Rating: 
Summary: The perfect totalitarian state.
Review: Cynical and cold story about a 'Benefactor', who creates together with his lackeys a state of totally depersonalized citizens: conscience is a disease, cruelty is a sign of love, without liberty no crimes can be committed, sex is planned ...
The precursor of George Orwell's '1984' and, more, of Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World', for the novel lacks the 'human' touch of '1984'. It remains more or less abstract, although it contains scenes worth a Bunuel.
A book to recommend.
Rating: 
Summary: Can't believe WE was written in 1920
Review: We is an extraordinary novel in many senses: it's beautifully written, almost as a prose poem, and perfectly crafted; it's moving, thought provoking, and imaginative. The main problem examined is the old antagonism between individual self and the collective being and everything is developed between characters that call themselves with series numbers and a very touching "darling" when intimacy starts to grow. Reason versus feellings; order versus chaos; mathematics versus poetry; freedom versus group discipline. Overall one of the best novels I've ever read.
Rating: 
Summary: This book was wack!
Review: We, for me, was not a good read. Perhaps if I was a mathematician and not have read the other dystopia books, Brave New World and 1984, it would have been a fun book to read as other reviewers have stated. Perhaps this was a serious book, but it was not an entertaining book to read. The book was a can.
Rating:
Summary: A pithy and funny philosophical tale, stunningly written
Review: If We was the inspiration for 1984 then, compared to the derived work, the source (written in 1920 under Lenin) is better literature and more deserving of the status of a classic.There is no surprise to the setting for We -- an ideal society called the United State (singular) where everyone is happy on the basis of a totally Taylorized life, the model of which is a railway timetable. The philosophical background is lifted from Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor -- that freedom entails a sacrifice of happiness, and therefore should be dispensed with. (Brothers Karamazov, V, 5: "He claims it as a merit for himself and his Church that at last they have vanquished freedom and have done so to make men happy.") Between the two backgrounds (1984's and We's) the great difference is that in We people are truly happy. The United State is efficient, joyous and peaceful, none of which is true of the State in 1984. We's protagonist, D-503, is happy with the United State, like all other Numbers (that is, everyone else), he sees it from the inside, he is not alienated. Also, in We the philosophical logic is more clearly set out and there are fewer distractions. But the literary audacity of We goes further than that. Everything is shown, nothing is stated or explained. The entire novel is in the form of a diary, where the early pages stand as they were written then, and you are left to make your own comparisons with the later ones. Almost all the content is emotional - you can read We as the dance of D-503's emotions with just enough objective details to give support to the dancer's foot. Result: As a novel, We is a tour de force. You never have to ask about the depth of the characters, it is all before you. You never doubt the character development, it's the entire novel. This is all the more true as D-503 (a comic take on Zamiatin himself) perceives people as simple geometrical shapes or lines and primary colors (the novel is very visual). He doesn't know a feeling even when it hits him in the head, so descriptions or explanations from him would be useless. As a philosophical demonstration, We is far stronger than 1984 because there is no individual-against-the-machine fable, no inkling of the fault that, by way of caricature, links 1984 to Atlas Shrugged. How does the story develop, then? D-503 will never be unhappy with the United State, only with a towering female Number, I-330, who gives him freedom and at the same time unhappiness. At one point, he will join I-330 in a subversive attempt made by the diffuse group she belongs to (running above a thousand Numbers), and at that point he will wonder not about I vs. We, but about which we he means when he says "we". The subversive attempt will be a semi-failure and, soon after becoming somewhat fearful of the United State, D-503 like all reachable Numbers will get an operation to remove his faculty of fancy, and his happiness will be restored.
Rating:
Summary: Funnier if you have taken calculus
Review: I thought this book was tremendously clever with all of its talk of derivatives, integrals, and so on and so forth with mathematical terms that describe how a utopian police state controlls it's citizens. A great read for those of us who liked both math and english in school.
Rating:
Summary: "WE" is us and them are we
Review: Inspiring and Passionate about the human condition. Precedes Brave New World. The author's understanding of the Bible and Mathematics makes this Sci Fi beyond compare. Fear of the Individual is the theme. Societal confessions for thinking unacceptable thoughts. Has it all.
I recommend this poetic and brilliant read to everyone.
