What do you think?
Rate this book
We
The exhilarating dystopian novel that inspired George Orwell's 1984 and foreshadowed the worst excesses of Soviet Russia
Yevgeny Zamyatin's We is a powerfully inventive vision that has influenced writers from George Orwell to Ayn Rand. 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. Set in the twenty-sixth century AD, We is the classic dystopian novel and was the forerunner of works such as George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It was suppressed for many years in Russia and remains a resounding cry for individual freedom, yet is also a powerful, exciting and vivid work of science fiction. Clarence Brown's brilliant translation is based on the corrected text of the novel, first published in Russia in 1988 after more than sixty years' suppression.
Yevgeny Zamyatin's We is a powerfully inventive vision that has influenced writers from George Orwell to Ayn Rand. 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. Set in the twenty-sixth century AD, We is the classic dystopian novel and was the forerunner of works such as George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It was suppressed for many years in Russia and remains a resounding cry for individual freedom, yet is also a powerful, exciting and vivid work of science fiction. Clarence Brown's brilliant translation is based on the corrected text of the novel, first published in Russia in 1988 after more than sixty years' suppression.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1924
About the author
Yevgeny Zamyatin
296 books1,363 followersYevgeny Zamyatin (Russian: Евгений Замятин, 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 7,951 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.
“You'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.”
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.
“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 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.
“The only means of ridding man of crime is ridding him of freedom.”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.
“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.”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 “We is generally considered to be the grandfather of the satirical futuristic dystopia genre.”
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 “insidious pressures for conformity” in the new Russia.
People of the United State are called ‘Numbers,’ 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 ‘personal hour’ 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 ‘Well-Dooer’ 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 ‘Green Wall’ 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 ‘lover’ is a bad word because the system does not allow love or permanent pairings – 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’ll be honest and say I’m not a fan of sci-fi or dystopian novels. The author uses math terms in symbolic ways that don’t help the story along. The dialog seemed herky-jerky to me at times and some of the plot I thought was confusing. Still I’m glad I read it!
Top image: Le Corbusier’s 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 “We is generally considered to be the grandfather of the satirical futuristic dystopia genre.”
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 “insidious pressures for conformity” in the new Russia.
People of the United State are called ‘Numbers,’ 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 ‘personal hour’ 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 ‘Well-Dooer’ 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 ‘Green Wall’ 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 ‘lover’ is a bad word because the system does not allow love or permanent pairings – 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’ll be honest and say I’m not a fan of sci-fi or dystopian novels. The author uses math terms in symbolic ways that don’t help the story along. The dialog seemed herky-jerky to me at times and some of the plot I thought was confusing. Still I’m glad I read it!
Top image: Le Corbusier’s 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’s play “Guess That Groundbreaking Novel”!
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’s 1984?
Response: Close. But not exactly groundbreaking. The proper answer is Yevgeny Zyamatin’s 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 “honor” of being one of the first soviet dissidents. His novel could only be published abroad, and he was soon forced into exile.) Still, Orwell’s novel is clearly superior to Zyamatin’s.
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 cliché, 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.
November 19, 2021
(Book 707 from 1001 books) - Мы = 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.
ما - یوگنی زامیاتین (نشر دیگر) ادبیات روسیه، علمی تخیلی؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: چهاردهم ماه می سال2012میلادی
عنوان: ما؛ نویسنده: یوگنی زامیاتین (سامیاتین)؛ مترجم: بهروز مشیری؛ تهران، نشر دیگر؛ سال1352، در220ص؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده20م
عنوان: ما؛ نویسنده: یوگنی زامیاتین (سامیاتین)؛مترجم: انوشیروان دولتشاهی؛ تهران، نشر دیگر، سال1379، در266ص؛ شابک ایکس-964718803؛
عنوان: ما؛ نویسنده: یونگی زامیاتین؛ مترجم بابک شهاب؛ ویراستار مریم فرنام؛ تهران، بیدگل، سال1399؛ در419ص؛ شابک9786226863483؛
داستان «ما»، تصویری از روح پیچیده ی انسان، در رویارویی و گیر و گرفت، با نمادهای «قدرت» است؛ داستان از دیدگاه اول شخص، و به شکل «چهل یادداشت» بیان میشود؛ در کشوری تخیلی، به نام «یکتاکشور»، کشوری که دورتادورش را دیواری شیشه ای، در بر گرفته است، و دارای خیابانها، و کوچه هایی کاملاً هموار است، با آپارتمانهایی، که آنها نیز، با دیوارهایی شیشه ای، پوشیده شده اند؛ محافظان، به واسطه ی همین دیوارهاست که میتوانند، امور مملکت را، زیر کنترل خود داشته باشند
یوگنی زامیاتین، نویسنده برجسته ی «روسیه» رمان «ما» را، در سالهای پر التهاب، پس از «انقلاب روسیه»، بنگاشتند؛ یعنی در سالهای شکلگیری نظام توتالیتر «شوروی (پیشین)»؛ رمان برای انتقاد از نظام بسته ی «شوروی»، در آن کشور اجازه چاپ نیافت، ولی به چندین زبان در خارج از کشور منتشر شد؛ زامیاتین در «ما» دنیایی را به تصویر میکشند، که مردمانش در آنجا، نه با نام، که با شماره و حرف (حرف مصوت برای زنان و حرف صامت برای مردان) خوانده میشوند؛ آنان در شهری شیشه ای، و غرق در نور، در خانه های مکعب شکل به هم چسبیده، به سر میبرند؛ برنامه ی زندگی روزانه شان پیشاپیش تعیین، و در جدول ساعات، جزئیترین کارها مشخص گردیده اند؛ در این ناکجاآباد، میلیونها نفر همچون تنی واحد، از خواب برمیخیزند؛ همسان غذا میخورند، و هر لقمه را طبق تجویز جدول ساعات، پنجاه بار میجوند، و فرو میدهند؛ در لحظه ای معین همچون تنی واحد به سر کار میروند، و باز میگردند، در برنامه راهپیمایی شرکت میجویند، برای آموزش در تالارهای اجتماعات حاضر میشوند، و بالاخره میخوابند؛ روابط جنسی بر مبنای ریاضیات، و آزمایشهای پزشکی تنظیم شده، و «کوپنی» است؛ نگاهبانان از دیوارهای شیشه ای خانه ها، تمام حرکات و سکنات افراد را زیر دید دارند، تا مبادا با خودرایی، از معیارهای جدول ساعات، عدول ورزند، و سعادتشان به خطر افتد؛ بدین ترتیب، این رمان به گونه ای حیرت انگیز، از اندیشه ی حاکم و آینده کشور نویسنده، خبر میدهد؛ باورهای «زامیاتین» به بهترین نحو از زبان قهرمان زن داستان بیان میشود: (انقلاب نهایی در کار نیست، انقلابها نامحدودند...؛ نمیخواهم کسی به جای من بخواهد من میخواهم خودم بخواهم)؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 10/10/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 27/08/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
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.
