We
(Мы)
Yevgeny Zamyatin
(translated by Clarence Brown)
225 p.

Penguin Classics, 1993.
(Published in Russian 1988, in an English translation 1924.)

Back cover blurb:

Set in the twenty-sixth century A.D., Zamyatin’s masterpiece describes life in the regimented totalitarian society of OneState, ruled over by the all-powerful “Benefactor.” The inspiration for George Orwell’s 1984, We is the archetype of the modern dystopia, or anti-Utopia: a great prose poem detailing the fate that might befall us all if we surrender our individual selves to some collective dream of technology and fail in the vigilance that is the price of freedom.

I have recently been listening a lot to the Pet Shop Boys. On their latest album, Fundamental, there is one song which is called “Integral”. Apart from being an amazing song (there’s a terrific live version of the song here, if you are interested), it seems to be based around the novel We. Although I had vague thoughts of reading We before hearing “Integral”, as it was one of the first dystopian novels, I wasn’t determined until after I had heard the song. (All right, soon after hearing the song I went to England, where there was actually copies of We available.) When I started reading it, I found at once it was an extremely good book, not only spawning a really good song. I found much more realistic than 1984, which is the only other dystopian novel I have actually read. Reasons for this greater belief in the story was due to that it was set in the distant future, instead of the near future, as well as the narrator in We is also the main character, D-503, which leads to a greater belief in what is being said (I think, at least).

One thing I adored with this novel was all the glass. Everything was made of glass. Chairs, tables, buildings, and even the spaceship which is built throughout the novel, Integral, is made of glass. All this glass is not really plausible, but it paints such a beautiful picture. I could believe in this world, even though it isn’t all that believable.

Another thing I really liked (I can’t say adore, because that gives all the wrong impressions) was the fact that people was having sex all. the. time. And it was believable sex. It was all justified. So to speak. I found it, well, sweet that D-503 takes pains to mention that the accepted way of having sex was man with woman. There’s a lot of sex, as I already said. It’s surprisingly kinky, in a very non-kinky way. Every time Zamyatin would write “breasts”, he writes instead “…”. There is also a lot of D-503 clinging to the knees of the woman he is in love with. It is awfully exciting.

I also adored the ending. I always thought that the end of 1984 was a bit of a let-down, because there was never any real show-down, so to speak, but having read We now, I can understand why Orwell finished his novel as he did, as it is quite similar to the end of We, stylistically seen, even though I think I prefer the way Zamyatin writes it. It is directly to the point, and only two pages completely wraps up the story. Just like that. It is immaculate.

Pygmalion
George Bernard Shaw
106 p.

Constable and Company Ltd., 1916.
(First staged 1913)

Back cover blurb:

none

I have never seen My Fair Lady, which is something I one day will amend. Pygmalion is, as is common knowledge, the basis of that musical, and it is easy to see the musical appeal in the story. I am sure the songs are spiffing. Pygmalion is not the most exciting of plays, but compared to Fröken Julie, it’s a joy. For one thing, there are jokes! Also, the play does not end with suicide, nor with continued male dominance over Eliza. The characters are overall sympathetic, apart from perhaps professor Higgins. Higgins is however very amusing, which is a great plus. I don’t particularly itch after seeing this live, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the musical. Musicals are good, as we all know.

Fröken Julie
(in Fröken Julie / Ett drömspel)
August Strindberg
102 p.

Natur & Kultur, 1997.
(first staged 1888.)

Back cover blurb:

Fröken Julie är Strindbergs såväl nationellt som internationellt mest spelade drama. Konflikten mellan sexuell attraktion och själsligt främlingskap är skildrad med en inlevelse och allmängiltighet som höjer dramat över det tids- och miljöbundna. Det är dock först i nationalupplagan som skådespelet framträder exakt som Strindberg skrev det. med hjälp av modern teknik har det lyckats att avlägsna alla de censurerande och korrigerande ingrepp, som förläggaren gjorde i manuskriptet i samband med förstaupplagan 1888.

This play was really boring. Everyone speaks extremely highly of Strindberg, but like with Astrid Lindgren, I am not all that impressed. Strindberg seems to me to have been an incredibly arrogant and self-obsessed man. This is most seen by the introduction he’s written, which is dreadfully misogynist and self-assured. He does not seem like a nice person. This of course shouldn’t say that his work automatically is bad, but unfortunately his attitudes shine through far too clearly, and it wasn’t fun reading it. Also, the scene descriptions that went on for line after line after line made me feel sad. Aren’t directors supposed to have a voice in the production of a play? If you listen to Strindberg, no. And I can’t agree with that.