Yevgeni Zamyatin’s We
is not the first work of dystopian fiction.
But because of it, it is far, far from the last. Existing at a point on the handle of a torch
about where the hand grasps, Zamyatin’s work has undergone multiple iterations
in the hands of other authors since it was first released in 1924, a fire
seemingly erupting in its wake. Others
efforts may burn brighter but they are still homages (or plagiarism, depending
on viewpoint). With varying degrees of
license, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, China Mieville, Ayn Rand, Lois Lowry,
Kurt Vonnegut, Anthony Burgess, Arthur C. Clarke, even David Mitchell’s recent
success Cloud Atlas borrow elements
of the novel. Looking back over the past
century, what The Lord of the Rings
is to epic fantasy, so is Zamyatin’s We
to dystopian literature. It has minor
faults, but remains a must read for its influence on genre.
Hovering in and around science fiction and fantasy, We is foremost a tragedy of mythic proportion. The novel set in the glass city of OneState,
the residents live in a perceived utopia.
Rising, working, eating, and sleeping in the proscribed rhythms of the
Table, life is synchronized to the minute.
From sex to “free time”, music to stride, uniforms to humor, the
citizens of OneState live according to the mechanized (machinized?) movement of
the clock and the hyper-formality of state regulated existence under the
watchful eye of the Benefactor. Zero room
for imagination and individuality, violators are publicly scorned and
electrically melted. But beneath this
severe façade of rote and etiquette, and outside the Green Wall which surrounds
the city, a movement is stirring.
We is the story of
D-503, a mathematician working on the building of Integral, OneState’s first
ever rocket. A superb citizen, D-503
follows the movement of the Table perfectly.
He laughs at the irregularities of ancient music; praises the rhythm of
engines and choreographed humanity; respectfully awaits the pink tickets of his
assigned partner O-90; is in awe of the “subversive” statements of the poet
R-013; and in general lives the expected life of a citizen to a ‘T’. But when the mysterious I-303 enters his life
one day, questions and dichotomies begin to arise that throw his world into a
state of flux. The fallibilit of
OneState slowly dragged into the equation, D-503 becomes more involved than
he’d like in activities outside the Green Wall.
Regarding style, We
is rooted in idealism rather than realism.
Where Orwell delved into the gritty details of Oceana, Zamyatin presents
OneState along mythic lines. OneState
society is detailed just enough to fit the scene, while overall imagery and
plot movement remain emblematic. Fully
modernist in feel, the glass streets, buildings, workplaces, room arrangements,
etc. all have a sparse, planar feel in keeping with the movement. The characters too are representative rather
than concrete. Archetypes, they must be
approached ideologically rather than empathetically. And actions, also. The symbolism inherent to the plight of D-503
is of more importance than the realism of his character. Cartoonish if not for the poetic nature of
the prose, the book is a crystal vision of the future, humanity larger than
life.
Given the large number of iterations that have appeared in the
wake of We, it is perhaps an
understatement to write the novel is
thematically rich. Thought-provoking,
there are a number of questions and circumstances to contemplate. OneState is an entirely safe existence with
all the amenities of life provided—but at the expense of individuality. That humans are willing to enable such social
paradigms (e.g. fascism in Germany) is likewise fascinating food for thought,
and Zamyatin indulges. Seemingly seminal
for every book that has since presented the juxtapositions and parallels to the
human idea of a perfect society, We
is important.
There are a couple of potential complaints about the novel,
however. The first is the ending. Not whether it is suitable or not, rather
that the epic proportion which precedes it is not properly reflected. Guttering rather than flaming out in tragedy,
the events which lead up to the finale, for example the suspense surrounding
Integral, D-503’s interaction with the Benefactor, and I-330’s mysterious
existence, all offer more richness and drama than the closing scenes. The final hammer blow of We is a weak one. Secondly,
D-503’s involvement with OneState at the outset is perfect—too perfect, in
fact. The first half of the book features
numerous scenes wherein he waxes poetic, praising the beauty and grandeur of
his society. He describes his
relationship with O-90 as more than satisfactory. Moreover, his personal ideology is presented
as clicking with the system’s through memories of his youth. That Zamyatin also makes the reader privy to
his private thoughts indicates the sentiment is genuine. The question thus arises: if D-503 truly
enjoys life in OneState, why upset it?
If the world is perceived as perfect, how can destroying it improve
matters? Orwell, by portraying Winston
Smith as dissatisfied and secretly subversive, corrects this aspect, producing
a more plausible representation of humanity in the process. Zamyatin uses I-330 effectively, but it would
seem the acceptance of OneState by the characters is too idyllic.
Despite these potential issues, it is easy to see why We was so influential on later
writers. The storyline simple yet
reaching deep into human notions of autonomy and social harmony, that numerous
others have since taken the idea and developed it in their own way is a
testament to the fecundity and profundity of Zamyatin’s premise. Written in a style mixing poetry and myth,
the life of D-503 is abstract yet thought-provoking and worth a read—perhaps
even necessary—for the reader who enjoys dystopian literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment