭 倬蹖卮诏賮鬲丕乇 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 賳卮丿賴. 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖. 氐 9 讴鬲丕亘
夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 囟毓賮 丿爻鬲诏丕賴 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賲乇丿賲 賲蹖鈥屫屫� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丿蹖诏乇 賳賴 讴丕乇蹖 丕夭 丿爻鬲 噩乇丕丨丕賳 賲睾夭 亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 賵 賳賴 丕夭 丿爻鬲 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴鈥屰� 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 "賲賴賳丿爻丕賳 乇賵丨 賲乇丿賲". 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 鬲讴賳爻蹖賳貙 倬夭卮讴貙 卮丕毓乇 賵 丨鬲蹖 賲兀賲賵乇 丕賲賳蹖鬲蹖 丕蹖賳 丿賵賱鬲貙 毓賱蹖賴 丌賳鈥屫з嗀�. 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖. 氐 11 讴鬲丕亘
丕賲乇賵夭賴 丿乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 賴夭丕乇賴鈥屰� 丿賵賲 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇丕賳{丨丕讴賲 蹖讴鬲丕讴卮賵乇} 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丿賳蹖丕 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 亘賴鈥屬嗁堌观屫� 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐嗀� 亘丕 鬲丨賲蹖賱 爻毓丕丿鬲 亘賴 卮賴乇賵賳丿丕賳 禺賵丿 亘賴 氐丿賵乇 丌賳 賳蹖夭 亘倬乇丿丕夭賳丿. 丕賳鬲诏乇丕賱鈥屬囏� {爻賮蹖賳賴 賮囟丕蹖蹖 賵 賲賵卮讴}貙 爻毓丕丿鬲 賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 乇丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵 賵 丌賳 爻賵蹖 噩賴丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀�. 丕賲丕 禺賵卮亘禺鬲丕賳賴 賴賳賵夭 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵丨卮蹖丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐嗀� 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲 "賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇賮乇賲賵丿賴" 乇丕 亘賴 倬卮蹖夭蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭屫辟嗀�. 禺賵卮亘禺鬲丕賳賴 賴賳賵夭 賴爻鬲賳丿 丌夭丕丿丕賳丿蹖卮丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇丕賳 乇丕爻鬲 賯丕賲鬲丕賳賴 賲蹖鈥屫й屫池嗀� 賵 禺丕胤乇 禺胤蹖乇卮丕賳 乇丕 丌卮賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫池ж操嗀� 賵 胤賱爻賲 賯丿乇鬲卮丕賳 乇丕 丿乇 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫蹿┵嗁嗀�. 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖. 氐 12 讴鬲丕亘
夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘蹖鈥屫必呚з嗁� 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲丕乇蹖爻賲 丿乇 丨丕賱 賳囟噩 乇丕貙 鬲賲賱賯鈥屬囏й� 丨賯丕乇鬲 亘丕乇 丌賳 乇丕貙 爻賱胤賴鈥屰� 爻鬲賲诏乇丕賳賴鈥屫ж� 乇丕貙 亘蹖鈥屫辟呚� 賵 賳丕亘賵丿爻丕夭蹖 乇賵丨 禺賱丕賯 賵 丌夭丕丿 亘卮乇蹖 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 亘丕丿 丨賲賱賴 賵 賲爻禺乇賴 賲蹖鈥屭辟佖�. 倬蹖卮丕倬蹖卮 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫屫�: 賵丨卮鬲 乇丕貙 禺蹖丕賳鬲鈥屬囏� 乇丕貙 夭丿賵丿賳 氐賮丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 乇丕貙 倬丕爻丿丕乇丕賳 賴賲賴 噩丕 丨丕囟乇 乇丕貙 卮爻鬲 賵 卮賵蹖 賲睾夭蹖 丿丕卅賲 乇丕 讴賴 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屫ж� 蹖丕 丌丿賲鈥屬囏й� 賲丕卮蹖賳鈥屬堌ж� 亘賵丿貙 蹖丕 賲賳丕賮賯丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 禺丕胤乇 亘賯丕 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭佖嗀�. "賲毓乇賮蹖"貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖貙 賲蹖乇丕 诏賳爻亘乇诏. 氐 22 讴鬲丕亘
丌蹖丕 亘丿蹖賴蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 爻毓丕丿鬲 賵 丨爻丕丿鬲貙 氐賵乇鬲 賵 賲禺乇噩 讴爻乇蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘賴 賳丕賲 乇囟丕蹖鬲責 氐 48 讴鬲丕亘
賳蹖丕讴丕賳 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池嗀� 讴賴 禺丿丕- 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇鬲乇蹖賳 卮讴丕讴 亘蹖鈥屫堌蒂勝団€屫簇з�- 丌賳 噩丕 亘賵丿. 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬� 讴賴 丌賳噩丕 趩蹖夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 噩夭 毓丿賲 亘乇賴賳賴鈥屰� 亘蹖鈥屫屫й� 卮賮丕賮 丌亘蹖. 丕賲丕 丨丕賱丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬� 丌賳噩丕 趩蹖爻鬲: 禺蹖賱蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕 丌賲賵禺鬲賴鈥屫з�. 丿丕賳卮蹖 讴賴 禺胤丕賳丕倬匕蹖乇蹖 丌賳 賲爻賱賲 亘丕卮丿貙 丕蹖賲丕賳 丕爻鬲. 氐 86 讴鬲丕亘
賲乇诏 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丿賯蹖賯 讴賱賲賴貙 讴丕賲賱鈥屫臂屬� 丕賳丨賱丕賱 賳賮爻 丿乇 讴丕卅賳丕鬲 丕爻鬲. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丕诏乇 丨乇賮 L 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 毓卮賯 賵 丨乇賮 D 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇诏 丿乇 賳馗乇 亘诏蹖乇蹖賲: L=f(D) 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲蹖 丿蹖诏乇 毓卮賯 鬲丕亘毓蹖 丕夭 賲乇诏 丕爻鬲... 氐 160 讴鬲丕亘
亘丿蹖賴蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 "乇賵夭 賵丨丿鬲 讴賱賲賴" 丕氐賱丕賸 卮亘丕賴鬲蹖 亘賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 亘蹖鈥屬嗀纲� 賵 鬲卮讴賱 賳蹖丕讴丕賳賲丕賳 賳丿丕乇丿貙 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳- 诏賮鬲賳卮 賴賲 賲爻禺乇賴 丕爻鬲- 賳鬲丕蹖噩 倬蹖卮丕倬蹖卮 賲毓賱賵賲 賳亘賵丿. 亘蹖鈥屬呚官嗃� 鬲乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�: 鬲卮讴蹖賱 丿賵賱鬲 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲 讴丕賲賱丕賸 倬蹖卮鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃� 賳卮丿賳蹖貙 讴賵乇讴賵乇丕賳賴責... 賳蹖丕夭蹖 亘賴 诏賮鬲賳 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿貙 賲孬賱 爻丕蹖乇 賲賵丕乇丿貙 亘蹖賳 賲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕鬲貙 亘乇丕蹖 賵賯賵毓 丨賵丕丿孬 賳丕賲賳鬲馗乇貙 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿. 賵 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 賮蹖 賳賮爻賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 爻賲亘賵賱蹖讴 丿丕乇丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴 賲丕 蹖丕丿丌賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 賲丕 鬲賳賴丕 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳 蹖丕禺鬲賴鈥屫й� 賴爻鬲蹖賲... 賲丕 賲乇丕爻賲 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 乇丕 毓賱賳蹖貙 氐丕丿賯丕賳賴貙 丿乇 乇賵夭 乇賵卮賳 亘乇诏夭丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬呚� 賲賳 賴賲賴 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗁� 讴賴 亘賴 "賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇" 乇兀蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賴賲賴 賲乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗁嗀� 讴賴 亘賴 "賳蹖讴賵讴丕乇" 乇兀蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囐�. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 睾蹖乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 趩賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 亘丕卮丿貙 趩賵賳 "賴賲賴" 賵 "賲賳" 蹖讴 "賲丕" 賴爻鬲蹖賲. 氐賮丨丕鬲 162 賵 163 讴鬲丕亘
讴爻蹖 趩賴 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 丌丿賲 賲孬賱 乇賲丕賳 丕爻鬲: 鬲丕 丌禺乇蹖賳 氐賮丨賴貙 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴丕乇 賲毓賱賵賲 賳蹖爻鬲. 丿乇 睾蹖乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 丕乇夭卮 禺賵丕賳丿賳 賳禺賵丕賴丿 丿丕卮鬲... 氐 187 讴鬲丕亘
倬爻 趩胤賵乇 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 丕賳賯賱丕亘 丌禺乇蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿責 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖 丌禺乇蹖賳 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貨 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏� 賳丕賲鬲賳丕賴蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 氐 199 讴鬲丕亘
"賲蹖鈥屫з嗁� 讴賴 毓丕丿鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 賳丕亘賴鈥屫й� 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 丿丕乇賲 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 丨賯蹖賯鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁� 鬲丕 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賲孬賱丕賸 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賱丨馗賴 亘賴 賲氐賱丨鬲 亘丕卮丿. 亘賴 亘蹖丕賳 丿賯蹖賯鈥屫� 賴乇诏夭 賳馗乇賲 乇丕 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賳賵讴乇 氐賮鬲蹖 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲貙 趩丕倬賱賵爻蹖 賵 乇賳诏 毓賵囟 讴乇丿賳 亘賵賯賱賲賵賳 氐賮鬲丕賳賴 倬賳賴丕賳 賳丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з�: 倬賳丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з�- 賵 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屬举嗀ж辟�- 讴賴 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賴賲 禺賵丕乇卮賲丕乇蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賴賲 丕賳賯賱丕亘." 賳丕賲賴鈥屰� 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘賴 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳. 氐 261 讴鬲丕亘
March 4, 2024
One of the most original works of dystopian fiction ever...a template for works that are much more famous. When conformity is used as a means of social control then individuality must become a crime. The plot of We is quite complex; but the core of the book revoles around D-503, a spacecraft engineer, discovering that he no longer wants to confirm to societies expectations. He risks everything to try to discover who he really is, beyond the number he has been given. While I like 1984 much more I still appreciate this lesser known classic.
April 19, 2018
賴賱 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賳氐賱 丕賱賶 夭賲賳 賷賰賵賳 賲乇囟賰 "丕賱賳賮爻" 丕賳 鬲氐亘丨 鬲卮毓乇 亘丕賱噩賲丕賱 賵丕賱丨亘 賵丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵鬲鬲禺賱賶 毓賳 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱賵丕丨丿丞 賵丕賱匕賷 賷賯賵丿賴丕 丕賱賲丨爻賳 賵亘毓丿 丕賳 鬲鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賶 賲噩乇丿 乇賯賲 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丿賵賱丞.
賮丕賱亘卮乇 賰丕賱丌賱丕鬲 賷鬲丨乇賰賵賳 亘丕賳鬲馗丕賲 賵賷鬲賵賯賮賵賳 毓賳丿丕 賱胤賱亘 賵賷鬲丨乇賰賵賳 亘丕賱卮丕乇毓 亘賵賯鬲 賵丕丨丿 賵亘賱亘丕爻 賵丕丨丿 賵賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵賳 賳賮爻 丕賱賲賵丕氐賱丕鬲 賵賷賴鬲賮賵賳 賱賳賮爻 丕賱賲丨爻賳 賵賱丕 賷鬲丨丿孬賵賳 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲. 賮丕賱賰賱 賲乇丕賯亘 賵丕賱賳賮爻 賲丨爻賵亘 毓賱賷賰 .
