ŷ������

I became interested in this novel after I learned that Orwell read it before starting work on ��1984��. Having now read “We��, I might re-read Orwell’s masterpiece.

The edition I read had a translator’s 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’s future society, called in this version “The One State��, is run on mathematical principles, and contains numerous references to such. Individuals are called “ciphers��, 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 “cipher�� 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 “I must not…I somehow have to…�� or “I don’t want…you understand…I don’t want to…I agree to…�� 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 ��1984�� and I would agree there are similarities between I-330 and Julia, although personally I thought I-330’s 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 “Table of Hours��. 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 “imperfections�� - two hours in every 24 are allowed for personal activities. One of these is for the purposes of sex. Ciphers are allocated “sex days�� 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 ��1984�� 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’s Thought Police. Maybe this was a reflection of Zamyatin’s 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’t be for everyone. It was a great choice for me though.