HUM 200 - Third Paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Great Works: Russian Literature essay titled "Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We through a Comparison to Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Works"....

Description

1

Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We through a Comparison to Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Works. Humanities 200: Russian Literature Dr. Stephany Plecker 5 April 2018

2 Though a dystopian, scientific fiction novel like Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We may not seem like it would be in any way similar to Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s various novels, the two authors converge on many ideas presented in the novels. Zamyatin embraces and develops Dostoyevsky’s ideas not just through the ideas explicitly discussed in We, but also through the underlying themes. In Notes from Underground, Dostoyevsky portrays a man internally rebelling against the social constructs placed upon him. Similarly, in We, Zamyatin shows a society on the brink of revolution by the rebels. Both authors explore the theme of individualism within their works, and its importance. Upon further analysis of Dostoyevsky and Zamyatin’s backgrounds, more similarities can be drawn – especially their criticism of the societies in Russia each author was a part of. Exploring the authors’ differences, Dostoyevsky’s main protagonists are known for their internal dialogues and extensive ramblings; the Underground Man from Notes from Underground and Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment are identified by their habit of overthinking. In We, Zamyatin creates a main character, D-503, defined by the conciseness of his writing. Overall, the worldview presented by Zamyatin in his fictional future utopia is more alike to Dostoyevsky’s worldview in Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment than different. In the first part of Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground, the Underground Man ultimately presents an argument to the theories expressed by the emerging radicals at the time, especially the notion of free will and the idea of a utopia. Chernyshevsky, a rational egoist, proposed the idea that all humans are simply chemical reactions and responses to environmental stimuli in his article “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”. Similarly, Chernyshevsky defines the concept of true self-interest, and if everybody within a society worked to achieve this, no crime would occur and humanity would be perfected. Throughout Notes from Underground

3 and Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky works to showcase characters who act against their true self-interest to demonstrate the numerous possibilities of actions when utilizing free will, instead of simply reacting to stimuli. In the second part of Notes from Underground, the Underground Man consciously inserts himself into situations that are detrimental to his pride. An example of this is inviting himself to Simonov’s planned dinner for Zverkov – the Underground Man’s enemy in his mind. At the least, this is embarrassing and at the most, this is clearly against his self-interest; however, because he has free will and the ability to do anything he desires, the Underground Man goes to the dinner. (Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground) To further depict the importance of the discussion of free will, either within an individual or within a society, Dostoyevsky uses the character of the Underground Man to examine the concept. In part one, through countless deliberations, the man makes the point that the most important thing to people is freedom. He argues that nothing can infringe on this, not even logic; this is why humans tend to act irrationally or illogically, and why the true self-interest theory is impractical. Another staple of Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man and Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (Crime and Punishment) is their inability to act on each thought because of their tendency to overthink and overanalyze every situation. This will become relevant when compared to the main character of Zamyatin’s We. Zamyatin incorporates many of Dostoyevsky’s ideas and themes into his book, We. Throughout the novel, Zamyatin portrays the main protagonist, D-503, as an uncomplicated and relatively simple man. In OneState, the utopian city where the book takes place, a system of dehumanization is in place. Every citizen is identified by a number and every action is regulated; ultimately, the idea of individuality and free will is essentially nonexistent. (Zamyatin) In this portrayal of a dystopian society, Zamyatin showcases the importance of personal expression and

4 what overregulation by the government can lead to. Using this book, he explores the relationship between free will and a crime-free, seemingly perfect society – like Dostoyevsky. Zamyatin shows the only way a utopian society can exist: through widespread oppression of its citizens, and not through the concept of true self-interest like Chernyshevsky proposed and like Dostoyevsky criticized (Chernyshevsky). In “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”, Chernyshevsky embraces the ideology of nihilism and uses it to get his points across – like the rejection of the duality of man and criticism of current institutions. In D-503’s journal operating as propaganda by OneState, he echoes the premise of nihilism: “I cannot imagine a city which is not surrounded by a Green Wall; I cannot imagine a life which is not surrounded by the figures of our Tables.” (Zamyatin) This is an important statement as it portrays the indoctrination of propaganda and provides a closer look into the true state of the supposed utopia. In Zamyatin’s fictional society, every aspect of the citizen’s lives is regulated by the government so as to prevent dissent and the possibility of eventual revolt. By presenting OneState as a dysfunctional dystopia, Zamyatin takes a stance on the issue of suppressing free will and individual expression as a consequence of creating a perfect society. OneState is also characterized by its roots in positivism – regarding science and logic as superior to all other aspects of life. Pushing the government agenda of abandoning the principles of civilizations past, D-503 states, “Their god gave them nothing but eternal, torturing seeking; our god gives us absolute truth – that is, he has rid us of any doubt.” (Zamyatin) He goes on to explain their god is the United State and this is the entire people of OneState – displaying the political ideology of socialism, which was rising in popularity in early 18th century Russia. The radicals at the time of Dostoyevsky who published many works on ideas encompassing socialism and nihilism, were definitely on the mind of Zamyatin when he wrote his scientific fiction novel. He noticed their

