"We" Discuss Everything *Spoilers*

[SFFBC, Ancillary Mod]

A few questions to get us started:


1. What did you think of the world?
2. What did you think of the characters?
3. What worked or didn't for you?
4. Overall thoughts?

[Kaia]

I'm surprised to be the first to post here, since it seemed like there was a lot of activity in the no-spoilers thread.

I finally finished this last night. For a short book, it took me a long time to read. I found I could only manage maybe 10-20 pages in a day, though I pushed myself through the final 40 or so pages in one go.

Things that worked for me: I appreciated the language, which was often beautiful, with very interesting imagery. I loved the way that D-503 described things he saw, especially during his more uninhibited moments - it was almost like poetry. I liked the journal format. I found the world to be chilling, especially given the current climate where I live. It felt very believable, and I can see why the book was so influential on other sci-fi writers.

Things that didn't work for me: it was a bit tedious to read, overall. I found the I-303 "seductress" stereotype especially annoying. There were also a few other unpleasant character stereotypes and tropes. I realize that these are probably due to the times when the story was written, but they made the story less enjoyable for me. The end, while it fit with the story, was also depressing - more than I was expecting (and I wasn't expecting it to be happy). Though maybe O-90 gets a happy ending with her baby in the world beyond the Wall?

Overall, I'm glad to have read it because it gave me a lot to think about (and for the bits and pieces of language), but I didn't really find it to be an enjoyable reading experience.

[Becky]

Kaia wrote: "I found the I-303 "seductress" stereotype especially annoying. There were also a few other unpleasant character stereotypes and tropes. I realize that these are probably due to the times when the story was written, but they made the story less enjoyable for me."

Agreed. Though I kept questioning whether this was because it was actually problematic for me for THIS story, or because it is such a well-known archetype/trope now.

I kind of landed on a bit of both.
In my review, I mention that I-330 didn't really give D-503 any reason other than his desire for her to join her, ideologically. He wanted her, didn't want anyone else to have/be with her, but he was a "company man" through and through, and she didn't really have anything other than her sexuality to entice him to the side of freedom and choice. And she didn't really try. Though I suppose that was because she was just using him - she didn't truly care about whether he converted, just whether he would follow her instructions.

I think that there is something to be said about sexual relationships, and in particular, men's tendency to want to possess the object of their desire, that run counter to authoritarian thought control. D-503 was perfectly content with his weekly assigned sex hour... until he knew desire for I-330, and that created a chink in his "programming". I think that is why this stereotype endures in this type of book.

[Kaia]

Becky wrote: "Kaia wrote: "I found the I-303 "seductress" stereotype especially annoying. There were also a few other unpleasant character stereotypes and tropes. I realize that these are probably due to the tim..."

Thanks for this perspective, Becky! I can see that in this story, the trope makes a sort of sense in terms of a method for jolting D-503 out of his comfortable conforming existence.

I actually wondered off and on throughout the book if the author was playing with the idea of Adam and Eve. I-330 is like Eve tempting D-503 out of the "Eden" of the walled city where everything is "perfect." The wild, natural land outside the Wall, perhaps imperfect and dangerous, is like having eaten the fruit and gaining knowledge, emotion, sorrow, suffering, and the potential for joy. But, I may be reading too much into things, and I'm not well-versed enough in the author's culture and the times he lived in to know if this is a plausible interpretation.

[Becky]

Kaia wrote: "I actually wondered off and on throughout the book if the author was playing with the idea of Adam and Eve. I-330 is like Eve tempting D-503 out of the "Eden" of the walled city where everything is "perfect." The wild, natural land outside the Wall, perhaps imperfect and dangerous, is like having eaten the fruit and gaining knowledge, emotion, sorrow, suffering, and the potential for joy. But, I may be reading too much into things, and I'm not well-versed enough in the author's culture and the times he lived in to know if this is a plausible interpretation."

This works though, and it could very well be what the author was going for, but like you, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the author or his beliefs or culture or what might have inspired him to say whether this was allegorical in that way. Then again, original sin is such an ingrained element of storytelling that it could be unintentional and still be interpreted.

It does work though, so I don't think you're far off base at all.

