Miévillians discussion
This topic is about
We
Yevgeny Zamyatin: WE
>
WE discussion thread 1: From start up to Record 10
date
newest »
newest »
That meshes with the intro or "about" section in my edition, but then the records call it the "United State" rather than One State. I also have a Well-Doer but have seen references elsewhere to the Benefactor.At any rate, I slogged through the first parts, intrigued by the people's desire (the people's? or the state? or D-503's?) to proselytize those who are "still in the primitive state of freedom" ... to teach them that people who live train-table-led lives "millions like one" are happier when organized. My first impression of course is that the author is setting us up to show us just how misguided this can be, although in some ways and on some days I wish I could stick to each little task on my list and accomplish each little note at the appointed time on my calendar.
Anyway, what did everybody think the "bread" was at the root of the war? Oil maybe? I like the footnote that the chemical composition is lost but the poetic form survived - kind of a foreshadowing perhaps? That in all the mathematical precision - and don't you just love the maths references, the "victory of the sum over the individual," etc. - that the root of a global annihilation is reduced to a poetical term?
Also very telling is how D-503, while professing all his faith in the "laws of equality" and the rules of Guardians/city, he puts off and puts off reporting S to them after the visit to the ancient house and her wanting to break the rules, to lie and put off her duty of work, etc. ... "I shall have time tomorrow," he says. Hmmm.
Curious what everyone thought of the line "The way to rid man of criminality is to rid him of freedom." Not just on the face of it, meaning prisons will deter crime, but how many other levels of meaning are in this?
Hm, okay, I personally own the Clarence Brown copy and the Randall copy, and I found what I think is the Ginsberg free online; and it's amazing how much they differ.I'm posting that very first paragraph before he feels his cheeks burning to show how different they are:
First Entry
TOPICS : A Proclamation
The Wisest of Lines
A Poem
I shall simply copy, word for word, the proclamation that appeared today in the One State Gazette:
The building of the Integral will be completed in one hundred and twenty days. The great historic hour when the first Integral will soar into cosmic space is drawing near. One thousand years ago your heroic ancestors subdued the entire terrestrial globe to the power of the One State.
Yours will be a still more glorious feat: you will integrate the infinite equation of the universe with the aid of the fire-breathing, electric, glass Integral. You will subjugate the unknown beings on other planets, who may still be living in the primitive condition of freedom, to the beneficent yoke of reason.
If they fail to understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it will be our duty to compel them to be happy. But before resorting to arms, we shall try the power of words.
In the name of the Benefactor, therefore, we proclaim to all the numbers of the One State: Everyone who feels capable of doing so must compose tracts, odes, manifestoes, poems, or other works extolling the beauty and the grandeur of the One State.
This will be the first cargo to be carried by the Integral. Long live the One State, long live the numbers, long live the Benefactor!
******************
RECORD ONE
KEYWORDS: A Declaration.
The Wisest of Lines. An Epic.
I am merely copying, word for word, what was printed in the State Gazette today:
IN 120 DAYS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTEGRAL WILL BE COMPLETE. THE GREAT, HISTORIC HOUR WHEN THE FIRST INTEGRAL WILL SOAR THROUGH OUTER SPACE IS NIGH. SOME THOUSAND YEARS AGO, YOUR HEROIC ANCESTORS SUBJUGATED THE ENTIRE EARTHLY SPHERE TO THE POWER OF THE ONE STATE. TODAY, YOU ARE CONFRONTING AN EVEN GREATER CONQUEST: THE INTEGRATION OF THE INFINITE EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE WITH THE ELECTRIFIED AND FIRE-BREATHING GLASS INTEGRAL. YOU ARE CONFRONTING UNKNOWN CREATURES ON ALIEN PLANETS, WHO MAY STILL BE LIVING IN THE SAVAGE STATE OF FREEDOM, AND SUBJUGATING THEM TO THE BENEFICIAL YOKE OF REASON.
