Talk:We (novel)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about We (novel). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Further editing of the lead paragraph

I agree with your idea to give the 1988 pub date in the USSR. The second sentence would be a good place to say more about the publishing history, including that it was banned in the USSR. The It was written in response ... sentence has too much biography for the lead paragraph, but I'm not sure whether it should be editted or transposed.

--Jtir 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your other comments make sense to me too. A new second sentence could read: "Banned by Glavlit, the new Soviet censorship bureau, in 1921, the novel was first published in English in 1924, but its first publication in the Soviet Union had to wait until 1988, when it appeared alongside George Orwell's 1984. "
I think that the current balance of the first paragraph, "It was witten ... on a large scale." should be a second paragraph, or better perhaps, be moved to first place in the following section ==History and influence==. But the question for me becomes: has ==History and influence== been overly butchered? Should some of the informarion be repeated, perhaps with new words" As I see it, ==History and influence== wouuld then read like this:

1st paragraph: The novel was witten ... on a large scale.

2nd paragraph: The initial draft dates to 1919. ... intercession of Maxim Gorky.

3rd paragraph: George Orwell was familiar with ... Huxley was lying."

The above is sketchy, I'd be surprised if ==History and influence== can not be further(:-)) improved. It seems thematically to have become two sections: == Genesis of the novel == and == Influence ==

--Oryanw 00:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

rationalisation of labour

What is rationalisation of labour? It seems to have been introduced by anon User:213.1.45.2 in this edit.

--Jtir 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It'a the extreme division of labour - what most people would refer to as the "conveyor belt". It allowed workers to be very well trained in one minor aspect of production but ignorant of the overall process.

--Yablochko 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really see extreme division of labour in this book. The main character seemed to be in charge of anything an everything regarding the Integral. Some people had dull jobs (punching tickets for example) but there was no emphasis on reducing work to minor, almost meaningless actions.

vague and unsourced claim about bible code

However, some have claimed the names are a bible code.
This sentence is vague (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) and unsourced (Wikipedia:Verifiability). It was introduced without an edit summary by anon User:68.62.11.166 in this edit. Should it be removed?

--Jtir 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed here. --Jtir 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What translation of We should be used?

It is not clear what translation of We is used in this article. It seems to me that one translation should be chosen as "preferred", with others being referenced as needed (e.g. when noting that one translation uses OneState where another uses United State). The translation by Mirra Ginsburg is online and would be very convenient for copy/paste of quotes. However it could disappear sometime and it might not be an exact copy of the printed version. --Jtir 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited it based on google results. Zamyatin "One State" got 500 results, while Zamyatin "United State" got 1500 results. I actually prefer the spellig Onestate which also got 500 results--Acebrock 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research job! Clarence Brown uses "OneState" (with the upper case "S" in the middle), even though he considers it "ugly". ~~"OneState" is what I prefer.~~ --Jtir 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC) [I now prefer "One State" per Ginsburg and Randall. --Jtir 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)]

I'm replacing One State with OneState as it is used in the English translation by Clarance Brown. --125.239.213.81 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in We. I certainly agree that Brown's translation is excellent and his Introduction is invaluable. However, Ginsburg and Randall both use One State. There is a footnote listing variants. Do you know of any others? Also, please consider registering. --Jtir 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Highly valid points. I appreciate your corrections. --125.239.213.81 09:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it referred to as the United State in any of my readings. Rather than refer to it as one or the other, we can refer to it as both. --Andrewwinter 12:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I replaced "United State" with "One State" throughout and cited all three translations in a footnote. The journal article by McClintock uses "United State" in the article title, but I don't have access to the rest of the article, where the translation might be identified. The footnote can be easily expanded. How does it look? --Jtir 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"United State" might be confused for the short name of United States of America. I like "OneState" because that is what is in the book I read, but "One State" is tolerable as well. I think however a search for "OneState" will yield a result more unique to Zamyatin's work than "One State" will. What is the Russian word Zamyatin used? Killer Swath 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the footnote? --Jtir 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I see that now, "Единое Государство" . Just a side note, freetranslation.com and Rustran.com translate this into "The uniform State". Babel Fish translates it into "The single state". I am not suggesting any of these to be used, it is just side information. I will ask my Russian Literature professor and friends how they translate it into English. I find translations fun in how one phrase can be told so many ways but mean one thing :) . Killer Swath 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I often use babelfish and find the translations weirdly beautiful and addled at the same time, but almost always useful. Another good site is www.multitran.ru (in Russian). One of the editors of this article, User:Bandalore, is a professional Russian translator. You can read a quote by him on the subject in Alan Myers (translator). See #section about the translations of We for comments from him and a Russian (Inna). --Jtir 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The introduction to the English translation that I'm familiar with (Clarence Brown, 1993) lays out in great detail the differences between the various translations. I think using "United State" in this article is unwise; people will unconsciously add an "s" to it (a form of symbolic filling-in, a psychological phenomenon). I think "OneState" is preferable. Also keep in mind the complex history of the original manuscript - it was translated (in some parts, poorly) by a number of different people, and the first language it appeared in was English (due to censorship in the USSR). If User:Bandalore is indeed an expert on Russian-to-English translation, perhaps he could provide an explanation of the history of the novel's various publications (at least, the initial few). Also, it might be useful to have some kind of table comparing translations of different words in the different translations, with the original Russian in the far left column. Overall, I think the English translation terms should be consistent throughout the article, for the sake of clarity. Fuzzform (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a footnote that details the various translations of "One State". Since there are several other words that may also be variously translated, a table might a good way to present them. Do you know what translation uses "cypher"? Brown has a lot of interesting detail about the history of the novel that is not in the History section. Feel free to expand it. --Jtir (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have reorganized the page slightly. All the content is the same, but Significance and Criticism has been moved nearer to the top (and changed to Signficance and influences). Lines such as "it is considered the grandfather of the genre" seem more suited to an introduction paragraph.