ما - یوگنی زامیاتین (نشر دیگر) ادبیات روسیه، علمی تخیلی؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: چهاردهم ماه می سال2012میلادی
عنوان: ما؛ نویسنده: یوگنی زامیاتین (سامیاتین)؛ مترجم: بهروز مشیری؛ تهران، نشر دیگر؛ سال1352، در220ص؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده20م
عنوان: ما؛ نویسنده: یوگنی زامیاتین (سامیاتین)؛مترجم: انوشیروان دولتشاهی؛ تهران، نشر دیگر، سال1379، در266ص؛ شابک ایکس-964718803؛
عنوان: ما؛ نویسنده: یونگی زامیاتین؛ مترجم بابک شهاب؛ ویراستار مریم فرنام؛ تهران، بیدگل، سال1399؛ در419ص؛ شابک9786226863483؛
داستان «ما»، تصویری از روح پیچیده ی انسان، در رویارویی و گیر و گرفت، با نمادهای «قدرت» است؛ داستان از دیدگاه اول شخص، و به شکل «چهل یادداشت» بیان میشود؛ در کشوری تخیلی، به نام «یکتاکشور»، کشوری که دورتادورش را دیواری شیشه ای، در بر گرفته است، و دارای خیابانها، و کوچه هایی کاملاً هموار است، با آپارتمانهایی، که آنها نیز، با دیوارهایی شیشه ای، پوشیده شده اند؛ محافظان، به واسطه ی همین دیوارهاست که میتوانند، امور مملکت را، زیر کنترل خود داشته باشند
یوگنی زامیاتین، نویسنده برجسته ی «روسیه» رمان «ما» را، در سالهای پر التهاب، پس از «انقلاب روسیه»، بنگاشتند؛ یعنی در سالهای شکلگیری نظام توتالیتر «شوروی (پیشین)»؛ رمان برای انتقاد از نظام بسته ی «شوروی»، در آن کشور اجازه چاپ نیافت، ولی به چندین زبان در خارج از کشور منتشر شد؛ زامیاتین در «ما» دنیایی را به تصویر میکشند، که مردمانش در آنجا، نه با نام، که با شماره و حرف (حرف مصوت برای زنان و حرف صامت برای مردان) خوانده میشوند؛ آنان در شهری شیشه ای، و غرق در نور، در خانه های مکعب شکل به هم چسبیده، به سر میبرند؛ برنامه ی زندگی روزانه شان پیشاپیش تعیین، و در جدول ساعات، جزئیترین کارها مشخص گردیده اند؛ در این ناکجاآباد، میلیونها نفر همچون تنی واحد، از خواب برمیخیزند؛ همسان غذا میخورند، و هر لقمه را طبق تجویز جدول ساعات، پنجاه بار میجوند، و فرو میدهند؛ در لحظه ای معین همچون تنی واحد به سر کار میروند، و باز میگردند، در برنامه راهپیمایی شرکت میجویند، برای آموزش در تالارهای اجتماعات حاضر میشوند، و بالاخره میخوابند؛ روابط جنسی بر مبنای ریاضیات، و آزمایشهای پزشکی تنظیم شده، و «کوپنی» است؛ نگاهبانان از دیوارهای شیشه ای خانه ها، تمام حرکات و سکنات افراد را زیر دید دارند، تا مبادا با خودرایی، از معیارهای جدول ساعات، عدول ورزند، و سعادتشان به خطر افتد؛ بدین ترتیب، این رمان به گونه ای حیرت انگیز، از اندیشه ی حاکم و آینده کشور نویسنده، خبر میدهد؛ باورهای «زامیاتین» به بهترین نحو از زبان قهرمان زن داستان بیان میشود: (انقلاب نهایی در کار نیست، انقلابها نامحدودند...؛ نمیخواهم کسی به جای من بخواهد من میخواهم خودم بخواهم)؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 10/10/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 27/08/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
March 18, 2024
Breathtakingly brilliant, like the crystal glass buildings of the One State.
Seamlessly switching between beauty and horror:
“In the morning, the sun is rosy, transparent, warm gold. And the air itself is a little rosy, all steeped in the sun’s gentle blood.”
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’ve read, yet there are echoes to and from other writers.
Consider
• If you could have only happiness OR freedom, which would you pick?
• Is it possible to be happy without freedom?
• 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’s 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’t sound too bad, does it?
Image: Futuristic glass skyline, reflected, in blue hues (Source)
But with a Table of Hours that includes curfew, and nicotine and alcohol prohibited, it’s 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:
“Even in our thoughts. No one is ever ‘one’, but always ‘one of’. We are so identical.”
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 “heavy cargo of inescapable happiness”. The dawn of benevolent colonisation?
“If they won’t understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it will be our duty to force them to be happy.”
D-503 is only thirty-two and is the chief builder, writing this journal for unknown “planetary readers”. 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.
“How pleasant it was to feel someone’s vigilant eye lovingly protecting you from the slightest mistake.”
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).
“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.”
Inevitably, not all the shiny happy people are quite as happy as they’re supposed to be, but that’s revealed gradually, in a narrative that blends cold numbers and facts with ravishing dreams and unconsciousness, creating tense mystery and lush drama.
Image: “The Feeling of Darkness” by Raija Jokinen: flax/sewing yarn/starch delicate model of a person (Source)
I’ve 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.
“A person is a novel: you don’t know how it will end until the very last page.”
The closing words of this translation are suitably nuanced:
“I hope we will win. More than that: I know we will win. Because reason should win.”
Which “we”?
Whose definition of “reason”?
And that “should” 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 “African lips”, 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’t, 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.
• George Orwell’s 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.
• Aldous Huxley’s 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 FW Taylor. See my review HERE.
• The lyrical writing about subtly darkening dystopian horror surely influenced Ray Bradbury, several of whose books I reviewed HERE, as well as Kay Dick’s They: A Sequence of Unease, which I reviewed HERE.
• Apparently, other works directly inspired by this include:
- Ayn Rand's Anthem
- Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano
- Ursula K Le Guin's The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia
• Zamyatin’s 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).
• 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’s “syncopated” style in a useful preface. I’m 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’t understand why it would stir vehement feelings (for or against). The only bit that stood out was this rather pretentious sentence:
“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 – yet it remains profoundly of it.”
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:
“In the morning, the sun is rosy, transparent, warm gold. And the air itself is a little rosy, all steeped in the sun’s gentle blood.”
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’ve read, yet there are echoes to and from other writers.
Consider
• If you could have only happiness OR freedom, which would you pick?
• Is it possible to be happy without freedom?
• 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’s 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’t sound too bad, does it?
Image: Futuristic glass skyline, reflected, in blue hues (Source)
But with a Table of Hours that includes curfew, and nicotine and alcohol prohibited, it’s 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:
“Even in our thoughts. No one is ever ‘one’, but always ‘one of’. We are so identical.”
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 “heavy cargo of inescapable happiness”. The dawn of benevolent colonisation?
“If they won’t understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it will be our duty to force them to be happy.”
D-503 is only thirty-two and is the chief builder, writing this journal for unknown “planetary readers”. 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.
“How pleasant it was to feel someone’s vigilant eye lovingly protecting you from the slightest mistake.”
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).
“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.”
Inevitably, not all the shiny happy people are quite as happy as they’re supposed to be, but that’s revealed gradually, in a narrative that blends cold numbers and facts with ravishing dreams and unconsciousness, creating tense mystery and lush drama.
Image: “The Feeling of Darkness” by Raija Jokinen: flax/sewing yarn/starch delicate model of a person (Source)
I’ve 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.
“A person is a novel: you don’t know how it will end until the very last page.”
The closing words of this translation are suitably nuanced:
“I hope we will win. More than that: I know we will win. Because reason should win.”
Which “we”?
Whose definition of “reason”?
And that “should” 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 “African lips”, 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’t, 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.
• George Orwell’s 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.
• Aldous Huxley’s 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 FW Taylor. See my review HERE.
• The lyrical writing about subtly darkening dystopian horror surely influenced Ray Bradbury, several of whose books I reviewed HERE, as well as Kay Dick’s They: A Sequence of Unease, which I reviewed HERE.
• Apparently, other works directly inspired by this include:
- Ayn Rand's Anthem
- Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano
- Ursula K Le Guin's The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia
• Zamyatin’s 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).
• 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’s “syncopated” style in a useful preface. I’m 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’t understand why it would stir vehement feelings (for or against). The only bit that stood out was this rather pretentious sentence:
“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 – yet it remains profoundly of it.”
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.
October 17, 2017
We by Yevgeny Zamyatin is a must read for fans and students of the Dystopian genre.
Published in 1920, before Brave New World and well before 1984 (which could even be considered a second generation 1984 as Orwell began his seminal work after reading a French translation of We) Zamyatin’s 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 “civilized” humanity survive in a totalitarian state. We, however, is not timeless as Huxley’s and Orwell’s 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 Brave New World and well before 1984 (which could even be considered a second generation 1984 as Orwell began his seminal work after reading a French translation of We) Zamyatin’s 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 “civilized” humanity survive in a totalitarian state. We, however, is not timeless as Huxley’s and Orwell’s 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 “We”!
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 “We”, 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 “We” 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’s 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’s dogma, Adam and Eve were stupid to choose freedom over “happiness”, 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 “happiness”.
In the automatised, regulated OneState, this “utopian” 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’s idea of thoughtcrime, free will is not completely suppressed, and there is resistance. The enemies of happiness, no less! In the narrator’s character, the two concepts clash. Submission under authoritarian dictatorship stands against humanity’s 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 “Operation” 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. ���We” believe in “Him” 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. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century describes the unfolding of Zamyatin’s 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 “truth”.
There is no happiness in paradise, is the lesson I learned from this novel. If you can’t 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’s 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’s 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 The Alchemist!
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 “We”, 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 “We” 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’s 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’s dogma, Adam and Eve were stupid to choose freedom over “happiness”, 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 “happiness”.
In the automatised, regulated OneState, this “utopian” 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’s idea of thoughtcrime, free will is not completely suppressed, and there is resistance. The enemies of happiness, no less! In the narrator’s character, the two concepts clash. Submission under authoritarian dictatorship stands against humanity’s 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 “Operation” 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. ���We” believe in “Him” 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. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century describes the unfolding of Zamyatin’s 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 “truth”.
There is no happiness in paradise, is the lesson I learned from this novel. If you can’t 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’s 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’s 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 The Alchemist!
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 dejó de ser un animal salvaje sólo cuando construyó el primer Muro. Cuando nosotros construimos este muro verde, aislamos nuestro mundo mecanizado del mundo irracional y monstruoso de los árboles, de los pájaros, de los animales...."
