Just the pink ticket!!, 23 Oct 2008
Zambutin offers an imaginative account of what it could be like to live in a state where practically all an individual's daily activities are monitored and subject to the will of a ruthless dictator. In We the fictional internal context is a future society called OneState, where humans are called Numbers and their daily activities (e.g. working, eating, sleeping) are dictated by the Table of Hours. Presiding over the collective is a ruler known as the Benefactor who's will is enforced by the `experienced eye of the Guardians', which may involve coercion, torture (the `Bell') and execution by the `Machine of the Benefactor'. Technology is a significant detail of OneState, particularly the eagerly anticipated launch of a space ship known as the INTEGRAL. Zamyatin's urban landscape is crowded with flying machines, glass steel structures yet devoid of plant and animal life. The Numbers are merely mechanical components of a single system, fed on petroleum food and programmed to respond to a strict timetable. Depersonalisation and system conformity is enforced, for example by a uniform dress code, `Personal Hours' and state controlled child production ; but most importantly, by the mass delusion that freedom is anarchy. The first person narrator D-503, who is the builder of the INTEGRAL , commences his `Records' applauding OneState as `the most perfect form of life' and he scoffs at freedom likening it to the condition of 'beasts'. The antithesis of OneState is the Mephi and what lies beyond the `Green Wall'. Considering the potentially bleak subject matter I found some passages funny particularly D-503's brain-washed, child-like naivety which is conveyed at the start of the book where he is found praising OneState: a society that considers the `Railroad Timetable' to be a monument of `ancient literature'. For me the interest in this book lies in its value as an early example of the Big Brother theme, which is explored in the fine introduction to this edition.

AN OVERLOOKED CLASSIC, 30 Aug 2008
WE is a treasure. A classic of Russian literature, unjustly overlooked. Yes, it isn't easy to read, but get into it and it's worth the effort for the rewards. A must.

Very significant novel, but didn't care for the writing style, 02 Aug 2008
This book was important conceptually, as the precursor of Brave New World and 1984. As such, it deserves a significant place in world and Russian literature. It is easy to see why it was banned in the Soviet Union, with the unanimous elections in chapter 24 and the Benefactor sounding like Stalin, even though the latter had not yet acquired power at the time the book was written.

However, as a story I found this dull. It takes place in a dream-like atmosphere, making the action difficult to follow, and draining some of the force from the potentially powerful ideas. As nameless numbered ciphers - a powerfully frightening idea - the characters lack the human believability of Winston Smith and Julia in 1984. The twist in the ending made me doubt what had happened anyway, though was very like the more brutally straightforward end of 1984.


Better than 1984 or Brave New World in my opinion, 25 Jul 2008
Not only the original for 1984 and Brave New World and the other dystopian novels, but better than them too, in my view. Some people have knocked it for its complexity, for its comparative lack of plausibility, but the truth is that "We" is far more subtle, and its society is far more unsettling and terrifying. Some have criticised the translations, but I found the Penguin translation very good and readable: Zamyatin called it a "prose poem", and it had that quality, particularly when read aloud.

The narrator is not like the comparatively rational but disaffected characters of 1984 or Brave New World, he is a deeply confused, emotionally traumatised atomised ant, trying to gain some control over his thoughts and feelings to find a way to crawl out of his suffering. It has both the sense of wonder of a good SF novel, while having at times the psychological feeling of Dostoyevsky.

Very hard work to read, but rewarding if you can finish it, 28 Jun 2008
It's unfortunate that this tale of emancipation and discovery in a dreary ultra-totalitarian state, one far beyond what Orwell or Huxley later wrote about, is so difficult to engage with, because I really want to like it. It's beautifully written and the protagonist's anguish feels real. But I just couldn't, and have, after carrying the book around in my pocket for a good few months reading a page here and there, eventually admitted defeat. I'm not going to finish it. Even so, although it's not for me the underlying quality is obvious, and hence four stars.

