First the Forest, We Discusion

In the class discussion we had revolving around “First the Forests” and “We” Nina asked a very important question. What is human? The two different pieces of literature seem to contradict one another in the definition of man. I believe that “First the Forests” is saying that man is a civilized person who uses technology while “We” says that man is one how has “bestial freedom” and lives like the animal he or she is. I believe the answer to what is a human lies somewhere in the middle. I don’t think that a human can be one that lives in a forest and relies on his animal instincts, but on the other hand, a human cannot be a machine who has no free will or thought. There are certain criteria that make humans the people they are, and neither of the poles that are described in the two pieces of literature are examples of this, rather, humans are a mix and much less concentrated version of the people described in “We” and “First the Forests.”

I believe that a human must have a wanting to know the unknown, must have the ability to think for him/herself, and must be somewhat greedy. In “We” everything is known. Everything one knows can be expressed in terms of X and with mathematical equations. None of the people of the One State have the ability to think for themselves and are controlled by the Benefactor. The Table of Hours tells them what to do at what time. Every aspect of their life is controlled and they do not have the ability to think for themselves. In “We” none of the citizens have any greed. They do not want things for personal gain but rather they do things because they do not know any better. This is like how the denizens of the Incan Empire lived, they had no greed and therefore had nothing to live for but what they were told to do. I believe that the lack of greed directly correlates with a lack of free will. If man does not know that he can achieve more, he will not do anything to achieve more. Rather, he will comply with what others say. In “First the Forest” the author argues that the foundation of humans are that they have religion, matrimony and the act of burying the dead. I believe in these somewhat. I think that the foundation of religion coincides with wanting to know the unknown. When Vico’s Giants heard the sound from the sky, they began to wonder and it instilled a want to know the unknown in them. I do not know if matrimony and burial of the dead distinguish humans from others. Rather, these are just traditions that have become custom to humans. I believe that a human is somewhere in the middle of a humanized machine and a bestial animal. A human must be able to think for himself, have a yearning for the unknown, and must be greedy, in the sense that they want more.

Chapter 7, Questions of Conquest, We

In the three pieces of literature we were assigned to read, I noticed one very surprising similarities. We, Chapter 7, and Questions of Conquest, all suggest that life takes place in a utopia, or dystopia, similar to that of We. To begin with, I am going to talk about what I thought about Questions of Conquest by Mario Vargas Llosa. The author uses an extremely interesting incident to get his point across. When the conquistadores attacked the countries of South America, he questioned why the strong Incas fell so easily. He said that when the Spanish took the emperor, all the people in the civilizations and accepted the fate of death. No one knew what to do once the emperor was captured. He was the Benefactor. They were lost as the lacked the inability to think for themselves. This is like the One State in We because the denizens do not do things for themselves; they are humanized machines who work because that’s all they are told to do. He goes on to state that the Incas had things called Mitimaes which would take villagers who did not comply away until they became passive and showed respect. This is like, to a much lesser extent, what happens in the One State when one goes against the Benefactor. Lastly, the author states that the Incan civilizations only consumed rationally what it produced. It heaped together reserves for future times in case of disaster. This meant that the people of the Incan empire had no greed, but a long with that, no free will. Rebellious outbreaks were always localized and counterchecked by the obedient. The people of the Incan empire were like the people of the One State because they complied one hundred percent with the leader, had no ability to rebel and think for them, and did not know the luxury of things more than what is necessary.
The next article posed another interesting idea. What I got out from it was that we are all, to a less extent, part of the One State with Society being the Benefactor. It states that when we are children we are restricted to what we think and are taught things that may not be best for us. We are taught to smile and be happy. An interesting idea it poses is that to be “emotional” is considered a bad thing in modern society. The author says that from the beginning of education, original thinking is discourages. We are told to believe in facts, and that is what we end up believing in. It seems to me that we are being told what to do. We are taught not to think certain things, taught not to act certain ways. Lastly, and one of the most interesting things stated was as follows. He talks about how all men want more money, a better job, a nicer car. Then he poses a very crucial question: is this what I really want? “Modern man lives under the illusion that he knows what he wants, while he actually wants what he is supposed to want.” What do I want? I think I want what society wants. I want what the Benefactor wants. Even today, we live in a world we do not control. Do we really control our future? Free will comes into discussion here. In all three of these examples, We being the most extreme, and the daily life of all being the least, no one is doing what they want. But has anyone really done anything they want? I believe that since the beginning of time, evidence of a greater being has been setting the direction for us.

Zamyatin on English

In Zamyatin’s “On Language” he states that there is no difference between poetry and literary pose. Rather, he puts literary works into two categories: lyrical and epic. He states that the main difference between the two is the location it is set in. A lyrical work is set on our own planet while an epical work is a journey through interplanetary space. Although the novel We takes place on Earth, I would classify it as an epic because we cannot directly relate to the events that transpire. Furthermore, Zamyatin says that an epic writer is an actor. In a nutshell I believe he is saying it is important to put oneself into his or her own protagonist and be able to act, and therefore write, as he or she would. Zamyatin puts a lot of stress on the style of writing. He states that it is necessary to say and think what the character would say or think. He says, “You will only achieve originality and make the reader feel that you speak your own language only if you draw upon its primary soures.” There are many examples of how Zamyatin proves his points successful in the novel We.

To begin with, the main character D – 503, thinks these with a constant reference to mathematics. He explains the most beautiful things in the world in terms that destroy the splendor of the sight. A constant example of this is that he explains all of his problems as X, the variable most commonly used in math which we have to solve for. More specifically, “… form the ends of her lips, up at an angle” (158). D- 503’s natural instinct is to relate things to the thing he is most familiar with, math, and throughout the novel Zamyatin utilizes the way he thinks to strengthen his character incredibly.

Another way Zamyatin both strengthens his character and explains the One State is by describing the surrounding that to us seem inordinate nonchalantly. If we were writing a journal similar to his, we wouldn’t go into detail that the roads are made of gravel and that there are walls that promote privacy. Neither would D-503. Things such as glass sidewalks, an impermeable roof, aero cars, and more seem ludicrous to you and me, but to D-503, they are the everyday thing. They are what he sees everyday so he has no need to go into detail. Other authors would go into detail explaining the wonders of the future, but Zamyatin leaves the reader not one hundred percent in the loop, a tool which I believe is very effective in describing his world.

Lastly, a small but still interesting point is when Zamyatin ends a sentence with a simple “…”. However, in his essay he states “…but of sentences deliberately left incomplete because the reader can complete them himself.” Zamyatin isn’t a two faced man, he really does practice what he preaches. And small changes that seem so unnecessary in the first few chapters become more and more apparent and make the changes the characters changes throughout the novel more apparent.