Reaction to "First the Forests" in relation to "We"

The article “First the Forests” brings up the question of ‘What is humanity?’ When compared to We, the two authors have very different views on what human nature truly is. We suggests that the true state of human beings is when they are in their animalistic state, for that is the reason why I-330 is trying to break through the extremely controlled environment that humans had resorted to. ‘First in the Forests’ suggests that humans are in their natural state when they have found god, and are separated from their animalistic nature. The article talks about how civilization is the true state that humans were meant to be in. Both authors provide very interesting viewpoints on the cycle of the different states of humanity.

We is constantly making references to how logic prevails over all, and how humans are in their true state when they allow logic and reason to control their lives. In the end it is logic that dominates over all, for D-305 had to receive the operation and was forced to think like the rest of the people. Zamyatin uses this tactic to show the negative effects of absolute control over a society. He does this to prove that the true state of humans is when they are in the forest, embracing their bodies in all its natural goodness. Another reference to this idea in the book We would be the physical characteristics of D-305. I-330 points out that D-305’s hand resemble that to one in the forest, suggesting that he has some forest blood in him. This could be the main theme for this novel, and the reason why D-305 was chosen by I-330.

The article ‘First in the Forest’ describes how in fables and other tales, forests are always portrayed in a negative light. The first point that Harrison brings up is that in most stories, the protagonist usually ends up in a dark scary forest that they have to deal with. This concept is presented in many children’s’ stories, including Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel. This concept is also presented in many Russian children’s stories. Harrison explores the reason for why the forests are put in such a bad light, and explored the story of Vico’s Giants. Some would say that humans were kept in their animalistic state due to forests, for the forests prevented them from seeing the sky and being connected to god. He talks about how the three elements humans need to be ‘human’ are marriage, burial ceremonies, and a type of religion. Once these animalistic creatures discovered the idea of God, and were ever faithful to some greater power was when, according to Harrison, Homo sapiens reached their true state of humanity. These three concepts can be described as civilization.

The article ‘First in the Forest’ and We share many similar concepts. Both display the human’s fascination with the sky. The reason for this fascination is unexplainable, and we still face it today for humans are still building spacecrafts and trying to learn more about the solar system. The reason for this might be because it is something we can always see, but know nothing about, and therefore provokes curiosity and the ideals of God. Harrison talks about how Homo sapiens achieved humanity when they heard a clap of thunder coming from the sky. This is what provoked their curiosity, and led to the idea of God. In We, the fascination with the sky is presented in the building of the Integral, which the people were using to learn more about the sky. Zamyatin also includes very vivid descriptions of the sky in his novel, giving the impression that D-305 has some sort of fascination with the sky as well. This also presented when D-305 experiences fog, and feels uncomfortable, possibly because he can no longer see the sky.

The idea of humanity is explored thoroughly by both authors. It brings up the question, ‘Where does everything actually start?’ Is the beginning of human kind found in the forests, or with technology and machinery? It seems as though it is a cycle, for those in the forest experience a ‘clap of thunder’ that jolts them into civilization. And those bombarded with governmental control and technology receive a ‘clap of thunder’, like the meeting of I-330 for D-305, which will jolt them back to their primitive animalistic state. Humanity seems relative, for it seems as though we can never be stuck at one point in this cycle of stages. 

Reaction to 'Freedom and Democracy' and 'Questions of Conquest'

‘Questions of Conquest’ by Mario Vargas Llosa and Chapter 7 of ‘Freedom and Democracy’ both discuss the idea of one’s personal control in regard to society. This is very closely related to ‘We’ since we is a novel based upon the idea of a utopian civilization, where power of individuals are alleviated so that the government can have more control over the people. ‘Questions of Conquest’ talks about a case in history that demonstrates the hostile nature of human beings, and the explanation for it in regards to individual sovereignty. ‘Freedom and Democracy’ takes a more modern approach on this topic and discusses how there can actually be no such thing as absolute freedom due to many factors of influence that we face when growing up.

Llosa outlines how back in the day, humans did not have that much power over their own actions because their moral and social code depended entirely on the social group that they belonged to. Nowadays we may criticize the harsh actions of the Spaniards. The article talks about how many of the Indians allowed themselves to die, which could imply that they had no control. It talks about how many of the Indians did not have the ability to make the choice between life and death due to the fact that they had to follow many rules that their culture ordered them to pertain to. Those with power turned the people into some sort of machinery, and kept strict rules in order to maintain discipline and prevent rebellious actions. There were of course many rebels, however, the harsh methods of the Incas proved to work when controlling a society.