賳丨賳 丕乇賯丕賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 貙 賳丨賳 丕賱丕賻賱丕鬲 賵賳氐賳毓 丕賱丕賻賱丕鬲 賱鬲爻賷胤乇 毓賱賶 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 丕賰孬乇 賵卮賰乇丕 賱賱賲丨爻賳 丕賱匕賷 丕賳毓賲 毓賱賷賳丕 亘賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱乇睾賷丿丞. 丕賻賷 噩賲丕賱 賮賷 丕賱爻賲丕亍 賵丕賱丕卮噩丕乇 賵乇丕卅丨丞 丕賱兀夭賴丕乇 賵丕賱賳亘丕鬲丕鬲 賮賴賷 卮賷亍 賯丿賷賲 賱丕賳丕爻 毓丕卮賵丕 賮賷 毓氐賵乇 睾丕亘乇丞.
乇賵丕賷丞 賯丕鬲賲丞 賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 亘卮乇賷 賲禺賷賮
賮丕賱亘卮乇 賰丕賱丌賱丕鬲 賷鬲丨乇賰賵賳 亘丕賳鬲馗丕賲 賵賷鬲賵賯賮賵賳 毓賳丿丕 賱胤賱亘 賵賷鬲丨乇賰賵賳 亘丕賱卮丕乇毓 亘賵賯鬲 賵丕丨丿 賵亘賱亘丕爻 賵丕丨丿 賵賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵賳 賳賮爻 丕賱賲賵丕氐賱丕鬲 賵賷賴鬲賮賵賳 賱賳賮爻 丕賱賲丨爻賳 賵賱丕 賷鬲丨丿孬賵賳 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲. 賮丕賱賰賱 賲乇丕賯亘 賵丕賱賳賮爻 賲丨爻賵亘 毓賱賷賰 .
賳丨賳 丕乇賯丕賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 貙 賳丨賳 丕賱丕賻賱丕鬲 賵賳氐賳毓 丕賱丕賻賱丕鬲 賱鬲爻賷胤乇 毓賱賶 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 丕賰孬乇 賵卮賰乇丕 賱賱賲丨爻賳 丕賱匕賷 丕賳毓賲 毓賱賷賳丕 亘賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱乇睾賷丿丞. 丕賻賷 噩賲丕賱 賮賷 丕賱爻賲丕亍 賵丕賱丕卮噩丕乇 賵乇丕卅丨丞 丕賱兀夭賴丕乇 賵丕賱賳亘丕鬲丕鬲 賮賴賷 卮賷亍 賯丿賷賲 賱丕賳丕爻 毓丕卮賵丕 賮賷 毓氐賵乇 睾丕亘乇丞.
乇賵丕賷丞 賯丕鬲賲丞 賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 亘卮乇賷 賲禺賷賮
August 1, 2016
Zamyatin's theme here is the impossibility of being fully human in totalitarian society. His future is not technologically superior. It contains little of what we'd call high-tech. This is still very much the age of steam. The story seems both forward-looking and dated, almost paradoxically so. The mood it inspires is rather like that of Fritz Lang's classic . I liked that. It was like finding this artefact of world lit. Another piece in the long history of dystopias鈥攁nd one that influenced George Orwell. But We is worth reading for more than historical reasons. In Cormac McCarthy's we are in a post-apocalyptic thus post-technology future. In We science is very much at the service of OneState. Thanks to "our glass," with its steel-like properties, buildings are completely transparent, so one can see everything everyone else does. Except during sex when one can lower one's blinds, with prior authorization of course. The fictional patterning is admirable throughout, but there are inconsistencies of logic. For instance, the spy agency of OneState known as the Guardians seems inanely feeble in comparison to, say, the efficient quasi-Stasi of . But then Orwell was writing more than 25 years later when advanced ideas like television were in the air. For D-503 everything is fine and dandy. He begins by being a rather tiresome booster of OneState. He's happy sharing O-90's favors with R-13. He's happy with his work on the INTEGRAL which is some sort of missile, time-capsule affair destined for other civilizations on other planets. (Later, when it flew, I was assailed by mental footage of Buck Rodgers' low-tech rocket jiggled on fishing line before the camera.) Everything is fine with D-503 until he falls passionately in love with I-330, who is both beautiful and a willful transgressor of state laws. She's a revolutionary. I-330 is constantly gaming the system. And because D-503 is insanely in love with her, he's drawn into her crimes for which death appears to be the only possible punishment. There are a number of disconnected images, scenes that don't quite fit with the otherwise lucid patterning of the novel. It's as if the book never made it through it's final draft. But I, ordinarily so unforgiving, was willing to live with that. After all it's an artefact. If you're seeking perfection this is not your novel.
May 11, 2021
I've actually read this book before. It's an excellent classic science fiction work that no doubt inspired many writers. Initially published in 1920, "We" came before both George Orwell and Alduous Huxley (and I would personally argue is better than Huxley's book). It's a lesser known work, but an extremely powerful one. I honestly don't have much more to say on the book itself.
So why am I reviewing it? Because I got a chance to read Bela Shayevich's new translation for free before its release in November. What do I think of this new translation? It's delightful. Very readable, well done, captures the emotions better than Clarence Brown's (the only other translation I have read) and is overall wonderful. The sarcasm and irony truly shine here... and yes, I find it a significant improvement to what was already an amazing read.
Should you read this book? Absolutely. This is a classic of both Russian literature and science fiction. It's a gem of a book that sadly goes unnoticed far too much. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up if you want to read an amazing early dystopian novel. 5/5 stars
My thanks to Netgalley and Ecco for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review.
So why am I reviewing it? Because I got a chance to read Bela Shayevich's new translation for free before its release in November. What do I think of this new translation? It's delightful. Very readable, well done, captures the emotions better than Clarence Brown's (the only other translation I have read) and is overall wonderful. The sarcasm and irony truly shine here... and yes, I find it a significant improvement to what was already an amazing read.
Should you read this book? Absolutely. This is a classic of both Russian literature and science fiction. It's a gem of a book that sadly goes unnoticed far too much. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up if you want to read an amazing early dystopian novel. 5/5 stars
My thanks to Netgalley and Ecco for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review.
July 22, 2018
Now, why would I think that an old SF novel from 1924 might not be as polished and extravagant in exploring ideas and crafting a truly delicious dystopia as, say, 1984, or Anthem, or Brave New World as they did many years later? Or be as timely now as it was in the time where it was heralded as a "malicious slander on socialism"?
Did I avoid this mainly because I couldn't pronounce the author's name?
Maybe.
But that's horrible! Especially when this little gem is polished to a very high degree.
It lambasts current and past ideas of utopia, turning sex and the "greatest good" into a truly timeless dystopia. Not only that, it's witty, speaks of the death of all imagination, makes me care for its hero in a profound way even when he's following the grand dictates of this "final" society, and of course we feel the effects of the new revolution even when there could never BE another revolution.
You know what it reminds me of? The old move Metropolis. Now that's a true classic, too, and just as good today as it was back in 1927.
Notice a trend? That perhaps this little novel inspired all these names I dropped? Well, it's true, or at least, the authors admitted as such.
Make no mistake. The other authors took things into somewhat wilder directions, but We is closest to what we are now, for all that. And it's no less polished. In some ways, it's better. It all depends on whether you want your SF dystopias a bit more hardcore and dark or with more worldbuilding. Rand was nuts with the worldbuilding and Huxley feels like he cribbed this entire novel, but 1984 goes the distance. Anyway I look at it, though, this novel belongs with all the greats. At least in dystopias. :)
Did I avoid this mainly because I couldn't pronounce the author's name?
Maybe.
But that's horrible! Especially when this little gem is polished to a very high degree.
It lambasts current and past ideas of utopia, turning sex and the "greatest good" into a truly timeless dystopia. Not only that, it's witty, speaks of the death of all imagination, makes me care for its hero in a profound way even when he's following the grand dictates of this "final" society, and of course we feel the effects of the new revolution even when there could never BE another revolution.
You know what it reminds me of? The old move Metropolis. Now that's a true classic, too, and just as good today as it was back in 1927.
Notice a trend? That perhaps this little novel inspired all these names I dropped? Well, it's true, or at least, the authors admitted as such.
Make no mistake. The other authors took things into somewhat wilder directions, but We is closest to what we are now, for all that. And it's no less polished. In some ways, it's better. It all depends on whether you want your SF dystopias a bit more hardcore and dark or with more worldbuilding. Rand was nuts with the worldbuilding and Huxley feels like he cribbed this entire novel, but 1984 goes the distance. Anyway I look at it, though, this novel belongs with all the greats. At least in dystopias. :)
November 5, 2021
蹖丕丿賲賴 亘乇丕蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 爻禺鬲蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖 讴卮蹖丿賲! 趩賵賳 丨丿賵丿丕 丿賵 爻賴 爻丕賱 倬蹖卮 亘賵丿 讴賴 禺賵丕爻鬲賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘禺賵賳賲 賵賱蹖 趩丕倬鈥屫呚з� 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賵 倬蹖丿丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫簇�!
鬲丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 丨丿賵丿丕 蹖讴 爻丕賱 賵 賳蹖賲 倬蹖卮貙 賳卮乇 亘蹖丿诏賱 亘丕 蹖讴 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 毓丕賱蹖貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕丨蹖丕 讴乇丿.
亘賱丕賮丕氐賱賴 倬爻 丕夭 賲胤賱毓 卮丿賳貙 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕夭 丿賮鬲乇 乇爻賲蹖 賮乇賵卮 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲 禺乇蹖丿賲 賵 亘賴 讴鬲丕亘禺賵賳賴鈥屫з� 丕囟丕賮賴鈥屫ж� 讴乇丿賲.
賵 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 賯乇毓賴 亘賴 賳丕賲卮 丕賮鬲丕丿 賵 賲賵賮賯 亘賴 禺賵賳丿賳卮 卮丿賲.
丕賵丕蹖賱 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屰� 讴鬲亘貙 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳貙 亘乇丕蹖 賳賵卮鬲賳 讴鬲丕亘卮 丕夭 噩賵乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱 賵 讴鬲丕亘 賴夭丕乇 賵 賳賴氐丿 賵 賴卮鬲丕丿 賵 趩賴丕乇 丕賱賴丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴貙 鬲丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 鬲丨賯蹖賯 讴乇丿賲 賵 丿蹖丿賲 禺蹖乇! 丿乇 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 亘賵丿賲! 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 蹖讴噩賵乇丕蹖蹖 倬丿乇 爻亘讴 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂屬�! :))
賲賴賲 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賲 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 賱賵 亘丿賲 蹖丕 賳賴貙 趩賵賳 丿蹖诏賴 讴賱賲賴鈥屰� 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂� 禺賵丿卮 亘蹖丕賳鈥屭� 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 賴爻鬲!
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 丕鬲賮丕賯 賲蹖鈥屫з佖� 讴賴 丌丿賲鈥屬囏ж� 賴蹖趩 乇賵丨 賵 賴賵蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖鈥屫й� 賳丿丕乇賳!
丕蹖賳 丌丿賲鈥屬囏ж� 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫促堎� 鬲賵爻胤 丨讴賵賲鬲 賲丿蹖乇蹖鬲 賵 讴賳鬲乇賱 賵 丿蹖讴鬲賴 賲蹖卮賴.