Rating:
Summary: The Earliest and Most Original Dystopia
Review: We is the first real dystopian novel. Inspired by Zamyatin's experience with the early Soviet state, We is an anticipation and allegory of what the Soviet Union would become under Stalin. We is distinguished from better known english language dystopias like 1984 and Brave New World not only by its originality but by the poetic quality of the writing. In Zamyatin's hands, what could be mechanical allegorical items, such as citizens living in glass houses, become striking images. A surprising source of this poetic imagery is Zamyatin's reliance on scientific terminology. For example, the space ship Integral, a symbol of the state's need to project and extend its power is so named because it embodies the incorporation (integration) of individual actions into collective action. In the state described by Zamyatin, dreams are suppressed, individuality is crushed, and service to the state and its leader is the highest goal. Still, the crushing burden of totalitarianism is unable to destroy the power of human passion. This is a better book than either 1984 or Brave New World. A superb and unusual book.
Rating:
Summary: The First Dystopia.
Review: We was originally writen as a warning of the dangers that may be to come if we to fully embrace technology, just as the books writen many years after 1984 and Brave New World also had the same message. Instead now We is a strong reminder of what has already occured in our past. When reading We think of Stalin, Hitler, and the Berlin Wall which was yet to be built when We was written but whcih strongly resembles the Green Wall depicted in We.
Zamyatin, the author of We, was exiled from Russia, and his book was never published there, or in the Russian language until 1988. This is interesting to note because so much of what Zamyatin prophecizes comes to pass and the book was totally suppressed while these actual events were happening.
We is the original Dystopia and both Orwell and Huxley recognize their debt to Zamyatin. If you have read 1984 or Brave New World, you will recognize many similarities and at times you will even feel like you are rereading one of these works. We is highly creative and because it is the first original. It is well worth a read, and for those of you out there who have read other dystopia fiction it is a must. Your mind will thank you after.
Rating:
Summary: WHO ARE WE?
Review: Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, written before Dystopian novels became widely popular, is a fascinating, thoughtful read that those interested in speculative sci-fi will probably devour in a day or two. The author creates a world of the far future where most of humanity has supposedly been wiped out in a Two Hundred Years War. The survivors, organized under the Benefactor's One State, live in a sterile, scientifically regimented world where everyone lives in a glass house and even dreams have been eliminated. Zamyatin's narrator, designer of the space ship Integral, the magic bullet by which the One State will export this harmonious way of life to other planets, begins the book (actually the character's journal, meant to be an educational tool for the social primitives on other worlds) a staunch advocate of the One State and its system of law. But when he meets a mysterious woman whose sheer unconventionality makes him love her, the narrator finds himself drawn ever deeper into doubt, rebellion, and perhaps madness. A book of questions, We is sometimes overly ambiguous and it's rather unclear what the author's ultimate message is. Though Zamyatin plainly marks totalitarianism as the greatest social evil, he alternates other philosophies in such a way that no truly desireable remedy ever manifests itself. The ending is particularly enigmatic, leaving the reader doubting not only the narrator's future but many of his previous experiences. Nontheless, We is a worthwhile literary achievement, and deserving of any self-respecting non-conformist's perusal.
Rating:
Summary: A very good read
Review: I have long been a fan of the 'dystopian' genre, and in my opinion this certainly ranks among the best. "We" is often compared to "1984" and "Brave New World", and although I think "We" is slightly inferior to both, I still would not hesitate to heartily recommend it to anyone who enjoyed either of those books. The premise for the society in the book is not the menacing security of Big Brother (although there is certainly some state security), nor is it the drug induced happiness of "Brave New World"'s some, but rather an interesting notion of a mathematically proved happiness whose value is infinity for all people.
The book itself is written in quite a different format from either "1984" or "Brave New World"; it is told in a personal diary format. This is part of both the book's strength and weekness. It really makes the book for a quick, exciting, page turning read, but at times it feels like the author has to do a little stretching and straining of the personal narrative in order to convey some of the aspects of the society he is describing. That was probably the biggest problem I had with the book, but it is really something of a trifle, and it doesn't impact the flow of the story that badly. Again, I very much recommend this to fans of "Brave New World" and "1984", and if could give out partial ratings, I would say that this is a closer to a 4.5 star book.
|