[Randi]

I really enjoyed the journal format that this one took on, versus how 1984 is written. It made it feel more real and personal for me.

This took me some effort to read. I had to go back and re-read records, and for some I even googled what happened cause I just couldn't figure out what was going on. Regardless of this, I still very much enjoyed it (I love dystopian novels).

After reading some reviews, this was inspired by a short story by Jerome K Jerome, The New Utopia. I'm going to try and find that and read it next! Brave New World and 1984 are some of my favorite novels of all time. This one, since it was a little more difficult, didn't land in a "favorites" category, but nonetheless I found it interesting and want to see where all 3 of these great novels came from!

[Becky]

Randi wrote: "I really enjoyed the journal format that this one took on, versus how 1984 is written. It made it feel more real and personal for me. "

I am torn a bit about the format. I think it works up to a point, but then, especially at the end, I don't see how he would have continued it the way he did.

[April]

Im still working on it. I agree for a short book, it is hard to read a whole lot at once. I think that is because it is a translation, and also, some ignorance on my part.

Yes there are actually several pieces in here that i did not understand, but i am getting the gist.

Mixed on how i feel about it so far. I think it is because ive been spoiled with reading 1984 first. Oh i havent yet read Brave New World-i understand that was also influenced by this. Strangely, i feel like We has more in common with Anthem... or perhaps it is just the naming system? And actually, i may not have fully read Anthem and that was years ago. But i am curious about it and if anyone else saw any connections?

Yeah i am like 60% but seems like i should be 75 or 80-why is this taking so long! 😅

[Becky]

April wrote: "Mixed on how i feel about it so far. I think it is because ive been spoiled with reading 1984 first. Oh i havent yet read Brave New World-i understand that was also influenced by this. Strangely, i feel like We has more in common with Anthem... or perhaps it is just the naming system? And actually, i may not have fully read Anthem and that was years ago. But i am curious about it and if anyone else saw any connections?"

I had completely forgotten about Anthem until this comment. But I had read it, and just re-read my review from 2015 (funnily enough, predicting the fact that I would forget it: "It's just one of those books that will eventually just fade to nothingness or blur together with every other dystopia I've read or will read."), and yeah, there's a LOT of similarity between them.

I felt like Anthem had more of an agenda it was pushing than We did though, and I didn't agree with it. It seems like the approach to them feels very different, while the story components and themes of the individual vs the group are very similar.

[April]

I just finished it, and i dont know, man! I dont think i like it.

Becky,
Oh you didnt agree with Anthem agenda? I thought i did. Basically it was anti communism, right? Again, i need to reread it or read it to know exactly.

For We, it seems like Zamyatin was trying to have an agenda, but it was so confusing and depressing that i dont really like whatever came out of that. I mean, trust the lesser of two eveils? Or like trust no one cuz they will stab your back, but if you dont do anything, you are still screwed? (Get your soul wiped) Maybe i lost something in the translation or am missing conrext of the time, but personally, it seems like the Benefactor is playing God and people THINK they are happy, because the Benefactor destroyed what God gave them (well if you believe in God), and pretty much was the devil making a false heaven with false angels after the operation.

Ok i will reread the comments here, becauae i may have skipped some to avoid spoilers.

[April]

Becky wrote: "Kaia wrote: "I found the I-303 "seductress" stereotype especially annoying. There were also a few other unpleasant character stereotypes and tropes. I realize that these are probably due to the tim..."

Yeah. So then is the mesaage a warning to men (or women) to think with their head and not their other parts? Lol But then there is that interchangeability of sex and love for many, this D guy in particular. He kept thinking it was his heart, it was love. It was more obsession.

But i really just dont know the lesaon or point that was being made? Doesnt seem like using his head or his heart/"heart" would make any difference in this story. Both outcomes suck!

[April]

Kaia wrote: "Becky wrote: "Kaia wrote: "I found the I-303 "seductress" stereotype especially annoying. There were also a few other unpleasant character stereotypes and tropes. I realize that these are probably ..."

There definitely was a correlation to Adam and Eve. Pretty sure it was even mentioned in the book. Oh, maybe that was the lesson-that people needed to be Christain? Again, i dont really like this though. I mean then it is essentially saying to be Christain you have to lose your soul? Lol i dont know! So confusing!