IF THEY WON’T UNDERSTAND THAT WE BRING THEM MATHEMATICALLY INFALLIBLE HAPPINESS, IT WILL BE OUR DUTY TO FORCE THEM TO BE HAPPY. BUT BEFORE RESORTING TO ARMS, WE WILL EMPLOY THE WORD.
IN THE NAME OF THE BENEFACTOR, LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL CIPHERS OF THE ONE STATE: ALL THOSE WHO ARE ABLE ARE REQUIRED TO CREATE TREATISES, EPICS, MANIFESTOS, ODES, OR ANY OTHER COMPOSITION ADDRESSING THE BEAUTY AND MAJESTY OF THE ONE STATE.
THESE WORKS WILL BE THE FIRST CARGO OF THE INTEGRAL. ALL HAIL THE ONE STATE, ALL HAIL CIPHERS, ALL HAIL THE BENEFACTOR!
*******************
RECORD 1
Announcement The Wisest of Lines An Epic Poem I am merely copying out here, word for word, what was printed today in the State Gazette:
In 120 days from now the building of the INTEGRAL will be finished. Near at hand is the great, historic hour when the first INTEGRAL will lift off into space. A thousand years ago your heroic forebears subjugated the whole of planet Earth to the power of OneState. It is for you to accomplish an even more glorious feat: by means of the glass, the electric, the fire-breathing INTEGRAL to integrate the indefinite equation of the universe. It is for you to place the beneficial yoke of reason round the necks of the unknown beings who inhabit other planets—still living, it may be, in the primitive state known as freedom.
If they will not understand that we are bringing them a mathematically infallible happiness, we shall be obliged to force them to be happy. But before taking up arms, we shall try what words can do.
In the name of the Benefactor, all Numbers of OneState are hereby informed of the following: Everyone who feels himself capable of doing so is required to compose treatises, epic poems, manifestos, odes, or other compositions dealing with the beauty and grandeur of OneState.
This will be the first cargo transported by the INTEGRAL. Long live OneState! Long live the Numbers! Long live the Benefactor!
**************
Sorry Allen, I'm going to reply to the rest of your post soon. :) I've been fiddling so much with the translations that I feel a bit lost between the three of them and trying to figure out which one to choose!
...and before I even get to Allen's excellent comments and questions, I want to comment on something on the very first page already:"You will subjugate the unknown beings on other planets, who may still be living in the primitive condition of freedom, to the beneficent yoke of reason."
Interesting. "to subjugate beings living in the primitive condition of freedom, to the beneficent yoke of reason.
Now, I wonder what their idea of 'reason' would be. ;)
Also, in records one and two, it occurred to me how positive the narrator seems to be about "nonfreedom".
Interesting. Mine's closer to the first translation you listed. Is it the Brown? But still somewhat different. For instance, it's the "grateful yoke of reason" in mine. I think beneficent is a better word as it's defined as "doing good" ... regardless of the means used they think that it would be a good deed. The reason? Integration of many pieces, i.e., people/cultures/beliefs/religions into one of course :) The definition of integral. In math, to find the area under a curve we integrate - or add all the little pieces together until we get a whole.No rush on the discussion. I just found myself with a little spare time this weekend and wanted to get ahead a bit. Besides, I think these post-apocalyptic books require a lot of buildup before we know what's debatable. I'm just over halfway and only now are seeing some of the bigger questions the author's raising I think. But, I'm not that savvy with political commentary so I'm sure I've missed a lot somewhere. Can't wait to hear everyone's dissection!
That first translation is the same as my Ginsburg. I agree with Allen's choice of beneficent over grateful, but your other two translations use beneficial, which also seems wrong. Both grateful and beneficial are passive, and this seems to require an active adjective.
Allen wrote: "Interesting. Mine's closer to the first translation you listed. Is it the Brown? But still somewhat different. For instance, it's the "grateful yoke of reason" in mine. I think beneficent is a bett..."Good catch on the integral.
On the discussion: I hope you don't mind if I go from the start through chronologically until I come to your comments? Otherwise I'm going to forget all the goodies I'd wanted to say about the earlier pages.
