You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.73 AVERAGE
3.73 AVERAGE
Okay; yes it’s a sci fi classic, will i read it again? Probably not. Will i read analysis of it ? Yes! Glad i read it but ,,, the narrator drove me crazy & also has mommy issues . U get one old ass mf who starts talking about his mom & how he sees his “mom” in every woman he has sex with but also treats every woman kinda poorly bc he is so self absorbed,,,, cooked … men never change ,,, even in a universe you create yourself </3
Wow, den var fed. Ikke federe end 1984 (selvom den helt tydelig er en inspirationskilde til 1984), men noget andet. Dette er en falsk utopi i modsætning til Orwells politiske dystopi. Jeg ved ikke, hvad jeg skal skrive, det er en vanvittig bog, men jeg kan lide den.
I read this book as I had heard that it was the inspiration for 1984 by Orwell and I wanted to see how much Orwell was inspired. This book, to me at least, is more than just inspiration. Orwell clearly ripped-off a huge amount of what happens here and changes the names of a few things to make it look more like his work! The real innovation behind Orwell's ideas are clearly stolen straight from Zamyatin!
Much like in 1984 we follow a totalitarian world where everyone is given a number and forced to be part of a whole 'machine'. Every person is the same, and personalities, imagination and difference are stamped out quickly. We follow one young man as he writes a diary about his life and quickly you can see that it's not the utopia he's told it is. This is a place I wouldn't want to visit let alone live!
What I liked about this is the language of this story does actually feel very beautiful at times and we have some really lovely mathematic similes (something I never thought I would say!) Although this is the case I'd also say that at times I found this a little harder to enjoy tan 1984, but I think a large part of that comes from me reading it in chunks rather than straight through as I would have preferred.
Overall I would say that this is well worth a read and I definitely enjoyed discussing it as there's so much to sink your teeth into. I gave it a 3*s overall.
Much like in 1984 we follow a totalitarian world where everyone is given a number and forced to be part of a whole 'machine'. Every person is the same, and personalities, imagination and difference are stamped out quickly. We follow one young man as he writes a diary about his life and quickly you can see that it's not the utopia he's told it is. This is a place I wouldn't want to visit let alone live!
What I liked about this is the language of this story does actually feel very beautiful at times and we have some really lovely mathematic similes (something I never thought I would say!) Although this is the case I'd also say that at times I found this a little harder to enjoy tan 1984, but I think a large part of that comes from me reading it in chunks rather than straight through as I would have preferred.
Overall I would say that this is well worth a read and I definitely enjoyed discussing it as there's so much to sink your teeth into. I gave it a 3*s overall.
All of life in its complexity and beauty is forever minted in the gold of words.
Read this for my Sociology class, and it wasn't completely unbearable. Actually, it had potential to be amazing, but the writing style was so hard to get through. One thing that fascinates me is the fact that this book was written around 1921, and Orwell actually used it as inspiration for 1984. While the two books have definite similarities, Orwell elevated the concept a lot more.
Pros:
- written as diary entries or logs
- chaotic narrator w/ distorted world views
- math as a metaphor
Cons:
- the ending
- filled with too much thought up front, lacking in the last third
- written as diary entries or logs
- chaotic narrator w/ distorted world views
- math as a metaphor
Cons:
- the ending
- filled with too much thought up front, lacking in the last third
A lovely read despite the fact that We is the inspiration behind 1984; they are quite similar (in multiple instances I was wondering if it’s just pure theft). Having read 1984 already, ‘We’ articulate ideas in a lyrical and poetic and way which I didn’t think I’ll ever enjoy. The novel carried an extra assignment for the reader to sit after each record and analyze to fully comprehend the chain of events.
It’s a must for the dystopian genre fans.
It’s a must for the dystopian genre fans.
Everymannumber D-503 is just minding his own business. He does what all good numbers do. He gets up at the appointed time, goes to work at the appointed time, goes to bed at the appointed time, and even spends his one personal hour every day in his glassed-walled apartment doing OneState approved activities. He even has a girlfriend of sorts, the sweet and simple O-90, though of course he's no more attached to her than is appropriate for an obedient number, and she in turn is 'assigned' to other men as well. He works hard on the INTEGRAL, the spaceship that will soon carry the OneState's glorious ideas to faraway planets. Yes, D-503 is a veritable poster child for OneState's ultimate victory--the victory of happiness over its enemy: freedom. Then one day, D-503 meets the irresistible I-330, and everything changes. Torn between attraction and repulsion, he finds himself going places he shouldn't go, doing things he shouldn't do, and thinking things he definitely shouldn't think. This is his diary.
If this all sounds kind of familiar, it should. This is, in essence, the granddaddy dystopian novel--the novel from which all other dystopian novels evolved. The connection is most easily seen in Orwell's excellent Nineteen Eighty-Four, which he based on We, though other dystopian writers relied on Zamyatin as well. As well they should-- it's a great book (though my love of dystopian literature makes for less-than-unbiased assessment).
Where many dystopian writers give their characters names, Zamyatin identifies his only with letters and numbers (consonants and odd numbers for men; vowels and even numbers for women). The numerical/mathematical emphasis is a clever choice, possibly connected Zamyatin's sythesthesia--a condition where sensory information is confused ('hearing' colors, etc.). In Zamyatin's case, this meant that he perceived the shapes of letters as having colors or other qualities. His choice to identify his characters only by letters and numbers, then, lends a certain poignancy to the story, and fits well with D-503's own work as a mathematician. (Though for all his focus on math, D-503 could certainly crank out enough words.)