[April]

Becky wrote: "Randi wrote: "I really enjoyed the journal format that this one took on, versus how 1984 is written. It made it feel more real and personal for me. "

I am torn a bit about the format. I think it w..."

Ah yeah, i understand your point here now, but i think it works. He sees that previous writing as some other person, that he cant believe he wrote it. To be honest though, it seems like the Benefactor would have just destroyed the journal, but i guess there was no harm in D reading it, because it meant nothing nor hurt anything. Just so bizarre how it ended tho! And depressing! Yeah like i had hoped that the betrayal stuff was just some misunderstanding. Or somehow D would have taken control of Integral. This is just sad. Lol But yeah, i mean, i suppose a lot to ponder. Kind of a waste though for me at this point. 🤷‍♀️

[Becky]

April wrote: "I just finished it, and i dont know, man! I dont think i like it.

Becky,
Oh you didnt agree with Anthem agenda? I thought i did. Basically it was anti communism, right? Again, i need to reread it..."

Anthem reply: (view spoiler)[ Anthem is beyond anti-communist. It demonizes the idea of the collective or the common good. It puts the individual on a pedestal, arguing that putting the group first totally crushes the soul. Essentially, it treats self-sacrifice like a toxic evil, while claiming self-interest as of the utmost importance. At the end of the story, the main character says that he's never going to use the word "we" again. Which just strikes me as infeasible and unnecessary, but... cool, I guess.

It was arguing against a high-control totalitarian state, which I definitely DO agree with... but it took it to an opposite extreme that I do NOT agree with. I don't think that the individual should be lost to the state, but I also don't think that extreme individualism is the answer to it.

I think about things like herd immunity to illnesses, which rely on the collective action of many to vaccinate to protect the vulnerable individuals who can't. I think about things like insurance (the concept) to spread losses over the group who pay in. I think about things like firefighters and EMTs and social safety net programs and road systems that rely on taxes and infrastructure for funding, and wouldn't be available or accessible without them. I could go on and on.

So... yeah, I disagree with Rand's conclusion in Anthem, strongly. I think that kind of thinking leads to a lot of the issues we have in society now. We have people that see themselves as "sovereign citizens" who are above the law, billionaires who manipulate and exploit others for massive profits, strip the planet of resources, pollute the planet, destroy habitats, make huge areas toxic and uninhabitable... But... they don't have to live there... so who cares? They got rich doing it. If everyone else just stopped caring about unimportant things like... humanity... they could get rich too!

Ugh, I might go downgrade my rating from 2 stars to 1 after this post. LOL

Regarding We, I don't feel like the agenda was nearly as explicit. Yes, it was criticizing a high-control totalitarian state like Anthem was, but in the end, I felt like We leaves it up to the reader to choose their own path. They can choose to be brave and sacrifice it all, likely for naught, or they can choose to fall in line to the bigger power. D-503 does the latter... But I think that had he had more time, or more incentive to understand the benefits and joy of freedom, he might have made a different choice. He just didn't really know, and the risk was too big for him to take the leap into the unknown. (hide spoiler)]

[Mai]

Honestly? I hate the language and have no sympathy for the characters.

[Cynda Reads]

Similar to what Kaia said, I found this novel to be a bit of a challenge to read the first time I read it in 2024. This time in 2026, I am recognizing some of the humor, particularly about how sometimes D-503 is spot on about our limitations and about his.love for parameters, especially the parameters of math.

So not so difficult to read this like, yet I will be breaking up the read into at least and maybe four days.

[Cynda Reads]

About God/gods in a Surveillance State

(view spoiler)[And then soon after the monologue about math comes the description of god-like jobs and god-like people. I did not know before now where God/gods went to in a surveillance state--Now I do. Not a comforting thought. (hide spoiler)]

[Cynda Reads]

Chapter 30
Ideas to Consider.

About the Infinite
(view spoiler)[Good Point: Just as there are an infinite number of numbers, there are an infinite number of revolutions! (hide spoiler)]

About Children Philosophers
(view spoiler)[

Children are the only brave philosophers. And brave philosophers are, inevitably, children. And that's just it--we must always think like children with their what-happens-nexts.