Allen wrote: "At any rate, I slogged through the first parts, intrigued by the people's desire (the people's? or the state? or D-503's?) to proselytize those who are "still in the primitive state of freedom" ... to teach them that people who live train-table-led lives "millions like one" are happier when organized. My first impression of course is that the author is setting us up to show us just how misguided this can be, although in some ways and on some days I wish I could stick to each little task on my list and accomplish each little note at the appointed time on my calendar.
"
Yeah, I found it interesting how confused the narrator gets about non-mechanical, non-mathematical stuff, and when it is pointed out to him that, after all, "We were all different...." and interesting, how the name of the novel relates, eh?
I started rereading this book, got carried away and reread the entire thing.I updated my old review with my new thoughts, and for now I'll just paste them here, and then think some more for the discussion:
------
-------
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. Physically, I still look under twenty (thanks, youthful genetics!) but mentally 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.
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.
Wonderful post, thank you, Nataliya. As Murphy would have it, life has been hitting curved balls at me left right and center, so I find myself falling behind with everything again... arrgh, I hate when RL interferes with my GR time...But I'll be back asap.
I am sad to report that I have fallen ill, which accounts for my Goodreads absence the last few days. Slowly starting to feel better, but was out of commission completely for about 4 days, and will consequently have lots to catch up with once I have recovered. Still only starting to mend, so I apologize for that.
So sorry to hear that you have been ill, Traveller, but that means I have time to catch up. I started ggKay's Fionavar Tapestry in the middle of March and thought that book 3 would go as fast as book 2. But no, I am crawling :( Perhaps I'll leave it for now and jump into We.Feel better soon!
Traveller wrote: "I am sad to report that I have fallen ill, which accounts for my Goodreads absence the last few days. Slowly starting to feel better, but was out of commission completely for about 4 days, and wil..."Sorry to hear that you were ill, Trav! Take all the time you need for the recovery. Having just got over a walking pneumonia, I will definitely attest that illness is terrible.
Thank you so much Ruth and Nataliya. I'm missing all of you terribly. I can't wait to get back to GR again...Oh, my goodness Nataliya, that sounds really bad...I hope that you hadn't suffered to much, and that you will soon be recovered and your old self again.
The first things that struck me in these intro sections are how often the narrator mentions basic shapes, especially triangles, and the primary colors plus green and pink. Only when he gets upset does he see shades: saffron yellow, poisonous green.
Ruth wrote: "The first things that struck me in these intro sections are how often the narrator mentions basic shapes, especially triangles, and the primary colors plus green and pink. Only when he gets upset ..."Very interesting observation. Also, I'd say shapes are regimented, rational, left brain while colours would rather seem to be creative, emotive and right brain.
Colors are creative, yes, I would agree but 'good' people seem to 'see' only a limited and very select number of them, thus limiting their creativity which I bet is just what the State wants.
Yeah,true. Of course they can't be creative (or it is disallowed) because creativity is one of the things that creates "difference' and they're supposed to be all alike. And creativeness can of course also instill rebellion and dissidence.Very interesting--I'd like to see if that changes towards the end of the book.
This is a slog. I took a detour into pure escapism.So far, I'm really not seeing the comparison to 1984. Saying that Orwell copied from Zamyatin is no more meaningful than that he copied from More or Huxley (who Orwell claims copied Zamyatin!).
Sure, he had read We before 1984 was published: he wrote his own review of We in 1946 (I must say I agree with Orwell that "So far as I can judge it is not a book of the first order…"), but 1984 is a dystopia. Nobody in Orwell's story thinks they're living in a perfect world, but they're fighting a war and sacrifices must be made. Never mind that all evidence suggests that the war is entirely artificial.
Maybe (probably) it's not going to end that way but, at the beginning of We, D-503 truly believes he's living in a nearly-perfect world. And whatever happens, I think the vast majority of residents of D's world DO think it's utopic. And if they think so, who am I to tell them they're wrong?
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "This is a slog. I took a detour into pure escapism.So far, I'm really not seeing the comparison to 1984. Saying that Orwell copied from Zamyatin is no more meaningful than that he cop..."
