We: Introduction by Will Self

Our narrator, D-503, is a cipher in the utopian One State. He is the Chief Builder of the Integral, a rocket ship that is to be sent out into the universe, bringing uniformity and happiness to all alien species who may be out there still messily living with free will. All ciphers have been encouraged to prepare something for inclusion on the mission – poems of praise to the Benefactor who serves as a replacement for God in this society. D-503 decides to keep a journal of his daily life – this journal that we are reading – as his contribution. But D-503 is about to meet a woman – I-330 – who will disrupt his contented existence and lead him to reconsider just how utopian life in the One State really is...First a word on translations. I started with the Momentum publication of this which as far as I can see doesn't credit the translator by name. It's dreadful – so bad I found it almost unreadable and was about to abandon the book completely at the 30% mark. However, I then changed to the Vintage Classics edition translated by Natasha Randall, which is excellent – like reading a different book. So if you decide to read this, make sure you check the translation first.Even given the much better experience of the good translation, I'm afraid I can't bring myself to be as fulsome in praise of this as I'd like. D-503 is a mathematician, so his narration is full of mathematical metaphors and everything is described in vaguely mathematical terms. It's well enough done, but I found it tedious. Zamyatin also has a technique of leaving sentences unfinished and uses ellipses even more than I do... This gives a sensation of the speed of events, of the increasing confusion D-503 is feeling, but again I found it got pretty tiresome after a bit.It also has an issue that I think may be really more my problem than the book's, an issue I've found with other early dystopian fiction: namely, that I think the societies they describe sound considerably more attractive than the savage societies they hold up as the better alternative. What exactly is so wrong with being happy? I get it – I really do – that they achieve their happiness at the expense of free will, that their lives are unexciting because everything is decided for them, that art and literature have no real place in such societies; and no, I don't aspire to that kind of society. But the flaw, if it is one, is that the characters are happy in their lives until they discover how much better it is to be miserable, chewed up by desire and jealousy, living lives that are nasty, brutish and short. In We, the savage society has reverted almost to chimp lifestyle – I don't aspire to that either! Current dystopian fiction is much more likely to have the characters be fundamentally unhappy in their regimented societies, to be aware of how restricted and unfulfilling their lives are, and to have something more appealing to aim for. This works so much better for me. I had exactly the same issue with Huxley's Brave New World when I read it at school – the characters liked their lives and were happy, until savagery burst in to make them realise what they'd been missing – unregimented sex, mainly, which is pretty much what sets D-503 off too...This book, written in post-revolutionary Russia in 1920, has an eerie familiarity about it. This is because it has basically the same story as both Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, both of which have borrowed so heavily from it it feels close to theft. Personally, I'm a bit baffled by the timing – I wouldn't have thought Bolshevik Russia had reached anything close to this kind of society as early as 1920, while the civil war was still being fought. Zamyatin was either very prescient or he was writing as much about the general philosophical zeitgeist of the time as about the realities of his society – I suspect probably a bit of both. Marxism was on the rise, some authors were presenting utopian societies as a good thing, and Zamyatin references Taylorism more than once – something I wasn't familiar with but which seems to have been an extreme form of regimentation within the workplace; what in my youth we called 'time and motion studies' – the desire of management to turn workers into unthinking, exhausted drones or human robots. (That's not necessarily how management would have described it, but I was a worker bee back then... ;) )The book therefore feels as if it's arguing against philosophical ideas about utopias rather than reality, as does Brave New World from what I remember. 1984, on the other hand, while using the same basic story, is very specifically arguing against the actual rise of totalitarian regimes in the mid-20th century, and Orwell's characters give no impression of being in any way “happy”. This makes it by far the more powerful book of the three from my perspective and it's also much better written (though obviously Zamyatin is at a disadvantage with me on that score because I have to rely on translators). In fact, We feels to me much more like North Korean style totalitarianism than the Soviet version – both may have been aiming for the same, but possibly North Korea's smaller size and more uniform population has enabled the Kim clan to more fully achieve and sustain a completely regimented society entirely dependent on the whim of its God-like “benefactor”. And I doubt anyone thinks the North Koreans are actually happy, however much they're forced to appear to be.Had I read this first, the ideas in it would have felt more original, as indeed they were when it was written. So although I didn't find it the most pleasurable reading experience, I still highly recommend it as a classic that has helped to shape so much later literature. Maybe the secret is to read all the world's literature in strict chronological order. Now isn't that a nice dystopian thought to end on?