Siempre hay un escritor pionero, un fundador, alguien que instala un género 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 distopía de la literatura. Inconscientemente siempre creí que "Un mundo feliz" de Aldous Huxley y "1984" de George Orwell eran las primeras, pero no.
"Nosotros" fue la distopía que influyó directamente a Orwell a escribir "1984" y aseguran que le brindó ciertas herramientas a Huxley para su propia novela "Un mundo feliz" y el mismo Orwell, luego de leer la traducción francesa hizo una excelente crítica y comenzó a escribir la suya hacia 1948.
Este libro reaccionario de Zamiatin contra el comunismo, Stalin y ese concepto equivocadísimo que instalaron de que "El Estado es Dios" hizo que para Zamiatin se transformara en un auténtico dolor de cabeza y sufriera, al igual que su colega Mijaíl Bulgákov que fuera perseguido y censurado y que ambos escritores le enviaran cartas a Stalin pidiéndole clemencia y la posibilidad de emigrar de la Unión Soviética.
Es que habían cometido el error de "rebelarse" contra el sistema; ese absurdo, obsoleto y detestable sistema comunista que mantuvo sometido al pueblo ruso durante tantas décadas.
En la novela ambientada en el futuro, todos los ciudadanos, al igual que en "1984", viven bajo un férreo control estatal denominado "Estado Único" como en la Oceanía 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 había denunciado en su momento.
Es indudable las similitudes entre estas tres novelas, tanto en las características del ambiente en que viven como de las instituciones y los métodos de control que se aplican sobre la población.
En el caso de esta novela, los personajes no tienen nombres sino códigos, 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 revolución subversiva para derrocar al Benefactor.
Según lo impuesto por el Estado Único, la libertad es sinónimo de estado salvaje y de esta manera es como controla a la población 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 deshumanización de los habitantes del Estado Único.
Tienen pocos privilegios como "Las horas personales de la tabla" y una asignación para "encuentros sexuales vigilados" que equivalen al famoso "Minuto del odio" de "1984" y algunos pocos beneficios más. Después, solo saben trabajar y ser dominados como ovejas.
D-503 es el constructor del "Integral", un cohete espacial con el que el Estado único planea conquistar otros mundos y dentro de todo este contexto comienza a desarrollarse la historia.
Debo reconocer que me encontré con cierta complicación:
el modo en que Zamiatin narra el diario es de una forma realmente intrincada. Su prosa es críptica, poética, hermética, con frases que quedan inconclusas y creo que después de la jerga "nadsat" utilizada por Anthony Burguess en "La naranja mecánica" es de esas lecturas qué más necesitaron de mi atención para entender lo narrado.
De hecho, Zamiatin se vale en demasía de dos recursos literarios como lo son la metáfora 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 autómata con código lingüístico propio.
Dentro del Estado Único 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 burocrático hechos para vigilar y castigar lograrán torciendo a los pocos ciudadanos que se revelan al sistema -y recuerdo a Morphius y Trinity de la primer Matrix- para generar una filtración, una anomalía, una fisura dentro de la hermeticidad y supuesta perfección y conformismo del Estado Único y así 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 valió que lo encarcelaran por segunda vez, ya que también había estado preso durante las épocas del último zarismo, pero a la vez posibilitó que otros escritores como los nombrados aquí junto con Ray Bradbury y Margaret Atwood alzaran la voz y a través de la literatura nos enviaran sendos mensajes de advertencia de lo que está mal y especialmente de todo aquello a lo que sabemos que no deberíamos volver nunca más.
Siempre hay un escritor pionero, un fundador, alguien que instala un género 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 distopía de la literatura. Inconscientemente siempre creí que "Un mundo feliz" de Aldous Huxley y "1984" de George Orwell eran las primeras, pero no.
"Nosotros" fue la distopía que influyó directamente a Orwell a escribir "1984" y aseguran que le brindó ciertas herramientas a Huxley para su propia novela "Un mundo feliz" y el mismo Orwell, luego de leer la traducción francesa hizo una excelente crítica y comenzó a escribir la suya hacia 1948.
Este libro reaccionario de Zamiatin contra el comunismo, Stalin y ese concepto equivocadísimo que instalaron de que "El Estado es Dios" hizo que para Zamiatin se transformara en un auténtico dolor de cabeza y sufriera, al igual que su colega Mijaíl Bulgákov que fuera perseguido y censurado y que ambos escritores le enviaran cartas a Stalin pidiéndole clemencia y la posibilidad de emigrar de la Unión Soviética.
Es que habían cometido el error de "rebelarse" contra el sistema; ese absurdo, obsoleto y detestable sistema comunista que mantuvo sometido al pueblo ruso durante tantas décadas.
En la novela ambientada en el futuro, todos los ciudadanos, al igual que en "1984", viven bajo un férreo control estatal denominado "Estado Único" como en la Oceanía 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 había denunciado en su momento.
Es indudable las similitudes entre estas tres novelas, tanto en las características del ambiente en que viven como de las instituciones y los métodos de control que se aplican sobre la población.
En el caso de esta novela, los personajes no tienen nombres sino códigos, 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 revolución subversiva para derrocar al Benefactor.
Según lo impuesto por el Estado Único, la libertad es sinónimo de estado salvaje y de esta manera es como controla a la población 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 deshumanización de los habitantes del Estado Único.
Tienen pocos privilegios como "Las horas personales de la tabla" y una asignación para "encuentros sexuales vigilados" que equivalen al famoso "Minuto del odio" de "1984" y algunos pocos beneficios más. Después, solo saben trabajar y ser dominados como ovejas.
D-503 es el constructor del "Integral", un cohete espacial con el que el Estado único planea conquistar otros mundos y dentro de todo este contexto comienza a desarrollarse la historia.
Debo reconocer que me encontré con cierta complicación:
el modo en que Zamiatin narra el diario es de una forma realmente intrincada. Su prosa es críptica, poética, hermética, con frases que quedan inconclusas y creo que después de la jerga "nadsat" utilizada por Anthony Burguess en "La naranja mecánica" es de esas lecturas qué más necesitaron de mi atención para entender lo narrado.
De hecho, Zamiatin se vale en demasía de dos recursos literarios como lo son la metáfora 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 autómata con código lingüístico propio.
Dentro del Estado Único 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 burocrático hechos para vigilar y castigar lograrán torciendo a los pocos ciudadanos que se revelan al sistema -y recuerdo a Morphius y Trinity de la primer Matrix- para generar una filtración, una anomalía, una fisura dentro de la hermeticidad y supuesta perfección y conformismo del Estado Único y así 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 valió que lo encarcelaran por segunda vez, ya que también había estado preso durante las épocas del último zarismo, pero a la vez posibilitó que otros escritores como los nombrados aquí junto con Ray Bradbury y Margaret Atwood alzaran la voz y a través de la literatura nos enviaran sendos mensajes de advertencia de lo que está mal y especialmente de todo aquello a lo que sabemos que no deberíamos volver nunca más.
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’s 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’s 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...
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.