(hide spoiler)]

[Paula W]

I’m glad to finally be knocking this off my TBR, but I am still not sure exactly how I feel about it. It can be difficult to judge a book that is a precursor and influencer of some of the greatest “big idea” books ever written. I can name a lot of books with industrialized dystopian societies that came about as the result of a big war, and those other books are probably better written because they used this as a foundation.

I’ll say this: Transparent houses were obviously the beta version of our surveillance technology of today, which no one could completely imagine in those days (although some have come close). But I live in the southern US, and there would need to be some good fire departments and good air conditioning. Our sunlight here is brutal. If we couldn’t close the curtains over all that glass, so many fires would be inadvertently started and people would be passing out from heat exhaustion.

Sorry to make a bleak world even bleaker, I say through inappropriate giggles. I’m wavering between 3 and 4 stars right now, I think.

[DivaDiane]

Thats a good point about the transparent walls, but that’s the sort of thing I that I don’t get worked up about. It’s a different region of the earth and I just figure it’s like any place closer to the polar regions where warm sunlight is welcome most of the year. Less and less though, as here in the UK temps are going well above 30C (85F) and even 36/37c (96f) on Wednesday! They would probably get special dispensation to close the curtains on days like these. Anyway, I get it, that those kinds of things often make us stumble when reading books written and set in different places.

[Lisa]

I’ve been in this group for a while, but this is the first month I’ve actually managed to read the book in the right month. So hi everyone :)

I feel pretty similar to what others have said. I’m not sure how much I actually liked We. There were elements I enjoyed, like the dystopian theme of questioning whether happiness = freedom, or whether it’s the opposite, and the way the world is revealed through a mathematical lens and strict, structured hours. But I also found it a bit of a struggle to read, and for such a short book with nice short chapters, it took me longer than expected.

I’m also not entirely sure I understand what the book was ultimately trying to say. But, as others have mentioned, it’s hard to judge it reading it for the first time now rather than in the context of when it was published.

[Cynda Reads]

This is my second read, and there will be a third sometime in the future. I will want to incorporate the windows and curtains into the review as some kind of satire about sexuality. If the sex is basic for sake of relief, why do curtains need to be pulled? Why not just a garden hedge or woodsy area? Or just a stall in a corridor? The curtains drawn seem a satirical bit much for the basic act, making private and sacred, something that is not.

I understood the women a bit more in this read, so my review is about the place of women in the story.
Review:https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Kaia]

Cynda Reads wrote: "This is my second read, and there will be a third sometime in the future. I will want to incorporate the windows and curtains into the review as some kind of satire about sexuality. If the sex is b..."

Cynda, I wonder if part of it was just the pleasure in having the privacy of drawn curtains, like they were getting away with breaking a rule. It seemed like this was one of the only times the characters could have any privacy. And if I'm remembering correctly, they could keep the curtains drawn for the full hour, even though they might not use all of that time for sex.

[Cynda Reads]

Ahhh Privacy is important. And of course they could not go into a woodsy area as that would be past the wall-border.

[Igor]

Excellent discussion by all members! I enjoyed reading it immensely!

I will offer here my short review of the book, written two years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This pioneer dystopian book caught my attention only recently after watching TV Show “Brave New World” and revisiting Huxley’s book right after.

Being an older work, released in 1924, Zamyatin’s “We” deserves a very special attention. Of course, Orwell’s 1984 was also inspired by the Soviet book. So, it certainly makes it an essential read for every sfi afficionado.

The ideas are rich, brave, out of the ordinary and full of hidden dreed. The very story line is a bit clunky though, but that is the result of a peculiar writing style Zamyatin utilized. Biblical tones are also in abundance, as many of reviewers and commentators mentioned. The whole Adam and Eve template is very nuanced, yet apparent.

But, is it an easy, smooth read?

It wasn’t for me at all! And I couldn’t figure out why. First, I thought it was a translation issue, but very quickly I realized that translation was impeccable. Also, my copy came with a lengthy introduction containing explanations about the exact names/numbers of characters used in the book.
So, it must be something stylistic that bothered me, narration itself. So I settled for that. Just a little more than 200 pages and took me more than a week, which felt rather strange.
And I really wanted to know how the story of our reluctant hero ends, what were the repercussions of our protagonist’s choices.
I managed to cross the finish line and was satisfied with the ending which shines with some glimmers of hope (unlike the USSR at the time of publication).