Just the pink ticket!!, 23 Oct 2008
Zambutin offers an imaginative account of what it could be like to live in a state where practically all an individual's daily activities are monitored and subject to the will of a ruthless dictator. In We the fictional internal context is a future society called OneState, where humans are called Numbers and their daily activities (e.g. working, eating, sleeping) are dictated by the Table of Hours. Presiding over the collective is a ruler known as the Benefactor who's will is enforced by the `experienced eye of the Guardians', which may involve coercion, torture (the `Bell') and execution by the `Machine of the Benefactor'. Technology is a significant detail of OneState, particularly the eagerly anticipated launch of a space ship known as the INTEGRAL. Zamyatin's urban landscape is crowded with flying machines, glass steel structures yet devoid of plant and animal life. The Numbers are merely mechanical components of a single system, fed on petroleum food and programmed to respond to a strict timetable. Depersonalisation and system conformity is enforced, for example by a uniform dress code, `Personal Hours' and state controlled child production ; but most importantly, by the mass delusion that freedom is anarchy. The first person narrator D-503, who is the builder of the INTEGRAL , commences his `Records' applauding OneState as `the most perfect form of life' and he scoffs at freedom likening it to the condition of 'beasts'. The antithesis of OneState is the Mephi and what lies beyond the `Green Wall'. Considering the potentially bleak subject matter I found some passages funny particularly D-503's brain-washed, child-like naivety which is conveyed at the start of the book where he is found praising OneState: a society that considers the `Railroad Timetable' to be a monument of `ancient literature'. For me the interest in this book lies in its value as an early example of the Big Brother theme, which is explored in the fine introduction to this edition.

AN OVERLOOKED CLASSIC, 30 Aug 2008
WE is a treasure. A classic of Russian literature, unjustly overlooked. Yes, it isn't easy to read, but get into it and it's worth the effort for the rewards. A must.

Very significant novel, but didn't care for the writing style, 02 Aug 2008
This book was important conceptually, as the precursor of Brave New World and 1984. As such, it deserves a significant place in world and Russian literature. It is easy to see why it was banned in the Soviet Union, with the unanimous elections in chapter 24 and the Benefactor sounding like Stalin, even though the latter had not yet acquired power at the time the book was written.

However, as a story I found this dull. It takes place in a dream-like atmosphere, making the action difficult to follow, and draining some of the force from the potentially powerful ideas. As nameless numbered ciphers - a powerfully frightening idea - the characters lack the human believability of Winston Smith and Julia in 1984. The twist in the ending made me doubt what had happened anyway, though was very like the more brutally straightforward end of 1984.


Better than 1984 or Brave New World in my opinion, 25 Jul 2008
Not only the original for 1984 and Brave New World and the other dystopian novels, but better than them too, in my view. Some people have knocked it for its complexity, for its comparative lack of plausibility, but the truth is that "We" is far more subtle, and its society is far more unsettling and terrifying. Some have criticised the translations, but I found the Penguin translation very good and readable: Zamyatin called it a "prose poem", and it had that quality, particularly when read aloud.

The narrator is not like the comparatively rational but disaffected characters of 1984 or Brave New World, he is a deeply confused, emotionally traumatised atomised ant, trying to gain some control over his thoughts and feelings to find a way to crawl out of his suffering. It has both the sense of wonder of a good SF novel, while having at times the psychological feeling of Dostoyevsky.

Very hard work to read, but rewarding if you can finish it, 28 Jun 2008
It's unfortunate that this tale of emancipation and discovery in a dreary ultra-totalitarian state, one far beyond what Orwell or Huxley later wrote about, is so difficult to engage with, because I really want to like it. It's beautifully written and the protagonist's anguish feels real. But I just couldn't, and have, after carrying the book around in my pocket for a good few months reading a page here and there, eventually admitted defeat. I'm not going to finish it. Even so, although it's not for me the underlying quality is obvious, and hence four stars.

Brilliant Prose, 29 Feb 2008
I began reading We with some trepidation. From what I had heard of the book, I was expecting a rather clumsy, dusty work with limited characterisation and a plot which simply supported some of the author's more politically charged ideas.
I was pleasantly surprised. The plot is genuinely exciting and drives the short novel on to its conclusion. The confusion of the narrative character's ideology is wonderfully rendered. The quality of the prose - certainly this novel's finest feature - is a delight to read. Zamyatin mimics the icy, transparent and glassy landscape of his imaginary city with precise and frosty language.
This is certainly the edition to look out for. As she explains in her introduction, Randall (the translator of this new edition) firmly feels the importance of creating a prose structure as similar to Zamyatin's as she can make it. Will Self's lively introduction is also very well placed.

