Sign in with Facebook
Tanya's Reviews > We
We
by
by
The history of this novel is possibly more fascinating than the novel itself: Written in 1920, before
Brave New World
and long before
1984
(which were both largely inspired and influenced by We, with Orwell beginning his work on 1984 a couple of months after he’d written a review of it), it is generally considered to be (along with Jack London’s The Iron Heel) the grandfather of the dystopian genre.
Despite being an Old Bolshevik, Zamyatin was critical of the policies pursued by the communist party after the October Revolution, and the novel can be read as a quite obvious criticism of the increasingly dogmatic society they strove for; as a result, this was the first work to be banned by the Soviet censorship board, making him one of the very first Soviet dissidents. He arranged for it to be smuggled to the West, where it was first published in New York in an English translation in 1924, which resulted in his exile from the Soviet Union. It would take another 64 years before it was published in his homeland, and when you look at quotes such as this one, it’s quite clear why the Soviet regime would have a problem with the sentiments contained:
What makes this novel so different and interesting, other than the historical frame in which it was written, is that it doesn’t adhere to what later became the genre’s tropes, which is also why it doesn’t stand a chance at being as timeless as some of the other dystopian classics mentioned. We takes the modern industrial society to an extreme, so despite being set 1000 years in the future, it’s still taking place in the age of steam of the time it was written in. There hasn’t been any technological advancement, something that’s usually such a prevalent theme in dystopian novels, and the story taking place in this paradoxically dated future makes for an interesting reading experience.
We is set in OneState, a totalitarian urban nation established after a 200-year war which wiped out all but 0.2% of the earth’s population. OneState is surrounded by a giant wall to separate its citizens from the untamed nature (as well as the post-apocalyptic landscape) beyond. It is believed that free will is the cause of unhappiness (�...those two, in paradise, were given a choice: Happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third alternative...�), so life is strictly regulated by the government with mathematical precision: Everything is made entirely out of glass to assist mass surveillance, citizens don’t have names, they are numbers, and every hour of their lives is planned out.
Our narrator is D-503, an engineer working on the spaceship “Integral�, which is being built in order to conquer other planets—the novel is his journal, which he intends to be carried to space. However, while out on a scheduled walk with his assigned sex partner, he meets a woman named I-330 (who is basically a manic pixie dream girl) � she does things which are highly illegal in OneState, such as smoking and drinking, which both fascinates and repels our protagonist, who adheres to the strict laws based on logic and formulas outlined by the government. The plot of the novel is about D-503’s inner struggle to overcome his attraction, and what’s truly genius about the novel is how the writing style changes the more D-503 succumbs to his infatuation with I-330 and the more she gets him involved with an organization plotting to take down OneState. He starts having dreams, which is considered a sign of mental illness, and is deeply disturbed by them: He concludes that he’s afflicted by imagination and has developed a “soul�, things which are deplored in OneState, and his syntax, so dry and rational in the beginning, changes to reflect this. The writing becomes increasingly chaotic, irrational, fractured, and progressively more and more sentences and thoughts are left unfinished. I think this is where a lot of people give up on the novel, and I admit that it makes it rather dense and hard to follow, but I thought it was the single most brilliant way to really show how a narrator who is so focused on logic is reacting to this new emotional world that has opened up for him: He either just doesn’t know how to describe the things he’s feeling, or he has the words, but is so indoctrinated that his line of rational thought gets broken and his thoughts trail off into nothing, even though he tries very hard to get them out � or both (”Now I no longer live in our clear, rational world; I live in the ancient nightmare world, the world of square roots of minus one.�).
Instead of focusing his dystopia on politics, as Orwell later would, Zamyatin chose to deal with the disruptive nature of individuality and the impossibility of being fully human in a totalitarian regime. The narrator was once a happy little cog in the machine that is OneState, now suddenly emotionally awakened and left to deal with it in the only frantically confused way he knows how.
I wasn’t a fan of the overall plot (and the way the three women in it are portrayed), but I thought it was stylistically remarkable, and I’d recommend it to anyone who is interested in the origins of the dystopian novel.