丕夭 噩賲賱賴 爻丕毓丕鬲 禺賵丕亘 賵 亘蹖丿丕乇蹖貙 賳賵毓 睾匕丕賴丕貙 爻丕毓丕鬲 睾匕丕 禺賵乇丿賳鈥屬囏� 賵 丨鬲蹖 鬲毓丿丕丿 丿賮毓丕鬲 噩賵蹖丿賳 賴乇 賱賯賲賴!
賲爻蹖乇賴丕蹖 乇賮鬲 賵 亘乇诏卮鬲 亘賴 賲丨賱 讴丕乇!
鬲毓丿丕丿 丿賮毓丕鬲 乇丕亘胤賴 噩賳爻蹖!
賵 鬲賲丕賲 噩賵丕賳亘 丿蹖诏賴鈥屰� 夭賳丿诏蹖!
丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 禺賵賳賴鈥屬囏� 丕夭 噩賳爻 卮蹖卮賴 賴爻鬲賳 賵 賴蹖趩 賮乇丿蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 趩蹖夭蹖 乇賵 亘毓賳賵丕賳 乇丕夭貙 丕夭 亘賯蹖賴 賲禺賮蹖 讴賳賴!
鬲賳賴丕 丕爻鬲孬賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴貙 讴乇讴乇賴鈥屬囏й屰� 賴爻鬲賳 讴賴 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 亘乇賯乇丕乇蹖 乇丕亘胤賴 噩賳爻蹖 賵 亘賴 賲丿鬲 夭賲丕賳 賲丨丿賵丿貙 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 賵 賮囟丕蹖蹖 賳爻亘鬲丕 禺氐賵氐蹖 乇賵 亘乇丕蹖 氐丕丨亘鈥屫堎嗁� 亘賴 丕乇賲睾丕賳 賲蹖丕乇賳!
丿乇 睾蹖乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲貙 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 賴乇诏夭 趩蹖夭蹖 乇賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 丕夭 賴賲丿蹖诏賴 賲禺賮蹖 讴賳賳!
賳讴鬲賴 噩丕賱亘 丿蹖诏賴貙 丕蹖賳讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 丿丕卮鬲賳 乇賵丨貙 蹖讴 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖卮賴!
丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 讴爻蹖 讴賴 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲 丿丕乇賴貙 讴爻蹖 讴賴 鬲禺蹖賱 丿丕乇賴貙 鬲賵爻胤 倬丕爻丿丕乇丕賳 賵 蹖丕 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 倬賱蹖爻鈥屬囏й� 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 卮丿賴 賵 亘丕 丕賳噩丕賲 毓賲賱 亘賴鈥屫辟堐� 賲睾夭貙 丕夭 卮乇 丕蹖賳 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲 禺賱丕氐 賲蹖卮賴!
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕 噩乇蹖丕賳 丿丕乇賴! 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭 丿蹖诏賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賱賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫�...
丕夭 賱丨丕馗 賳诏丕乇卮 賵 禺賵丕賳卮貙 讴鬲丕亘 讴賲蹖 爻禺鬲鈥屫堌з嗁囏� 丕賱亘鬲賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 爻乇乇丕爻鬲蹖 丿丕乇賴 賵賱蹖 禺賵丿 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 讴鬲丕亘貙 爻乇毓鬲 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲蹖丕乇賴.
賵賱蹖 亘賴 噩乇丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 亘诏賲 讴賴 丕夭 氐賮丨賴 丕賵賱 丕賱蹖 氐賮丨賴 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘貙 賴蹖噩丕賳 賵 讴卮卮蹖 賯賵蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴貙 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖鈥屫促� 丿乇 丨蹖賳 禺賵賳丿賳卮 賴乇诏夭 丕丨爻丕爻 爻乇丿蹖 賵 爻乇乇賮鬲賳 丨賵氐賱賴 賳讴賳蹖丿!
鬲乇噩賲賴 毓丕賱蹖貙 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 趩丕倬 毓丕賱蹖貙 丕诏乇 賯胤毓 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘噩丕蹖 倬丕賱鬲賵蹖蹖貙 乇賯毓蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丿蹖诏賴 賳賵乇毓賱蹖鈥屬嗁堌� 賲蹖鈥屫簇�! :))
賲賳 乇賵蹖 賯胤毓 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 讴鬲丕亘禺賵賳賴鈥屫з� 賴賲 丨爻丕爻賲貙 亘毓賱賴! :))
鬲賵氐蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘禺賵賳蹖丿. 丕诏乇 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賴夭丕乇 賵 賳賴氐丿 賵 賴卮鬲丕丿 賵 趩賴丕乇 禺賵卮鬲賵賳 丕賵賲丿賴貙 倬爻 蹖賯蹖賳丕 毓丕卮賯 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 卮丿.
倬賳噩 爻鬲丕乇賴 讴丕賲賱...
鬲丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 丨丿賵丿丕 蹖讴 爻丕賱 賵 賳蹖賲 倬蹖卮貙 賳卮乇 亘蹖丿诏賱 亘丕 蹖讴 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 毓丕賱蹖貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕丨蹖丕 讴乇丿.
亘賱丕賮丕氐賱賴 倬爻 丕夭 賲胤賱毓 卮丿賳貙 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕夭 丿賮鬲乇 乇爻賲蹖 賮乇賵卮 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲 禺乇蹖丿賲 賵 亘賴 讴鬲丕亘禺賵賳賴鈥屫з� 丕囟丕賮賴鈥屫ж� 讴乇丿賲.
賵 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 賯乇毓賴 亘賴 賳丕賲卮 丕賮鬲丕丿 賵 賲賵賮賯 亘賴 禺賵賳丿賳卮 卮丿賲.
丕賵丕蹖賱 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屰� 讴鬲亘貙 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳貙 亘乇丕蹖 賳賵卮鬲賳 讴鬲丕亘卮 丕夭 噩賵乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱 賵 讴鬲丕亘 賴夭丕乇 賵 賳賴氐丿 賵 賴卮鬲丕丿 賵 趩賴丕乇 丕賱賴丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴貙 鬲丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 鬲丨賯蹖賯 讴乇丿賲 賵 丿蹖丿賲 禺蹖乇! 丿乇 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 亘賵丿賲! 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 蹖讴噩賵乇丕蹖蹖 倬丿乇 爻亘讴 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂屬�! :))
賲賴賲 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賲 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 賱賵 亘丿賲 蹖丕 賳賴貙 趩賵賳 丿蹖诏賴 讴賱賲賴鈥屰� 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂� 禺賵丿卮 亘蹖丕賳鈥屭� 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 賴爻鬲!
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 丕鬲賮丕賯 賲蹖鈥屫з佖� 讴賴 丌丿賲鈥屬囏ж� 賴蹖趩 乇賵丨 賵 賴賵蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖鈥屫й� 賳丿丕乇賳!
丕蹖賳 丌丿賲鈥屬囏ж� 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫促堎� 鬲賵爻胤 丨讴賵賲鬲 賲丿蹖乇蹖鬲 賵 讴賳鬲乇賱 賵 丿蹖讴鬲賴 賲蹖卮賴.
丕夭 噩賲賱賴 爻丕毓丕鬲 禺賵丕亘 賵 亘蹖丿丕乇蹖貙 賳賵毓 睾匕丕賴丕貙 爻丕毓丕鬲 睾匕丕 禺賵乇丿賳鈥屬囏� 賵 丨鬲蹖 鬲毓丿丕丿 丿賮毓丕鬲 噩賵蹖丿賳 賴乇 賱賯賲賴!
賲爻蹖乇賴丕蹖 乇賮鬲 賵 亘乇诏卮鬲 亘賴 賲丨賱 讴丕乇!
鬲毓丿丕丿 丿賮毓丕鬲 乇丕亘胤賴 噩賳爻蹖!
賵 鬲賲丕賲 噩賵丕賳亘 丿蹖诏賴鈥屰� 夭賳丿诏蹖!
丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 禺賵賳賴鈥屬囏� 丕夭 噩賳爻 卮蹖卮賴 賴爻鬲賳 賵 賴蹖趩 賮乇丿蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 趩蹖夭蹖 乇賵 亘毓賳賵丕賳 乇丕夭貙 丕夭 亘賯蹖賴 賲禺賮蹖 讴賳賴!
鬲賳賴丕 丕爻鬲孬賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴貙 讴乇讴乇賴鈥屬囏й屰� 賴爻鬲賳 讴賴 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 亘乇賯乇丕乇蹖 乇丕亘胤賴 噩賳爻蹖 賵 亘賴 賲丿鬲 夭賲丕賳 賲丨丿賵丿貙 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 賵 賮囟丕蹖蹖 賳爻亘鬲丕 禺氐賵氐蹖 乇賵 亘乇丕蹖 氐丕丨亘鈥屫堎嗁� 亘賴 丕乇賲睾丕賳 賲蹖丕乇賳!
丿乇 睾蹖乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲貙 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 賴乇诏夭 趩蹖夭蹖 乇賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 丕夭 賴賲丿蹖诏賴 賲禺賮蹖 讴賳賳!
賳讴鬲賴 噩丕賱亘 丿蹖诏賴貙 丕蹖賳讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 丿丕卮鬲賳 乇賵丨貙 蹖讴 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖卮賴!
丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕貙 讴爻蹖 讴賴 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲 丿丕乇賴貙 讴爻蹖 讴賴 鬲禺蹖賱 丿丕乇賴貙 鬲賵爻胤 倬丕爻丿丕乇丕賳 賵 蹖丕 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 倬賱蹖爻鈥屬囏й� 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 卮丿賴 賵 亘丕 丕賳噩丕賲 毓賲賱 亘賴鈥屫辟堐� 賲睾夭貙 丕夭 卮乇 丕蹖賳 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲 禺賱丕氐 賲蹖卮賴!
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕 噩乇蹖丕賳 丿丕乇賴! 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭 丿蹖诏賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賱賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫�...
丕夭 賱丨丕馗 賳诏丕乇卮 賵 禺賵丕賳卮貙 讴鬲丕亘 讴賲蹖 爻禺鬲鈥屫堌з嗁囏� 丕賱亘鬲賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 爻乇乇丕爻鬲蹖 丿丕乇賴 賵賱蹖 禺賵丿 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 讴鬲丕亘貙 爻乇毓鬲 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲蹖丕乇賴.
賵賱蹖 亘賴 噩乇丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 亘诏賲 讴賴 丕夭 氐賮丨賴 丕賵賱 丕賱蹖 氐賮丨賴 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘貙 賴蹖噩丕賳 賵 讴卮卮蹖 賯賵蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴貙 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖鈥屫促� 丿乇 丨蹖賳 禺賵賳丿賳卮 賴乇诏夭 丕丨爻丕爻 爻乇丿蹖 賵 爻乇乇賮鬲賳 丨賵氐賱賴 賳讴賳蹖丿!
鬲乇噩賲賴 毓丕賱蹖貙 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 趩丕倬 毓丕賱蹖貙 丕诏乇 賯胤毓 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘噩丕蹖 倬丕賱鬲賵蹖蹖貙 乇賯毓蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丿蹖诏賴 賳賵乇毓賱蹖鈥屬嗁堌� 賲蹖鈥屫簇�! :))
賲賳 乇賵蹖 賯胤毓 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 讴鬲丕亘禺賵賳賴鈥屫з� 賴賲 丨爻丕爻賲貙 亘毓賱賴! :))
鬲賵氐蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘禺賵賳蹖丿. 丕诏乇 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賴夭丕乇 賵 賳賴氐丿 賵 賴卮鬲丕丿 賵 趩賴丕乇 禺賵卮鬲賵賳 丕賵賲丿賴貙 倬爻 蹖賯蹖賳丕 毓丕卮賯 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 卮丿.
倬賳噩 爻鬲丕乇賴 讴丕賲賱...
February 21, 2024
鈥淢y dear鈥攜ou are a mathematician. More鈥攜ou are a philosopher, a mathematical philosopher. Well, then: name me the final number.鈥�
鈥淲hat do you mean? I . . . I don鈥檛 understand: what final number?鈥�
鈥淲ell, the final, the ultimate, the largest.鈥�
鈥淏ut that鈥檚 preposterous! If the number of numbers is infinite, how can there be a final number?鈥�
鈥淭hen how can there be a final revolution? There is no final one; revolutions are infinite.鈥�
Many centuries from now, after the Two Hundred Years鈥� War, OneState rules the world from a city behind the Green Wall that separates the city from the natural world. OneState is made almost entirely of glass to keep its citizens鈥攕imply called 鈥渘umbers鈥濃€攗nder constant observation by the Guardians, the enforcers in this totalitarian regime controlled by the Benefactor.
D-503 lives in OneState, and happily so. He鈥檚 the lead builder of a spaceship called The Integral, which is preparing to take word of their perfect society to the stars. He鈥檚 writing a journal that will be delivered to whomever they find, describing the wondrous order of their society, where every minute of every day is carefully planned by OneState (the Table of Hours), and all of his needs鈥攕helter, food, sex鈥攁re controlled and provided by OneState. And then one day D-503 meets I-330, a woman with some pretty bizarre ideas about individual freedom, and it upsets the balance of D-503鈥檚 ordered life 鈥�.
It鈥檚 impossible to read We without considering its broader place in literature. The author had translated works by H.G. Wells into Russian prior to writing this novel, and Wells鈥� science fiction influence is obvious. More importantly, We influenced numerous authors who followed, including George Orwell, who was inspired by We to write . And when I say 鈥渋nspired,鈥� I mean that there are some substantial similarities between the plots of the two novels. But despite hitting some of the same beats, they are very different novels. D-503 is a true believer in OneState at the start, upbeat and enthusiastic, while Winston Smith is deeply cynical and knows he鈥檚 living in a oppressive regime. We is often poetic, with D-503 regularly talking about wanting to rip the square root of -1 out of himself. is more didactic, a treatise against fascism and an exploration of the power of language to change individuals鈥� thoughts and society as a whole.
But even judged simply on its own merits, We is a very interesting read. It was written by a Russian citizen just a few years after the 1919 Revolution. The society portrayed seems the logical conclusion of the Russian attempt to apply F.W. Taylor鈥檚 ideas about industrial efficiency to people. The fact that the result is a dystopian police state, with individual freedom sacrificed in pursuit of some type of mathematical perfection, is one reason why the novel was first published in the US in 1924, and was not published in Russia until 1988. The other reason is probably that the novel鈥檚 thesis is that no society will ever eliminate all dissent, that there will never be a 鈥渇inal revolution,鈥� a message those who had just overthrown the czars had no interest in hearing. Recommended.
Read
August 21, 2020I had noticed pop up in my feed and more chatter about that and in the media, which my thoughts upstream towards their source Zamyatin's 1924 novel We. Zamyatin's book as is the way of books, did not pop out of the void but is itself in dialogue with older books, in particular I felt Dostoevsky's and the Bible. For those afraid of spoilers, you were better off avoiding this review altogether. For if, persons unknown, credit Zamyatin with writing the first dystopia, he himself shakes his head and says no - the first dystopia and the first utopia is the Garden of Eden. The same feelings impel us to the one and repel us from the other, but the difference between the two states is about one heart beat in Zamyatin's story.
Zamyatin's principal character is , or D-530 as he is known here in the world in which everybody is a number, apart from The Benefactor who is maybe Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor or possibly God himself. The problem with Edens as we know from , is human nature, man confronted with the most beautiful Crystal Palace imaginable, a shining promise of modernity, has an overwhelming desire to lob a brick through it's bloody great windows, and as for woman...well as we know from books and life, woman makes man look like a saint by comparison.
For me on the reread it seemed that Zamyatin took that as his starting assumption but was more interested in the motive forces that work for and against Utopias and Dystopias. A friend in my rereading updates was gracious enough to mention Anna Karennia and Vronsky, and there is a current in society which sees love and sexual attraction as a rebellion in the making against society, something intrinsically disruptive, here says Orwell, watch my man Winston Smith gambolling as happy as a new born lamb - now introduce woman into my test tube and lets stand well back and see what happens, in a rarefied form Huxley says acceptance of the realities of the world is a spell, sufficient exposure to something else will lead to disenchantment and escape from the iron cage of the Ford factory. But Zamyatin's Adam is a man of passion masquerading as an Engineer. He tells us that as a child he dissolved into a tantrum of tears and deep distress when he was taught about the square root of minus one. The intensity of D-530's desires for a complete world is I think it's main strength over its daughter books, it is D-530 who yearns for complete absorption whether in the arms of his lover or nestling into the arbitrary order of the one state, the desire for the dissolution of self is the same, he flees from the troubling reality of irrational numbers just as he struggles against himself, his obsession with lips and his hairy hands, he can't accept the irrationality inherent in his own person which his initial love interest O-90 can, she accepts her desire be pregnant even though the nature of this society means that this is a death sentence. The problem, for Zamyatin is not that man and woman have a natural tendency to first make bricks and then to throw them through windows, but on the contrary that humans have a deep longing not to escape childhood, but to cling to a parent particularly perhaps if they are arbitrary and abusive. O-90 achieves Enlightenment, while for D-530 the Buddha remains in the museum, the war over the direction of his own dissolution takes place on the Dostoyeskian backfield - his own soul - the Entropic one state or Lilith and the rejection of domination in favour of energy. The one battle he can't face is for self acceptance - the self that doesn't laugh at the music of Scriabin . Not that E-330 is an ideal positive figure, Orwell shamelessly demotes her to Julia in his novel, E-330 is a far more powerful figure, the prime mover in rebellion, but also deluded in her faith in D-530 - a weak reed and nursed as well as nurtured by a state in which no human has an individual value, apart from the Platonic philosopher king who rules the while show, she has no drive to spare human life herself. Her power though does appear to have the capacity to bring down the state which plainly isn't the case in Orwell or Huxley for them the individual is too weak in the face of state power.
It strikes me that D-530's longing for unity is another strength, Winston Smith only comes to love Big Brother after the careful application of a certain amount of expertise and coercion, this is highly inefficient, and no sensible way to run an entire state as one can see - even extreme governments
prefer mostly, as Zamyatin imagines in his one state, that the regime works with the grain , through love. Although to be fair the removal of his inner conflict is achieved through brain surgery.
Apparently inspired by the time Zamyatin spent studying ship building in the North-East of England before the first world war. This was read by Orwell and Huxley before they wrote their dystopian fantasies, Orwell read the French translations presumably in between washing dishes or while waiting to pawn something.
After the first world war Zamyatin designed ice-breakers that remained in service well into the soviet period. Like the narrator of his novel he was a man designing functional objects in a society that was set on designing functional citizens.
Zamyatin's principal character is , or D-530 as he is known here in the world in which everybody is a number, apart from The Benefactor who is maybe Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor or possibly God himself. The problem with Edens as we know from , is human nature, man confronted with the most beautiful Crystal Palace imaginable, a shining promise of modernity, has an overwhelming desire to lob a brick through it's bloody great windows, and as for woman...well as we know from books and life, woman makes man look like a saint by comparison.
For me on the reread it seemed that Zamyatin took that as his starting assumption but was more interested in the motive forces that work for and against Utopias and Dystopias. A friend in my rereading updates was gracious enough to mention Anna Karennia and Vronsky, and there is a current in society which sees love and sexual attraction as a rebellion in the making against society, something intrinsically disruptive, here says Orwell, watch my man Winston Smith gambolling as happy as a new born lamb - now introduce woman into my test tube and lets stand well back and see what happens, in a rarefied form Huxley says acceptance of the realities of the world is a spell, sufficient exposure to something else will lead to disenchantment and escape from the iron cage of the Ford factory. But Zamyatin's Adam is a man of passion masquerading as an Engineer. He tells us that as a child he dissolved into a tantrum of tears and deep distress when he was taught about the square root of minus one. The intensity of D-530's desires for a complete world is I think it's main strength over its daughter books, it is D-530 who yearns for complete absorption whether in the arms of his lover or nestling into the arbitrary order of the one state, the desire for the dissolution of self is the same, he flees from the troubling reality of irrational numbers just as he struggles against himself, his obsession with lips and his hairy hands, he can't accept the irrationality inherent in his own person which his initial love interest O-90 can, she accepts her desire be pregnant even though the nature of this society means that this is a death sentence. The problem, for Zamyatin is not that man and woman have a natural tendency to first make bricks and then to throw them through windows, but on the contrary that humans have a deep longing not to escape childhood, but to cling to a parent particularly perhaps if they are arbitrary and abusive. O-90 achieves Enlightenment, while for D-530 the Buddha remains in the museum, the war over the direction of his own dissolution takes place on the Dostoyeskian backfield - his own soul - the Entropic one state or Lilith and the rejection of domination in favour of energy. The one battle he can't face is for self acceptance - the self that doesn't laugh at the music of Scriabin . Not that E-330 is an ideal positive figure, Orwell shamelessly demotes her to Julia in his novel, E-330 is a far more powerful figure, the prime mover in rebellion, but also deluded in her faith in D-530 - a weak reed and nursed as well as nurtured by a state in which no human has an individual value, apart from the Platonic philosopher king who rules the while show, she has no drive to spare human life herself. Her power though does appear to have the capacity to bring down the state which plainly isn't the case in Orwell or Huxley for them the individual is too weak in the face of state power.
It strikes me that D-530's longing for unity is another strength, Winston Smith only comes to love Big Brother after the careful application of a certain amount of expertise and coercion, this is highly inefficient, and no sensible way to run an entire state as one can see - even extreme governments
prefer mostly, as Zamyatin imagines in his one state, that the regime works with the grain , through love. Although to be fair the removal of his inner conflict is achieved through brain surgery.
Apparently inspired by the time Zamyatin spent studying ship building in the North-East of England before the first world war. This was read by Orwell and Huxley before they wrote their dystopian fantasies, Orwell read the French translations presumably in between washing dishes or while waiting to pawn something.
After the first world war Zamyatin designed ice-breakers that remained in service well into the soviet period. Like the narrator of his novel he was a man designing functional objects in a society that was set on designing functional citizens.
April 8, 2012
Well, I can see why We by Yevgeny Zamyatin was 'problematic' for the Soviet regime. It unequivocally debunks the utopian collective ideal. Communism (in practice, if not in theory) demands each of its fellow-travelers to exist on a purely atomic level. Good, responsible communists are mere corpuscles in a bland, unfulfilling social body. Sure, economic equality seems like a nice ideal, right? A cute ideal, even? But aside from being virtually impracticable (because humans will always be human), however, it becomes a nightmare when individuals are forced to relinquish their selfhood at the altar of the purely collective.
The religiosity of communism has always embarrassed me. All these puffed-up intellectuals imagining they've thrown off the weight of myth and simplistic, primitive 'gods' when they've only invented a new one鈥攁ll the more absurd for its rationalist pretensions. Call me a decadent bourgeois if you wish, but I am unwilling to give up my individualism鈥攜es, including my selfishness!鈥攆or the sake of some theoretical, neutered society鈥攁n always-deferred happiness that resembles heaven to an almost satirical extent.
