We (1924), by Yevgeny Zamyatin
Dystopian narratives did not originate in Huxley’s “Brave New World” (1932), nor Orwell’s “1984” (1949). In fact, both authors were influenced by another book — way more intriguing than popular — by a Russian author named Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884–1934).
“We” is set in the 26th century, and explores totalitarianism through the eyes of D-503, a mathematician who works on the construction of a spaceship intended to explore the cosmos in search of “alien civilizations still in a wild state of freedom”, and overrule them to the “beneficent yoke of reason.”
Society has been devastated by a 200-year war (99.8% of humanity was annihilated), and now the survivors live within the confines of a city surrounded by a glass wall, subsisting on synthetic food, and under the rules of “the Benefactor,” who watches over them via creative technological apparatus, “organizing” their routines, professional and personal relationships, how their time is allocated, and even the way people ought to think.
The glass walls, in their turn, aren’t just metaphors of surveillance: they are actually built to make any action performed by any individual at any given moment completely transparent to everyone else. All of this perfectly established under the promise of eradicating unhappiness (!)
Deprived of their free will and subordinated to this kind of “mathematical order,” none of the characters have a name. They are instead identified by an alphanumeric code.
“And suddenly I realized all the beauty of this grand mechanical ballet, flooded by the soft bluish light of the sun.
Then I asked myself: why is it so beautiful? Why is the dance beautiful? The answer: because the movement is controlled, because the whole profound sense of the dance lies precisely in the absolute aesthetic subordination, in the ideal lack of freedom.”
(p. 10, Kindle edition)
In this context, the Benefactor emerges as a material, visible, and inspiring god. An “unanimously” elected ruler, master of all order, but also a source of fear and submission, who carries out astounding ceremonies to celebrate the precision of life — as well as to literally reduce to ashes any suspects of conspiring against the regime:
“And swaying in an invisible wind, the criminal walked slowly, one step, then another, the last step of his life, with his face turned to the sky and his head thrown back, in his last act.
Heavy, stone-like, like destiny, the Benefactor walked around the Machine, put his huge hand on the lever… Not a whisper, not a breath: all eyes fixed on that hand. It must be a fiery, overwhelming whirlwind to be the instrument, to be the resulting force of hundreds of thousands of volts. What great luck!
An immeasurable second. The hand connected the current and fell. There shone an unbearable, sharp and cutting ray, like a tremor, one could almost hear the crack of the Machine’s tubes. The extended body, enveloped in a soft and bright thin mist, consumed itself more and more before our eyes until it dissolved with terrible speed. And nothing was left: only a puddle of chemically clean water, which a minute before was making the heart beat violently and red…”
(pp. 57–58, Kindle edition)
Almost a hundred years ago, but…
Although written between 1920–21, the story was only published in 1924 and in the US (!), due to Soviet censorship mechanisms that intensified during that period. In 1922, the USSR would escalate political persecutions when Josef Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party — the same Stalin who, curiously, authorized Zamyatin to emigrate from the country in order to continue his literary production elsewhere.
“Currently, poetry is no longer the unbridled whistle of the nightingale: poetry is a state service, poetry is utility.”
(p. 79, Kindle edition)
Zamyatin’s writing style is characterized by a spare, precise language, and a constant use of mathematical and geometric metaphors. It is poetic, evocative, transporting us to a world that feels familiar and unnerving at the same time. His portrayal of the One State forces us to confront possible outcomes from rigid ideologies where people are devoid of their individuality.
However, the same elements that make “We” a timeless dystopia, seem uncomfortably close to the world that is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary.