May 3, 2021
اگر هر کدام از کتابهای 1984 و دنیای قشنگ نو (و حتی میرا) را خواندهاید و دوستشان داشتهاید این کتاب را هم بخوانید. در صورتی که هر سه را خوانده اید به کتاب ادبیات و انقلاب (نویسندگان روس)؛ یورگن روله ترجمه علی اصغر حداد، صفحات 73 تا 85 مراجعه کنید و بخش جالبی را درباره ی زامیاتین و مقایسه ی مختصر سه کتاب با هم، مطالعه کنید
********************************************************************************
"انسان روزی از بوزینگی دست کشید که اولین کتاب منتشر شد. بوزینگان هرگز این تحقیر را فراموش نکردهاند: کافی است کتابی به دست بوزینهای بدهید، فوری آن را کثیف، خراب و پاره پاره خواهد کرد." از پیشگفتار زامیاتین بر کتابی منتشر نشده. مقدمهی مترجم ایرانی. ص 9 کتاب
زامیاتین ضعف دستگاه را در برابر مردم میدید که در آن دیگر نه کاری از دست جراحان مغز بر میآید و نه از دست به گفتهی استالین "مهندسان روح مردم". زامیاتین نشان میدهد که سرانجام تکنسین، پزشک، شاعر و حتی مأمور امنیتی این دولت، علیه آناند. مقدمهی مترجم ایرانی. ص 11 کتاب
امروزه در پایان هزارهی دوم میلادی نیکوکاران{حاکم یکتاکشور} شناخته شده دنیا هر کدام بهنوعی، میخواهند با تحمیل سعادت به شهروندان خود به صدور آن نیز بپردازند. انتگرالها {سفینه فضایی و موشک}، سعادت و دموکراسی را به این سو و آن سوی جهان میبرند. اما خوشبختانه هنوز هستند وحشیانی که میخواهند خودشان برای خود بخواهند و سعادت "نیکوکارفرموده" را به پشیزی نمیگیرند. خوشبختانه هنوز هستند آزاداندیشانی که در مقابل نیکوکاران راست قامتانه میایستند و خاطر خطیرشان را آشفته میسازند و طلسم قدرتشان را در هم میشکنند. مقدمهی مترجم ایرانی. ص 12 کتاب
زامیاتین بیرحمانه توتالیتاریسم در حال نضج را، تملقهای حقارت بار آن را، سلطهی ستمگرانهاش را، بیحرمتی و نابودسازی روح خلاق و آزاد بشری آن را به باد حمله و مسخره میگرفت. پیشاپیش همهی آنها را میدید: وحشت را، خیانتها را، زدودن صفات انسانی را، پاسداران همه جا حاضر را، شست و شوی مغزی دائم را که نتیجهاش یا آدمهای ماشینوار بود، یا منافقانی که برای خاطر بقا دروغ میگفتند. "معرفی"، مترجم انگلیسی، میرا گنسبرگ. ص 22 کتاب
آیا بدیهی نیست که سعادت و حسادت، صورت و مخرج کسری هستند به نام رضایت؟ ص 48 کتاب
نیاکان ما میدانستند که خدا- بزرگوارترین شکاک بیحوصلهشان- آن جا بود. ما میدانیم که آنجا چیزی نیست جز عدم برهنهی بیحیای شفاف آبی. اما حالا نمیدانیم آنجا چیست: خیلی چیزها آموختهام. دانشی که خطاناپذیری آن مسلم باشد، ایمان است. ص 86 کتاب
مرگ به معنای دقیق کلمه، کاملترین انحلال نفس در کائنات است. بنابراین اگر حرف L را برای عشق و حرف D را برای مرگ در نظر بگیریم: L=f(D) میشود. به عبارتی دیگر عشق تابعی از مرگ است... ص 160 کتاب
بدیهی است که انتخابات "روز وحدت کلمه" اصلاً شباهتی به انتخابات بینظم و تشکل نیاکانمان ندارد، با انتخاباتی که در آن- گفتنش هم مسخره است- نتایج پیشاپیش معلوم نبود. بیمعنی تر از این هم میشود: تشکیل دولت بر مبنای احتمالات کاملاً پیشبینی نشدنی، کورکورانه؟... نیازی به گفتن نیست که در این مورد، مثل سایر موارد، بین ما جایی برای احتمالات، برای وقوع حوادث نامنتظر، وجود ندارد. و انتخابات فی نفسه بیشتر مفهومی سمبولیک دارد، یعنی به ما یادآور میشود که ما تنها ارگانیسم قدرتمند میلیون یاختهای هستیم... ما مراسم انتخابات را علنی، صادقانه، در روز روشن برگزار میکنیم�� من همه را میبینم که به "نیکوکار" رأی میدهند، همه مرا میبینند که به "نیکوکار" رأی میدهم. در واقع غیر از این چه میتوانست باشد، چون "همه" و "من" یک "ما" هستیم. صفحات 162 و 163 کتاب
کسی چه میداند؟ آدم مثل رمان است: تا آخرین صفحه، پایان کار معلوم نیست. در غیر این صورت ارزش خواندن نخواهد داشت... ص 187 کتاب
پس چطور ممکن است انقلاب آخرین وجود داشته باشد؟ انقلابی آخرین وجود ندارد؛ انقلابها نامتناهیاند. ص 199 کتاب
"میدانم که عادت بسیار نابهجای سخن گفتن از آنچه دارم که آن را حقیقت میدانم تا سخن گفتن از آنچه میتواند مثلاً در این لحظه به مصلحت باشد. به بیان دقیقتر هرگز نظرم را نسبت به نوکر صفتی ادبیات، چاپلوسی و رنگ عوض کردن بوقلمون صفتانه پنهان نداشتهام: پنداشتهام- و هنوز هم میپندارم- که این کار هم خوارشماری نویسنده است و هم انقلاب." نامهی زامیاتین به استالین. ص 261 کتاب
********************************************************************************
"انسان روزی از بوزینگی دست کشید که اولین کتاب منتشر شد. بوزینگان هرگز این تحقیر را فراموش نکردهاند: کافی است کتابی به دست بوزینهای بدهید، فوری آن را کثیف، خراب و پاره پاره خواهد کرد." از پیشگفتار زامیاتین بر کتابی منتشر نشده. مقدمهی مترجم ایرانی. ص 9 کتاب
زامیاتین ضعف دستگاه را در برابر مردم میدید که در آن دیگر نه کاری از دست جراحان مغز بر میآید و نه از دست به گفتهی استالین "مهندسان روح مردم". زامیاتین نشان میدهد که سرانجام تکنسین، پزشک، شاعر و حتی مأمور امنیتی این دولت، علیه آناند. مقدمهی مترجم ایرانی. ص 11 کتاب
امروزه در پایان هزارهی دوم میلادی نیکوکاران{حاکم یکتاکشور} شناخته شده دنیا هر کدام بهنوعی، میخواهند با تحمیل سعادت به شهروندان خود به صدور آن نیز بپردازند. انتگرالها {سفینه فضایی و موشک}، سعادت و دموکراسی را به این سو و آن سوی جهان میبرند. اما خوشبختانه هنوز هستند وحشیانی که میخواهند خودشان برای خود بخواهند و سعادت "نیکوکارفرموده" را به پشیزی نمیگیرند. خوشبختانه هنوز هستند آزاداندیشانی که در مقابل نیکوکاران راست قامتانه میایستند و خاطر خطیرشان را آشفته میسازند و طلسم قدرتشان را در هم میشکنند. مقدمهی مترجم ایرانی. ص 12 کتاب
زامیاتین بیرحمانه توتالیتاریسم در حال نضج را، تملقهای حقارت بار آن را، سلطهی ستمگرانهاش را، بیحرمتی و نابودسازی روح خلاق و آزاد بشری آن را به باد حمله و مسخره میگرفت. پیشاپیش همهی آنها را میدید: وحشت را، خیانتها را، زدودن صفات انسانی را، پاسداران همه جا حاضر را، شست و شوی مغزی دائم را که نتیجهاش یا آدمهای ماشینوار بود، یا منافقانی که برای خاطر بقا دروغ میگفتند. "معرفی"، مترجم انگلیسی، میرا گنسبرگ. ص 22 کتاب
آیا بدیهی نیست که سعادت و حسادت، صورت و مخرج کسری هستند به نام رضایت؟ ص 48 کتاب
نیاکان ما میدانستند که خدا- بزرگوارترین شکاک بیحوصلهشان- آن جا بود. ما میدانیم که آنجا چیزی نیست جز عدم برهنهی بیحیای شفاف آبی. اما حالا نمیدانیم آنجا چیست: خیلی چیزها آموختهام. دانشی که خطاناپذیری آن مسلم باشد، ایمان است. ص 86 کتاب
مرگ به معنای دقیق کلمه، کاملترین انحلال نفس در کائنات است. بنابراین اگر حرف L را برای عشق و حرف D را برای مرگ در نظر بگیریم: L=f(D) میشود. به عبارتی دیگر عشق تابعی از مرگ است... ص 160 کتاب
بدیهی است که انتخابات "روز وحدت کلمه" اصلاً شباهتی به انتخابات بینظم و تشکل نیاکانمان ندارد، با انتخاباتی که در آن- گفتنش هم مسخره است- نتایج پیشاپیش معلوم نبود. بیمعنی تر از این هم میشود: تشکیل دولت بر مبنای احتمالات کاملاً پیشبینی نشدنی، کورکورانه؟... نیازی به گفتن نیست که در این مورد، مثل سایر موارد، بین ما جایی برای احتمالات، برای وقوع حوادث نامنتظر، وجود ندارد. و انتخابات فی نفسه بیشتر مفهومی سمبولیک دارد، یعنی به ما یادآور میشود که ما تنها ارگانیسم قدرتمند میلیون یاختهای هستیم... ما مراسم انتخابات را علنی، صادقانه، در روز روشن برگزار میکنیم�� من همه را میبینم که به "نیکوکار" رأی میدهند، همه مرا میبینند که به "نیکوکار" رأی میدهم. در واقع غیر از این چه میتوانست باشد، چون "همه" و "من" یک "ما" هستیم. صفحات 162 و 163 کتاب
کسی چه میداند؟ آدم مثل رمان است: تا آخرین صفحه، پایان کار معلوم نیست. در غیر این صورت ارزش خواندن نخواهد داشت... ص 187 کتاب
پس چطور ممکن است انقلاب آخرین وجود داشته باشد؟ انقلابی آخرین وجود ندارد؛ انقلابها نامتناهیاند. ص 199 کتاب
"میدانم که عادت بسیار نابهجای سخن گفتن از آنچه دارم که آن را حقیقت میدانم تا سخن گفتن از آنچه میتواند مثلاً در این لحظه به مصلحت باشد. به بیان دقیقتر هرگز نظرم را نسبت به نوکر صفتی ادبیات، چاپلوسی و رنگ عوض کردن بوقلمون صفتانه پنهان نداشتهام: پنداشتهام- و هنوز هم میپندارم- که این کار هم خوارشماری نویسنده است و هم انقلاب." نامهی زامیاتین به استالین. ص 261 کتاب
April 19, 2018
هل يمكن ان نصل الى زمن يكون مرضك "النفس" ان تصبح تشعر بالجمال والحب والطبيعة وتتخلى عن المدينة الواحدة والذي يقودها المحسن وبعد ان تتحول الى مجرد رقم في هذه الدولة.
