Talk:Yevgeny Zamyatin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

[edit] editing Zamyatin article

I've done my best to edit this page, though the chronology is very tangled. I know it's not done to advertise one's own site, but in this case it's justified. I am the pioneer in unearthing the events of Zamyatin's stay in England 1916-17 and have published on the subject in the Slavonic and East European Review and elsewhere. On his return to Russia in 1917, Zamyatin became known as 'the Englishman', and his English experience had a strong influence on his masterpiece WE For those interested please access:

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/alan.myers

where the full up-to-date story (with sources!) is displayed. Zamyatin is an important figure in Russia these days, and is increasingly familiar elsewhere. He deserves his stature. One difference between WE and 1984, incidentally, is that Zamyatin's hero is actually a fervent supporter of the Benefactor's regime and views his own hapless slide into heterodoxy with comic dismay.

Bandalore 17:32 25.5.05

[edit] Influence on huxley?

According to the small authors bio in the beginning of the penguin classics printing of "WE".......

.....the other great english dystopia of our time, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, was evidently written out of the same impulse, though without direct knowledge of Zamyatin's WE.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.217.34 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-10.

Interesting question. The article on We says this: Aldous Huxley reportedly claimed that he did not read We before writing Brave New World, although Orwell himself believed that Huxley was lying. Turning Orwell's opinion ito settled fact woul seem to be POV. On the other hand, not having read a book is not at all the same as not being influenced by it. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a footnote citing We translator Natasha Randall's radio interview. I have listened to it and have verified that she does say that O thought H was lying. AFAICT, NR is an acceptable source for WP. Personally, I would prefer to cite NR's own source for her statement, but I don't know what that is. --Jtir 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

“[Zamyatin’s] intuitive grasp of the irrational side of totalitarianism– human sacrifice, cruelty as an end in itself–makes [We] superior to Huxley’s [Brave New World].” –George Orwell (1946) [1] [2] --Jtir 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Oryanw)

Actually, I didn't mean to question the notion that Orwell had the opinion that NR is cited to report. Rather, I meant to add mild support to the criticism of the wording in the lead paragraph on Yevgeny Zamyatin: "his novel, We, a story of dystopian future which influenced George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World." (my underlines)

Actually, I only became aware of We a month ago after doing my first article translation for Wikipedia (on Kazohinia. I promptly ordered a copy which I will read soon, probably after reading Orwell's Coming Up for Air. --O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 21:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence about influence is too strongly worded given the evidence. Maybe it could be qualified this way: "... and possibly Aldous Huxley's Brave New World." Unfortunately, "possibly" is a weasel word. _:-( Maybe "... there is disagreement ...", with two footnotes sourcing the disagreement.--Jtir 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm. Good point. The second solution above seems to make a claim and then back off. How about: "and — in some critics' view<ftnt> — Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. This was denied by Huxley<ftnt>". Or (my weasel word goes here:-)): "— in Orwell's view<ftnt> —", if he is alone in this. Is the second footnote a source on Huxley's denial? Shouldn't the article on We get the second footnote too, or did I miss it? O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 20:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Lost me on the referent of "WP".