"We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin (BR)

[Anzal]

This is the thread for a buddy read of We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

This is the book which "inspired" 1984 and a few other well known works so I would love to do a comparison as we go along if anyone is up for that too!

Here is a really interesting article if you are interested in that aspect:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo...

Let me know what kind of schedule is good for you and if you are in! Looking forward to reading this! :)

[Mindy]

Haven't read this since high school!!!! (In which we also read "1984."

Thanks for posting the article!

[HeyT]

I'm curious which translation everyone is using. I googled it and decided on the Ginsburg version because so many recommended it.

[Anzal]

HeyT wrote: "I'm curious which translation everyone is using. I googled it and decided on the Ginsburg version because so many recommended it."

My copy is published by Alma Classics and translated by Hugh Aplin.

I didn't consider things that might be different in translation! Would be cool to know if we spot any!

[Anzal]

Mindy wrote: "Haven't read this since high school!!!! (In which we also read "1984."

Thanks for posting the article!"

Your high school sounds awesome! I wish we studied those haha

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Oh I didn't realize there were different translations! I'll have to check again what was available to me. Thanks for the article, I'm looking forward to that!

Usually we kind of read at our own pace but folks come back and use spoiler tags with the chapter/page/percent done (whatever makes most sense for the book) so that folks can read comments whenever they get to that part of the book

[E.D.]

I've got a kindle copy. Translator is given as Nadja Boltyanskaya. Not started it yet, probably begin on friday.

[HeyT]

It’s interesting to me that while this was first translated to English in the 20s the version I’m reading was based on the first publication in Russian which was in 1952.

[HeyT]

So I've read through entry 8 and I (view spoiler)[ am wondering how the square root of negative one can also be written as i and the play on I as standing for individuality works out in Russian. I mean it felt very much that everytime he used square root of negative one it was also calling out his growing sense of individuality rather than being one with the collective. (hide spoiler)]

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

omg such a good comment HeyT!

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Through entry 29

(view spoiler)[ I can't get over how modern this book reads. There are a few uncomfortable descriptions, but the diversity, the sex positivity, the gender inclusion, the commentary on "freedom of expression" vs. "freedom from harm"--even the election that would seem to be a blatant mockery of Putin except that it was written a hundred years ago! Just crazy how well this stands up. (hide spoiler)]

[E.D.]

Also through to entry 8 (view spoiler)[HeyT writes - I am wondering how the square root of negative one can also be written as i and the play on I as standing for individuality works out in Russian. I mean it felt very much that everytime he used square root of negative one it was also calling out his growing sense of individuality rather than being one with the collective.

I agree with you but to start with I also felt that he had was really upset by the existence of 'imaginary numbers' (like the square root of negative one) as they were a glaring exception to his rationality, so the more he consciously thinks about them, the less secure his reality becomes.

I also agree with Alison about i and I in Russian, great question it would never have crossed my mind. (hide spoiler)]

[Ed]

While "We" did inspire 1984, it was an earlier book, Darkness at Noon, which inspired Orwell to write fiction at all. Earlier he had tried to write his political ideas as non-fiction. "Darkness at Noon", a fictional version of Stalin's show trials, convinced him to try fiction instead, beginning with Animal Farm.

[a.g.e. montagner]

I've found translations by Clarence Brown and by Natasha Randall. I wonder how many there are.

I'd like to join, but not in a hurry...

[E.D.]

Finished, can't believe I'd never heard of this book before, thanks Anzal for drawing attention to it.

I must say I found it interesting. It made me recall reading 'Crime & Punishment' decades ago as a teenager and finding that book very introspective and morose (although much longer & more difficult to read than WE). I will reserve further comment/discussion until I see other people's views & observations.

[E.D.]

a.g.e. montagner wrote: I've found translations by Clarence Brown and by Natasha Randall.

Anzal wrote: My copy is published by Alma Classics and translated by Hugh Aplin

Strange but the Kindle edition I purchased on the 11th September (translator Nadja Boltyanskaya) seems to have disappeared from Amazon altogether in the last 13 days. Even if I try to access it through my 'orders' list I just get the message 'Not a functioning page on our site'.

Maybe it never existed & I'm just imagining the whole thing (no wonder it felt short).

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

haha!

I'm also waiting to share thoughts until folks have a bit of time but in a word I loved it.

[HeyT]

I just finished this today and I have to say it does seem extremely relevant even today. I can see why the ladies of Gaslit Nation have it on their recommended reading list.

[Oleksandr]

Finished the book (the original Russian version). Here is my review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Alex]

I'm way late to the party, but here's my review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Oleksandr]

HeyT wrote: "I as standing for individuality"

Not directly, in Russian individuality starts with и, moreover, in imperial grammar there was a letter i, but it was not used in that word. However, the book used both Cyrillic and Latin alphabet, supposedly to show that it is a world state. Original Russian text uses I and S, but also Д, Ю...

