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.