Humanity’s triumph and hunger for freedom cannot be subdued and eliminated by reducing everyone to “human tractors”. Benefactor may entrap some but cannot keep it going forever. It took almost 70 years for the USSR to collapse - “We”‘s One World can only have a shorter life span having all the factors in mind.

Do read this book!
If you don’t enjoy it that much as a work of art you are certain to appreciate its importance, influence and creativity.

[Cynda Reads]

Igor, your ideas are good, and your last paragraph is very true!

[Scott]

This was a hard read for me. It’s like I understood the concept of a chapter in spite of not understanding the paragraphs. Does that make sense to any one. Somehow I got the Adam and Eve reference. The imaging of future technology was interesting. What the author predicted correctly. What he got wrong. What he just couldn’t have predicted. I did like that different characters had different outcomes in the end with both sad and happy endings. Escape, victory, life. Apocalypse, defeat, death. I didn’t really enjoy reading it, yet I am glad I did. I almost feel proud of myself for sticking with it.

[Cynda Reads]

That's why I had to read a second time and hope to read a third.

[Allison]

I freaking love this book. It's challenging but crazily inventive even 100 years later. Its influence is everywhere.

[DivaDiane]

I seem to be the odd one out, that didn’t find this a difficult read. I listened to Jonathan Keeble read the Zilborg translation. I found it very entertaining and easy to follow. I will probably read it again in print eventually, because I’m certain I missed something things.

[Becky]

DivaDiane wrote: "I seem to be the odd one out, that didn’t find this a difficult read. I listened to Jonathan Keeble read the Zilborg translation. I found it very entertaining and easy to follow. I will probably re..."

I didn't really either, Diane. I listened to the Bela Shayevich translation on audiobook read by Toby Jones.

[Igor]

I do feel much better knowing it's been a genuine struggle for most to read the book at the usual pace.

I did like it, as I explained above, but I am not sure I will attempt a reared at any point.
Luckily, the ideas do stick 😉

[Banshee]

I definitely get the style struggle. I often had a hard time distinguishing between descriptions of actual events and elaborate metaphors that D-503 was weaving. I tried an older English translation first and noped out, and ended up reading the Polish translation instead. It was only marginally better. I know that the language that the author used was most likely intentional, but I just didn't click with it.

I'm not sure, if the author had some special agenda regarding either religion or a particular political system. Many people in those times, both free-thinkers from Russia itself and from the countries under its oppressive occupation were trying to smuggle out writing with the commentary about the cruelty of a totalitarian system that strips people of freedom.

Regarding the female characters, I was actually positively surprised. I mean I wasn't comfortable with the ways the MC viewed them (though he wasn't exactly a positive character so I don't think we were supposed to take his words at face value) or some tropes, but both I-330 and O-90 had strong personalities, if you take into consideration that the book was written by a man in 1920s. I-330 was an important rebellion figure who tried to fight the state with whatever methods she deemed necessary; and O-90 managed to push for and achieve her goal of becoming a mother, where the whole system was against her wishes and needs.

[Paul]

I just finished this earlier today. I echo what other people said about the difficulty of knowing what is going on at times. I think to some extent the author was deliberately trying to be abstract to mirror D-503's descent into chaos - his takeover by the "irrational" mind. I liked his exploration of maths as trying to appear watertight, but hinting at infinity and the unknown at the same time.

I couldn't get over how much Orwell ripped off for 1984 (the love affair with the rebellious woman, the Big Brother figure, the rituals, the reconditioning etc.). Several elements of Brave New World are also there, though according to Wikipedia, Huxley denied an influence. I find that hard to believe! I suppose one thing that wasn't so strong as 1984 was the surveillance - I didn't quite understand how I-330 and D-503 remained at liberty for so long (especially after he had tried to crash the Integral). But I suppose S- helped them out a lot, somehow not arousing anyone's suspicion himself ...