...but maybe the whole point is how scary it is that they believe it's a perfect world, that it is so relatively easy to brainwash people?
I don't think you need to brainwash the majority of people to believe in Zamyatin's utopia. Most people just want their needs taken care of. Are we any less brainwashed? The average first world citizen couldn't be happy with Zamyatin's world, but we've been trained to be consumers. If there were no "latest fashions" in clothing, gadgets, or entertainment, would we really miss them?
Orwell's characters are hungry, and cold, and basically pathetic. If they were being given enough to eat (as seems to be the case in We), and appropriate clothing, and perhaps no glass houses (I could not sleep in We's glass apartments: I need a dark cave), they'd probably think they were in Utopia, too.
Take Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I think most people are pretty happy with no more than the first couple, maybe three, levels of the pyramid. They need their physical and security needs to be met. I'm not widely read on utopias, but I suspect that's all that you ever get in any of them. But in 1984 you don't get past the most basic level.
Aha! but perhaps you are illustrating the very point there, Derek. To me this world is actually in some senses reminiscent of Brave New World. ..and like you say, our own consumer world. ..and weren't the people in The Matrix also being lulled if their false virtual world and (I think they were fed drugs too?) to feel complacent, which they might think is being happy, in their complacence--but is feeling complacent really being happy?
This book has been screaming both 1984 and Brave New World from section one. It has been a long time, though, since I read either of them so I cannot comment on details. I think Traveller has hit on the point: If you are told you are happy (or must be because X, Y; or Z are supplied for you and being unhappy is equal to ungrateful), most people believe it, just like most people now believe they are not happy because they don't have the stuff Derek mentions.
Traveller wrote: "…but is feeling complacent really being happy?"I'm sure those who would build a utopia feel it is, and I'm not totally sure I disagree.
I think the closest thing we have to really compare with is treatment of mental illness (and the creators of Zamyatin's utopia would definitely consider that they're treating a mental illness). Many illnesses can be treated well with drugs. Many people function "normally" on the drugs, and take them as prescribed. But many (I have no idea of the comparative numbers) find themselves somehow incomplete and eventually stop taking their meds. People with bipolar disorder never want to be depressed, but they miss their manic phase. That's when they're most creative and feel most alive: do we have the right to take that from them? For our sake, or theirs? If we had a drug that eliminated the depressive phase, but didn't interfere with the manic, they'd probably all take it—and it would surely be illegal, because it couldn't be good for society.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "…but is feeling complacent really being happy?"I'm sure those who would build a utopia feel it is, and I'm not totally sure I disagree.
I think the closest thing we have to rea..."
Yes, that touches on my point, I suspect. I suppose it comes down to what your definition of "happiness" is. Is it a lack of unhappiness? I would call that contentment. To me, happiness includes more passionate things, like... well passion and creativity, and joy and self-realization, and growth and breaking new boundaries and finding and exploring new things. I reckon a more phlegmatic personality would be ok with going through the same routine every day, but you get more restless personalities, and.. yeah, that's where the problem lies, I suppose.
I have just reread Derek's comment that this is a slog or I would have asked if anyone else out there is having trouble. Thank you, Natalie. Yes, it is more than a dystopia and the mental breakdown is beautifully rendered, but part of me wants to say 'shoot the poor man and end his misery' (and mine?)
Hmmm, I should probably have saved this for the next thread. I'll wait with my next comment...
Sorry that I've been tardy with the threads and so on, I just realized I haven't commented on all of Allen's comments yet. But let me go and make a new thread...
I did make it through Record 10, so then I took a break since Trav wasn't up to part 2 :-) But I've been trying to finish Nabokov's Pale Fire, which I think I started in October, so I'm still slogging…
"Slog with me, I'll slog with you,And so we will slog together..."
(replace quotation marks with musical notes)
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I did make it through Record 10, so then I took a break since Trav wasn't up to part 2 :-) But I've been trying to finish Nabokov's Pale Fire, which I think I started in October, so I'm..."Yeah, I also found Pale Fire harder to get into than Lolita, and so I haven't read it myself yet.