Just the pink ticket!!, 23 Oct 2008
Zambutin offers an imaginative account of what it could be like to live in a state where practically all an individual's daily activities are monitored and subject to the will of a ruthless dictator. In We the fictional internal context is a future society called OneState, where humans are called Numbers and their daily activities (e.g. working, eating, sleeping) are dictated by the Table of Hours. Presiding over the collective is a ruler known as the Benefactor who's will is enforced by the `experienced eye of the Guardians', which may involve coercion, torture (the `Bell') and execution by the `Machine of the Benefactor'. Technology is a significant detail of OneState, particularly the eagerly anticipated launch of a space ship known as the INTEGRAL. Zamyatin's urban landscape is crowded with flying machines, glass steel structures yet devoid of plant and animal life. The Numbers are merely mechanical components of a single system, fed on petroleum food and programmed to respond to a strict timetable. Depersonalisation and system conformity is enforced, for example by a uniform dress code, `Personal Hours' and state controlled child production ; but most importantly, by the mass delusion that freedom is anarchy. The first person narrator D-503, who is the builder of the INTEGRAL , commences his `Records' applauding OneState as `the most perfect form of life' and he scoffs at freedom likening it to the condition of 'beasts'. The antithesis of OneState is the Mephi and what lies beyond the `Green Wall'. Considering the potentially bleak subject matter I found some passages funny particularly D-503's brain-washed, child-like naivety which is conveyed at the start of the book where he is found praising OneState: a society that considers the `Railroad Timetable' to be a monument of `ancient literature'. For me the interest in this book lies in its value as an early example of the Big Brother theme, which is explored in the fine introduction to this edition.

AN OVERLOOKED CLASSIC, 30 Aug 2008
WE is a treasure. A classic of Russian literature, unjustly overlooked. Yes, it isn't easy to read, but get into it and it's worth the effort for the rewards. A must.

Very significant novel, but didn't care for the writing style, 02 Aug 2008
This book was important conceptually, as the precursor of Brave New World and 1984. As such, it deserves a significant place in world and Russian literature. It is easy to see why it was banned in the Soviet Union, with the unanimous elections in chapter 24 and the Benefactor sounding like Stalin, even though the latter had not yet acquired power at the time the book was written.

However, as a story I found this dull. It takes place in a dream-like atmosphere, making the action difficult to follow, and draining some of the force from the potentially powerful ideas. As nameless numbered ciphers - a powerfully frightening idea - the characters lack the human believability of Winston Smith and Julia in 1984. The twist in the ending made me doubt what had happened anyway, though was very like the more brutally straightforward end of 1984.


Better than 1984 or Brave New World in my opinion, 25 Jul 2008
Not only the original for 1984 and Brave New World and the other dystopian novels, but better than them too, in my view. Some people have knocked it for its complexity, for its comparative lack of plausibility, but the truth is that "We" is far more subtle, and its society is far more unsettling and terrifying. Some have criticised the translations, but I found the Penguin translation very good and readable: Zamyatin called it a "prose poem", and it had that quality, particularly when read aloud.

The narrator is not like the comparatively rational but disaffected characters of 1984 or Brave New World, he is a deeply confused, emotionally traumatised atomised ant, trying to gain some control over his thoughts and feelings to find a way to crawl out of his suffering. It has both the sense of wonder of a good SF novel, while having at times the psychological feeling of Dostoyevsky.

Very hard work to read, but rewarding if you can finish it, 28 Jun 2008
It's unfortunate that this tale of emancipation and discovery in a dreary ultra-totalitarian state, one far beyond what Orwell or Huxley later wrote about, is so difficult to engage with, because I really want to like it. It's beautifully written and the protagonist's anguish feels real. But I just couldn't, and have, after carrying the book around in my pocket for a good few months reading a page here and there, eventually admitted defeat. I'm not going to finish it. Even so, although it's not for me the underlying quality is obvious, and hence four stars.