I believe it flows much better this way, as the sentances flow well into one another. As well, critical information, such as the influences of Taylor fit should be near the beginning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewwinter (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Template and expansion

I've brought the article in line with the Novel Template. I've also put in several sub-headings that can be expanded upon. Hopefully this will encourage the article to grow. Areas that need further expansion are: Major Themes: Individualism, and Probably Communism/Totalitariansim Allusions: Dostoevsky and Biblical References --Andrewwinter 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That is a huge improvement. I like what you did with the journal articles. There are also mathematical references throughout the novel. I'd like to move the math paragraph from Trivia to a subsection under Allusions and references to other works when you are through reorganizing. --Jtir 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious Allusions and some Citations

The Mephistopheles connection is referred to in this article on page 481:

McClintock, James I. (1977). "United State Revisited: Pynchon and Zamiatin". Contemporary Literature. 18 (4): 475–490. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Is that enough?

This is one of a few articles I found which refer to the One State as the United State using the 1952 reprinting by EP Dutton of the 1924 translation.

In my search to find a source for this Mephi - Mephistopheles assertion, I also found a source dealing with numerous religious aspects and allusions in We.

Gregg, Richard A. (1965). "Two Adams and Eve in the Crystal Palace: Dostoevsky, the Bible, and We". Slavic Review. 24 (4): 680–687. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Interesting points:

-correlations between We and Genesis chapters 1-4 abound ex: I-330 as eve, her "bite-smile" as a reference to biting the apple. S as the Snake etc.

bite-smile from Ginsburg:

Sixth Entry: bite-smile, white sharp teeth. "I mean, to be exact, the most absurd of all
Thirteenth Entry: Rising quickly, she put on her unif and her usual sharp bite-smile. "Well,
Seventeenth Entry: "here" was? The familiar, saffron-yellow silk, the bite-smile, the veiled

-quotations such as "We is of God, I is of the Devil" (22nd Entry, near the end)

As well it contains several allusions to work by Dostoyevsky. Worth reading and incorporating into the influential works I would say. I will update further once I've done a little more reading. Is the article a bit old is a major question. --Andrewwinter 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Excellent research. I guess you have access to JSTOR. The McClintock ref was already in the article. I added Gregg (and thanks for using the cite template). Feel free to develop any sections based on sources like these. The article is using the <ref></ref> tags and inline short cites (e.g. <ref>Gregg</ref>). There is still debate about whether page numbers are needed — personally, as a reader, I like them because they add amazing credibility to an article (see for example 0.999).

I don't think the date of an article is a concern (the novel is from 1921 after all). If there are differences of opinion among articles — that's just more material. :-)

"...the United State using the 1952 reprinting by EP Dutton of the 1924 translation." Fantastic! That's the Zilboorg translation. I'll add it to the footnote.

--Jtir 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jtir,I've deleted my post here as I've had second thoughts

Bandalore 00:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am all for a sourced paragraph on the origins of We, both literary and biographical. The second and third sentences in the lead section have always seemed out-of-place there, but they would be ideal in such a paragraph. --Jtir 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be recognized that an elucidation of "correlations between We and Genesis" and "what the author may have intended" is inappropriately too profound for this general article. Think how long a worthy magazine article would have to be! Correspondingly, while fixing some fragments, I chopped that down just a little, leaving an introduction to the idea; the reader can follow the citations. Someone who wanted might be able to create a main article on the subject... if it's been discussed widely enough to merit inclusion. Twang (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical References

I haven't read the book, so I don't know what it claims. However, i isn't an irrational number, it's imaginary. If the book claims it is irrational, then this should be clarified, and if it doesn't than that section needs to be reworked entirely. Arturus 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"the irrationality of square root -1 bothers him greatly" is that the line you're referring to? The book quite correctly describes the irrational nature of this concept. Although mathematicians use the label irrational number to describe a number that cannot be decimalised, it is not incorrect to call an imaginary number irrational. (Yablochko 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Okay, that makes sense, although I'm still uncomfortable with the section. I have great difficulty not reading the word irrational as the technical meaning in a context like that, but I don't know how this could be clarified without awkwardness. It seems to me that perhaps describing the construction as arbitrary rather than irrational would be more accurate, but if this is how the book approaches it then this is a problem I have with the book, not the article. Arturus 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New author:

Two things struck me on reading the book:

Firstly the description of I-330, her face is described as creating an X via mouth and eyebrow expression/beauty. The letter X in algebra is always an unknown quantity, a large part of Onestate being the removal of doubt and uncertainty from peoples lives. Within the book there are extensive references to the "Table" that dictates almost every minute of every day, D-503 even refers to the hour long lunch and evening "personal time" as being a point where the world becomes ugly and chaotic because everyone just goes off and does whatever they do in their free time and longs for the table to cover every minute of every day to remove any possible surprises from his life.