Personally, I've been enjoying We, but I simply haven't had time for my GR things these last few weeks.
At least I'd started a new thread. https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Now the big thing is to populate it. :P
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "This is a slog. I took a detour into pure escapism.So far, I'm really not seeing the comparison to 1984. Saying that Orwell copied from Zamyatin is no more meaningful than that he cop..."
Okay, I've FINALLY had a bit of a chance to read for the first time in 3 weeks. I've quickly caught up to the end of this section this afternoon, and must say it flew for me. To me this is clearly a dystopia, and the narrator is clearly repressed. He gives many signs and clues that this is so, and the author obviously expects us to be horrified at the dead, mechanical world he is sketching for us.
I-330 is obviously a rebel, and she is undoing all his conditioning that turned him into a machine (these people are obviously continuously brainwashed, and it probably starts at birth already) - she is awakening the red-blooded man and the human inside him, and since it is strange and unknown to him, it scares him very much.
Allen wrote: "Curious what everyone thought of the line "The way to rid man of criminality is to rid him of freedom." Not just on the face of it, meaning prisons will deter crime, but how many other levels of meaning are in this? "That is just one example to me of how the author is clearly showing us a dystopia. It's a prison he is showing us, yes?
Sure it's a prison, but if everybody (well, almost everybody) is content, where's the dystopia?
But...how do we know 'almost everyone' is content? Surely no one is going to admit it and people were punished. Was there another crime besides being discontent?
Yes, Ruth is right. In a totalitarian state where you get 'eliminated' for showing dissidence, who is going to be brave enough to show that they're not deliriously happy with their lot in life? I mean, there in Record 9 we saw a guy being vaporized for writing something ugly about the Benefactor. So who dares to say or admit (even to themselves, like in the case of our narrator, who hastily pushes down thoughts of dissent) that they might not be 100% happy with the way things are?Also, I imagine that if you have to recite over and over how wonderful this or that is, you actually start to believe it eventually. I should know, I lost a partner to a cult. Just before we broke up, he, who had been an atheist before, told me that I had been sent from Satan to make him stray off the One True Path. He, among others (which contained in their ranks people with degrees and at least one with a PhD) believed that God would be sending a spaceship around to pick him and his fellow cultists up at some point in time. ...and we're talking an intelligent, well-educated man here, a person with a medical degree behind him and Dr. in front of his name.
And yet, D is not discontent until he meets I303, which is all the proof the Benefactor would need that the system works. It's true that we don't know that the majority are content, but it certainly appears that way.Let's get to definitions. Nevermind wikipedia: for once it doesn't have a clue :-)
OED: An imaginary place in which everything is as bad as possible.
Merriam-Webster: an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives; anti-utopia.
oxforddictionaries.com: An imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one. The opposite of utopia.
A dystopia isn't just some slightly twisted utopia, it's the absolute opposite of utopia. The closest of these definitions to We is the last, and there's no doubt We describes a totalitarian state, but it's definitely not "environmentally degraded" and we have no reason to believe that the people generally consider it unpleasant, let alone bad.
Conversely, the definitions of utopia consider it a "perfect" state. m-w.com's third definition actually says "an impractical scheme for social improvement", which I think very accurately describes this. "Utopia" isn't a state that humanity is ever going to achieve—if we get there, we won't be human—but I maintain We is as close as we're ever going to find (not that I'll be one of the sheep…).
And yes, if you keep repeating something you start to believe it. You don't even have to go that far: see Stockholm syndrome. But that's the point I've been making: if you believe you're happy, can anybody really say you aren't? I've had my own experience with cults, and seen a few friends disappear into them. Fortunately for me, I never came across quite the right one. Otoh, I'm not sure I have been happier. As I've said to my wife, I had just enough talent that I could probably have made a decent living in a Christian rock band.
