Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.73 AVERAGE
3.73 AVERAGE
'We' started well for me. The societal set up and thoughts of D-503 were interesting. I also enjoyed the end of the book, the inevitable dystopian rebellion. However, somewhere in the middle of this book I got lost. Symbolism and rambling prose that seemed to come from nowhere left me uninterested! I did wonder at times if a poor translation was contributing to this. Perhaps I needed to take my time and think it through a bit more, but it held no excitement for me. To be honest, the middle third of the book was a slog for me and whilst I can see the appeal of the story, it just wasn't for me!
"Noi" dovrebbe essere uno dei primi -se non il primo- romanzo distopico che, prendendo le mosse dall'ancora giovane comunismo russo (1918-1920), profetizza la pervasività dei mezzi di controllo da parte dello stato.
Ambientato 1000 anni nel futuro (LOL), racconta le vicissitudini di D-503 (sì, i nomi sono aboliti), matematico fedele al Sistema che entra in crisi dopo aver incontrato..una donna(ri-LOL).
Scritto in forma di diario e in modo confusionario così da riflettere i turbamenti del protagonista, spesso con frasi tronche e scarsa descrizione di ambienti e personaggi per cui è difficile entrare nel storia.
Da leggere solo in quanto archetipo a cui si sono ispirati Orwell e Huxley.
Ambientato 1000 anni nel futuro (LOL), racconta le vicissitudini di D-503 (sì, i nomi sono aboliti), matematico fedele al Sistema che entra in crisi dopo aver incontrato..una donna(ri-LOL).
Scritto in forma di diario e in modo confusionario così da riflettere i turbamenti del protagonista, spesso con frasi tronche e scarsa descrizione di ambienti e personaggi per cui è difficile entrare nel storia.
Da leggere solo in quanto archetipo a cui si sono ispirati Orwell e Huxley.
I waited to write a review about this one because I know it was written in the 1920’s or so and it is a beloved book… but,
Firstly, the cadence I found not too difficult to get into as many had described as difficult or boring. I found it similar to adjust to as A Clockwork Orange, once one got used to it then it was easy to adjust to it.
However, the story. I did not find this story to be so profound as everyone is making it out to be. I understand it is supposed to be a first, and therefore we have to consider it in that vein, however
All I found was a complete fool who never once truly thought of revolution, just followed around his cock. He never thought of women as more than just sexual beings to satisfy his urges. Were there no male authors back then who had respect for women at all?? This guy was a bumbling fool who deserved his fate at the end. And before you tell me I missed the point, and that is why he got his end… what a waste of time watching him whine and prostrate himself for his cockly urges. And for those who say that back then love was seen as revolutionary and that was the purpose of this. No where in here did he show true love and sacrifice and respect. He was a moron and selfish and jealous and ruined everything with his idiocy.
This whole story is just a reminder of why I am limiting my politics in this review…
Firstly, the cadence I found not too difficult to get into as many had described as difficult or boring. I found it similar to adjust to as A Clockwork Orange, once one got used to it then it was easy to adjust to it.
However, the story. I did not find this story to be so profound as everyone is making it out to be. I understand it is supposed to be a first, and therefore we have to consider it in that vein, however
All I found was a complete fool who never once truly thought of revolution, just followed around his cock. He never thought of women as more than just sexual beings to satisfy his urges. Were there no male authors back then who had respect for women at all?? This guy was a bumbling fool who deserved his fate at the end. And before you tell me I missed the point, and that is why he got his end… what a waste of time watching him whine and prostrate himself for his cockly urges. And for those who say that back then love was seen as revolutionary and that was the purpose of this. No where in here did he show true love and sacrifice and respect. He was a moron and selfish and jealous and ruined everything with his idiocy.
This whole story is just a reminder of why I am limiting my politics in this review…
dark
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
informative
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Body horror, Body shaming, Fatphobia, Genocide, Infertility, Infidelity, Racism, Sexual content, Forced institutionalization, Xenophobia, Murder, Gaslighting, Classism, Deportation
This was one of those works I almost didn't finish because it was so confusing, until the end. The way Zamyatin portrays a person whose life is completely dictated by cues from the One State, unraveling in a tale-spin of newly-discovered individuality-"soul"-is breathtaking. I wish I would have read this before 1984 (because Orwell seems to have plagiarized We almost completely but without as much style or sophistication) because then I wouldn't have experienced the tedium I experience now with most dystopian visions. They're too easy. There are no utopians anymore.
I actually read Mirra Ginsburg's translation (and so cannot speak to the Penguin edition's translator) and she wrote the introduction. She makes use of some of Zamyatin's essays to get at the underlying themes of freedom and fate in We. In his writing "Tomorrow," he praises the heretic who judges yesterday and today by the tomorrow. One of his ideas that resonates most strongly with me is the infinity of revolution. He writes, "Revolution is everywhere, in everything. It is infinite. There is no final revolution, no final number. The social revolution is only one of an infinite number of numbers." This both inspires and disgusts me.