I found the ideas in this article to be very thought provoking, for it talks about how in history there was almost no such thing has self determinism, since people were so closely tied to their community and religious rules. This relates to ‘We’ because this is the exact tactic that the Benefactor used in order to control their society. This leads me to the assumption that humans interpret history as a cycle, or some could say a pendulum. Zamyatin might have taken the idea of absolute power from history, like the example presented in ‘Questions of Conquest’. He may have thought that humans will need to return to their old habits in order to control the barbaric and animalistic factor of human nature.

The “Freedom and Democracy” chapter takes a different and more modern approach on the idea of individual sovereignty. The author looks at this issue from a psychological and philosophical point of view. The psychological view relates very much to the idea of the ‘invisible bag’ where a human being is born with a complete personality and due to societal specifications, starts putting away parts of their personality as they grow older. The first example that the author brings up is about children, and how they learn to control their hostility. It continues to talk about how humans make choices based on what they think is right or correct, and they may even base what they want on these specifications.

I found this to be a relatively harsh observation, for it is stating that there is no such thing as free will and everything is based on the idea of determinism (a philosophical term, although discussing psychology). The article explains how everything we do is under the influence of something else, meaning that humans themselves don’t have any personal say in their actions. This leads to the question of whether or not we even have a personal identity. I disliked this argument because the author is questioning my identity. The author is saying that none of the choices I make are solemnly based on what I truly want, because what I want is simply what society is making me think I want. I believe that all humans have a personal identity, and their desires are based on factors other that societal influence.

The article also looks at this from a philosophical viewpoint. This is in relation to the idea of determinism and free will, and whether or not that constitutes whether one has a personal identity. Personally, I feel that free will, although somewhat existent in our society (in my opinion), does not constitute whether or not one has their own individual sovereignty. The article discusses Descartes proof of his existence, being ‘I think, therefore I am’, and even if one doubts this statement, in the act of doubting, one is thinking and therefore they exist. I believe this is the true idea of individual sovereignty, the ability to having one’s own thoughts even if based off of certain influences.

All in all, both articles look at the idea of one’s personal existence and sovereignty in very different ways. One from a historical viewpoint and another from a modern (psychological and philosophical) viewpoint. It was hard to see their connections at first, but when understanding the main theme of both articles I was able to see the connection between the two, and the reason for the ordered reading. The idea of whether or not one is actually in control is very complex, and sometimes not too appealing to thing about; however, it is a very interesting philosophical debate of which humans will not able to draw a conclusion on for a very long time. 

A reaction to Zamyatin's 'On Language' in regards to 'We'

I found Zamyatin’s views on language very interesting and thought provoking. I liked the idea that nowadays all writing is poetic in some sense. This relates to ‘We’ especially since the author’s style in this novel is quite philosophical (expected, since the main character is a mathematical philosophy), as well as poetic. Personally I dislike poetry with a certain rhythm or rhyme, and prefer a poem simply contained with poetic flow. Reading ‘we’ was much like reading a very long extended poem, for Zamyatin’s writing is filled with metaphors and hidden meanings. It takes one some time to find out the true meaning and theme of his novel.

Zamyatin’s comparison of a novel to a play brought me a lot of clarity regarding the essence of writing. I never realized just how much planning had to go into writing a successful novel. When taking theater I realized how much focus one had to put into developing their character, due to the fact that they needed to successfully carry out the transformation on stage. ‘On Language’ explained how an author has an equally hard time with the portrayal of his characters. I always thought it would be easier when writing, to portray a character, because every aspect of that character cannot be critiqued. However, Zamyatin’s explanation talks about how good writing should be looked at from an actor’s point of view, and the only way to create a successful character is to develop every one of his personal aspects.

In regards to ‘We’, I can see how Zamytin has successfully developed all of the main character’s traits. Although it was quite difficult to decipher many of his true thoughts and feelings, the way he portrayed them made the reader think and get to know the main character better. Since the novel was in first person, the ‘actor’ was in fact the main character of the play. This could possibly make it easier for the author, for they are more able to step into the shoes of the characters rather than make assumptions as a narrator. When the narrator is an omniscient viewer, any character developments would have to be made by observation, and the source of information is far more direct when the novel is first person.

The article ‘On Language’ also talks a lot of an author’s portrayal of setting and language. I found Zamyatin’s teachings of how to accurately portray a language and setting (especially when it is not your own) to be demonstrated very well in his own novel. In the case of ‘We’, everything is completely fiction, thereby making none of his descriptions inaccurate. This, as he describes in ‘On Language’ is the first kill of a novel, when the language of the book does not accurately fit what the author is trying to portray. It is clear that the ‘language’ in the setting of ‘We’ is very proper and dignified. Their talk also seems to be very neat and high-toned, which fits in well with the theme Zamyatin is trying to portray with this utopian novel.

All in all, ‘On Language’ provoked my interest in good writing by far. His ideas on character and setting development seem to be a good guide for an interesting novel or short story. His ideas are also exhibited well in the novel ‘We’, making it a very well thought out and intelligent novel.