In my copy, the country was called the United State, which was weird as I kept reading it at the US. It's translated as the One State elsewhere apparently.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

My kindle copy has it translated as United State, while the audible book reader says One State. Like you Paul, United State kept me thinking USA.

[Cynda Reads]

In my audiobook, the country was call "United State." It did also cause me to think of The United States.

[Cynda Reads]

The writer Zamyatin, Huxley, and Orwell are all addressing timely topics.

* Totalitarian regimes/governments were new social issues these writers were dealing with. Not internet timely. Newspaper, magazine, nightly 15-minute news segment type of time.
* Birth control was an issue as well as figuring out the genetic code inside of DNA.
* Women had shown how powerful they were as replacement workers and spies. Some women provided sexual services to garner government/military secrets.

These three novels contain aspects of related concerns or possibilities.

[Lars]

I acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the novel and the subsequent works it influenced and I’m glad the group read finally gave me a push to finally reading it.

But the reality is that it was hard going and at times felt more like a chore than a pleasure, the narrative was very hard to follow and in long sections it felt totally incomprehensible and even for a relatively short story it dragged on in places.

I listened to it in an audiobook version “The Russian classics collection” and I have the distinct feeling that it might be one of the poorer translations that other readers has commented on, unfortunately there was no information about it on audible.

[Cynda Reads]

Welcome to the club, Lars!

[April]

catching up
oh, interesting that some had United State as the name. Mine was One State, so I wasn't confused...or now I'm wondering if they were interchanging them? Seems I saw that somewhere, but maybe it was SparkNotes or another person's review.

Somewhere else, another was talking about the appreciation of the female representation. (oh it was the storygraph site, so they might be here). Well, I was saying that, unfortunately, it wasn't exactly the best representation though. Ok, sure, most of the female characters were fine (and as someone said here, it was more D's perspective of them,) but I ended up being a real awful lady, using D and then losing him after getting what she wanted. So, that was bad. And also, was it really as shocking for females to have that positive representation in those days? Because that was when women got the vote (in US), for one thing, and so like things were looking up. I feel like things took a negative turn for a few decades after before getting more positive again. I could be wrong, I didn't live then, but it seems they were more respected in the 20s. No? Also, I mean, certain countries respected women more than they did in US, so maybe that was the case in Russia? Unfortunately, i'm not too versed in that history.
At any rate, I wasn't AS surprised they were part of the story.

despite saying these things, that's just my perspective and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I am certainly not arguing with anyone here. Some very good reviews and observations here. And I think this might also be my first time joining a discussion here, in real time (during the month of the read,) though I've been in a few other similar ones.

Oh, and thanks for choosing this book! Frankly, I had never heard of it before this! And I still have to read Brave New World. Curious to see the connections there (even if it "wasn't influenced," which, honestly, I think it is very possible Huxley never read this... but i definitely can see why it would seem that way.)

Oh, and Anthem. I...ok, I still can't remember if I READ it all. I can see how it is a commentary on the negativity of communism, but there is an initial setup of communism, with the numbering systems... that's all I meant, and why this reminded me of that. p.s. I keep forgetting that is a different author and not Orwell. Ohhh, he had Animal Farm, which is different but somewhat similar. The point is, the titles both start with A, and I keep confusing that. Also, I read or studied them all in school in the same year, so again, all jumbling together. ha!

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I feel I need to flesh out what living under Communism or a country with severe restrictions, like the USA, too, was like because I feel some readers of WE are not getting the point of the book. I probably am wrong, but I am going for it anyway. Yes, the writing is difficult, but the point was showing the restricted North-Korean type of style of life which was common to Communist countries like the Soviet Union.

I highly recommend: Child 44 and The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, Books III-IV.

As far as the USA:

Point One: If one is a woman of baby-boomer age, we are familiar with living under certain restrictions until most of us were nearly 30 years old, when laws were changed to some small degree. Because of our sex, Women were forbidden from a lot of things in the USA. When I read 1984, it brought back a lot of my childhood and youth as a young woman. I can see the obviousness of some above comments a deep unfamiliarity with what it is like to live under the thumb of either the US government or of men, as US baby-boomer women are very familiar with if they tried to get credit without a man sponsor or have a job in a profession, or tried to work in a job mostly men did. Women were intentionally educated in the strongest possible terms with the Bible’s commandments and expectations to live with what God wanted for women to live (depending on what church), especially Ruth.