Hmm, I suppose it depends on how you define "happiness". If you define it as contentment, then sure. But to me, I want more out of life than just contentment. So, maybe some of us are more easily satisfied than others as we can also see is the case in We.Re the Utopia/dystopia. Yes, historically speaking, you actually never had dystopias,(EDIT: No that's not correct, actually, Hell was a dystopia, and is also eloquently sketched as one in Dante's The Divine Comedy which is why its not a word you'll find in old dictionaries. (Ok, they may not have coined the word yet, but they did have the concept, earlier.)
If the state or humanity was criticized, it was usually by creating a fictional 'perfect' world which would show up how flawed our 'real' world is.
But for me, Zamyatin is not saying to us: " Hey, this One-State world is how things would actually be if everything was perfect!"
To me, he is saying:" See how easily humans can become lulled into what is a kind of spiritual, soul-less death, and see how completely a totalitarian state can rule humans even down to their thoughts and emotions--therefore, beware!"
Yes, Traveller, I think you have got it exactly right at the end of your latest comment. Well said!
I think this becomes clearer too, as we move on to the next section, where we experience the narrator's awakening.
..am I the only person around in thread 2? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...I've only posted comments re up to about record 14 at this point.
Yes, you are. I still haven't got back to it, and I don't even have the excuse that you haven't caught up any more...Traveller wrote: "Hmm, I suppose it depends on how you define "happiness". If you define it as contentment, then sure. But to me, I want more out of life than just contentment. So, maybe some of us are more easily satisfied than others as we can also see is the case in We."
Exactly. I really believe that most people are sheep, and perfectly happy to have their basic needs met. I think where Zamyatin's society fails is that it eliminates privacy, and that, too, is a basic need. And yet, if it didn't eliminate privacy, the rest of the society would collapse, too.
On the subject of coining the word, who actually coined "Utopia"? Was that More (wikipedia says so), or did it actually exist in the writings of the Greek philosophers (Plato?)? Maybe the Greeks were too smart to believe it possible.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Yes, you are. I still haven't got back to it, and I don't even have the excuse that you haven't caught up any more...Traveller wrote: "Hmm, I suppose it depends on how you define "happiness". I..."
LOL, no, a few people posted there by now. If you read on a bit, you'll see what we're talking about. I suspect you might have a crappy translation if you're not enjoying it.
I'd have to check up for you on the word actually existing with the Greeks, I can't remember offhand if they actually used the specific word.
PS, I'm on thread 3 already
Okay, yes, it would seem that More at the very least gave the genre its name. While I was looking for that, I found this:In addition, Elliott notes that many modern thinkers have been worried not that utopia cannot be realized, but that it can.
Acknowledging the turn to dystopian visions in modern literary depictions of imaginary societies, Elliott diagnoses a suspicion of utopian concepts themselves: "Utopia is a bad word today not because we despair of being able to achieve it but because we fear it. Utopia itself (in a special sense of the term) has become the enemy" (89).
In support of this thesis, Elliott adduces Aldous Huxley'S Brave New World (1932) and Yevgeny Zamyatin's We (1924), which he refers to as "negative utopias"-societies in which utopian dreams of the "old reformers" have been realized, only to turn out to be nightmares. Indeed, numerous works of modern literature have been suspicious not only of the possibility of utopia, but of its very desirability, equating conventional utopias with paralysis and stagnation. For example, in the recent Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End 0/ the World (1985)
Japanese writer Haruki Murakami describes a seemingly utopian society, though it is a society that exists only in the mind of his protagonist. It is a society without death or violence or inequality.
But it is also a world of unchanging sameness where "the absence of fighting or hatred or desire also means the opposites do not exist either. No joy, no communion, no love. Only where there is disillusionment and depression and sorrow does happiness arise;
without the despair of loss, there is no hope" (334). In the same way, a character in Alexander Zinoviev's The Yawning Heights (1976) argues that utopias are logical contradictions because the positive characteristics they entail cannot exist in reality without their negative opposites .
..and that I think nicely deals with the point that We seems to be getting at.
But also, I would be giving spoilers away if I spilt the beans here about the ways in which Zamyatin shows us later on that the Onestate is not such a cool place after all.
Traveller wrote: "In addition, Elliott notes that many modern thinkers have been worried not..."Yeah... I think I'm right there with those "modern thinkers". The Christian Heaven has to be a utopia by any definition. And by any description I've heard, I don't want to go there.