فالبشر كالآلات يتحركون بانتظام ويتوقفون عندا لطلب ويتحركون بالشارع بوقت واحد وبلباس واحد ويستخدمون نفس المواصلات ويهتفون لنفس المحسن ولا يتحدثون فيما بينهم. فالكل مراقب والنفس محسوب عليك .
نحن ارقام في هذا العالم ، نحن الاَلات ونصنع الاَلات لتسيطر على حياتنا اكثر وشكرا للمحسن الذي انعم علينا بهذه الحياة الرغيدة. اَي جمال في السماء والاشجار ورائحة الأزهار والنباتات فهي شيء قديم لاناس عاشوا في عصور غابرة.
رواية قاتمة لمستقبل بشري مخيف
فالبشر كالآلات يتحركون بانتظام ويتوقفون عندا لطلب ويتحركون بالشارع بوقت واحد وبلباس واحد ويستخدمون نفس المواصلات ويهتفون لنفس المحسن ولا يتحدثون فيما بينهم. فالكل مراقب والنفس محسوب عليك .
نحن ارقام في هذا العالم ، نحن الاَلات ونصنع الاَلات لتسيطر على حياتنا اكثر وشكرا للمحسن الذي انعم علينا بهذه الحياة الرغيدة. اَي جمال في السماء والاشجار ورائحة الأزهار والنباتات فهي شيء قديم لاناس عاشوا في عصور غابرة.
رواية قاتمة لمستقبل بشري مخيف
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 Metropolis. I liked that. It was like finding this artefact of world lit. Another piece in the long history of dystopias—and one that influenced George Orwell. But We is worth reading for more than historical reasons. In Cormac McCarthy's The Road 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 1984. 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
یادمه برای پیدا کردن این کتاب، سختی زیادی کشیدم! چون حدودا دو سه سال پیش بود که خواستم این کتاب رو بخونم ولی چاپتمام شده بود و پیدا نمیشد!
تا اینکه حدودا یک سال و نیم پیش، نشر بیدگل با یک ترجمهی عالی، این کتاب رو احیا کرد.
بلافاصله پس از مطلع شدن، کتاب رو از دفتر رسمی فروش انتشارات خریدم و به کتابخونهام اضافهاش کردم.
و بالاخره قرعه به نامش افتاد و موفق به خوندنش شدم.
اوایل فکر میکردم که نویسندهی کتب، زامیاتین، برای نوشتن کتابش از جورج اورول و کتاب هزار و نهصد و هشتاد و چهار الهام گرفته، تا اینکه تحقیق کردم و دیدم خیر! در اشتباه بودم! زامیاتین یکجورایی پدر سبک پادآرمانشهریه! :))
مهم نیست که بخوام داستان کتاب رو لو بدم یا نه، چون دیگه کلمهی پادآرمانشهری خودش بیانگر همه چیز هست!
داستان در دنیایی اتفاق میافته که آدمهاش هیچ روح و هویت فردیای ندارن!
این آدمها، همه چیز زندگیشون توسط حکومت مدیریت و کنترل و دیکته میشه.
از جمله ساعات خواب و بیداری، نوع غذاها، ساعات غذا خوردنها و حتی تعداد دفعات جویدن هر لقمه!
مسیرهای رفت و برگشت به محل کار!
تعداد دفعات رابطه جنسی!
و تمام جوانب دیگهی زندگی!
در این دنیا، خونهها از جنس شیشه هستن و هیچ فردی نمیتونه چیزی رو بعنوان راز، از بقیه مخفی کنه!
تنها استثنایی که وجود داره، کرکرههایی هستن که در زمان برقراری رابطه جنسی و به مدت زمان محدود، پایین میان و فضایی نسبتا خصوصی رو برای صاحبخونه به ارمغان میارن!
در غیر این صورت، افراد در این دنیا، هرگز چیزی رو نمیتونن از همدیگه مخفی کنن!
نکته جالب دیگه، اینکه در این دنیا، داشتن روح، یک بیماری محسوب میشه!
در این دنیا، کسی که احساسات داره، کسی که تخیل داره، توسط پاسداران و یا به اصطلاح پلیسهای حکومتی شناسا��ی شده و با انجام عمل بهروی مغز، از شر این احساسات خلاص میشه!
داستان کتاب هم، در این دنیا جریان داره! هیچ چیز دیگهای از داستان لو نمیدم...
از لحاظ نگارش و خوانش، کتاب کمی سختخوانه، البته داستان سرراستی داره ولی خود ادبیات کتاب، سرعت خوانش رو پایین میاره.
ولی به جرات میتونم بگم که از صفحه اول الی صفحه آخر کتاب، هیجان و کششی قوی وجود داره، که باعث میشه در حین خوندنش هرگز احساس سردی و سررفتن حوصله نکنید!
ترجمه عالی، کیفیت چاپ عالی، اگر قطع کتاب هم بجای پالتویی، رقعی بود که دیگه نورعلینور میشد! :))
من روی قطع کتابهای کتابخونهام هم ح��اسم، بعله! :))
توصیه میکنم این کتاب رو بخونید. اگر از کتاب هزار و نهصد و هشتاد و چهار خوشتون اومده، پس یقینا عاشق این کتاب خواهید شد.
پنج ستاره کامل...
تا اینکه حدودا یک سال و نیم پیش، نشر بیدگل با یک ترجمهی عالی، این کتاب رو احیا کرد.
بلافاصله پس از مطلع شدن، کتاب رو از دفتر رسمی فروش انتشارات خریدم و به کتابخونهام اضافهاش کردم.
و بالاخره قرعه به نامش افتاد و موفق به خوندنش شدم.
اوایل فکر میکردم که نویسندهی کتب، زامیاتین، برای نوشتن کتابش از جورج اورول و کتاب هزار و نهصد و هشتاد و چهار الهام گرفته، تا اینکه تحقیق کردم و دیدم خیر! در اشتباه بودم! زامیاتین یکجورایی پدر سبک پادآرمانشهریه! :))
مهم نیست که بخوام داستان کتاب رو لو بدم یا نه، چون دیگه کلمهی پادآرمانشهری خودش بیانگر همه چیز هست!
داستان در دنیایی اتفاق میافته که آدمهاش هیچ روح و هویت فردیای ندارن!
این آدمها، همه چیز زندگیشون توسط حکومت مدیریت و کنترل و دیکته میشه.
از جمله ساعات خواب و بیداری، نوع غذاها، ساعات غذا خوردنها و حتی تعداد دفعات جویدن هر لقمه!
مسیرهای رفت و برگشت به محل کار!
تعداد دفعات رابطه جنسی!
و تمام جوانب دیگهی زندگی!
در این دنیا، خونهها از جنس شیشه هستن و هیچ فردی نمیتونه چیزی رو بعنوان راز، از بقیه مخفی کنه!
تنها استثنایی که وجود داره، کرکرههایی هستن که در زمان برقراری رابطه جنسی و به مدت زمان محدود، پایین میان و فضایی نسبتا خصوصی رو برای صاحبخونه به ارمغان میارن!
در غیر این صورت، افراد در این دنیا، هرگز چیزی رو نمیتونن از همدیگه مخفی کنن!
نکته جالب دیگه، اینکه در این دنیا، داشتن روح، یک بیماری محسوب میشه!
در این دنیا، کسی که احساسات داره، کسی که تخیل داره، توسط پاسداران و یا به اصطلاح پلیسهای حکومتی شناسا��ی شده و با انجام عمل بهروی مغز، از شر این احساسات خلاص میشه!
داستان کتاب هم، در این دنیا جریان داره! هیچ چیز دیگهای از داستان لو نمیدم...
از لحاظ نگارش و خوانش، کتاب کمی سختخوانه، البته داستان سرراستی داره ولی خود ادبیات کتاب، سرعت خوانش رو پایین میاره.
ولی به جرات میتونم بگم که از صفحه اول الی صفحه آخر کتاب، هیجان و کششی قوی وجود داره، که باعث میشه در حین خوندنش هرگز احساس سردی و سررفتن حوصله نکنید!