On the former, it reminds me of Marx's theme in Critique of the Gotha Program, where he writes of two phases of communism. The first still bears the "birthmark" of capitalism, for it emerges out of it. Both new and old exist together. As the old dross decays over time so that the new becomes the normal, the next phase of communism emerges where one hears the refrain "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." This is an eschatological resolution of the dialectic. Class has disappeared.
However, who is to say that the disappearance of class would resolve all inequities? Marx, Engels, and Lenin seem to have thought communism would do so. The economic base, or the dominant mode of production, determines the moral, juridical, and other ideas of an epoch. Let me be frank. While they are exceptional theorists, they are also fallible men. The disappearance of class does not erase other inequities such as racial oppression, gender inequality, heterosexism, transphobia, etc.
On the latter, that is, on my disgust (or maybe the less charged "dissatisfaction") with Zamyatin's frame, is the lack of any stasis for long in the series of potential revolutions. The numbers just keep churning. I feel like D-503 (the protagonist), who with his newfound freedom, just doesn't know what to do with it. His horizons and potentials become so intense, the narrative becomes hazy, jarred, unhinged, disconnected, bipolar-all this because of just one internal revolution, the discovery of a soul in himself, that "incurable disease" (I laughed when I read this). And there are infinite revolutions? Goddamn, take stock for a minute and enjoy a bit of stasis after the carnage, just for a bit, before delving into a revolution a minute.
Hehe, one thing that didn't hit me until just now was how D-503's "downfall" is because of a woman, I-330 (their names are a letter and numbers in the One State). Isn't it always a woman in these older works? If it's not Lady Wisdom and the Harlot in the Hebrew proverbs, it's Hester Prynne, or I-330, tempting some poor sap away from the straight and narrow. I can latch onto insight having to come from without, but come on Zamyatin. Did you have to resort to the tried and false conceit of the Wayward Woman? Oh well. You can't get everything right. Again, I guess another fallible dude.
So, spoiler. You know how I said the narrative is somewhat discombobulated in the middle? It resolves at the end when D-503 undergoes the "operation" to remove his soul. We is actually D-503's journal entries to people who would read it and understand his existence under the One State. The middle entries go haywire because he discovers individuality apart from collectivity. He is anxious to say the least and just doesn't know what to do with this internal freedom. However, the last entry is so cogent it took me aback. And then I got it. You were experiencing his stream of consciousness because Zamyatin was so talented at portraying this. Then with the reconstituted personality-in-collectivity, D-503 again sounds composed, rational, concise, like he did in the beginning entries.
I gave it a 4 out of 5, but wonder if I should give it a 5/5 because of the mindfuck. Maybe it's because I'm a parent of two noisy rapscallions that I want the books I read to get to the point, and I can barely keep one thought together. Maybe I am D-503, bumbling through this world, not knowing what to do with my freedom in Amerika. I may not read this again until the boys are older. Then it might be a 6/5. By then I might know what to do with my freedom, or at least know how to keep my thoughts better ordered. If you read this far, thank you for your service to your country.
I actually read Mirra Ginsburg's translation (and so cannot speak to the Penguin edition's translator) and she wrote the introduction. She makes use of some of Zamyatin's essays to get at the underlying themes of freedom and fate in We. In his writing "Tomorrow," he praises the heretic who judges yesterday and today by the tomorrow. One of his ideas that resonates most strongly with me is the infinity of revolution. He writes, "Revolution is everywhere, in everything. It is infinite. There is no final revolution, no final number. The social revolution is only one of an infinite number of numbers." This both inspires and disgusts me.
On the former, it reminds me of Marx's theme in Critique of the Gotha Program, where he writes of two phases of communism. The first still bears the "birthmark" of capitalism, for it emerges out of it. Both new and old exist together. As the old dross decays over time so that the new becomes the normal, the next phase of communism emerges where one hears the refrain "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." This is an eschatological resolution of the dialectic. Class has disappeared.
However, who is to say that the disappearance of class would resolve all inequities? Marx, Engels, and Lenin seem to have thought communism would do so. The economic base, or the dominant mode of production, determines the moral, juridical, and other ideas of an epoch. Let me be frank. While they are exceptional theorists, they are also fallible men. The disappearance of class does not erase other inequities such as racial oppression, gender inequality, heterosexism, transphobia, etc.
On the latter, that is, on my disgust (or maybe the less charged "dissatisfaction") with Zamyatin's frame, is the lack of any stasis for long in the series of potential revolutions. The numbers just keep churning. I feel like D-503 (the protagonist), who with his newfound freedom, just doesn't know what to do with it. His horizons and potentials become so intense, the narrative becomes hazy, jarred, unhinged, disconnected, bipolar-all this because of just one internal revolution, the discovery of a soul in himself, that "incurable disease" (I laughed when I read this). And there are infinite revolutions? Goddamn, take stock for a minute and enjoy a bit of stasis after the carnage, just for a bit, before delving into a revolution a minute.