Secondly the use of √-1 as a description of his mood. The mathematical answer to the formula is i=√-1 where "i" stands for imaginary - so the solution to his mood is "i" (in my opinion I-330). I would go so far as to extrapolate that the cause of this mood is in fact his imagination, because in his naivety D-503 always tows the party line without thought until his initial encounter with I-330, the demonic X on her face and her comment about his (in D-503s opinion) bestial hands. As all negative square roots are considered imaginary due to their illogical nature (you cannot have two roots to a number, this has been agreed since the ancient Greeks).

Correct name of the protagonist

The correct name is actually D-503 not A-503. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xelnanga (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Xelnanga 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in the article it did not say A-503, but Д-503. It is the Cyrillic alphabet letter corresponding to D. Perhaps your browser does not correctly show it? --Goochelaar 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem now. Yes, it was a problem with my browser. I apologize for the inconvenience. Xelnanga 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My copy has E-330, not I-330, an other translation issue? - Hakan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.187.30 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Saint Alexander Nevsky Citation

The citation needed for Zamyatin's claim to have checked and signed the specifications of Saint Alexander Nevsky is the article:

‘O moikh zhenakh, o ledokolakh i o Rossii’, (‘My wives, icebreakers and Russia’, untranslated) Mosty IX (1962) p. 25

I don't know how to insert this properly - perhaps some kind person?

Bandalore 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added a note citing the article.

Who is the author of the article? Any other bibliographic details (Month, Vol/No, etc.) would be welcome.

Is there is a particular sentence from the article that makes the exact claim that could be added to the note? (translated into English)

--Jtir 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

'All these icebreakers were constructed in England, in Newcastle and yards nearby; there are traces of my work in every one of them, especially the Alexander Nevsky - now the Lenin;I did the preliminary design, and after that none of the vessel's drawings arrived in the workshop without having being checked and signed: 'Chief surveyor of Russian Icebreakers' Building E.Zamiatin.'

[The signature is written in English].

The article is by Zamyatin himself. Mosty (Bridges) was an emigre journal of the 1950s-60s, posssibly published in New York. I don't have any more bibliographical details about it, or the original publication (I didn't have academic research in mind) but I'll contact London University and let you know.

Bandalore 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's a very interesting quote.

Is "having being checked" what you intended?

Before you go to any more trouble, I will attempt to get a copy of Shane. He might have included it.

Thanks. --Jtir 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's 'having been checked' - and 'surveyor' is without a capital in the original.

I have discovered that 'Mosty' was an emigre journal published in Munich. This volume doesn't indicate where the original Zamyatin piece was published.

I hope Shane does have it, though the significance of Zamyatin's life and activities in England, including the icebreakers, and particularly the crucial importance of 'Islanders' was underestimated for a long time. I'm pleased with my part in changing attitudes.

The Zamyatin in Newcastle section of my website, however, contains a lot of original research material that is unavailable elsewhere. A Zamyatin reader with local knowledge is a rare bird.

Bandalore 13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to your help I was able to find a bibrec for Mosty.

Talk:We (novel)/Sources#Mosty Russian emigre journal bibrec

Another serial, dated 1994, is also listed.

Can you say when Z. wrote it?

--Jtir 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. He mentions the Krasin (as Sviatogor one of Z's Wallsend icebreakers)and its world fame as the rescuer of the survivors of the Nobile expedition off Spitzbergen in 1928, so it was after that.

The film The Red Tent with Peter Finch, Sean Connery (as Amundsen) and Claudia Cardinale is about this episode by the way.

Z's article is patriotic but in a Russian sense rather than Soviet and in my opinion probably dates to around 1932 in his Parisian exile.

Z had some fame as the 'designer of the Krasin' though as he says, it was the icebreaker he had least to do with. I quote from my Zamyatin in Newcastle:

Sviatogor (renamed 1927 Krasin) 4,902 tons gross. Yard number A/W 904. Completed February 1917. There is a small model of this vessel in the Naval Architecture Department of Newcastle University.

During the 1918-19 allied intervention against the Bolsheviks in northern Russia, Sviatogor was in action against the Royal Navy and was scuttled. The vessel, however, was raised by the Royal Navy and employed by them in the White Sea, before being taken to Scapa Flow where it was used in minesweeping operations. The ship was returned to the USSR under the Krasin trade agreement in 1921. As the Krasin, the vessel took part in rescuing General Nobile’s airship expedition off Spitzbergen in 1928, thus achieving world fame.

Bandalore 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the dating info and the interesting background info. I incorporated some of it into the annotation.

Why would Z. have called the icebreaker Sviatogor instead of Krasin?