ترجمه عالی، کیفیت چاپ عالی، اگر قطع کتاب هم بجای پالتویی، رقعی بود که دیگه نورعلینور میشد! :))
من روی قطع کتابهای کتابخونهام هم ح��اسم، بعله! :))
توصیه میکنم این کتاب رو بخونید. اگر از کتاب هزار و نهصد و هشتاد و چهار خوشتون اومده، پس یقینا عاشق این کتاب خواهید شد.
پنج ستاره کامل...
Read
August 21, 2020I had noticed 1984 pop up in my feed and more chatter about that and Brave New World 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 Notes from the Underground 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 Adam, 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 Notes from the Underground, 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 Adam, 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 Notes from the Underground, 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.
February 21, 2024
“My dear—you are a mathematician. More—you are a philosopher, a mathematical philosopher. Well, then: name me the final number.”
“What do you mean? I . . . I don’t understand: what final number?”
“Well, the final, the ultimate, the largest.”
“But that’s preposterous! If the number of numbers is infinite, how can there be a final number?”
“Then how can there be a final revolution? There is no final one; revolutions are infinite.”
Many centuries from now, after the Two Hundred Years’ 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—simply called “numbers”—under constant observation by the Guardians, the enforcers in this totalitarian regime controlled by the Benefactor.
D-503 lives in OneState, and happily so. He’s the lead builder of a spaceship called The Integral, which is preparing to take word of their perfect society to the stars. He’s 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—shelter, food, sex—are 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’s ordered life ….
It’s 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’ science fiction influence is obvious. More importantly, We influenced numerous authors who followed, including George Orwell, who was inspired by We to write 1984. And when I say “inspired,” 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’s 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. 1984 is more didactic, a treatise against fascism and an exploration of the power of language to change individuals’ 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’s 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’s thesis is that no society will ever eliminate all dissent, that there will never be a “final revolution,” a message those who had just overthrown the czars had no interest in hearing. Recommended.
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—all the more absurd for its rationalist pretensions. Call me a decadent bourgeois if you wish, but I am unwilling to give up my individualism—yes, including my selfishness!—for the sake of some theoretical, neutered society—an 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—all the more absurd for its rationalist pretensions. Call me a decadent bourgeois if you wish, but I am unwilling to give up my individualism—yes, including my selfishness!—for the sake of some theoretical, neutered society—an 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.
December 4, 2023
ما در واقع نقطهی شروع رمانهای پادآرمانشهریه. ماجرایی که در سالهای دور در آینده داره اتفاق میافته و مدل کتاب شبیه به یک دفتر خاطرات یا یادداشتهای شخصیه. در این دنیا بیش از هر چیز به عقل و منطق و ریاضیات پرداخته شده و در واقع لطافت و روح در بین انسانها کشته شده. همه چیز طبق زمانبندی مشخص انجام میشه، خوابیدن، بیدار شدن، غذا خوردن، کار کردن و .... انسانها در خانههای شیشهای زندگی میکنند و جز برای رابطهی جنسی و اون هم طبق برنامه و با اعلام قبلی به حراست پردهها بسته نمیشه. راوی ماجرا مهندس و سازندهی شمارهی یک سفینهای فضایی به اسم انتگراله و خب برای ادامهی ماجرا به کتاب مراجعه کنید. 😁 میتونم بگم داستان به شکل خاصی روایت شده و آنچنان ساده نیست اما خیلی هم پیچیده نیست. خیلی درش اغراق دیده نمیشه و چیزای فوق عجیب و غریب در رمان نمیبینید و صرفاً اونقدری خیال پردازی شده که نویسنده بتونه نکات مورد نظرش رو پیاده کنه. جالبه.ه
پ.ن ۱: به حسن انتخابم برای خوندن این کتاب در این روز تبریک میگم، چرا؟ چون صد سال پیش در چنین روزی چشم به جهان گشودم و خب تو روز تولد خوندن یک رمان در مورد آیندهی زشت خیلی جالب نیست :))
پ.ن ۲: امسال در تمام شبکههای اجتماعی، غیر اجتماعی، جغرافی، تاریخ و ... اعلام کردم تولدمه! اون کودک درونم به توجه نیاز داشت!ه
پ.ن ۱: به حسن انتخابم برای خوندن این کتاب در این روز تبریک میگم، چرا؟ چون صد سال پیش در چنین روزی چشم به جهان گشودم و خب تو روز تولد خوندن یک رمان در مورد آیندهی زشت خیلی جالب نیست :))
پ.ن ۲: امسال در تمام شبکههای اجتماعی، غیر اجتماعی، جغرافی، تاریخ و ... اعلام کردم تولدمه! اون کودک درونم به توجه نیاز داشت!ه
May 4, 2021
In the dystopian future, engineer D-503 (because future people are numbers - individuals don’t matter, only the collective we are the Borg) is working on the rocketship Integral to spread the doctrine of Utopia’s 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’s a supposedly-mindless drone to do?!
Yevgeny Zamyatin’s WE has been on my radar for some time now, purely because I heard that it was a major influence on Orwell’s 1984 and I loved that novel. And it clearly was, and I’m glad to finally tick that box of having read this, but, man alive, is it not fun to read!
Orwell’s 1946 review of WE is included at the back of this edition and it’s ironic because he spends a part of the review going through the similarities WE has with Aldous Huxley’s 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’s prose is unengaging and the story lacks the sense of urgent danger, paralysing fear and sickening oppression of Orwell’s vision. Sure, Zamyatin’s book is more original in its details but it’s 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’s said there’s only seven or so stories and everyone’s just reworking them over and over? All that really means is that the storytelling is more important than the story itself. And that’s the case here: Zamyatin and Orwell told a near identical story but Orwell’s had a vastly bigger impact on our world because he’s the better storyteller and 1984 is a much more compelling narrative. A lot of Shakespeare’s plays were rewritings of pre-existing plays (Hamlet, Lear, etc.) but Shakespeare’s 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’t bother reading, not least because Atwood’s 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’re a fan of 1984, I still wouldn’t recommend reading WE as a curio because it’s so, so boring. I appreciate its literary place as the inspiration for Orwell’s masterpiece, and it should be remembered for that, but I definitely didn’t enjoy reading it at all and don’t rate Zamyatin as much of a writer; he was a fine ideas guy but not a great storyteller.
Yevgeny Zamyatin’s WE has been on my radar for some time now, purely because I heard that it was a major influence on Orwell’s 1984 and I loved that novel. And it clearly was, and I’m glad to finally tick that box of having read this, but, man alive, is it not fun to read!
Orwell’s 1946 review of WE is included at the back of this edition and it’s ironic because he spends a part of the review going through the similarities WE has with Aldous Huxley’s 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’s prose is unengaging and the story lacks the sense of urgent danger, paralysing fear and sickening oppression of Orwell’s vision. Sure, Zamyatin’s book is more original in its details but it’s 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’s said there’s only seven or so stories and everyone’s just reworking them over and over? All that really means is that the storytelling is more important than the story itself. And that’s the case here: Zamyatin and Orwell told a near identical story but Orwell’s had a vastly bigger impact on our world because he’s the better storyteller and 1984 is a much more compelling narrative. A lot of Shakespeare’s plays were rewritings of pre-existing plays (Hamlet, Lear, etc.) but Shakespeare’s 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’t bother reading, not least because Atwood’s 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’re a fan of 1984, I still wouldn’t recommend reading WE as a curio because it’s so, so boring. I appreciate its literary place as the inspiration for Orwell’s masterpiece, and it should be remembered for that, but I definitely didn’t enjoy reading it at all and don’t rate Zamyatin as much of a writer; he was a fine ideas guy but not a great storyteller.
December 9, 2020
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.
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.
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
اندر ستایش جستوخیز کردن و فاصله انداختن
- از مطالعه این کتاب لذت بردیم و به همین علت متن زیر بدین میزان خصمانه نوشته شده است. باشد که اشتباه برداشت نشود :)
مثل همیشه از کتاب شروع میکنم و بعدش حاشیه میزنم.
0- اول یک کلیاتی میگم، بعدش بیشتر در مورد کتاب و وضعیتش حرف میزنم.
خواندن این کتاب خیلی آسان نیست اما برای کسانی که به ادبیات پادآرمانشهری و ادبیاتِ رنگگرفته از سیاست علاقه دارند، خواندن این اثر جذاب خواهد بود.
1- از اهمیت کتاب همین بس که میتوان از آن به عنوان ریشه و جدِ آثار پادآرمانشهری نام برد. فارغ از «1984» جرج اورول و «دنیای قشنگ نو» آدولس هاکسلی، حتی در "سرودِ" آین رند نیز میتوان عناصر و المانهای واحدی را با «ما» مشخص کرد. از نفی فردیت افراد و نمودِ آن در نامگذاری عددیِ افراد، اهمیت علم، البته «علم کاربردی»، نفی تاریخ و گذشته و در نهایت سرکوب کلامِ مخالف با خواستِ «ONE STATE»(همان حاکمیت توتالیتر). اما همین فضل تقدم بزرگترین ایراد کتاب است.