Hehe, one thing that didn't hit me until just now was how D-503's "downfall" is because of a woman, I-330 (their names are a letter and numbers in the One State). Isn't it always a woman in these older works? If it's not Lady Wisdom and the Harlot in the Hebrew proverbs, it's Hester Prynne, or I-330, tempting some poor sap away from the straight and narrow. I can latch onto insight having to come from without, but come on Zamyatin. Did you have to resort to the tried and false conceit of the Wayward Woman? Oh well. You can't get everything right. Again, I guess another fallible dude.
So, spoiler. You know how I said the narrative is somewhat discombobulated in the middle? It resolves at the end when D-503 undergoes the "operation" to remove his soul. We is actually D-503's journal entries to people who would read it and understand his existence under the One State. The middle entries go haywire because he discovers individuality apart from collectivity. He is anxious to say the least and just doesn't know what to do with this internal freedom. However, the last entry is so cogent it took me aback. And then I got it. You were experiencing his stream of consciousness because Zamyatin was so talented at portraying this. Then with the reconstituted personality-in-collectivity, D-503 again sounds composed, rational, concise, like he did in the beginning entries.
I gave it a 4 out of 5, but wonder if I should give it a 5/5 because of the mindfuck. Maybe it's because I'm a parent of two noisy rapscallions that I want the books I read to get to the point, and I can barely keep one thought together. Maybe I am D-503, bumbling through this world, not knowing what to do with my freedom in Amerika. I may not read this again until the boys are older. Then it might be a 6/5. By then I might know what to do with my freedom, or at least know how to keep my thoughts better ordered. If you read this far, thank you for your service to your country.
challenging
medium-paced
dark
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This books is hard for me to review, because I am torn between reviewing it as a normal/ every-day reader and as an English Major/ analyst or even as a high school English teacher.
A former student recommended this book because we did a dystopian book club in the AP Lang. class I teach and she heard this book inspired 1984 and Brave New World. I made the mistake of adding it to a list of book choices for the dystopian book club this year without having read it myself, so I told the students who picked it that I would read it with them. Whew... I now feel bad for those students. It is a very tedious and difficult text to read, I will not deny that fact. I think this book needs to be read after 1984 and Brave New World and it would be great for a dystopian essay or discussion. So, as a past English Major I think it is a great work to analyze and I found myself connecting it to the other novels and finding themes to bring in for my class discussions for students.
I do not think I will use this book for my book clubs for my students in the future, just because it is tricky for them to really grasp and analyze. Same goes for the average, every day reader - I would not recommend it.
This is perfect for you if you like niche texts on dystopian lit. as this work from the 1920s inspired dystopia as genre and has inspired many other texts from the ones I listed above to even The Handmaid's Tale. It takes a lot of concentration and will-power, because it feels like I did not know what was going on the whole time, but picked up on some interesting themes and ideas.
There is no plot or full explanation, per- se, just a combination of sentences and phrases. So the reader has to piece together what is going on, through D-503's perspectives and records. The book was originally written in Russian, but I also think it is written this way because I believe all dystopias want to throw readers off and make the uncomfortable and confused.
A former student recommended this book because we did a dystopian book club in the AP Lang. class I teach and she heard this book inspired 1984 and Brave New World. I made the mistake of adding it to a list of book choices for the dystopian book club this year without having read it myself, so I told the students who picked it that I would read it with them. Whew... I now feel bad for those students. It is a very tedious and difficult text to read, I will not deny that fact. I think this book needs to be read after 1984 and Brave New World and it would be great for a dystopian essay or discussion. So, as a past English Major I think it is a great work to analyze and I found myself connecting it to the other novels and finding themes to bring in for my class discussions for students.
I do not think I will use this book for my book clubs for my students in the future, just because it is tricky for them to really grasp and analyze. Same goes for the average, every day reader - I would not recommend it.
This is perfect for you if you like niche texts on dystopian lit. as this work from the 1920s inspired dystopia as genre and has inspired many other texts from the ones I listed above to even The Handmaid's Tale. It takes a lot of concentration and will-power, because it feels like I did not know what was going on the whole time, but picked up on some interesting themes and ideas.
There is no plot or full explanation, per- se, just a combination of sentences and phrases. So the reader has to piece together what is going on, through D-503's perspectives and records. The book was originally written in Russian, but I also think it is written this way because I believe all dystopias want to throw readers off and make the uncomfortable and confused.
I understand why even though this book was the inspiration for ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four,’ it is relatively unknown. Maybe it’s the translation, but I found this rambling and hard to follow.