Talk:We (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pronunciation of Мы[edit]

Is not the word Мы pronounced as IPA: [mwɨ] rather than [mɨ]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.252.154 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't speak Russian, but I doubt it... AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do speak a bit of Russian, but not IPC! The vowel is pronounced 'e' with the tongue drawn back and raised a bit. It does seem to me to impart a 'w' quality. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on George Lucas's THX-1138?[edit]

Is there any? Dystopian future where individuality is quashed and "citizens" go by names like D-503 and LUH 3417? Lobotomies and drugs, a strong mystical element to maintain state control, etc., etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.208.28 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas obviously used "We" as a basis for the film THX-1138. Some plot details are used directly. His assigned female roommate wants to get pregnant. There are short furry humanoids at them​ outskirts of the complex. LU is terminated after giving birth to her child who is given her number. But there are significant differences. No hint of an organized rebellion or an associated interloper as in 1984.. And the use of drugs for mind control severely impares situational awareness. So there's no anxiety over what is real, if 2+2=5. Just shock after LU detoxes THX. Why are we held/imprisoned here? I must get out. A much more suitable end game for the "modern" "American." Keithalanfisher (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love in the Fog of the Future[edit]

I've just started an article on a similar book Love in the Fog of the Future, published in 1924 in Russia, which has been compared to We. There's not much on the net about it though, but if anyone knows anything please feel free to contribute. Malick78 (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References are incomplete[edit]

The article quotes opinions from George Orwell, referring to a certain work apparently written in 1946: "Orwell (1946)". But such book is not included in the Bibliography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.153.65.68 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the intended source is Orwell's review of We, which was published in January 1946. The citation practices in the article currently could be significantly improved. --RL0919 (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

Under Legacy, it states: "We directly inspired...", including in its list Huxley's Brave New World. Yet, Huxley has denied that he was inspired by We or having had read We before writing Brave New World, and it is only by the cited opinions of others, who are not Yevgeny Zamyatin or Huxley, that Huxley must have been inspired by We. Unless there is a citable first-person witness who can attest to seeing Huxley reading We before he wrote Brave New World, or had first-hand communication with Huxley speaking of his inspiration for Brave New World from We, or if Huxley relented in his assertions that he was not inspired by We, the article should not include his work in relation to the term "directly inspired". The reason that this distinction is important is that Wiki articles must support fact and Huxley's supposed inspiration is only opinion. Splat phastkyl (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. it's like entire page was written by an arrogant ignorant child. Is there a flag for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.142.207 (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to ask how using a source, cited as simply being 'Gregg' here for the religious or esoteric allusions, works? I am quite interested in the observation that the character S-4711 may be an allusion to a snake in this way, but it reads as a personal interpretation simply from 'Gregg', unfortunately. It could indeed fit with Zamyatin's upbringing to carry such things over into such a book. Considering his father and lapse from religion, I'd buy it perhaps, but needs a better source. 80.194.230.230 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on We (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption of recognizable reference.[edit]

In setting, the description of "F. W. Taylor-style" is only usable for as long as the population recognizes his name. I would recommend someone familiar with Taylor's work rewrite the sentence to make it less mysterious. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixFelicis134 (talk o contribs) 17:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link on his name. He was pretty famous in 1920 (including in the Soviet Union). AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to have a more elaborate account of how and why F. W. Taylor is associated with We in the Wikipedia article. I worry that the association is simply based on the repeated mention of the name "Taylor" in the text. But context suggests very strongly that the Taylor referred to in the text is Brook Taylor and his eponymous series, which is important in mathematics. The One State is based on mathematical principles, this is mentioned repeatedly and extensively in the text. And specific mentions of "Taylor" are associated with mentions of MacLaurin--a name associated with particular Taylor series--and with Newton's Binomial Series, another particular type of Taylor series. These mentions seem certain to refer to the mathematical Taylor, and it seems quite likely that all of the references to Taylor are to the mathematical Taylor.Britishisles (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In our Frederick Winslow Taylor article, there's a "Soviet Union" section, which starts "In the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin was very impressed by Taylorism, which he and other Bolshevik leaders tried to incorporate into Soviet manufacturing." -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Sentences like "The structure of the state is Panopticon-like, and life is scientifically managed F. W. Taylor-like." have worthless value for the average Wikipedia reader. In all honesty, the overly-staccato writing makes the article come across as though written by a chatbot.

And don't even get me started about this: "The war was over a rare substance only mentioned in the book through a metaphor; the substance was called "bread" as the "Christians gladiated over it"--as in Christians killed for sport in Roman gladiator games as a form of entertainment, "bread and circuses", suggesting a war that was meant to distract the population from a power grab by the government." 2603:6080:EFF0:9520:3D68:9D16:861A:89B9 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on We (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on We (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner[edit]

I notice someone has already mentioned THX 1138, but is there any proof of a link to The Prisoner? I'd search online, but search engines are now a bit like the One State and don't seem to point you to much but the same few resources (Wikipedia being one of them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.16 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_(novel)&oldid=1199973676"