اطنابِ قبیح، نارساییهای منطقیِ روایت و ضعف در برخی خرده روایتهای داستان، فاش میکند که زامیاتین لزوما نویسندهی بزرگی نبوده است، اما به دغدغه و شهودِ ادبی توانسته است یک اثر ادبیِ تاثیرگذار و ایدهمند خلق کند؛ شاید هم بسازد.
رخصت دهید منظورم را شفاف کنم یا به قولِ اهلِ حقوق تنقیح. بزرگان ادبیات با تکشرارههایی تبدیل به ستونهای تاریخ ادبیات نشده اند. از شعر کلاسیک فارسی بگیر که شعرا با دیوانهای خود که مجموعهای از لحظات شاعرانه بوده، تا ادبیات جدید. برای مثال داستایفسکی که تنها یک اثر والا ندارد، مجموعهای از واکاویهای ادبیانه چیزی بنام داستایفکسی را تصویر کرده است. اصلا خودِ جرج اورول، تنها یک اثر ماندگار که ندارد...
البته این بدان معنا نیست که لزوما هرکس که منظومهای از آثار قابل اعتنا داشته باشد میتواند عنوان ادیب و ادبدان را یدک بکشد، اصلا من که باشم که در این مورد تصمیم بگیرم و تاریخ خود بهترین داور است، بلکه میخواستم حدس خودم از علت ضعفهای این رمان را شرح بدهم.
2- نمادپردازیهای شاذِ کتاب، استعاری فهمیدن ریاضی و ارجاعات کثیر به مفاهیم ریاضیاتی و شرحِ عریانش از اختناق، از بین رفتن فردیت و ترس از استبداد دانش و تلاش برای ساخت بهشتِ زمینی، گاهی دچار زیادهروی میشد و هرچه از حد بگذرد لاجرم تنه به تنه ادایی بودن میگذارد. زمانی که استعاره و نمادپردازی، حتی در ادبیات، به حدی شرح و بسط پیدا کند که روند داستان و روایت را در سایه خود پنهان کند، نقض غرض شده است و این نمادها هستند که موضوعیت پیدا میکنند و نه کارکرد رواییِ آنها. به بیانی، حاشیه جای متن را میگیرد.
اگر بخواهم استعاره و نمادهایی را که من در اثر کشف کرده ام، که از قضی تو این فقره همچین قوی نیستم، به همراه مختصری که در یادداشتهای کتاب آمده بود را اینجا ردیف کنم، خودش یک متنِ مجزا میطلبد. اصلا این استعارههای واضح و بیشمار کاری میکند که آن کلاناستعارهی اساسی متن، همان عشق خانه برانداز که باعث طغیان شود، در حاشیه قرار بگیرد. همان استعارهای که خط داستانی بر روی آن سوار شده است. همان استعاره که همکفِ سرودِ آین رند بود. همان استعارهٔ "اعجام/نقطهها" از سنان انطون.
3- با تمام ایراداتی که به صریح بودن و در چشم بودن کتاب میتوان گرفت، روایتِ کلی کتاب و ایدهی اساسیِ آن بسیار ناب و عالی بود. نفی فردیت به بهای رفاه، ریاضیاتی شدن زیستِ اجتماعی، طغیان علیه وضع موجود(چه اگر بهشتوار و غیر آزاد باشد، چه جهنمی و غیرآزاد!) و روایتِ تشکیکِ D-503 در ریشۀ چیزهایی که آنها را بدیهی میپنداشت.
4- سلام بر حواشیِ دوستداشتنی:
معمولا دقیقا پس از پایان کتاب مرور خودم بر کتاب را مینوشتم، حتی اگر کتاب در نیمهشب تمام شده بود در همان ظلماتِ وهم مینشستم به مرور نوشتن و نوشتن مرور تا گرگومیشِ صبح طول میکشید.
برای این کتاب زامیاتین به خودم وقت دادم، یکی دو روز گذاشتم در ناخودآگاهم بهش فکر کنم(ناخودآگاهم دستِ خودمه:) ) بعدش یه فیلمِ کوتاه که ازش ساختن را دیدم و خلاصه بهتر با اثر مواجه شدم و خوشحالم از این بابت. مرض رسانه اجتماعی همینه که اگر افسارمان در دستِ خودمان نباشد، برخی انواع مواجه و تجربه آثار هنری را از ما سلب میکند.
پینوشت: این کتاب رو چندماه پیش خونده بودم و یادداشت رو هم همان موقع نوشته بودم. الان اینجا دوباره منتشر کردم.
- از مطالعه این کتاب لذت بردیم و به همین علت متن زیر بدین میزان خصمانه نوشته شده است. باشد که اشتباه برداشت نشود :)
مثل همیشه از کتاب شروع میکنم و بعدش حاشیه میزنم.
0- اول یک کلیاتی میگم، بعدش بیشتر در مورد کتاب و وضعیتش حرف میزنم.
خواندن این کتاب خیلی آسان نیست اما برای کسانی که به ادبیات پادآرمانشهری و ادبیاتِ رنگگرفته از سیاست علاقه دارند، خواندن این اثر جذاب خواهد بود.
1- از اهمیت کتاب همین بس که میتوان از آن به عنوان ریشه و جدِ آثار پادآرمانشهری نام برد. فارغ از «1984» جرج اورول و «دنیای قشنگ نو» آدولس هاکسلی، حتی در "سرودِ" آین رند نیز میتوان عناصر و المانهای واحدی را با «ما» مشخص کرد. از نفی فردیت افراد و نمودِ آن در نامگذاری عددیِ افراد، اهمیت علم، البته «علم کاربردی»، نفی تاریخ و گذشته و در نهایت سرکوب کلامِ مخالف با خواستِ «ONE STATE»(همان حاکمیت توتالیتر). اما همین فضل تقدم بزرگترین ایراد کتاب است.
اطنابِ قبیح، نارساییهای منطقیِ روایت و ضعف در برخی خرده روایتهای داستان، فاش میکند که زامیاتین لزوما نویسندهی بزرگی نبوده است، اما به دغدغه و شهودِ ادبی توانسته است یک اثر ادبیِ تاثیرگذار و ایدهمند خلق کند؛ شاید هم بسازد.
رخصت دهید منظورم را شفاف کنم یا به قولِ اهلِ حقوق تنقیح. بزرگان ادبیات با تکشرارههایی تبدیل به ستونهای تاریخ ادبیات نشده اند. از شعر کلاسیک فارسی بگیر که شعرا با دیوانهای خود که مجموعهای از لحظات شاعرانه بوده، تا ادبیات جدید. برای مثال داستایفسکی که تنها یک اثر والا ندارد، مجموعهای از واکاویهای ادبیانه چیزی بنام داستایفکسی را تصویر کرده است. اصلا خودِ جرج اورول، تنها یک اثر ماندگار که ندارد...
البته این بدان معنا نیست که لزوما هرکس که منظومهای از آثار قابل اعتنا داشته باشد میتواند عنوان ادیب و ادبدان را یدک بکشد، اصلا من که باشم که در این مورد تصمیم بگیرم و تاریخ خود بهترین داور است، بلکه میخواستم حدس خودم از علت ضعفهای این رمان را شرح بدهم.
2- نمادپردازیهای شاذِ کتاب، استعاری فهمیدن ریاضی و ارجاعات کثیر به مفاهیم ریاضیاتی و شرحِ عریانش از اختناق، از بین رفتن فردیت و ترس از استبداد دانش و تلاش برای ساخت بهشتِ زمینی، گاهی دچار زیادهروی میشد و هرچه از حد بگذرد لاجرم تنه به تنه ادایی بودن میگذارد. زمانی که استعاره و نمادپردازی، حتی در ادبیات، به حدی شرح و بسط پیدا کند که روند داستان و روایت را در سایه خود پنهان کند، نقض غرض شده است و این نمادها هستند که موضوعیت پیدا میکنند و نه کارکرد رواییِ آنها. به بیانی، حاشیه جای متن را میگیرد.
اگر بخواهم استعاره و نمادهایی را که من در اثر کشف کرده ام، که از قضی تو این فقره همچین قوی نیستم، به همراه مختصری که در یادداشتهای کتاب آمده بود را اینجا ردیف کنم، خودش یک متنِ مجزا میطلبد. اصلا این استعارههای واضح و بیشمار کاری میکند که آن کلاناستعارهی اساسی متن، همان عشق خانه برانداز که باعث طغیان شود، در حاشیه قرار بگیرد. همان استعارهای که خط داستانی بر روی آن سوار شده است. همان استعاره که همکفِ سرودِ آین رند بود. همان استعارهٔ "اعجام/نقطهها" از سنان انطون.