Zamyatin pulls no punches in dealing with these blind spots of Soviet totalitarianism. (And please don't infer that my condemnation of the Soviet model implies a wildly enthusiastic endorsement of the American model. America needs its own satires.) The narrative centers on a social cog named D-503 in some distant future who struggles to maintain his naive faith in the new hypercollective world order in the face of a sudden, unexpected obstacle: love. Sure, it sounds really quaint, but We is a whirlwind of intellectual and emotional chaos, brought to life in strangely mathematical imagery and feverish mystery.
Reading this fractured, oddly-phrased story, I can only imagine that it was extremely difficult to translate, so I'll point out that I read the fairly recent Natasha Randall translation put out by the Modern Library. I can't vouch for other translations, but this one is modern, gripping, and evocative. The final fifty pages, coupled with the coffee I was drinking, actually gave me anxiety. And now that I close the book, I'm left with this vague sort of dread-slash-melancholy. I consider that a good thing. The truly great books are the ones you feel even when you aren't reading them.
The religiosity of communism has always embarrassed me. All these puffed-up intellectuals imagining they've thrown off the weight of myth and simplistic, primitive 'gods' when they've only invented a new one鈥攁ll the more absurd for its rationalist pretensions. Call me a decadent bourgeois if you wish, but I am unwilling to give up my individualism鈥攜es, including my selfishness!鈥攆or the sake of some theoretical, neutered society鈥攁n always-deferred happiness that resembles heaven to an almost satirical extent.
Zamyatin pulls no punches in dealing with these blind spots of Soviet totalitarianism. (And please don't infer that my condemnation of the Soviet model implies a wildly enthusiastic endorsement of the American model. America needs its own satires.) The narrative centers on a social cog named D-503 in some distant future who struggles to maintain his naive faith in the new hypercollective world order in the face of a sudden, unexpected obstacle: love. Sure, it sounds really quaint, but We is a whirlwind of intellectual and emotional chaos, brought to life in strangely mathematical imagery and feverish mystery.
Reading this fractured, oddly-phrased story, I can only imagine that it was extremely difficult to translate, so I'll point out that I read the fairly recent Natasha Randall translation put out by the Modern Library. I can't vouch for other translations, but this one is modern, gripping, and evocative. The final fifty pages, coupled with the coffee I was drinking, actually gave me anxiety. And now that I close the book, I'm left with this vague sort of dread-slash-melancholy. I consider that a good thing. The truly great books are the ones you feel even when you aren't reading them.
May 4, 2021
In the dystopian future, engineer D-503 (because future people are numbers - individuals don鈥檛 matter, only the collective we are the Borg) is working on the rocketship Integral to spread the doctrine of Utopia鈥檚 Benefactor to the stars. But then he falls in love with I-330 - and love, imagination, anything that smacks of human nature, is punishable by death! What鈥檚 a supposedly-mindless drone to do?!
Yevgeny Zamyatin鈥檚 WE has been on my radar for some time now, purely because I heard that it was a major influence on Orwell鈥檚 1984 and I loved that novel. And it clearly was, and I鈥檓 glad to finally tick that box of having read this, but, man alive, is it not fun to read!
Orwell鈥檚 1946 review of WE is included at the back of this edition and it鈥檚 ironic because he spends a part of the review going through the similarities WE has with Aldous Huxley鈥檚 Brave New World and, though it does, Orwell basically completely ripped off WE shortly after writing this review, essentially rewriting it as 1984!
Dystopian future, totalitarian state, overbearing supreme leader, discouraging independence in all its forms, the main character undergoes an awakening, falls in love with a female character, secret resistance, and then the finale - WE and 1984 are practically identical in all facets. And yet 1984 is by far the better novel, possibly because Hitler/Stalin/WW2 had happened by the time Orwell came to write it and could lend that nightmarish realism to his book, but mainly because Orwell was a better writer.
Zamyatin鈥檚 prose is unengaging and the story lacks the sense of urgent danger, paralysing fear and sickening oppression of Orwell鈥檚 vision. Sure, Zamyatin鈥檚 book is more original in its details but it鈥檚 still dull to read. Once D-503 falls in love, nothing really happens for much of the novel until the uninteresting ending. I was never once taken with the characters or world or any aspect of the story.
You know how it鈥檚 said there鈥檚 only seven or so stories and everyone鈥檚 just reworking them over and over? All that really means is that the storytelling is more important than the story itself. And that鈥檚 the case here: Zamyatin and Orwell told a near identical story but Orwell鈥檚 had a vastly bigger impact on our world because he鈥檚 the better storyteller and 1984 is a much more compelling narrative. A lot of Shakespeare鈥檚 plays were rewritings of pre-existing plays (Hamlet, Lear, etc.) but Shakespeare鈥檚 versions are the definitive ones because they were the better written and more enthralling to audiences.
Also included in this edition are dreary essays by Margaret Atwood and Ursula K. Le Guin that I wouldn鈥檛 bother reading, not least because Atwood鈥檚 introduction, like too many introductions to literary classics, brazenly includes spoilers. If you ever get a book with an introduction, always read it AFTER reading the book itself.
Even if you鈥檙e a fan of 1984, I still wouldn鈥檛 recommend reading WE as a curio because it鈥檚 so, so boring. I appreciate its literary place as the inspiration for Orwell鈥檚 masterpiece, and it should be remembered for that, but I definitely didn鈥檛 enjoy reading it at all and don鈥檛 rate Zamyatin as much of a writer; he was a fine ideas guy but not a great storyteller.
Yevgeny Zamyatin鈥檚 WE has been on my radar for some time now, purely because I heard that it was a major influence on Orwell鈥檚 1984 and I loved that novel. And it clearly was, and I鈥檓 glad to finally tick that box of having read this, but, man alive, is it not fun to read!
Orwell鈥檚 1946 review of WE is included at the back of this edition and it鈥檚 ironic because he spends a part of the review going through the similarities WE has with Aldous Huxley鈥檚 Brave New World and, though it does, Orwell basically completely ripped off WE shortly after writing this review, essentially rewriting it as 1984!
Dystopian future, totalitarian state, overbearing supreme leader, discouraging independence in all its forms, the main character undergoes an awakening, falls in love with a female character, secret resistance, and then the finale - WE and 1984 are practically identical in all facets. And yet 1984 is by far the better novel, possibly because Hitler/Stalin/WW2 had happened by the time Orwell came to write it and could lend that nightmarish realism to his book, but mainly because Orwell was a better writer.
Zamyatin鈥檚 prose is unengaging and the story lacks the sense of urgent danger, paralysing fear and sickening oppression of Orwell鈥檚 vision. Sure, Zamyatin鈥檚 book is more original in its details but it鈥檚 still dull to read. Once D-503 falls in love, nothing really happens for much of the novel until the uninteresting ending. I was never once taken with the characters or world or any aspect of the story.
You know how it鈥檚 said there鈥檚 only seven or so stories and everyone鈥檚 just reworking them over and over? All that really means is that the storytelling is more important than the story itself. And that鈥檚 the case here: Zamyatin and Orwell told a near identical story but Orwell鈥檚 had a vastly bigger impact on our world because he鈥檚 the better storyteller and 1984 is a much more compelling narrative. A lot of Shakespeare鈥檚 plays were rewritings of pre-existing plays (Hamlet, Lear, etc.) but Shakespeare鈥檚 versions are the definitive ones because they were the better written and more enthralling to audiences.
Also included in this edition are dreary essays by Margaret Atwood and Ursula K. Le Guin that I wouldn鈥檛 bother reading, not least because Atwood鈥檚 introduction, like too many introductions to literary classics, brazenly includes spoilers. If you ever get a book with an introduction, always read it AFTER reading the book itself.
Even if you鈥檙e a fan of 1984, I still wouldn鈥檛 recommend reading WE as a curio because it鈥檚 so, so boring. I appreciate its literary place as the inspiration for Orwell鈥檚 masterpiece, and it should be remembered for that, but I definitely didn鈥檛 enjoy reading it at all and don鈥檛 rate Zamyatin as much of a writer; he was a fine ideas guy but not a great storyteller.
December 4, 2023
賲丕 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 卮乇賵毓 乇賲丕賳賴丕蹖 倬丕丿鈥屫⒇辟呚з嗀促囏臂屬�. 賲丕噩乇丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 爻丕賱賴丕蹖 丿賵乇 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴 丿丕乇賴 丕鬲賮丕賯 賲蹖鈥屫з佖� 賵 賲丿賱 讴鬲丕亘 卮亘蹖賴 亘賴 蹖讴 丿賮鬲乇 禺丕胤乇丕鬲 蹖丕 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲鈥屬囏й� 卮禺氐蹖賴. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賳蹖丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 趩蹖夭 亘賴 毓賯賱 賵 賲賳胤賯 賵 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 賵 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賱胤丕賮鬲 賵 乇賵丨 丿乇 亘蹖賳 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 讴卮鬲賴 卮丿賴. 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 胤亘賯 夭賲丕賳亘賳丿蹖 賲卮禺氐 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賴貙 禺賵丕亘蹖丿賳貙 亘蹖丿丕乇 卮丿賳貙 睾匕丕 禺賵乇丿賳貙 讴丕乇 讴乇丿賳 賵 .... 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 禺丕賳賴鈥屬囏й� 卮蹖卮賴鈥屫й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 噩夭 亘乇丕蹖 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 噩賳爻蹖 賵 丕賵賳 賴賲 胤亘賯 亘乇賳丕賲賴 賵 亘丕 丕毓賱丕賲 賯亘賱蹖 亘賴 丨乇丕爻鬲 倬乇丿賴鈥屬囏� 亘爻鬲賴 賳賲蹖卮賴. 乇丕賵蹖 賲丕噩乇丕 賲賴賳丿爻 賵 爻丕夭賳丿賴鈥屰� 卮賲丕乇賴鈥屰� 蹖讴 爻賮蹖賳賴鈥屫й� 賮囟丕蹖蹖 亘賴 丕爻賲 丕賳鬲诏乇丕賱賴 賵 禺亘 亘乇丕蹖 丕丿丕賲賴鈥屰� 賲丕噩乇丕 亘賴 讴鬲丕亘 賲乇丕噩毓賴 讴賳蹖丿. 馃榿 賲蹖鬲賵賳賲 亘诏賲 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 亘賴 卮讴賱 禺丕氐蹖 乇賵丕蹖鬲 卮丿賴 賵 丌賳趩賳丕賳 爻丕丿賴 賳蹖爻鬲 丕賲丕 禺蹖賱蹖 賴賲 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 賳蹖爻鬲. 禺蹖賱蹖 丿乇卮 丕睾乇丕賯 丿蹖丿賴 賳賲蹖卮賴 賵 趩蹖夭丕蹖 賮賵賯 毓噩蹖亘 賵 睾乇蹖亘 丿乇 乇賲丕賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃屫� 賵 氐乇賮丕賸 丕賵賳賯丿乇蹖 禺蹖丕賱 倬乇丿丕夭蹖 卮丿賴 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘鬲賵賳賴 賳讴丕鬲 賲賵乇丿 賳馗乇卮 乇賵 倬蹖丕丿賴 讴賳賴. 噩丕賱亘賴.賴
倬.賳 郾: 亘賴 丨爻賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘賲 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇賵夭 鬲亘乇蹖讴 賲蹖诏賲貙 趩乇丕責 趩賵賳 氐丿 爻丕賱 倬蹖卮 丿乇 趩賳蹖賳 乇賵夭蹖 趩卮賲 亘賴 噩賴丕賳 诏卮賵丿賲 賵 禺亘 鬲賵 乇賵夭 鬲賵賱丿 禺賵賳丿賳 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 夭卮鬲 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘 賳蹖爻鬲 :))
倬.賳 鄄: 丕賲爻丕賱 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 卮亘讴賴鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 睾蹖乇 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 噩睾乇丕賮蹖貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 ... 丕毓賱丕賲 讴乇丿賲 鬲賵賱丿賲賴! 丕賵賳 讴賵丿讴 丿乇賵賳賲 亘賴 鬲賵噩賴 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕卮鬲!賴
倬.賳 郾: 亘賴 丨爻賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘賲 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇賵夭 鬲亘乇蹖讴 賲蹖诏賲貙 趩乇丕責 趩賵賳 氐丿 爻丕賱 倬蹖卮 丿乇 趩賳蹖賳 乇賵夭蹖 趩卮賲 亘賴 噩賴丕賳 诏卮賵丿賲 賵 禺亘 鬲賵 乇賵夭 鬲賵賱丿 禺賵賳丿賳 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 夭卮鬲 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘 賳蹖爻鬲 :))
倬.賳 鄄: 丕賲爻丕賱 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 卮亘讴賴鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 睾蹖乇 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 噩睾乇丕賮蹖貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 ... 丕毓賱丕賲 讴乇丿賲 鬲賵賱丿賲賴! 丕賵賳 讴賵丿讴 丿乇賵賳賲 亘賴 鬲賵噩賴 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕卮鬲!賴
February 17, 2025
It is rather amusing to read George Orwell's review of this book. He is quick to point out that it is not a book of the first order; but Orwell is wrong. And even though he had this and Brave New World to use as models, 1984 is not quite as good as either. This is not to say that 1984 is bad. But compared to "We," it is, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, rather wooden, the conclusion obvious, and not nearly as prescient. Animal Farm is an earlier and better work by Orwell.