As with so many dystopian works, the antithesis of the totalitarian regime is, quite simply, sex. Specifically, illicit sex, since the numbers in We are permitted--even encouraged--to use one another for sex, provided that they do not commit the cardinal sin of jealousy. I'm not sure how I feel about illicit sex being the primary key to unlocking the 'soul,' but I suppose unbridled passion is perceived as the polar opposite of cold rationality and regimented uniformity, so it's not surprising that sex is presented as the 'cure' for an increasingly automatous citizenry.
Nor am I enamored of the 'heroine' who uses her sex appeal to arouse men into rebellion. (Especially compared to the cast-off and child-hungry--and much more sympathetic--O-90.) Where O-90 seems to genuinely care about D-503, I-330 is only interested in what he can offer the rebellion--that is, access to the soon-to-be-completed INTEGRAL. Hardly a sympathetic character. Her ultimate treatment of O-90 is slightly redemptive, but she is still one calculating cookie. (Side note: Zamyatin's treatment of gender would make for a fascinating article I am utterly unqualified to write. Suffice to say, I think this book reveals a lot more of Zamyatin's ideas about women than he may have intended. I just don't know exactly what those ideas are.)
Of particular note is Zamyakin's treatment of free will/freedom as antithetical to happiness. After all, it is true that, since the Fall, humans will, if left to their own devices, make choices that will spell their ruin and end their happiness. The contrast between God's solution to this problem (loving self-sacrifice) and that of the Benefactor (total domination and control) is quite striking.
A worthwhile and absorbing read. The journal-based style of the book can be a little hard to follow at times, particularly as D-503's thought process deteriorates over time. The overall book is still quite good, however. If you enjoy any of the other big dystopian novels (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, etc.), you should definitely give this one a try.
If this all sounds kind of familiar, it should. This is, in essence, the granddaddy dystopian novel--the novel from which all other dystopian novels evolved. The connection is most easily seen in Orwell's excellent Nineteen Eighty-Four, which he based on We, though other dystopian writers relied on Zamyatin as well. As well they should-- it's a great book (though my love of dystopian literature makes for less-than-unbiased assessment).
Where many dystopian writers give their characters names, Zamyatin identifies his only with letters and numbers (consonants and odd numbers for men; vowels and even numbers for women). The numerical/mathematical emphasis is a clever choice, possibly connected Zamyatin's sythesthesia--a condition where sensory information is confused ('hearing' colors, etc.). In Zamyatin's case, this meant that he perceived the shapes of letters as having colors or other qualities. His choice to identify his characters only by letters and numbers, then, lends a certain poignancy to the story, and fits well with D-503's own work as a mathematician. (Though for all his focus on math, D-503 could certainly crank out enough words.)
As with so many dystopian works, the antithesis of the totalitarian regime is, quite simply, sex. Specifically, illicit sex, since the numbers in We are permitted--even encouraged--to use one another for sex, provided that they do not commit the cardinal sin of jealousy. I'm not sure how I feel about illicit sex being the primary key to unlocking the 'soul,' but I suppose unbridled passion is perceived as the polar opposite of cold rationality and regimented uniformity, so it's not surprising that sex is presented as the 'cure' for an increasingly automatous citizenry.
Nor am I enamored of the 'heroine' who uses her sex appeal to arouse men into rebellion. (Especially compared to the cast-off and child-hungry--and much more sympathetic--O-90.) Where O-90 seems to genuinely care about D-503, I-330 is only interested in what he can offer the rebellion--that is, access to the soon-to-be-completed INTEGRAL. Hardly a sympathetic character. Her ultimate treatment of O-90 is slightly redemptive, but she is still one calculating cookie. (Side note: Zamyatin's treatment of gender would make for a fascinating article I am utterly unqualified to write. Suffice to say, I think this book reveals a lot more of Zamyatin's ideas about women than he may have intended. I just don't know exactly what those ideas are.)
Of particular note is Zamyakin's treatment of free will/freedom as antithetical to happiness. After all, it is true that, since the Fall, humans will, if left to their own devices, make choices that will spell their ruin and end their happiness. The contrast between God's solution to this problem (loving self-sacrifice) and that of the Benefactor (total domination and control) is quite striking.
A worthwhile and absorbing read. The journal-based style of the book can be a little hard to follow at times, particularly as D-503's thought process deteriorates over time. The overall book is still quite good, however. If you enjoy any of the other big dystopian novels (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, etc.), you should definitely give this one a try.
The first example of dystopian literature and granddaddy to the mighty works of Brave New World and 1984. One can see it, feel it, in the pages. As I read, the scenes brought to mind moments from Aeon Flux; Love, Death, and Robots; and The Island. I also enjoyed contrasting it to the fiction works by Ayn Rand — out of the same era and culture. Loved the book.
shoutout to circles gotta be one of my favorite symbols of the fundamental ontological tension between differentiation and integration that manifests itself in in-dividuals and societies re-presenting the quest of humanity seeking knowledge of God inaccessible to them like how computers seek knowledge of humanity, getting ever so close just as a polygon with an increasing number of sides approximates a circle or pixels approach an organic shape as an opposition to the boxed rigidity of high modernist architecture and the taxonomically top down frameworks and sharp distinctions cutting into organic yet synthetic skin