There's a reason this one is a classic. I couldn't give it anything less than a perfect five.I liked the synesthetic descriptions and the setting; the main character is well-developed and his love interests are sympathetic and well-rounded. The descriptions, though, and the dreamlike prose--some of the best Russian literature is maddening, and this was no exception. Pure madness.The only thing I disliked was that it was damned hard to follow the plot at about the two thirds mark. I could barely tell what the everliving phuque was going on.All in all, though, this is worth a re-read for me, and will take a treasured place on my bookshelf. I don't even know how it will affect my future writing, but I think it well. It's very close to a perfect book.

Beware: As of 29 July 2010 this particular book is not We by Zamyatin, Yevgeny but We by John Dickinson!I've emailed Amazon Customer service to correct this.

This is a landmark book. It was published in Russia in 1921, as the Soviet regime began to tighten its evil grip and strangle freedom. It's a terrifying view of a horrible dystopia. Interestingly, when reflecting about the book I think it's quite close to the dreadful regime in China.This book is believed to have inspired or influenced Brave New World and 1984. Whilst it's a very clever idea, it's not very well written. Events and characters become quite confusing and difficult to read. I've never been sure whether this is a bit of a feature of Russian literature, and that the Russian mind works a little differently when it comes to storytelling.For me, not so much of an enjoyable read, as an interesting read.Skip the introduction by Will Self.

The story is set in a world of identity-less organisms (ciphers) that make up a community referred to as We. Dictated by science and rationality with no room for individuality. In this Russian dystopia, as with “Brave New World”, pairing off into couples is dissuaded. It is usual for groups of four to walk and talk together rather than two or three. Days are carefully structured by the use of timetables. There is no privacy, even in their rooms. Instead of names the ciphers are designated a letter followed by numbers which matches the glass room in which they reside. Sex is organised through a system of pink slips and it seems as though consent isn’t a consideration and lack of consent is unthought of. In this world the annual election of the Benefactor is celebrated as a holiday equal to Christmas or Easter, looked forward to with excitement. Everyone gets a vote, but whoever does not vote for the Benefactor is eradicated as a threat to the community. And then a woman threatens it all...

This was, I dare say, better than 1984. By a small margin, very small margin. Of course, We inspired Orwell. The style of Zamyatin's writing is unique and vibrant, and the character has a peculiar "math genius" sort of thinking, although most of the time it ends up being very imaginative and artistic. The latter of which the One State does not like and wants to remove. The story is really engaging, keeps you paced, the titles of the journal entries are senseless until you read them and then you go "Aha!". It was inspiring, and heartbreaking, and it made me see normal random objects with different eyes. Praise this chap. "We" touched me.

I first read this work over 40 years ago and was struck by the train of thought in it and the depth of Zamyatin's thought and understanding. As Will Self points out in his magnificent introduction in this edition, this is a work right up there with Russia's greatest novels. It owes much to Dostoyevsky and especially to Dostoyevky's great response to Chernyshevky's Utopian vision in What is to be Done?, namely Crime and Punishment. For those who have ears to hear this is a must.

a tremendous time travel novel which pre-dates 'brave new world' and '1984' - so much so that the latter are sometimes seen as owing a huge debt to 'we' - the short chapters have an intriguing style which starts with a sort of headline of the forthcoming content, - and as each chapter is reached i found myself with a little regret that i was therefore closer to the end. the details like the 'wall' which separates the citizens from raw nature and the transparent houses which afford complete surveillance on all are just two of the fascinating features of this splendid (and strangely little-known) book - highly recommended.