Yevgeny Zamyatin's 1921 novel is written in somewhat stilted but engaging prose. That doesn't do it justice... The use of ellipses is prevalent. Lines like "Neither mathematics nor death ever makes a mistake," and "True literature can exist only when it is created, not by diligent and reliable officials, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and skeptics," are rather startling when you come to them.
As with most novels about the future, the main character seems strangely focused on persons living in the old days, which happened to be when the author lived, in this case, the 1910-20s.
Unsurprisingly, the protagonist is breaking away from the "We" and becoming an individual. Individualism is not something fostered in a world of no names, only numbers.
Zamyatin helped Orwell develop "doublespeak" in this novel. Freedom is a bad word in "We." Freedom equals crime.
A well known book among the numbers in One State (the name given to the society of numbered humans and its officials) is thought of as an immortal tragedy and is entitled, "He Who was Late to Work." This gives an idea of the mundane and tragically boring society these numbers inhabit.
Zamyatin refers to eyes as windows and eyelids as blinds or curtains. He describes the wind as flapping its dark wings in the night. It is not flowery prose, but a strange beauty is prevalent. Much is suggested. Nothing is over-explained. I would name Ken Kesey his American counterpart.
Written in journal form and segmented into short entries, "We" can be read quickly; but it does not lack profundity. Along with Brave New World and 1984, it is a supreme exemplar of dystopian fiction.
Yevgeny Zamyatin's 1921 novel is written in somewhat stilted but engaging prose. That doesn't do it justice... The use of ellipses is prevalent. Lines like "Neither mathematics nor death ever makes a mistake," and "True literature can exist only when it is created, not by diligent and reliable officials, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and skeptics," are rather startling when you come to them.
As with most novels about the future, the main character seems strangely focused on persons living in the old days, which happened to be when the author lived, in this case, the 1910-20s.
Unsurprisingly, the protagonist is breaking away from the "We" and becoming an individual. Individualism is not something fostered in a world of no names, only numbers.
Zamyatin helped Orwell develop "doublespeak" in this novel. Freedom is a bad word in "We." Freedom equals crime.
A well known book among the numbers in One State (the name given to the society of numbered humans and its officials) is thought of as an immortal tragedy and is entitled, "He Who was Late to Work." This gives an idea of the mundane and tragically boring society these numbers inhabit.
Zamyatin refers to eyes as windows and eyelids as blinds or curtains. He describes the wind as flapping its dark wings in the night. It is not flowery prose, but a strange beauty is prevalent. Much is suggested. Nothing is over-explained. I would name Ken Kesey his American counterpart.
Written in journal form and segmented into short entries, "We" can be read quickly; but it does not lack profundity. Along with Brave New World and 1984, it is a supreme exemplar of dystopian fiction.
December 9, 2020
I became interested in this novel after I learned that Orwell read it before starting work on 鈥�1984鈥�. Having now read 鈥淲e鈥�, I might re-read Orwell鈥檚 masterpiece.
The edition I read had a translator鈥檚 note, which explained that Zamyatin used certain sounds in language to convey certain concepts, and that this plays a significant role in the original. That seems to me to pose more than the usual issues for a translator. In addition, Zamyatin鈥檚 future society, called in this version 鈥淭he One State鈥�, is run on mathematical principles, and contains numerous references to such. Individuals are called 鈥渃iphers鈥�, conveying the message they are no more than bits of code, that combine to make up the wider society. There are also chunks of the novel where the lead character, a male 鈥渃ipher鈥� called D-503, has dreamlike or hallucinogenic experiences. Lastly, Zamyatin frequently uses a style of broken dialogue, from which the reader has to infer meaning. We got lots of extracts like 鈥淚 must not鈥 somehow have to鈥︹€� or 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want鈥ou understand鈥 don鈥檛 want to鈥 agree to鈥︹€� The overall effect is that the book is written in a, shall we say, distinctive style.
The plot centres on a relationship between D-503 and a female called I-330. Parallels have been drawn with the lead characters from 鈥�1984鈥� and I would agree there are similarities between I-330 and Julia, although personally I thought I-330鈥檚 character was not as well-developed. D-503 though, is a different sort of person from Winston Smith.
I found the story compelling, and towards the end read on eagerly to find out what transpires. For all that, it was probably the setting of the book that interested me most. The life of The One State is governed by a 鈥淭able of Hours鈥�. People are woken at the same time, work the same hours, eat meals at the same time, go to sleep at the same time, take compulsory exercise at the same time, attend lectures at the same time, etc. This was very much the sort of society that people like Mao Zedong and Pol Pot aspired to, and I think Zamyatin, writing in 1921, was very perceptive in seeing this form of society as a potential endpoint to communism. Within the Table of Hours though, there are two 鈥渋mperfections鈥� - two hours in every 24 are allowed for personal activities. One of these is for the purposes of sex. Ciphers are allocated 鈥渟ex days鈥� and cannot refuse a request from another person, as everyone must be treated equally. Again, in our present day I have seen Internet arguments that are quite close to this position.
Another difference between this novel and 鈥�1984鈥� is that Ingsoc London was not just repressive but also a place of squalor and poverty. By contrast, The One State has eliminated crime and poverty, though at the cost of the elimination of individual freedom. One of the major themes of the book is whether humans actually prefer order to freedom. I have shared highlights to illustrate.
One thing that did strike me is that the police force of The One State was considerably less effective than Orwell鈥檚 Thought Police. Maybe this was a reflection of Zamyatin鈥檚 time. When the novel was written, the terrifying efficiency of the NKVD or the Gestapo was still a decade or so in the future.
The unusual, and sometimes clunky, style of this novel means that it won鈥檛 be for everyone. It was a great choice for me though.
The edition I read had a translator鈥檚 note, which explained that Zamyatin used certain sounds in language to convey certain concepts, and that this plays a significant role in the original. That seems to me to pose more than the usual issues for a translator. In addition, Zamyatin鈥檚 future society, called in this version 鈥淭he One State鈥�, is run on mathematical principles, and contains numerous references to such. Individuals are called 鈥渃iphers鈥�, conveying the message they are no more than bits of code, that combine to make up the wider society. There are also chunks of the novel where the lead character, a male 鈥渃ipher鈥� called D-503, has dreamlike or hallucinogenic experiences. Lastly, Zamyatin frequently uses a style of broken dialogue, from which the reader has to infer meaning. We got lots of extracts like 鈥淚 must not鈥 somehow have to鈥︹€� or 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want鈥ou understand鈥 don鈥檛 want to鈥 agree to鈥︹€� The overall effect is that the book is written in a, shall we say, distinctive style.
The plot centres on a relationship between D-503 and a female called I-330. Parallels have been drawn with the lead characters from 鈥�1984鈥� and I would agree there are similarities between I-330 and Julia, although personally I thought I-330鈥檚 character was not as well-developed. D-503 though, is a different sort of person from Winston Smith.
I found the story compelling, and towards the end read on eagerly to find out what transpires. For all that, it was probably the setting of the book that interested me most. The life of The One State is governed by a 鈥淭able of Hours鈥�. People are woken at the same time, work the same hours, eat meals at the same time, go to sleep at the same time, take compulsory exercise at the same time, attend lectures at the same time, etc. This was very much the sort of society that people like Mao Zedong and Pol Pot aspired to, and I think Zamyatin, writing in 1921, was very perceptive in seeing this form of society as a potential endpoint to communism. Within the Table of Hours though, there are two 鈥渋mperfections鈥� - two hours in every 24 are allowed for personal activities. One of these is for the purposes of sex. Ciphers are allocated 鈥渟ex days鈥� and cannot refuse a request from another person, as everyone must be treated equally. Again, in our present day I have seen Internet arguments that are quite close to this position.
Another difference between this novel and 鈥�1984鈥� is that Ingsoc London was not just repressive but also a place of squalor and poverty. By contrast, The One State has eliminated crime and poverty, though at the cost of the elimination of individual freedom. One of the major themes of the book is whether humans actually prefer order to freedom. I have shared highlights to illustrate.
One thing that did strike me is that the police force of The One State was considerably less effective than Orwell鈥檚 Thought Police. Maybe this was a reflection of Zamyatin鈥檚 time. When the novel was written, the terrifying efficiency of the NKVD or the Gestapo was still a decade or so in the future.
The unusual, and sometimes clunky, style of this novel means that it won鈥檛 be for everyone. It was a great choice for me though.
January 12, 2019
Taylor and irrational numbers and calculus must have really made impression on Zamyatin. Just as the ideation of 'sex free for all' that he likely could have perceived around at the time.
Visionary, seer and dystopianist of 1920.
Visionary, seer and dystopianist of 1920.
August 17, 2024
丕賳丿乇 爻鬲丕蹖卮 噩爻鬲鈥屬堌屫� 讴乇丿賳 賵 賮丕氐賱賴 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賳
- 丕夭 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿蹖賲 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 毓賱鬲 賲鬲賳 夭蹖乇 亘丿蹖賳 賲蹖夭丕賳 禺氐賲丕賳賴 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 亘乇丿丕卮鬲 賳卮賵丿 :)
賲孬賱 賴賲蹖卮賴 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 亘毓丿卮 丨丕卮蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁�.
0- 丕賵賱 蹖讴 讴賱蹖丕鬲蹖 賲蹖鈥屭呚� 亘毓丿卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 讴鬲丕亘 賵 賵囟毓蹖鬲卮 丨乇賮 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁�.
禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺蹖賱蹖 丌爻丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲 丕賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳卮赖乇蹖 賵 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲賽 乇賳诏鈥屭辟佖� 丕夭 爻蹖丕爻鬲 毓賱丕賯賴 丿丕乇賳丿貙 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇 噩匕丕亘 禺賵丕賴丿 亘賵丿.
1- 丕夭 丕賴賲蹖鬲 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲蹖賳 亘爻 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丌賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 乇蹖卮賴 賵 噩丿賽 丌孬丕乇 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳卮赖乇蹖 賳丕賲 亘乇丿. 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 芦1984禄 噩乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱 賵 芦丿賳蹖丕蹖 賯卮賳诏 賳賵禄 丌丿賵賱爻 賴丕讴爻賱蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 丿乇 "爻乇賵丿賽" 丌蹖賳 乇賳丿 賳蹖夭 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 毓賳丕氐乇 賵 丕賱賲丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賵丕丨丿蹖 乇丕 亘丕 芦賲丕禄 賲卮禺氐 讴乇丿. 丕夭 賳賮蹖 賮乇丿蹖鬲 丕賮乇丕丿 賵 賳賲賵丿賽 丌賳 丿乇 賳丕賲鈥屭柏ж臂� 毓丿丿蹖賽 丕賮乇丕丿貙 丕賴賲蹖鬲 毓賱賲貙 丕賱亘鬲賴 芦毓賱賲 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖禄貙 賳賮蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 诏匕卮鬲賴 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 爻乇讴賵亘 讴賱丕賲賽 賲禺丕賱賮 亘丕 禺賵丕爻鬲賽 芦ONE STATE禄(賴賲丕賳 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲乇). 丕賲丕 賴賲蹖賳 賮囟賱 鬲賯丿賲 亘夭乇诏鬲乇蹖賳 丕蹖乇丕丿 讴鬲丕亘 丕爻鬲.
丕胤賳丕亘賽 賯亘蹖丨貙 賳丕乇爻丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й� 賲賳胤賯蹖賽 乇賵丕蹖鬲 賵 囟毓賮 丿乇 亘乇禺蹖 禺乇丿賴 乇賵丕蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 賮丕卮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 賱夭賵賲丕 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屰� 亘夭乇诏蹖 賳亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 亘賴 丿睾丿睾賴 賵 卮賴賵丿賽 丕丿亘蹖 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 蹖讴 丕孬乇 丕丿亘蹖賽 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇 賵 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬呝嗀� 禺賱賯 讴賳丿貨 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲 亘爻丕夭丿.
乇禺氐鬲 丿賴蹖丿 賲賳馗賵乇賲 乇丕 卮賮丕賮 讴賳賲 蹖丕 亘賴 賯賵賱賽 丕賴賱賽 丨賯賵賯 鬲賳賯蹖丨. 亘夭乇诏丕賳 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 亘丕 鬲讴鈥屫簇必ж辟団€屬囏й屰� 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 爻鬲賵賳鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 賳卮丿賴 丕賳丿. 丕夭 卮毓乇 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 賮丕乇爻蹖 亘诏蹖乇 讴賴 卮毓乇丕 亘丕 丿蹖賵丕賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿 讴賴 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賱丨馗丕鬲 卮丕毓乇丕賳賴 亘賵丿賴貙 鬲丕 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 噩丿蹖丿. 亘乇丕蹖 賲孬丕賱 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賮爻讴蹖 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 丕孬乇 賵丕賱丕 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賵丕讴丕賵蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕丿亘蹖丕賳賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賳丕賲 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賮讴爻蹖 乇丕 鬲氐賵蹖乇 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕氐賱丕 禺賵丿賽 噩乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱貙 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 丕孬乇 賲丕賳丿诏丕乇 讴賴 賳丿丕乇丿...
丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 亘丿丕賳 賲毓賳丕 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 賱夭賵賲丕 賴乇讴爻 讴賴 賲賳馗賵賲賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丌孬丕乇 賯丕亘賱 丕毓鬲賳丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 毓賳賵丕賳 丕丿蹖亘 賵 丕丿亘鈥屫з� 乇丕 蹖丿讴 亘讴卮丿貙 丕氐賱丕 賲賳 讴賴 亘丕卮賲 讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿 鬲氐賲蹖賲 亘诏蹖乇賲 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 禺賵丿 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丿丕賵乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 丨丿爻 禺賵丿賲 丕夭 毓賱鬲 囟毓賮鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 乇丕 卮乇丨 亘丿賴賲.
2- 賳賲丕丿倬乇丿丕夭蹖鈥屬囏й� 卮丕匕賽 讴鬲丕亘貙 丕爻鬲毓丕乇蹖 賮賴賲蹖丿賳 乇蹖丕囟蹖 賵 丕乇噩丕毓丕鬲 讴孬蹖乇 亘賴 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲蹖 賵 卮乇丨賽 毓乇蹖丕賳卮 丕夭 丕禺鬲賳丕賯貙 丕夭 亘蹖賳 乇賮鬲賳 賮乇丿蹖鬲 賵 鬲乇爻 丕夭 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 丿丕賳卮 賵 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇丕蹖 爻丕禺鬲 亘賴卮鬲賽 夭賲蹖賳蹖貙 诏丕賴蹖 丿趩丕乇 夭蹖丕丿賴鈥屫辟堐� 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賵 賴乇趩賴 丕夭 丨丿 亘诏匕乇丿 賱丕噩乇賲 鬲賳賴 亘賴 鬲賳賴 丕丿丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿賳 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必�. 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴 賵 賳賲丕丿倬乇丿丕夭蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 丿乇 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲貙 亘賴 丨丿蹖 卮乇丨 賵 亘爻胤 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳丿 讴賴 乇賵賳丿 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賵 乇賵丕蹖鬲 乇丕 丿乇 爻丕蹖賴 禺賵丿 倬賳賴丕賳 讴賳丿貙 賳賯囟 睾乇囟 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丕蹖賳 賳賲丕丿賴丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賲賵囟賵毓蹖鬲 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 賳賴 讴丕乇讴乇丿 乇賵丕蹖蹖賽 丌賳鈥屬囏�. 亘賴 亘蹖丕賳蹖貙 丨丕卮蹖賴 噩丕蹖 賲鬲賳 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�.
丕诏乇 亘禺賵丕賴賲 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴 賵 賳賲丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 乇丕 讴賴 賲賳 丿乇 丕孬乇 讴卮賮 讴乇丿賴 丕賲貙 讴賴 丕夭 賯囟蹖 鬲賵 丕蹖賳 賮賯乇賴 賴賲趩蹖賳 賯賵蹖 賳蹖爻鬲賲貙 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 讴賴 丿乇 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲鈥屬囏й� 讴鬲丕亘 丌賲丿賴 亘賵丿 乇丕 丕蹖賳噩丕 乇丿蹖賮 讴賳賲貙 禺賵丿卮 蹖讴 賲鬲賳賽 賲噩夭丕 賲蹖鈥屫焚勜ㄘ�. 丕氐賱丕 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕囟丨 賵 亘蹖鈥屫促呚ж� 讴丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丌賳 讴賱丕賳鈥屫ж池关ж辟団€屰� 丕爻丕爻蹖 賲鬲賳貙 賴賲丕賳 毓卮賯 禺丕賳賴 亘乇丕賳丿丕夭 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 胤睾蹖丕賳 卮賵丿貙 丿乇 丨丕卮蹖賴 賯乇丕乇 亘诏蹖乇丿. 賴賲丕賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 禺胤 丿丕爻鬲丕賳蹖 亘乇 乇賵蹖 丌賳 爻賵丕乇 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 賴賲丕賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴 讴賴 賴賲鈥屭┵佡� 爻乇賵丿賽 丌蹖賳 乇賳丿 亘賵丿. 賴賲丕賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴贁 "丕毓噩丕賲/賳賯胤賴鈥屬囏�" 丕夭 爻賳丕賳 丕賳胤賵賳.
3- 亘丕 鬲賲丕賲 丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 氐乇蹖丨 亘賵丿賳 賵 丿乇 趩卮賲 亘賵丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 诏乇賮鬲貙 乇賵丕蹖鬲賽 讴賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賵 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丕爻丕爻蹖賽 丌賳 亘爻蹖丕乇 賳丕亘 賵 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿. 賳賮蹖 賮乇丿蹖鬲 亘賴 亘賴丕蹖 乇賮丕賴貙 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲蹖 卮丿賳 夭蹖爻鬲賽 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 胤睾蹖丕賳 毓賱蹖賴 賵囟毓 賲賵噩賵丿(趩賴 丕诏乇 亘賴卮鬲鈥屬堌ж� 賵 睾蹖乇 丌夭丕丿 亘丕卮丿貙 趩賴 噩賴賳賲蹖 賵 睾蹖乇丌夭丕丿!) 賵 乇賵丕蹖鬲賽 鬲卮讴蹖讴賽 D-503 丿乇 乇蹖卮踿 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘丿蹖賴蹖 賲蹖鈥屬举嗀ж簇�.
4- 爻賱丕賲 亘乇 丨賵丕卮蹖賽 丿賵爻鬲鈥屫ж簇嗃�:
賲毓賲賵賱丕 丿賯蹖賯丕 倬爻 丕夭 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲乇賵乇 禺賵丿賲 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇呚� 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賳蹖賲賴鈥屫簇� 鬲賲丕賲 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 馗賱賲丕鬲賽 賵賴賲 賲蹖鈥屬嗀簇池� 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 賳賵卮鬲賳 賵 賳賵卮鬲賳 賲乇賵乇 鬲丕 诏乇诏鈥屬堎呟屫促� 氐亘丨 胤賵賱 賲蹖鈥屭┴篡屫�.
亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘賴 禺賵丿賲 賵賯鬲 丿丕丿賲貙 蹖讴蹖 丿賵 乇賵夭 诏匕丕卮鬲賲 丿乇 賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴賲 亘賴卮 賮讴乇 讴賳賲(賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴賲 丿爻鬲賽 禺賵丿賲賴:) ) 亘毓丿卮 蹖賴 賮蹖賱賲賽 讴賵鬲丕賴 讴賴 丕夭卮 爻丕禺鬲賳 乇丕 丿蹖丿賲 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 亘賴鬲乇 亘丕 丕孬乇 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿賲 賵 禺賵卮丨丕賱賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘丕亘鬲. 賲乇囟 乇爻丕賳賴鈥� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賴賲蹖賳賴 讴賴 丕诏乇 丕賮爻丕乇賲丕賳 丿乇 丿爻鬲賽 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賳亘丕卮丿貙 亘乇禺蹖 丕賳賵丕毓 賲賵丕噩賴 賵 鬲噩乇亘賴 丌孬丕乇 賴賳乇蹖 乇丕 丕夭 賲丕 爻賱亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇�: 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 趩賳丿賲丕賴 倬蹖卮 禺賵賳丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲 乇賵 賴賲 賴賲丕賳 賲賵賯毓 賳賵卮鬲賴 亘賵丿賲. 丕賱丕賳 丕蹖賳噩丕 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿賲.
- 丕夭 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿蹖賲 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 毓賱鬲 賲鬲賳 夭蹖乇 亘丿蹖賳 賲蹖夭丕賳 禺氐賲丕賳賴 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 亘乇丿丕卮鬲 賳卮賵丿 :)
賲孬賱 賴賲蹖卮賴 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 亘毓丿卮 丨丕卮蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁�.