I could not find the full text on the web, but I did find an article that mentions the title.

О моих женах, о ледокола и о России

It differs slightly from the transliterated title. Can you say what is correct?

This must sound wonderful in Russian: о ледокола.

--Jtir 15:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be a Russian 'x' at the end of ледокола and an 'i' before o Rossii in the transliteration (that one's my fault).

The world knew the icebreaker as Krasin but Zamyatin always made it clear that its original name had been Sviatogor (i.e. when he was in Wallsend). Sviatogor is a well-known figure in Russian folk-tales. Z did the same with the Lenin, the former Saint Alexander Nevsky, a name unsuitable in the Soviet era. This vessel had been commandeered by the Royal Navy on the Tyne in 1917, renamed HMS Alexander and taken with the expedition to northern Russia.

Weirdly enough Sviatogor and HMS Alexander actually met face to face on the Northern Dvina near Archangel in 1918 but there was no exchange of fire. Captain Dreyer of the Sviatogor was killed later, and there is a monument to him and his crew in Archangel. I mention in my web article that 'his' ships could hardly have been far from Zamyatin's mind when writing WE (i.e. in 1918-1920).

When the allied forces left in 1919, they handed HMS Alexander over to the White Russian forces.

Bandalore 23:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I made both corrections and used Sviatogor in the annotation because that is what Z. used. There are two commas in the transliteration and only one in the Russian.

I have also added two quotes to the Saint Alexander Nevsky section. I adapted the original sentence, but the result has some flaws, including redundancy and awkward usage. Perhaps you could comment?

In the notes I mention 4711, which comes perilously close to doing original research. I may remove it after reviewing the policy.

--Jtir 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Many apologies and thanks for your careful work. There is only one comma in the quote - after Женах.

I think with a world-famous name like 4711 it is legitimate to assume intention on Zamyatin's part. The number is 4000 higher than any other in WE.

Bandalore 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the comma. "Assuming intention" would certainly constitute original research. However, I have a source and will start a new section. --Jtir 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found another publication of 'O moikh zhenakh...' in Zamyatin's collected works published in four volumes in Munich (1970-88)

E.I.Zamiatin, 'O moikh zhenakh, o ledokolakh i o Rossii', Sochineniia (Munich) II, 234-40

Professor Russell (see below) mentions this article.

Bandalore 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does it say anything about date or location of original publication? --Jtir 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

table of characters

This article needs a table of characters showing their names in both the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabets. I believe this would help discourage the low-level edit warring I see in the edit history.

Since this is the English WP, the article body should use the Latin alphabet. But this is also an article about a Russian language novel in which the names are unusual and have literary significance. Indeed, there is an unsourced paragraph discussing the significance of the shapes of the letters in the names of the characters. (It's in the Trivia section for some reason.)

--Jtir 10:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the number of the character S-4711 a reference to the 4711 Eau de Cologne?

This article seems to be saying that there is.

JSTOR: Three Russian Writers and the Irrational: Zamyatin, Pil ...
Three Russian Writers and the Irrational: Zamyatin, Pil'nyak, and Bulgakov ...
Zamiatin borrowed the number for S- from 4711 Eau de Co- logne to illustrate ...

The above is from the google cache. Could someone look at this paper? (I don't have access to JSTOR.) I will add the reference.

--Jtir 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

In the trivia section the Cyrillic letter д is associated with the possible rocket-shape of the Integral and ю with the shape of a fish.

However, in Section 15 of WE, Zamyatin describes the Integral as 'an exquisite elongated ellipsoid', that is the shape of the icebreaker he so delighted in.

I have been familiar with things Russian for many years and have never heard or read of the letter ю being compared to a fish. I have consulted Russians about this too.

I suggest the whole of this section be deleted after the description of I-330 as tall and thin.

Bandalore 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! It was added here by an anon and without an edit summary. I have removed it as unsourced. --Jtir 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[The following comment and the sig were copied from below to consolidate discussion. --Jtir 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)]

In History, I can't find that I-330 is described as 'tall and thin' so perhaps this could be deleted unless a source can be provided. Ithe sentence will need a little revision. Bandalore 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit introduced the sentence. The editor hasn't been active since 21 November 2006, so I doubt that he will be providing a source. I have removed it here. --Jtir 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional Book Source

Robert Russell Zamyatin's We Bristol Classical Press 2000

This is a close chapter by chapter analysis of WE with an illuminating introductory section on translations, major trends in criticism and the Russian Civil War period when We was written. Many of the points made by contributors are discussed in its 131 pages.

Bandalore 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting Russell. I found his book at both the [http://www.amazon.com US] and the [http://www.amazon.co.uk UK] amazon sites. (Z's name is translitered as Zamiatin in the title — that threw me off for a while.) It has ISBN 185399393X and is in print — and is available at a friendly price. I will add it to the refs.