3- با تمام ایراداتی که به صریح بودن و در چشم بودن کتاب میتوان گرفت، روایتِ کلی کتاب و ایدهی اساسیِ آن بسیار ناب و عالی بود. نفی فردیت به بهای رفاه، ریاضیاتی شدن زیستِ اجتماعی، طغیان علیه وضع موجود(چه اگر بهشتوار و غیر آزاد باشد، چه جهنمی و غیرآزاد!) و روایتِ تشکیکِ D-503 در ریشۀ چیزهایی که آنها را بدیهی میپنداشت.
4- سلام بر حواشیِ دوستداشتنی:
معمولا دقیقا پس از پایان کتاب مرور خودم بر کتاب را مینوشتم، حتی اگر کتاب در نیمهشب تمام شده بود در همان ظلماتِ وهم مینشستم به مرور نوشتن و نوشتن مرور تا گرگومیشِ صبح طول میکشید.
برای این کتاب زامیاتین به خودم وقت دادم، یکی دو روز گذاشتم در ناخودآگاهم بهش فکر کنم(ناخودآگاهم دستِ خودمه:) ) بعدش یه فیلمِ کوتاه که ازش ساختن را دیدم و خلاصه بهتر با اثر مواجه شدم و خوشحالم از این بابت. مرض رسانه اجتماعی همینه که اگر افسارمان در دستِ خودمان نباشد، برخی انواع مواجه و تجربه آثار هنری را از ما سلب میکند.
پینوشت: این کتاب رو چندماه پیش خونده بودم و یادداشت رو هم همان موقع نوشته بودم. الان اینجا دوباره منتشر کردم.
October 19, 2021
یوگنی زامیاتین مهندس و نویسنده روس از اولین افرادی به شمار می آید که که در رمان ما به موضوع مدینه فاسده یا پاد آرمان شهر پرداخته است . کتاب ما که در سال 1921 و در ابتدای حکومت بلشویک ها و در زمان لنین نوشته شده را به سختی می توان اثری در ضدیت جامعه کمونیستی یا حتی پیش بینی حکومت پلیسی استالین دانست ، شاید ایده کلی او را بتوان مخالفت با جامعه صنعتی یا تمدن صنعتی بر آمده از آن دانست .
کتاب ما شباهت زیادی با دنیای قشنگ نو آلدوس هاکسلی دارد ، اگر چه توصیفات هاکسلی و دنیای او به مراتب جذابتر و زنده تر از داستان ما است ولی هاکسلی هم در نگارش کتاب خود از زامیاتین ایده و الهام گرفته است .
انسان هایی که روح ، فردیت و هویت خود را از دست داده اند و به سختی توسط پلیس در یک جامعه به شدت بسته کنترل می شوند ، آشکار است که هدف نویسنده نشان دادن تقابل میان افراد و حکومت و زمینه چینی برای تقابل نهایی ایست .
ما کتاب سخت خوانی ایست ، زامیاتین تسلط فراوانی بر ادبیات غنی روسیه داشته و بارها در کتاب به آن اشاره کرده است ، به همین گونه او آرمانهای ایده ال کمونیست ها مانند برابری ، نفی مالکیت خصوصی را در جامعه نشان داده است .
بدون هیچ گونه تردیدی نبوغ زامیاتین سخت ستودنی ایست ، او یک قرن پیش مفاهیمی مانند جراحی مغز یا جستجو در فضا یا زیستن در سایه حکومتی تمامیت خواه را پیش بینی کرده بود .
در پایان می توان گفت اهمیت کتاب ما در پیشگام بودن در مسیری ایست که به آثار بسیار برجسته ای مانند 1984 یا دنیای قشنگ نو منجر شده است .
کتاب ما شباهت زیادی با دنیای قشنگ نو آلدوس هاکسلی دارد ، اگر چه توصیفات هاکسلی و دنیای او به مراتب جذابتر و زنده تر از داستان ما است ولی هاکسلی هم در نگارش کتاب خود از زامیاتین ایده و الهام گرفته است .
انسان هایی که روح ، فردیت و هویت خود را از دست داده اند و به سختی توسط پلیس در یک جامعه به شدت بسته کنترل می شوند ، آشکار است که هدف نویسنده نشان دادن تقابل میان افراد و حکومت و زمینه چینی برای تقابل نهایی ایست .
ما کتاب سخت خوانی ایست ، زامیاتین تسلط فراوانی بر ادبیات غنی روسیه داشته و بارها در کتاب به آن اشاره کرده است ، به همین گونه او آرمانهای ایده ال کمونیست ها مانند برابری ، نفی مالکیت خصوصی را در جامعه نشان داده است .
بدون هیچ گونه تردیدی نبوغ زامیاتین سخت ستودنی ایست ، او یک قرن پیش مفاهیمی مانند جراحی مغز یا جستجو در فضا یا زیستن در سایه حکومتی تمامیت خواه را پیش بینی کرده بود .
در پایان می توان گفت اهمیت کتاب ما در پیشگام بودن در مسیری ایست که به آثار بسیار برجسته ای مانند 1984 یا دنیای قشنگ نو منجر شده است .
April 2, 2022
Reading this book when war is raging in Eastern Europe and people are controlled and kept in the dark by a well oiled propaganda machine made for an intense experience. This is the OG of dystopia that inspired Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, which in turn inspired Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. The audiobook I listened to contained a foreword by Atwood, a review of the book by Orwell and an essay by Ursula K. Le Guin! I mean talk about a sublime listening experience! The novel presents so many points for discussion about the mechanisation of humans and how freedom and imagination are the enemy of happiness because the source of happiness is regulation and control. I listened to it twice. Once to sit back and listen to this wonderfully written and frighteningly prophetic story, the second with a pencil and paper at the ready to write down quotes I liked and thoughts I had. I won't say too much more but here are some of the quotes that I think will tell you everything you need to know about this novel (I've written them as best as I heard them so apologies for errors - I didn't have time to trawl through the intermaweb looking for them).
... we are always in view. Eternally washed by the light within our translucent walls which seem to be woven from sparkling air. We have nothing to hide from each other. Plus, it makes the difficult and noble task of the Guardians a lot easier. Otherwise, who knows what could happen? It's quite possible that the bizarre opaque dwellings of the Ancients are exactly what lead to their pathetic single-celled mindset, "My home is my castle". Imagine!
You're sick. And the name of this illness is 'Imagination'. It is the worm that gnaws black wrinkles into your forehead. The fever that drives you further and further away, even when further begins precisely where happiness ends. It is the final barricade on the path to total happiness. But rejoice, we have already blasted our way through this obstacle. The path is clear. The latest State science discovery is the seat of the Imagination. A pathetic little neural nodule in the region of the pons Varolii. With a simple triple x-ray quarterisation you will be cured of Imagination. Forever. You will be perfect. You will be equal to the machine. The path to one hundred percent happiness is clear. Hurry! One and all, young and old. Run, don't walk to undergo The Great Operation. Hurry to the auditoriums where they are performing The Great Operation. All Hail The Great Operation! All hail the One State! All hail the Benefactor!
No more delirious nonsense. No crazy metaphors. No feelings. Just facts. Because now I am healthy. I am completely and totally healthy. I'm smiling. I can't help smiling. A splinter has been removed from my head and now it is empty and light. Rather, not empty, but there is nothing foreign in it that would keep me from smiling. Smiling is the normal state of a normal person.
I'm certain we will win. For Reason must win
There is no final revolution.
... we are always in view. Eternally washed by the light within our translucent walls which seem to be woven from sparkling air. We have nothing to hide from each other. Plus, it makes the difficult and noble task of the Guardians a lot easier. Otherwise, who knows what could happen? It's quite possible that the bizarre opaque dwellings of the Ancients are exactly what lead to their pathetic single-celled mindset, "My home is my castle". Imagine!
You're sick. And the name of this illness is 'Imagination'. It is the worm that gnaws black wrinkles into your forehead. The fever that drives you further and further away, even when further begins precisely where happiness ends. It is the final barricade on the path to total happiness. But rejoice, we have already blasted our way through this obstacle. The path is clear. The latest State science discovery is the seat of the Imagination. A pathetic little neural nodule in the region of the pons Varolii. With a simple triple x-ray quarterisation you will be cured of Imagination. Forever. You will be perfect. You will be equal to the machine. The path to one hundred percent happiness is clear. Hurry! One and all, young and old. Run, don't walk to undergo The Great Operation. Hurry to the auditoriums where they are performing The Great Operation. All Hail The Great Operation! All hail the One State! All hail the Benefactor!
No more delirious nonsense. No crazy metaphors. No feelings. Just facts. Because now I am healthy. I am completely and totally healthy. I'm smiling. I can't help smiling. A splinter has been removed from my head and now it is empty and light. Rather, not empty, but there is nothing foreign in it that would keep me from smiling. Smiling is the normal state of a normal person.
I'm certain we will win. For Reason must win
There is no final revolution.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 7,951 reviews