Brilliant Prose, 29 Feb 2008
I began reading We with some trepidation. From what I had heard of the book, I was expecting a rather clumsy, dusty work with limited characterisation and a plot which simply supported some of the author's more politically charged ideas.
I was pleasantly surprised. The plot is genuinely exciting and drives the short novel on to its conclusion. The confusion of the narrative character's ideology is wonderfully rendered. The quality of the prose - certainly this novel's finest feature - is a delight to read. Zamyatin mimics the icy, transparent and glassy landscape of his imaginary city with precise and frosty language.
This is certainly the edition to look out for. As she explains in her introduction, Randall (the translator of this new edition) firmly feels the importance of creating a prose structure as similar to Zamyatin's as she can make it. Will Self's lively introduction is also very well placed.

Just the pink ticket!!, 23 Oct 2008
Zambutin offers an imaginative account of what it could be like to live in a state where practically all an individual's daily activities are monitored and subject to the will of a ruthless dictator. In We the fictional internal context is a future society called OneState, where humans are called Numbers and their daily activities (e.g. working, eating, sleeping) are dictated by the Table of Hours. Presiding over the collective is a ruler known as the Benefactor who's will is enforced by the `experienced eye of the Guardians', which may involve coercion, torture (the `Bell') and execution by the `Machine of the Benefactor'. Technology is a significant detail of OneState, particularly the eagerly anticipated launch of a space ship known as the INTEGRAL. Zamyatin's urban landscape is crowded with flying machines, glass steel structures yet devoid of plant and animal life. The Numbers are merely mechanical components of a single system, fed on petroleum food and programmed to respond to a strict timetable. Depersonalisation and system conformity is enforced, for example by a uniform dress code, `Personal Hours' and state controlled child production ; but most importantly, by the mass delusion that freedom is anarchy. The first person narrator D-503, who is the builder of the INTEGRAL , commences his `Records' applauding OneState as `the most perfect form of life' and he scoffs at freedom likening it to the condition of 'beasts'. The antithesis of OneState is the Mephi and what lies beyond the `Green Wall'. Considering the potentially bleak subject matter I found some passages funny particularly D-503's brain-washed, child-like naivety which is conveyed at the start of the book where he is found praising OneState: a society that considers the `Railroad Timetable' to be a monument of `ancient literature'. For me the interest in this book lies in its value as an early example of the Big Brother theme, which is explored in the fine introduction to this edition.

AN OVERLOOKED CLASSIC, 30 Aug 2008
WE is a treasure. A classic of Russian literature, unjustly overlooked. Yes, it isn't easy to read, but get into it and it's worth the effort for the rewards. A must.

Very significant novel, but didn't care for the writing style, 02 Aug 2008
This book was important conceptually, as the precursor of Brave New World and 1984. As such, it deserves a significant place in world and Russian literature. It is easy to see why it was banned in the Soviet Union, with the unanimous elections in chapter 24 and the Benefactor sounding like Stalin, even though the latter had not yet acquired power at the time the book was written.

However, as a story I found this dull. It takes place in a dream-like atmosphere, making the action difficult to follow, and draining some of the force from the potentially powerful ideas. As nameless numbered ciphers - a powerfully frightening idea - the characters lack the human believability of Winston Smith and Julia in 1984. The twist in the ending made me doubt what had happened anyway, though was very like the more brutally straightforward end of 1984.


Better than 1984 or Brave New World in my opinion, 25 Jul 2008
Not only the original for 1984 and Brave New World and the other dystopian novels, but better than them too, in my view. Some people have knocked it for its complexity, for its comparative lack of plausibility, but the truth is that "We" is far more subtle, and its society is far more unsettling and terrifying. Some have criticised the translations, but I found the Penguin translation very good and readable: Zamyatin called it a "prose poem", and it had that quality, particularly when read aloud.

The narrator is not like the comparatively rational but disaffected characters of 1984 or Brave New World, he is a deeply confused, emotionally traumatised atomised ant, trying to gain some control over his thoughts and feelings to find a way to crawl out of his suffering. It has both the sense of wonder of a good SF novel, while having at times the psychological feeling of Dostoyevsky.

Very hard work to read, but rewarding if you can finish it, 28 Jun 2008
It's unfortunate that this tale of emancipation and discovery in a dreary ultra-totalitarian state, one far beyond what Orwell or Huxley later wrote about, is so difficult to engage with, because I really want to like it. It's beautifully written and the protagonist's anguish feels real. But I just couldn't, and have, after carrying the book around in my pocket for a good few months reading a page here and there, eventually admitted defeat. I'm not going to finish it. Even so, although it's not for me the underlying quality is obvious, and hence four stars.