Despite being an Old Bolshevik, Zamyatin was critical of the policies pursued by the communist party after the October Revolution, and the novel can be read as a quite obvious criticism of the increasingly dogmatic society they strove for; as a result, this was the first work to be banned by the Soviet censorship board, making him one of the very first Soviet dissidents. He arranged for it to be smuggled to the West, where it was first published in New York in an English translation in 1924, which resulted in his exile from the Soviet Union. It would take another 64 years before it was published in his homeland, and when you look at quotes such as this one, it’s quite clear why the Soviet regime would have a problem with the sentiments contained:
“Do you realise that what you are suggesting is revolution?�
“Of course it’s revolution. Why not?�
“Because there can’t be a revolution. Our revolution was the last and there can never be another. Everybody knows that.�
“My dear, you’re a mathematician: tell me, which is the last number?�
“But that’s absurd. Numbers are infinite. There can’t be a last one.�
“Then why do you talk about the last revolution? There is no final one. The number of revolutions is infinite.�
What makes this novel so different and interesting, other than the historical frame in which it was written, is that it doesn’t adhere to what later became the genre’s tropes, which is also why it doesn’t stand a chance at being as timeless as some of the other dystopian classics mentioned. We takes the modern industrial society to an extreme, so despite being set 1000 years in the future, it’s still taking place in the age of steam of the time it was written in. There hasn’t been any technological advancement, something that’s usually such a prevalent theme in dystopian novels, and the story taking place in this paradoxically dated future makes for an interesting reading experience.
We is set in OneState, a totalitarian urban nation established after a 200-year war which wiped out all but 0.2% of the earth’s population. OneState is surrounded by a giant wall to separate its citizens from the untamed nature (as well as the post-apocalyptic landscape) beyond. It is believed that free will is the cause of unhappiness (�...those two, in paradise, were given a choice: Happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third alternative...�), so life is strictly regulated by the government with mathematical precision: Everything is made entirely out of glass to assist mass surveillance, citizens don’t have names, they are numbers, and every hour of their lives is planned out.
Our narrator is D-503, an engineer working on the spaceship “Integral�, which is being built in order to conquer other planets—the novel is his journal, which he intends to be carried to space. However, while out on a scheduled walk with his assigned sex partner, he meets a woman named I-330 (who is basically a manic pixie dream girl) � she does things which are highly illegal in OneState, such as smoking and drinking, which both fascinates and repels our protagonist, who adheres to the strict laws based on logic and formulas outlined by the government. The plot of the novel is about D-503’s inner struggle to overcome his attraction, and what’s truly genius about the novel is how the writing style changes the more D-503 succumbs to his infatuation with I-330 and the more she gets him involved with an organization plotting to take down OneState. He starts having dreams, which is considered a sign of mental illness, and is deeply disturbed by them: He concludes that he’s afflicted by imagination and has developed a “soul�, things which are deplored in OneState, and his syntax, so dry and rational in the beginning, changes to reflect this. The writing becomes increasingly chaotic, irrational, fractured, and progressively more and more sentences and thoughts are left unfinished. I think this is where a lot of people give up on the novel, and I admit that it makes it rather dense and hard to follow, but I thought it was the single most brilliant way to really show how a narrator who is so focused on logic is reacting to this new emotional world that has opened up for him: He either just doesn’t know how to describe the things he’s feeling, or he has the words, but is so indoctrinated that his line of rational thought gets broken and his thoughts trail off into nothing, even though he tries very hard to get them out � or both (”Now I no longer live in our clear, rational world; I live in the ancient nightmare world, the world of square roots of minus one.�).
Instead of focusing his dystopia on politics, as Orwell later would, Zamyatin chose to deal with the disruptive nature of individuality and the impossibility of being fully human in a totalitarian regime. The narrator was once a happy little cog in the machine that is OneState, now suddenly emotionally awakened and left to deal with it in the only frantically confused way he knows how.
“So 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?�
I wasn’t a fan of the overall plot (and the way the three women in it are portrayed), but I thought it was stylistically remarkable, and I’d recommend it to anyone who is interested in the origins of the dystopian novel.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
We.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Cecily wrote: "Nice review, and good spot of an early manic pixie dream girl!"it’s still taking place in the age of steam of the time it was written in"
I take your point, but they do have electric toothbrushes..."
Thanks, Cecily! I can't believe it's been seven years since I read it, I never would've guessed. I really do need to revisit it at some point.
"it’s still taking place in the age of steam of the time it was written in"
I take your point, but they do have electric toothbrushes, reinforced glass (for buildings, rails, and even the rocket), and petroleum-based "food". I felt that Zamyatin's focus was ideology, rather than technology.