0- 丕賵賱 蹖讴 讴賱蹖丕鬲蹖 賲蹖鈥屭呚� 亘毓丿卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 讴鬲丕亘 賵 賵囟毓蹖鬲卮 丨乇賮 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁�.
禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺蹖賱蹖 丌爻丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲 丕賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳卮赖乇蹖 賵 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲賽 乇賳诏鈥屭辟佖� 丕夭 爻蹖丕爻鬲 毓賱丕賯賴 丿丕乇賳丿貙 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇 噩匕丕亘 禺賵丕賴丿 亘賵丿.
1- 丕夭 丕賴賲蹖鬲 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲蹖賳 亘爻 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丌賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 乇蹖卮賴 賵 噩丿賽 丌孬丕乇 倬丕丿丌乇賲丕賳卮赖乇蹖 賳丕賲 亘乇丿. 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 芦1984禄 噩乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱 賵 芦丿賳蹖丕蹖 賯卮賳诏 賳賵禄 丌丿賵賱爻 賴丕讴爻賱蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 丿乇 "爻乇賵丿賽" 丌蹖賳 乇賳丿 賳蹖夭 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 毓賳丕氐乇 賵 丕賱賲丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賵丕丨丿蹖 乇丕 亘丕 芦賲丕禄 賲卮禺氐 讴乇丿. 丕夭 賳賮蹖 賮乇丿蹖鬲 丕賮乇丕丿 賵 賳賲賵丿賽 丌賳 丿乇 賳丕賲鈥屭柏ж臂� 毓丿丿蹖賽 丕賮乇丕丿貙 丕賴賲蹖鬲 毓賱賲貙 丕賱亘鬲賴 芦毓賱賲 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖禄貙 賳賮蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 诏匕卮鬲賴 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 爻乇讴賵亘 讴賱丕賲賽 賲禺丕賱賮 亘丕 禺賵丕爻鬲賽 芦ONE STATE禄(賴賲丕賳 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲乇). 丕賲丕 賴賲蹖賳 賮囟賱 鬲賯丿賲 亘夭乇诏鬲乇蹖賳 丕蹖乇丕丿 讴鬲丕亘 丕爻鬲.
丕胤賳丕亘賽 賯亘蹖丨貙 賳丕乇爻丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й� 賲賳胤賯蹖賽 乇賵丕蹖鬲 賵 囟毓賮 丿乇 亘乇禺蹖 禺乇丿賴 乇賵丕蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 賮丕卮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 賱夭賵賲丕 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屰� 亘夭乇诏蹖 賳亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 亘賴 丿睾丿睾賴 賵 卮賴賵丿賽 丕丿亘蹖 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 蹖讴 丕孬乇 丕丿亘蹖賽 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇 賵 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬呝嗀� 禺賱賯 讴賳丿貨 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲 亘爻丕夭丿.
乇禺氐鬲 丿賴蹖丿 賲賳馗賵乇賲 乇丕 卮賮丕賮 讴賳賲 蹖丕 亘賴 賯賵賱賽 丕賴賱賽 丨賯賵賯 鬲賳賯蹖丨. 亘夭乇诏丕賳 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 亘丕 鬲讴鈥屫簇必ж辟団€屬囏й屰� 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 爻鬲賵賳鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 賳卮丿賴 丕賳丿. 丕夭 卮毓乇 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 賮丕乇爻蹖 亘诏蹖乇 讴賴 卮毓乇丕 亘丕 丿蹖賵丕賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿 讴賴 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賱丨馗丕鬲 卮丕毓乇丕賳賴 亘賵丿賴貙 鬲丕 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 噩丿蹖丿. 亘乇丕蹖 賲孬丕賱 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賮爻讴蹖 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 丕孬乇 賵丕賱丕 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賵丕讴丕賵蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕丿亘蹖丕賳賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賳丕賲 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賮讴爻蹖 乇丕 鬲氐賵蹖乇 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕氐賱丕 禺賵丿賽 噩乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱貙 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 丕孬乇 賲丕賳丿诏丕乇 讴賴 賳丿丕乇丿...
丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 亘丿丕賳 賲毓賳丕 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 賱夭賵賲丕 賴乇讴爻 讴賴 賲賳馗賵賲賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丌孬丕乇 賯丕亘賱 丕毓鬲賳丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 毓賳賵丕賳 丕丿蹖亘 賵 丕丿亘鈥屫з� 乇丕 蹖丿讴 亘讴卮丿貙 丕氐賱丕 賲賳 讴賴 亘丕卮賲 讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賵乇丿 鬲氐賲蹖賲 亘诏蹖乇賲 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 禺賵丿 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丿丕賵乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 丨丿爻 禺賵丿賲 丕夭 毓賱鬲 囟毓賮鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 乇丕 卮乇丨 亘丿賴賲.
2- 賳賲丕丿倬乇丿丕夭蹖鈥屬囏й� 卮丕匕賽 讴鬲丕亘貙 丕爻鬲毓丕乇蹖 賮賴賲蹖丿賳 乇蹖丕囟蹖 賵 丕乇噩丕毓丕鬲 讴孬蹖乇 亘賴 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲蹖 賵 卮乇丨賽 毓乇蹖丕賳卮 丕夭 丕禺鬲賳丕賯貙 丕夭 亘蹖賳 乇賮鬲賳 賮乇丿蹖鬲 賵 鬲乇爻 丕夭 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 丿丕賳卮 賵 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇丕蹖 爻丕禺鬲 亘賴卮鬲賽 夭賲蹖賳蹖貙 诏丕賴蹖 丿趩丕乇 夭蹖丕丿賴鈥屫辟堐� 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賵 賴乇趩賴 丕夭 丨丿 亘诏匕乇丿 賱丕噩乇賲 鬲賳賴 亘賴 鬲賳賴 丕丿丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿賳 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必�. 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴 賵 賳賲丕丿倬乇丿丕夭蹖貙 丨鬲蹖 丿乇 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲貙 亘賴 丨丿蹖 卮乇丨 賵 亘爻胤 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳丿 讴賴 乇賵賳丿 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賵 乇賵丕蹖鬲 乇丕 丿乇 爻丕蹖賴 禺賵丿 倬賳賴丕賳 讴賳丿貙 賳賯囟 睾乇囟 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賵 丕蹖賳 賳賲丕丿賴丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賲賵囟賵毓蹖鬲 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 賳賴 讴丕乇讴乇丿 乇賵丕蹖蹖賽 丌賳鈥屬囏�. 亘賴 亘蹖丕賳蹖貙 丨丕卮蹖賴 噩丕蹖 賲鬲賳 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�.
丕诏乇 亘禺賵丕賴賲 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴 賵 賳賲丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 乇丕 讴賴 賲賳 丿乇 丕孬乇 讴卮賮 讴乇丿賴 丕賲貙 讴賴 丕夭 賯囟蹖 鬲賵 丕蹖賳 賮賯乇賴 賴賲趩蹖賳 賯賵蹖 賳蹖爻鬲賲貙 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 讴賴 丿乇 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲鈥屬囏й� 讴鬲丕亘 丌賲丿賴 亘賵丿 乇丕 丕蹖賳噩丕 乇丿蹖賮 讴賳賲貙 禺賵丿卮 蹖讴 賲鬲賳賽 賲噩夭丕 賲蹖鈥屫焚勜ㄘ�. 丕氐賱丕 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕囟丨 賵 亘蹖鈥屫促呚ж� 讴丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丌賳 讴賱丕賳鈥屫ж池关ж辟団€屰� 丕爻丕爻蹖 賲鬲賳貙 賴賲丕賳 毓卮賯 禺丕賳賴 亘乇丕賳丿丕夭 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 胤睾蹖丕賳 卮賵丿貙 丿乇 丨丕卮蹖賴 賯乇丕乇 亘诏蹖乇丿. 賴賲丕賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 禺胤 丿丕爻鬲丕賳蹖 亘乇 乇賵蹖 丌賳 爻賵丕乇 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 賴賲丕賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴 讴賴 賴賲鈥屭┵佡� 爻乇賵丿賽 丌蹖賳 乇賳丿 亘賵丿. 賴賲丕賳 丕爻鬲毓丕乇賴贁 "丕毓噩丕賲/賳賯胤賴鈥屬囏�" 丕夭 爻賳丕賳 丕賳胤賵賳.
3- 亘丕 鬲賲丕賲 丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 氐乇蹖丨 亘賵丿賳 賵 丿乇 趩卮賲 亘賵丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 诏乇賮鬲貙 乇賵丕蹖鬲賽 讴賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賵 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丕爻丕爻蹖賽 丌賳 亘爻蹖丕乇 賳丕亘 賵 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿. 賳賮蹖 賮乇丿蹖鬲 亘賴 亘賴丕蹖 乇賮丕賴貙 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲蹖 卮丿賳 夭蹖爻鬲賽 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 胤睾蹖丕賳 毓賱蹖賴 賵囟毓 賲賵噩賵丿(趩賴 丕诏乇 亘賴卮鬲鈥屬堌ж� 賵 睾蹖乇 丌夭丕丿 亘丕卮丿貙 趩賴 噩賴賳賲蹖 賵 睾蹖乇丌夭丕丿!) 賵 乇賵丕蹖鬲賽 鬲卮讴蹖讴賽 D-503 丿乇 乇蹖卮踿 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘丿蹖賴蹖 賲蹖鈥屬举嗀ж簇�.
4- 爻賱丕賲 亘乇 丨賵丕卮蹖賽 丿賵爻鬲鈥屫ж簇嗃�:
賲毓賲賵賱丕 丿賯蹖賯丕 倬爻 丕夭 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲乇賵乇 禺賵丿賲 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇呚� 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賳蹖賲賴鈥屫簇� 鬲賲丕賲 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 馗賱賲丕鬲賽 賵賴賲 賲蹖鈥屬嗀簇池� 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 賳賵卮鬲賳 賵 賳賵卮鬲賳 賲乇賵乇 鬲丕 诏乇诏鈥屬堎呟屫促� 氐亘丨 胤賵賱 賲蹖鈥屭┴篡屫�.
亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 夭丕賲蹖丕鬲蹖賳 亘賴 禺賵丿賲 賵賯鬲 丿丕丿賲貙 蹖讴蹖 丿賵 乇賵夭 诏匕丕卮鬲賲 丿乇 賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴賲 亘賴卮 賮讴乇 讴賳賲(賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴賲 丿爻鬲賽 禺賵丿賲賴:) ) 亘毓丿卮 蹖賴 賮蹖賱賲賽 讴賵鬲丕賴 讴賴 丕夭卮 爻丕禺鬲賳 乇丕 丿蹖丿賲 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 亘賴鬲乇 亘丕 丕孬乇 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿賲 賵 禺賵卮丨丕賱賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘丕亘鬲. 賲乇囟 乇爻丕賳賴鈥� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賴賲蹖賳賴 讴賴 丕诏乇 丕賮爻丕乇賲丕賳 丿乇 丿爻鬲賽 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賳亘丕卮丿貙 亘乇禺蹖 丕賳賵丕毓 賲賵丕噩賴 賵 鬲噩乇亘賴 丌孬丕乇 賴賳乇蹖 乇丕 丕夭 賲丕 爻賱亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
倬蹖鈥屬嗁堌簇�: 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 趩賳丿賲丕賴 倬蹖卮 禺賵賳丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲 乇賵 賴賲 賴賲丕賳 賲賵賯毓 賳賵卮鬲賴 亘賵丿賲. 丕賱丕賳 丕蹖賳噩丕 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿賲.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 8,482 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.