Russell sounds like an excellent source. If you can source or re-source anything in the article, that would be wonderful. Citing one book instead of numerous journal articles would be much preferable. --Jtir 13:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

History citation

The citation for the statement that the first draft of We dates to 1919 is:

Robert Russell Zamyatin's We Bristol Classical Press 2000, p.3

Bandalore 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added it to the notes. That is the earliest date I have seen. Did Russell find a new source? --Jtir 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All he says is that:'In fact it has recently been shown that work on the novel extended over a longer period, with a first draft dating from 1919 and completed in 1920. The final, polished version of the novel was finished no earlier than July 1921 [citation for that latter bit].

Bandalore 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut

The reference to Vonnegut's ripping off Huxley, who in turn had ripped off Zamyatin is interesting in connection with Vonnegut's own seminal short story 'Harrison Bergeron', which graphically demonstrates how an egalitarian ethos, taken to an extreme, can engender repression. Bergeron, a highly gifted individual both physically and mentally is handicapped (including the use of metal weights) to reduce him to the norm. One is reminded of WE.

Bandalore 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a WP article on Harrison Bergeron. --Jtir 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

section about the translations of We

I would be interested in a section in the article about the translations of We. In particular, it would be useful to have something about the translations of One State. There has been a low-level edit war over which translation of One State is used in the article, so I believe more facts would help.

What is the Russian word and its English transliteration?
What is its etymology?
How has the word been translated into English?

There are other words that might also be given this treatment: Numbers, Benefactor, math terms such as irrational, etc.

In Record 8, all three translations that I have (Ginsburg, Brown, Randall) suggest that the square root of -1 is an irrational number. Mathematicians do not ordinarily call the square root of -1 irrational. In math usage, it is imaginary or complex. The square root of 2 is irrational. Is this a translation error or a literary device?

Brown finds errors in Zilboorg and invents the term "yuny". He uses "OneState" (with the upper case "S" in the middle), even though he considers it "ugly".

In her intro, Randall says that she was "intensely aware of Zamyatin's sounds" and that she "chose lingual and labial permutations that matched Zamyatin's" where she could. She says further: "The syntatical pacing and pulsing in both the Russian and this translation may seem strange at first, until you surrender to Zamyatin's 'language of thought.'"

Randall's translation differs in a minor, but puzzling, way from the other two translations that I have . In Record Five her translation reads "True, only 0.2 percent of the population of the earthly sphere survived." She uses the word "percent" here, and in the following sentence, where the other two translations do not. Since she expresses gratitude to her mathematician father in her intro, I can only assume he reviewed her translation. --Jtir 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not an academic but I am russian. The words Единое Государство do mean One State in russian. However, the word "state" may not be a perfect synonym. It seems to understate its Russian equivalent. The word Государство evokes a certain sense of grandeur and vastness. Its deeper association in Russian is closer to the words nation and dominion. Also, the word Единое does not just mean "one"; when we use it in speech it often symbolizes not only singularity but also unity. There are definite parallels to the rhetoric language of the communist times. Also, I didn't see the mention of the fact that Мы does not just mean "we" but also a respectful I. In old Russia, it was common for zsars and aristocrats to refer to themselves in the plural sense. ----- IGN May/07 206.195.19.41 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Inna

'Blagodetel' = Benefactor. There seems no problem here. It contains the nuances of the Russian, and sounds comfortably right. 'Well-doer' is not English and sounds artificial (translationese).

Zamyatin uses 'numer' rather than 'nomer' but at least as late as the '40s both were regarded as correct in schools. In Zamyatin's day it was quite normal usage. There's no difference in meaning so 'number' is fine.

I haven't read Randall's translation but the one example you quote makes me rather fearful. 'Zemnoi shar' = in literal Russian 'Earthly sphere'. But in ordinary speech it just means 'the planet' really. Who has ever heard 'the earthly sphere' in any context in English?

I know the tone is a lecturing one here, but better as a translation would be: 'only... of the planet's population survived.'

However, there can be no end to argument over the merits of different translations. You would have to read all five and the original to do a proper job, and even then your judgment would be subjective. You could write a thesis on it.

Outright mistakes of course are a different matter and few translators avoid them completely. Randall sems to make one here with her percent, but then Zamyatin made at least two other mathematical ones himself. Errors in nuance are always there for those who want to see them. Another thesis.

Far be it from me to criticise any translator who writes in real English (rather than translationese) especially when dealing with a very tricky text like WE. For the record I read Guerney first - wilful and very self-indulgent but it catches a lot of the fun. Zamyatin said it was his funniest and most serious book.

Then I read Zilboorg and enjoyed that. But serious translation work of my own has over-sensitised me and made me impatient of what I see as infelicities. I just can't get into Brown. In England nowadays, his 'uni' means university, so that's one problem.

The One State in Russian is roughly transliterated 'Yedinoye gosudarstvo'. Two words, the second meaning 'state'. The first word derives from 'one' 'odin' in Russian, but the form 'yedin' is common ( ('odinoki = lonely;'uyedineniye'= solitude, isolation; 'yedinstvenni' = only/single. 'Odin yedinstvenni' = One and only.

United state has the wrong connotations(the USA is 'Soyedinyonnie shtati'). The One State has a self-affirming ring to it and suggests singularity and unity to me. Other variants seem strained.

Luckily I know nothing about maths.