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

That's so cool. I didn't realize he'd also blended languages!

[E.D.]

Given the books obvious criticism of collectivisation I'm surprised that Zamyatin was allowed to go into voluntary exile rather than a show trial followed by the gulag. Perhaps his previous links to the revolution saved him although it didn't save others. He was obviously one of life's perpetual rebels who would make any government under any system feel uncomfortable (and have the luxury of getting away with it).

For me, the main emphasis of the book is on the narrator's (I would not describe him as a hero) ignoring/refusal to see what was happening in his society if it conflicted to his straight forward belief system. A sin I feel we can all be guilty of. He only changed when the dominant system ran contrary to his own romantic wishes.

Although I would describe this book more as a critique of belief systems rather than science fiction I did feel a few minor points aged it. One was the prevalence of cigarette smoking in the future, although with the lesser medical knowledge in the early 20th century I can let that pass. My greater disappointment was the fact that everything was still done on paper with ink pens. Surely something more advanced could have been suggested?

Overall I liked that the story ended unhappily but with hope, the poison of the individual was never truly extinguished. I also enjoyed the fact that the long standing link between philosophy and mathematics was pushed to the ultimate, perfection in society was a mathematical theory.

[Oleksandr]

E.D. wrote: "Given the books obvious criticism of collectivisation I'm surprised that Zamyatin was allowed to go into voluntary exile rather than a show trial followed by the gulag. "

It was a question of timing. The story of the USSR had quite different periods. This book was written in 1920. Lenin dies in 1924. Stalin consolidates his power roughly till 1927, in 1928 there is the start of collectivisation. Show trials start in the early 30s.

Now, Zamyatin was arrested and prepared to be deported in 1922. Editions of We were published abroad in 1925-7, this affected his career in the USSR - all his publications were cancelled, he was expelled from the Writers'; Union, so he got to France in 1931, a great support in that he got from "soviet classic author #1" Maxim Gorky. If not for his connections, I doubt he be able to go away

[Anzal]

Hey everyone! Really nice to see what everyone thought about the book!

Finished the book and spoilers to follow:

(view spoiler)[

Took me a while to read and process it, I did find it a bit difficult to read but I can forgive that because it is both a product of age and translation.

I think it can be really hard for me to read a foundational text like this one. It obviously inspired works that now form our very detailed understanding and the way we converse about the dystopian fiction genre. But also more generally we have a better vocabulary when it comes to speaking about belief systems - so I sometimes found him circling around ideas that we have a much better understanding of - but that is understandable as this is a product of its time.

I think the best part was the philosophy of mathematics and how they were used to question our belief systems. I had so many moments when I had to just put the book down to think about each one of those.

As @HeyT said, the relevance of √(−1) is so interesting on many levels! It is (explicity) an objectification of his "shaggy" self - a way D-503 copes with the the imaginary/complex part of him. But I think there's something really cool about the nature of how we deal with ideas that are not tangible, like an imaginary number. Even though the √(−1) has no tangible value - it is nonetheless used in very practical applications. Because Zamyatin was an engineer I want to think his interest also came from the use of imaginary numbers in alternating current technology (the discovery of which was important during his lifetime!) - which changes from positive to negative and combining these currents can be quite difficult. I think the way the nature of current and complex numbers serve as an objectification of human nature or what is referred to in the book as the "soul."

The act of objectifying human nature in that way seems like a commentary on how both the narrator himself and the state is stripping them of their autonomy. It reminds me about reification although I'm not well read on how Marx developed his ideas about reification and how much Zamyatin was affected by them. If anyone knows please let me know! And please talk to me about all the other nerdy things you noticed.

I looooved the form and structure of the book - the epistolary format works so well and I really like the passages about (I'm paraphrasing) how to write for those living in the past. I think I would have enjoyed this aspect more if I was alive at the time of writing - I can see why Orwell was so excited by it.

I also like I-330's character - I think? She's definitely a lot more interesting than Julia in 1984. My memory is a bit rusty but I remember thinking why was Julia in 1984 anyway?

I will say however that how the poet friend is written is very infuriating. Every time he shows up the narrator makes a comment about his "negroid lips" and how they are "splashing." Every. Time. Even when he is talking the narrator periodically notices the "splashing." And later in the story when he notes that his movements resemble that of a "gorrilla" - I had to put the book down, almost didn't want to finish it all the way to the end.

I think my favourite quote was:

"...you'll swallow all the bitter stuff I'll be giving you without crying out, only when it's thoroughly coated in the thick syrup of adventure"

(hide spoiler)]

[Anna]

How to use spoiler tags:

(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]

Click on "(some html is ok)" in the top right corner of the text box (on desktop version) as you're typing your post to copy/paste the code. Or go to this help page if you're not on the desktop version.

edit:

Also see this other (closed) buddy read thread "someone" accidentally started:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...