Wow, gone for a few days and the commenting explodes :) ... I'll have a better chance this afternoon, but just wanted to say, yeah, I think I have a crappy translation. Or maybe I was looking for more action when I said I slogged through it! Interesting thoughts on dystopia versus utopia. I found myself wanting to know more about how the walled city started out? I envisioned it as a kind of ark, and will reserve comment on that for later threads since it might be a littler spoilerish.As far as the Christian heaven utopia, seems to me that Zamyatin is painting a good picture of what it could be/unfortunately might be. I grew up in a very charismatic heaven-bound church community that took a literal translation of the Bible to heart. You can find cult-like tendencies in all belief systems, and I wouldn't trade my experience for anything, although my beliefs are quite a bit more complicated now. But they are fierce in striving for that utopia - to the extent that when questions arise about "won't you be sad in heaven if your husband/wife/kid's not there?" or "won't you miss tasty food?" etc... It's explained away with a simple: Oh, well, heaven's a happy place, so god won't let know/remember things that make you unhappy.
So, then, we come back to a similar indoctrination(?) of D, and Traveller's remarkable observation that the author's telling us to beware of being "lulled into what is a kind of spiritual, soulless death" as D and everyone else. Awesome! Hadn't thought of it quite that way. Guess old Z is tackling religion too huh?
And that's why I think We's world is more of a "utopians gone wild" than a dystopia :)
Now, on to the awakening ...
Allen wrote: "So, then, we come back to a similar indoctrination(?) of D, and Traveller's remarkable observation that the author's telling us to beware of being "lulled into what is a kind of spiritual, soulless death" as D and everyone else. Awesome! Hadn't thought of it quite that way. Guess old Z is tackling religion too huh?..."Hi Allen, it's great to have you back!
Well, I happen to actually be reading about We right now in one of the Dystopia books I had lying around,and this is what it says about the religious aspect; ... but wait, I think this section is too early, don't you think? Since allusions to religion are in fact made later on in the book.
I think I'll wait a bit and see if anyone comments on it in a later thread, or I'll go and comment in a later thread myself, presently.
Oh, wait, before I forget: I'm not sure how well this was translated over in the earlier translations, but its interesting to me how D-503 sees everybody's faces and facial expressions as geometrical patterns, in keeping with his occupation as a mathematician.
Traveller wrote: "Oh, wait, before I forget: I'm not sure how well this was translated over in the earlier translations, but its interesting to me how D-503 sees everybody's faces and facial expressions as geometri..."That's quite brilliant of Zamyatin, I think. And not just geometry but the numbers and symbols that are used in algebra and above.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Sure it's a prison, but if everybody (well, almost everybody) is content, where's the dystopia?"
We have no way at this point in the book to know whether everyone is or isn't content. We know that D - the narrator - is pretty content with the status quo, until the chain if events that starts with him meeting the sharp-teethed X-eyebrowed I-330 begins to unravel his little content worldview. At this point he can't even imagine how anyone could be unhappy in this society.
Miévillians
Books mentioned in this topic
The Divine Comedy: Inferno - Purgatorio - Paradiso (other topics)We (other topics)
1984 (other topics)
Pale Fire (other topics)
Pale Fire (other topics)
More...
The book is written in diary form, as Allen had mentioned elsewhere, but I don't think we should let that deter us, since it seems to be pretty skilfully done.
A bit of stolen plot description: One thousand years after the One State's conquest of the entire world, the spaceship Integral is being built in order to invade and conquer extraterrestrial planets. Meanwhile, the project's chief engineer, D-503, begins a journal that he intends to be carried upon the completed spaceship.
Like all other citizens of One State, D-503 lives in a glass apartment building and is carefully watched by the secret police, or Bureau of Guardians. D-503's lover, O-90, has been assigned by One State to visit him on certain nights. She is considered too short to bear children and is deeply grieved by her state in life.
I found the march at the start of the book pretty disconcerting. Everything seems so regimented!