We: A Novel

I became aware of "We" some time after reading both Huxley's "Brave New World" and Orwell's "1984," when I happened upon a mention that Orwell believed (one might better say "accused") Huxley's work to have been fundamentally derived from Zamyatin's novel. With that mention, "We" entered my awareness, but I knew little about it except the basic premise of a clockwork world inhabited by people who were reduced to numbers. It was only when I attempted Ayn Rand's "Anthem" that "We" moved to the forefront of my thinking: Rand's book is so incredibly derivative of the premise "We" sets up that I actually felt obliged to put it down and read Zamyatin's work before continuing. "We" starts out easily understood and becomes harder to follow in later chapters. Sometimes, it seems as though sentences or paragraphs that might have better framed events have been omitted, although that is not the case. It is not hard to read, but it is sometimes tricky to derive the intent of the plot. These interruptions can often be overcome by inference, and the story moves on regardless. The world of "We" is utopian under dictatorial control. Late in the story, the nature and scale of that control seeks massive expansion that even the devotees of the One State find generally unsettling. Early on, it seems merely confining, not stifling, and one could imagine that, but for the plot's own events, it might have remained unchanged for all time. I recommend skipping Margaret Atwood's introductory comments until you have finished the book, because they contain spoilers. Orwell's comments on his perceived link between "We" and "Brave New World" struck me as quite off base: Huxley's world bears practically no resemblance to Zamyatin's except for a stated goal of promoting happiness. One must wonder whether he was launching a proactive attack to deter claims that his own book was derivative, because the parallels there are far clearer: the Benefactor effectively IS Big Brother, certainly not one of Huxley's World Controllers, and most of Orwell's commentary on Huxley left me wondering whether he had read the book or relied on a summary. The most meaningful commentary is the last, by Ursula K. LeGuin. She contrasts the censorship of the One State, its spiritual successor in Orwell's Oceania, and the real-world model for both in the histories of Russia and the Soviet Union--that is, authoritarian censorship--with what she terms "market censorship," in which what is said is tailored to what is believed likely to sell. LeGuin's commentary enriches a reading of "We" in ways that others do not, taking this very good story and framing it so that its true implications can be put to use beyond a simplistic critique of twentieth-century Communism. I enjoyed listening to "We" as an audiobook, and if it was occasionally tricky to understand who was talking in unlabeled exchanges of dialog, I did not find it unsettling to my enjoyment. I recommend Zamyatin's book and LeGuin's commentary to anyone interested in dystopian exploration.