If you were lucky as a woman, you had a man in the family who supported you in getting a college education or in having control of your money. A progressive man could tell everyone else his women had his permission to have their own spending money, or he was allowing his womenfolk to be educated, or to live alone in an apartment, and he’d co-sign whatever paperwork, including bank accounts. But still, all those who held the legal documents (males) would call the co-signer, not the woman, if there was an issue. For those of us, which was most of us, we as part of a patriarchial US household had to obey daddy or brother or husband or male bosses or the male police or male politicians who had complete control of women’s lives in the USA. This wasn’t or isn’t a problem if you enjoy the life of being a woman who only has the choice of being a mother and a wife, with no ability to control money legally or by social custom (women could not get a credit card, or get a bank loan without a man’s sponsorship until the late 1970’s). Women could not work at the same job as a man and get the same pay (25 cents for every $1 paid a man for the same work). Most women could only be a nurse, a teacher or a clerical worker if she wanted to go ‘professional’. She was expected to quit when she got pregnant. All women were EXPECTED to marry and get pregnant. If you didn’t, you were somewhat ostracised. In junior high, or middle school as called today, girls were forced to take Home Economics (cooking, sewing) for three years. They were not able to sign up for Shop, which is what the boys had to take. I had to get special permission from the school to take a foreign language (three years) and three years of science and math classes. My school counselor dismissed me when I told him I wanted to go to college, and thus needed the extra year of science and math and a foreign language. He said, “Don’t worry about it. You will get married and have children. You won’t need college.” I went to the Home Ec teachers, all women, and asked them to help me with the male school counselor. They did.

Most colleges did not accept women. I repeat, most colleges did not accept women. If they did, it was to special off-mainstream schools, or daddy signed off on it giving his permission and promise of a huge financial gift. If a woman got into college, they were discouraged from attending any classes like science, math, engineering, computers that were almost 100% male students. It wasn’t until the late 1970’s when the US Congress passed laws forcing colleges to admit women that some began reluctantly, dragging their feet. Still, the reluctance of admitting women existed until up to the otts’ years. Not exaggerating.

Women in the United States still do not have Constitutional Rights. Starting in 1971, and ending in 1982, a lot of people tried to give women the same Constitutional protections what was first given White men with property (original Constitution), and then White men propertied or not (amendments), and then people of color (specifically Black male slaves (amendment)). It was called the Equal Rights Amendment.

“The purpose of the ERA is to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. In the early history of the Equal Rights Amendment, middle-class women were largely supportive, while those speaking for the working class were often opposed, arguing that women should hold more domestic responsibility than men and that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and employment hours. Proponents asserted it would end legal distinctions between men and women in matters including divorce, property, and employment. Opponents have argued that it would remove protections from women and open women to be drafted into the military.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_R...

It was NOT passed.

So. Depending on who is in power in the US, if they are believers in women having their place at home only, with no rights, we women in the US could be forced to quit jobs, forced to marry, forced to forego education, and be forced to have children or raise children, and obey the men in the family. I never thought until the recent Presidential election I would ever have to worry about being forced into having only the “choice” to live as a housewife again. We worked in the jobs permitted women of those times (1950’s up to the 1980’s), as my mother and I was trained to be by USA public education and USA social customs and actual laws on the books restricting women from all sorts of jobs, education, sports.

Point Two: Communism. I grew up in an America terrified of Communism takeover in the 1950’s. I grew up in an America that banned a lot of books, including European, that censored movies and especially TV shows. Actors were banned and even imprisoned who accidentally starred in movies which were deemed anti-American by Congress in the 1950’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarth...