Bandalore 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights into the translations. You gave me the confidence to expand the footnote describing the translations of Yedinoye Gosudarstvo. I also added an external link to www.multitran.ru, which is an online Russian translation site. It seems to be very comprehensive.

Could you look at the note and the web site?

What source should be cited in the article for the etymology? (which I have yet to add)

How does Guerney translate Yedinoye Gosudarstvo?

--Jtir 11:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Guerney uses 'The One State'. Capitals.

I'll need more time to study the multitran but it looks like an English-Russian oriented site. The 'reading room' contains works in English only. There is a parallel translation project going, but the Russian effort seems idiomatically feeble compared to the English original (Conan Doyle). I'm not sure a link is needed.

In History, I can't find that I-330 is described as 'tall and thin' so perhaps this could be deleted unless a source can be provided. Ithe sentence will need a little revision.

I do explain the number 4711 - as a playful reference to the famous perfume (used by both sexes) and writ large on each bottle. Perhaps Zamyatin and or his wife used it.

The numbers needn't be pored over for mystic significance in my view. Though the population of the One State is very considerable, Zamyatin uses low numbers - obviously for convenience. What more easily to hand than those relating to his favourite icebreaker (905 3300), over whose drawings he pored throughout 1916. Rounded O-90 probably gave him his start, because that's the way Zamyatin wrote about icebreakers:

'You will see that the definition of its steel ribs is rounder, more feminine than many another vessel. In cross-section, an icebreaker resembles an egg...' (O ledokolakh...)

I use my own informal transliteration to give the reader a break. There is an agreed academic system but that's really for professionals and is hard going for the uninitiated. There is only one meaning for 'gosudarstvo'. 'Yedini' is the adjective for 'odin' (one). It is simply so in the dictionary; what source can I cite? I'd prefer you not to go into the etymology. Just say that 'Yedinoe' derives from 'odin' (one) and its compounds.

Professor Robert Russell's book about WE is called Zamiatin's We (Bristol Classical Press 2000 ISBN 185399 393X)

The book Zamiatin:We (Bristol Classical Press 2007 ISBN 185399 3787 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum) is the Russian text (unstressed) with introduction and notes by Andrew Barratt. It's a reprint of the 1994 edition, as far as I can see.

Bandalore 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I have made these three changes.

I am satisfied with simply stating the Russian words.

The www.amazon.co.uk site has [http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185399393X the wrong title ~~and synopsis~~] for ISBN 185399393X.

I am now using [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/185399393X the www.amazon.com info], although it shows a different publisher and a date of 2001. (I have not looked for a library bibrec yet.)

Could you verify that I have linked to the right author here?

WP has a policy for Romanization of Russian.

I have twice now searched Zamyatin in Newcastle for "4711" and I do not find it.

--Jtir 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a book with ISBN 1853993787 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, but I did find these with ISBN 1853993786:

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1853993786 We (Russian Texts), Bristol Classical Press (1 Jan 1998)]

[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1853993786 We (Russian Texts), Duckworth Publishers (May 17, 2006)]

In addtion to the ISBNs, the page counts are the same.

Would you recommend this as an authoritative Russian language edition?

--Jtir 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bristol Classical Press is now an imprint of Duckworth. I rang them to sort out the books and they seemed a bit confused themselves.

ISBN 1-85399-393-X is Zamiatin's We by Robert Russell (2000). It's the book of criticism (paperback) and I have it in front of me.

The ISBN 978 185399 3 787 refers to a book (the text again) coming out in 2007 they said. It seems odd appearing so soon after the 2006 one. I should ignore the 787 number.

You have the right Robert Russell. He's the professor of Russian at Sheffield and a specialist on Russian revolutionary drama He's also interested in Zamyatin (who wrote plays of course). I haven't seen his We text, but it's inconceivable that it would be less than academically respectable.

I do apologise for making you read my Zamyatin in Newcastle; I hope you got something out of it. You're right, I don't say anything there about S-4711. It isn't an icebreaker number, so wasn't relevant to Zamyatin's time in Newcastle.

Bandalore 21:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:We_%28novel%29"

created /Archive 1 per WP:ARCHIVE

I have archived some of the earlier talk page discussion. Most of those issues have been fairly well resolved. --Jtir 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers R-13 and U-10 Sviatogor/Krasin

I have added my explanation of the numbers R-13 and U-10 with relation to Zamyatin's icebreaker drawings/yard numbers. That completes my set.

At the very end, I have slightly amended the reference to Sviatogor. In that context Krasin is the name to use. The links explain things clearly.

I have re-read Zamyatin's Newcastle novellas and will add a little bit about their role as forerunners.

Bandalore 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the annotation should mention both names. Do you know if the collected works give a date for his article (or is it a memoir)?

E.I.Zamiatin, 'O moikh zhenakh, o ledokolakh i o Rossii', Sochineniia (Munich) II, 234-40

I have not forgotten about adding this to the Refs.

I tagged this with {{fact}}, because the statement is unsourced and appears to be original research. BTW, did you see the new footnote?

--Jtir 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Sochineniia has the date, but I'll follow this up if I can. It's an article, not a memoir, although it does speak of his time in England and the icebreakers he worked on. He also explains how icebreakers work, which was a surprise to me (then).