5 ideas of a socialist utopia where everyone is equal and no crime occurs, and presented what this would realistically look like if it were to happen. Clearly on the same page as Dostoyevsky regarding these principles, Zamyatin filled We with these references. It is important to understand and differentiate the literary styles of writing between Dostoyevsky and Zamyatin, namely, through their main characters’ dialogue. Spanning several books, largely Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky speaks through complex, troubled, but mostly misunderstood characters. The Underground Man looks for redemption and attempts a more proper life, but ultimately fails due to his tendency to revert back to what is familiar instead of attempting to improve himself (Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground). His inner dialogue reveals his innermost thoughts and motivations for actions, allowing the reader to glance into the perplexity of the character. Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov is remarkably similar to the Underground Man in character, especially regarding his dialogues with himself. Throughout the storyline, Raskolnikov debates within himself every action he’s about to commit for unnecessarily long; however, this is the main aspect of the identity of the stock character Dostoyevsky has created. (Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment) On the other hand, Zamyatin’s D-503 is nothing alike these two Dostoyevsky characters in respect to internal, outspoken struggle. His thoughts are concise and clear, as he is entering them into a journal for the totalitarian government of OneState (Zamyatin). More so, D-503 struggles in a different way; he must decide whether he is loyal to his human nature and desire for freedom or for OneState and the security of his life. While ultimately choosing his short term true selfinterest, staying alive, he still fleetingly considers the possibility of enacting his free will and rebelling. (Zamyatin) The characters of Dostoyevsky and Zamyatin are mostly dissimilar, but Zamyatin shows his consideration of the former author throughout his work.

6 A major similarity between the two authors is their intended use of their published works. For this to be understood, the surrounding atmospheres at the times of publication for both authors must be examined. Dostoyevsky wrote Notes from Underground seemingly as a rebuttal to Chernyshevsky and the emerging radicals, during Imperial Russia. He used it as a criticism of this movement and of society’s acceptance of presented theories without proper discussion, either among themselves or each other. Zamyatin wrote We during the Russian Revolution and the overthrow of imperialism. The rise of figures like Lenin and Stalin possibly instilled in Zamyatin the image of totalitarianism and the oppression of a society. The idea of censorship is prominent in We, where the government of OneState prohibits even the most miniscule show of self-expression or freedom (Zamyatin). Censorship is a fundamental aspect of totalitarian governments, as it exhibits total power over the people and attempts to silence any form of dissent. Pairing this idea with concepts tackled by known Russian works – like Dostoyevsky’s – he created a book that encompassed everything from political creed to social responsibility (Zamyatin). The worldview Zamyatin presents in We is unsurprisingly alike to Dostoyevsky’s in Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment, given the information provided from the analysis of his work. The portrayal of a utopian society by Zamyatin is dark and center around regulation of every aspect of citizens’ lives, and the criticism of a possible utopian society by Dostoyevsky is extensive and the discussion involves the unrealistic nature of viewing human beings as simple and easily controlled. Zamyatin and Dostoyevsky’s two views portraying human nature regarding the creation of a perfect society go hand in hand as one complements the other. Both directly contradict Chernyshevsky’s proposal in “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”, which basically states that a utopia is necessary for the better of mankind and can

7 be achieved by introducing the idea of an individual’s true self-interest in situations and fulfilling everyone’s basic needs. Zamyatin and Dostoyevsky provide a drastically comparable approach to the portrayal of their fictional worlds, sharing a multitude of alike ideologies. Zamyatin and Dostoyevsky are two Russian authors with similar views of the world and in some respects, are identical in the presentation of their separate works. In We, the influence of Dostoyevsky on Zamyatin is clear not just through the ideas explored throughout the plot, but also through the style of writing and the underlying themes of the dystopian story. Both authors explore the importance of personal identity and the possible consequences of the lack of it. In Notes from Underground, Dostoyevsky spends time discussing the problem of the suppression of free will within an individual and, on a bigger scale, within a society. Expanding on the hypotheticals of Dostoyevsky, in We, Zamyatin shows a society where there is no free will and no sense of individualism at all – where citizens are defined by numbers instead of names and every aspect of their lives are regulated by the government. The importance of societal environment can also be observed, as both authors published their works in response to current events. Clearly, the significance of Dostoyevsky is observed in Zamyatin’s worldview – through a collection of related ideas and elemental aspects in his novel, We....