Initially it was about preventing the ‘poison’ of Communist ideas from even being KNOWN by Americans. Then, as a good measure, since they were banning all books, newspapers and any knowledge of Communism or free-thinking ideas from Europe too, especially France which accepted Black people as if they were normal, they decided to ban almost all sex scenes, or anything which could be construed as sex, from video platforms. If you watch American TV sitcoms from the 1950’s to the 1960’s, you will see married men and women in separate beds. A law was passed way earlier in the 1930’s because of ‘talkies’ that went too far, like showing prostitutes and men beating women and children, which was expanded on in the 1950’s, that married, and especially unmarried, men and women could not kiss longer than 7 seconds on screen, movies or TV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code

Earlier movies from the 1920’s and early 1930’s were VERY sexy. But in the 1950’s, America was into promoting full-figured women as mothers, so they forced-fired all the women who had got work in factories during WWII, and demanded Hollywood movies with women actors who had mostly full-figured earth-mother wide-hipped, big bust figures, pointed and hugely padded bras, who in all scripts and books wanted most of all to get married and have kids. Of course, since women could not really get good jobs, or earn good money, and all EVERYTHING - parents, churches, movies, TV shows kept after every girl everywhere to get married, and all every woman heard all of the time was “when are you going to have kids? Are you pregnant yet? Why not? Are you two going to have kids? When can we expect to be grandparents” .

What I am saying is being in a dystopia for women was a thing in America in the 1950’s, and people are trying to bring it back, like it is a good thing. IT IS NOT, IT WASN’T, AND I LIVED IT IN AMERICA. But yes, as bad as it was here, it was way worse in Stalin’s Soviet Union. They had children informing on their parents. Children were indoctrinated into the scheme of thought control at school. They were taught to spy on their parents for any sign of THINKING wrong, like a frown at the wrong moment, or a lack of enthusiasm or reluctant-seeming behavior at participation in Communist event. It really happened. Living as if in glass houses was a thing in Stalin’s Soviet Union, even down to having the wrong expression on your face.

[Anisha Inkspill]

I'm rereading this, over 40%, and crumbs, enjoying it but it's also unsettling.

[Netanella]

aPriL does feral sometimes wrote: "I feel I need to flesh out what living under Communism or a country with severe restrictions, like the USA, too, was like because I feel some readers of WE are not getting the point of the book. I ..."

Amen, sister. I'm 53 and still feel the ramifications of misogyny in the United States and am watching its resurgence in fear and revulsion.

[Becky]

I’m 43 and feel it.

[Cynda Reads]

I am 63 and I feel the threat in my body.
We are united by our physiology.

[Jae Xuân]

So I finished this today and I have gripes. I see a lot of folks enjoyed it though. My full review is below or you can read it here.

--
Lord, this TESTED me. "Classics" too often disappoint me, and disappoint is a generous word. I could write essays about what texts get to be called classic, and who gets to deem them so, but I trust a lot people know how this works after millennia of empires existing.

This is meta, but I love a dystopian. Let's read books about speculative oppression while we rage about who gets to be published and lauded under actual oppression! And who gets to be banned... or worse! 😀

Plus, I enjoyed 1984 both times I read it, so why not read the text that inspired it?

First, I got the paperback but was so bored and also... annoyed?? that I turned to the audio. Welp I hated the Charles Featherstone reading, I'm so sorry, his performance grated me. I know he's just doing his job and trying to infuse humor into the performance, but I could not stand this man's voice. So I switched again to the Toby Jones version. His performance thankfully saved it a little, and got me to about 25% before I decided, this is not the book for me. The humor isn't funny to me y'all 😭 Doing this for the challenge (go Team Horror!!!) so I trudged my way to 62% and then skimmed the rest of the paperback. Honestly, I don't think I missed out on much.

Some of the prose is quite poetic and I do think the world building was strong. But the characterization was weak and I couldn't force myself to care for the protagonists. And if characters are weak, it's hard for me to care much for the plot. I also hated most of the gendered tropes, and they aren't actually revolutionary. I'm tired of centrist dystopians.

Sometimes, a book is praised because it is simply the first to be widely recognized for accomplishing what it does.

❇️ Art has such a vital role in liberation, and it's always brave to create work that shines a light on what we want to change in the world.

But art is also allowed to be mediocre, and we're allowed to not like it :)

❇️ As the writing and publishing worlds have started to expand who they mentor, publish and platform, we thankfully have many more options for this genre of art, that actually push truly revolutionary perspectives. And I, for one, am grateful for that.