Yes, U-10 and R-13 would come under original research. How annoying, just rounded it off neatly.

I've changed my mind about a para on Islanders.The parallels were so many and quotes so attractive that several paragraphs resulted.

The only English translation of the Newcastle novellas that I know is from the Salamander Press 1984 (Flamingo 1985 paperback), translated by Sophie Fuller and Julian Sacchi. ISBN 0-00-654141 - 0 (the paperback)

Martin Amis called the stories 'remarkable in every way' (Observer 4.11.1984)

Perhaps a note could be added to this effect.

Bandalore 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A separate WP article on The Islanders or the collection might be justified if Martin Amis has reviewed them. You have to establish notability when creating a new article. --Jtir 19:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be such an article, although there is this dab page: The Islanders (disambiguation).--Jtir 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to User talk:Bandalore --Jtir 19:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Energy vs. Entropy

I think this part needs to be expanded as a major theme of the novel. It is found in Entries 28-30 mainly but applies to the whole book. Killer Swath 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to cite our sources — do you know of a source that regards "Energy vs. Entropy" as "a major theme of the novel"? He uses "energy" and "entropy" several times, so someone must have noticed this and analyzed it. --Jtir 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All uses of the word "energy" in We (Ginsburg trans.)

more courage and energy and logic, if only primitive logic He had been able
reckless waste of human energy—don't you think?"
kilogrammometers of energy residing in the waves went only to heighten
Entropy and Energy (Twenty-eighth Entry)
the world—entropy and energy. One leads to blissful quietude, to happy

All uses of the word "entropy" in We (Ginsburg trans.)

Entropy and Energy (Twenty-eighth Entry)
the world—entropy and energy. One leads to blissful quietude, to happy
Entropy was worshiped as God by our—or, rather, your— ancestors, the
"Ah: uniformly, everywhere! That's exactly where it is—entropy,
psychological entropy. Is it not dear to you, a mathematician, that only

These are in Ginsburg's Intro to the novel:

energy into the great cultural and artistic upsurge that followed the (Ginsburg)
of the conservation of energy and of the dissipation of energy (entropy)...." (Z.'s essay "On Literature, Revolution, Entropy and Other Matters", cited in Ginsburg's Intro)

Color Scheme

The color scheme should be expanded. Each color represents a mood. I know pink is associated with positive moods and I think yellow is bad. It would be a good expansion if we worked together to figure out what each color meant and used a quote as an example. Just an idea :) Killer Swath 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't do original research, however if you know of a source, such as a book review or journal article, that analyzes the use of colors in We, we could cite that and expand the article along the lines you are suggesting. --Jtir 16:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that Zamyatin's 'cubist' style and reduction of people to a single physical characteristic is used in the Newcastle novellas too. So is his colour palette, though far less well-developed than in WE. The colour 'raspberry' for example occurs no fewer than seven times on one page of 'A Fisher of men'.

According to Robert Russell (p.19-20), critics have paid considerable attention to colour in WE. He instances Carl Proffer in Kern (1988) (95-105); Shane (1968) p. 158; Collins (1973) p. 53; Connolly (1979) deals with the use of colour in three Zamyatin tales, though not in WE.

Sona S. Hoisington and Lynn Imbery ('Zamjatin's Modernist Palette: Colors and their Function in We (Slavic and East European JournalXXXVI:2 (1992)pp. 159-71. have taken a sophisticated view (1992 p. 160-2, 168). They demonstrate that Zamyatin's use of colour is TRANSFORMATIONAL rather than marking fixed attributes. Colour significance depends on context.

Bandalore 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you be willing to expand that into a paragraph and add it to the article? I guess that a subsection in "Allusions and references" would be the place to put a subsection on "Colours" (or whatever title you choose). I can add the refs. --Jtir 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to do that much textual analysis. I've just been parrotting Russell for information and refs. You now know as much as I do!

My interest is really confined to the Newcastle end of things, and the way Zamyatin drew on this experience when establishing the framework of We. The complexity of that novel is outside my competence.

Bandalore 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NP. Maybe another ed. will be able to pick it up from here. I am impressed that Russell is giving page cites. --Jtir 15:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

trimmed See also section

I have trimmed the See also section back to the bare minimum. There were articles listed that said nothing about We or that are already mentioned (with citations) in this article. The remaining items are either lists or articles that mention We, but without citing any sources. I have {{fact}} tagged those articles. --Jtir 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I have absorbed some of the trivia into the text, and deleted the bit about O-90 (which is obvious) and other characters supposedly imitating their letter shape. It only applies to S 4711 and is also obvious.

I'm left with auditorium 112 which I tried to insert into the first para, which mentions the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. This has mucked up the para and I don't know what to do about it.

Bandalore 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Trivia section.

I am thinking that the subsection headers in the Allusions and references to other works section are not useful, because there simply isn't enough material to deserve a subsection for many of the points being made. I would propose combining the minor allusions (e.g. auditorium 112 and S-4711) in an introductory para and placing more complex allusions in succeeding paras (e.g. icebreakers and mathematics).

--Jtir 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BB I went ahead and did this. Feel free to copyedit. --Jtir 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerome's influence on Z.

This article seems to be about the influence of Jerome on Z. Unfortunately, I don't have access to JSTOR to confirm it. --Jtir (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A Neglected Source of Zamiatin's Novel "We"
Elizabeth Stenbock-Fermor, Zamiatin
Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Apr., 1973), pp. 187-188

removing of links to related topics from see also

I have added now links to Dostoevsky's (banned under the Soviet regime) Demons which was about the tyranny in the ideologies of the revolutionaries. I accepted that because there was no direct mention of the Dostoevsky as such from Zamyatin that Russian Lit and in specific Russian dystopian literature under the discretion of Jtir should make an argument from silence. Now Jtir has removed two new links I added which are the philosophical terms for the type of tyranny depicted in the novel. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We have to cite our sources and cannot do original research. Do know of a source that says the terms describe "the type of tyranny depicted in the novel"? --Jtir (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding a link to already created article or articles does not qualify as Original Research. WP:ALSO as a policy does not require that linking to another article on wikipedia has to be sourced in order to be done. Can you show me where it does? It would appear that you are creating new policies for wiki that do not exist. WP:ALSO states it is common sense that dictates what can be added, links do not have to be sourced. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinction between policies and guidelines. WP:V and WP:NOR are policies and WP:ALSO is only a guideline. Policy trumps guideline. And it is not at all common sense to me that certain complex philosophical concepts are the subject of We. Unfortunately, not everyone can have your insights into literature and philosophy. I am very puzzled as to why you haven't simply added a sentence or two to the article with citations saying whatever it is you seem to be implying by adding these links. --Jtir (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR make no mention of the WP:ALSO section dedicated to adding hotlinks to other Wikipedia articles as such. policies and guidelines gives no specific mention of the section either. WP:ALSO does mention the section and what is and is not appropriate. Verification is used to confirm the content of articles, as such WP:V and WP:NOR make no mention of what is and is not appropriate for the -See Also- section. Thats what WP:ALSO is for, one does no trump what it does not mention. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that the links are sourced

Now that I have added the links again and sourced them, can you show me other articles where the See Also links are sourced and how the source is added? I was following the policies and guidelines and since I could not find how they should be sourced I followed the policies and guidelines on how sourcing is done. Please give me an example of what you where talking about and where in policies and guidelines an example is given. I could not find any article the sourced the See Also links? Hence my difficulty in understanding your issue. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In 7 years of editing I've never before seen a page where someone sourced a See also link. That's -never- done. If relevance isn't clear you can just add a short note afterwards. Your intention was scholarly; the individual who insisted that you must add sources was in error. Twang (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Benefactor vs Big Brother

The Benefactor is the equivalent of Big Brother, but unlike his Orwellian equivalent, the Benefactor is actually confirmed to exist when D-503 has an encounter with him. What's the point of this comparison? Benefactor predates Big Brother by decades, its the Big Brother that is equivalent of Benefactor and not the other way round. --92.100.60.105 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Revolutions are infinite

Zamyatin's point, probably in light of the increasingly dogmatic Soviet government of the time, would seem to be that is that it is impossible to remove all the rebels against a system and he even says this through (ironically) I-330: "There is no final revolution. Revolutions are infinite." Actually, it seems to be a reference to the Leo Trotsky's famous concept of a 'permanent revolution'. 92.100.60.105 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your points are valid. I wonder why the word dogma was used since the word "revolution" and the driving force of the society was suppose to be constant revolution. This coming from the regime in control. Yamyatin's novel appears to be continuing a Russian dystopian legacy (see Dostoevsky) showing the exhaustion of the human spirit by means of change and synthesist, these being the catalyst of history. That uniformity was the goal of change and synthesist. Or more like synthesist is code, for assumulate, and change is code for "never quite there". This whole subject is referred to as the problem of change or Identity and change. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've forced myself to rewrite (clarify) the text to some extent, and wish I hadn't. Still, I think I've got it limping in a straighter line at least, but there are still repetitions, and some omissions. I hand on the torch.

Bandalore (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Infinite Revolution a Major Theme?

The final sentence in the Plot Summary currently reads: "A repeated mantra in the novel is that there is no final revolution."

The final sentence in the ARTICLE reads: "Zamyatin's point, probably in light of the increasingly dogmatic Soviet government of the time, would seem to be that is that it is impossible to remove all the rebels against a system and he even says this through I-330: "There is no final revolution. Revolutions are infinite."[33]"

Maybe I was reading a different translation, but the infinite nature of revolutions seemed to be a very MINOR theme in the book, and certainly not even close to being a 'mantra'. The conversation between the D and I wherein the quote is from was near the end of the book and was merely a counterpoint to D's insistence that their current state was the pinnacle of society.

The novel seemed to be less a novel about revolution and revolutionaries than a novel about the meaning of happiness and freedom in a communist state. In fact you can barely call the protagonist a revolutionary himself...til the very end he never stopped extolling the virtues of the State, order, and logic. Lou-Dawg (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Illustrated version?

Has any publisher issued a copy of WE with illustrations in it? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)