We and Player Piano
- Thread starter jenks
- Start date
you
Well-known member
Haven't managed to get my greasy paws on either yet - and it could be a while before I get Player Piano as I absentmindedly sent it to the wrong address...
Ive been reading the Brave New World revisited essays that Huxley wrote in the 60's - cant say im warming to him- I think his approach to dystopic society is much more hit n miss than Orwells.... although the cloning/eugenics caste system is something that keeps popping up... it was a strong theme in Pat Barkers regeneration - maybe it was a common topic among a certain pre war class?
That said, lately ive thought all these sorts of themes are kinda retrospectively myopic or a bit reactionary - especially in regard to Diamonds Collapse podcast - Ill happily work a meaningless job, in the corner of some Kafkian network within a multinational if it means I can buy lattes 24/7 and avocados all year round... Huxley has wrote about how bad organisation and increasing population is for peoples mental health.... seems slightly off to me, however his points about good democracy giving way to centralized/despotism as machines and networks advance are valid. The book itself seems much less realised than 1984.
Ive been reading the Brave New World revisited essays that Huxley wrote in the 60's - cant say im warming to him- I think his approach to dystopic society is much more hit n miss than Orwells.... although the cloning/eugenics caste system is something that keeps popping up... it was a strong theme in Pat Barkers regeneration - maybe it was a common topic among a certain pre war class?
That said, lately ive thought all these sorts of themes are kinda retrospectively myopic or a bit reactionary - especially in regard to Diamonds Collapse podcast - Ill happily work a meaningless job, in the corner of some Kafkian network within a multinational if it means I can buy lattes 24/7 and avocados all year round... Huxley has wrote about how bad organisation and increasing population is for peoples mental health.... seems slightly off to me, however his points about good democracy giving way to centralized/despotism as machines and networks advance are valid. The book itself seems much less realised than 1984.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I've read Player Piano - who wrote 'We' (it's not very googleable)?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
)
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
ugh...'epic fail'
I think I might have actually read that too.
swears
preppy-kei
UFO over easy
online mahjong
sounds a bit daft as well.
We is really good, I read it in high school. Should go through it again. Interesting prose style.. always a funny one with translations though I guess
you
Well-known member
Yeah, got it and read a few chapters/records. Seems ok, lots of interesting themes - very much a horrid vision of what may come for a society ( russia- the technocrats, the parades of machines and the need to be an 'efficient human being' etc ) - so intent on being a smooth machine acting as one in unison towards a common goal. The total domination of man by their own numbers and logic etc....
Also - the style - notes sent to the future, from a ( from the narrators stance ) perfect society to less perfected civilisations - reminds me of Thomas Mores Utopia notes FROM a perfected society sent to a less perfected society... We seems to be a rather nifty inversion of Mores Utopia to me - anyone else think this??
Also - the style - notes sent to the future, from a ( from the narrators stance ) perfect society to less perfected civilisations - reminds me of Thomas Mores Utopia notes FROM a perfected society sent to a less perfected society... We seems to be a rather nifty inversion of Mores Utopia to me - anyone else think this??
jenks
thread death
I've finished We - would be interested in how everyone else is finding it
Very much felt it was patchy - the best bits very engaging and genuinely working as good dystopian fiction should i.e. shining a light into the darkness that is the contemporary society - 1984 'about' 1948, We 'about' soviet Russia and an obsession with the rational and mathematical - poems to space ships etc.
Wrried about the women in the novel - reminded me of the problems i had with julia in 1984.
As always, first thoughts that need interrogation and fleshiing out through discussion.
Have started Player Piano but have decided to also start Baudolino by Eco at the same time - somehow a novel set in 1200 works as a necessary counterbalance to all this tainted futuristic stuff!
Very much felt it was patchy - the best bits very engaging and genuinely working as good dystopian fiction should i.e. shining a light into the darkness that is the contemporary society - 1984 'about' 1948, We 'about' soviet Russia and an obsession with the rational and mathematical - poems to space ships etc.
Wrried about the women in the novel - reminded me of the problems i had with julia in 1984.
As always, first thoughts that need interrogation and fleshiing out through discussion.
Have started Player Piano but have decided to also start Baudolino by Eco at the same time - somehow a novel set in 1200 works as a necessary counterbalance to all this tainted futuristic stuff!
you
Well-known member
Im finding We increasingly hit or miss - as the characters problems overwhelm him i'm losing grip of what is actually going on - its not quite as vivid for me, but I know he's the narrator and kinda gets himself jumbled up anyways...
I think the society where families dont exist, the promiscuity, the sex, work, lack of privacy, the order and routines etc all feel very much the basis for Huxleys "Brave New World" -
The S shaped man reflecting the serpent in paradise etc - these biblical comparisons feel a bit tenuous to me, jenks?
I find the racist depiction of R the poet a bit off putting - I know its to be expected in Russian Literature form that time - Zamyatin has spent a few paragraphs in slating the guys appearance.
I think the society where families dont exist, the promiscuity, the sex, work, lack of privacy, the order and routines etc all feel very much the basis for Huxleys "Brave New World" -
The S shaped man reflecting the serpent in paradise etc - these biblical comparisons feel a bit tenuous to me, jenks?
I find the racist depiction of R the poet a bit off putting - I know its to be expected in Russian Literature form that time - Zamyatin has spent a few paragraphs in slating the guys appearance.
jenks
thread death
I think the racist stuff is to reflect badly on the narrator - he makes a comment about the bust of Pushkin and all Russian readers would know that Pushkin had a black great grandfather. This from wikipedia:
Pushkin's great-grandfather, was Abram Petrovich Gannibal, a page raised by Peter the Great, who originated from Africa,
I think this thus highlights the closed and frankly philistine attitude of the narrator.
I am glad that I am not the only one who got a bit lost - moments where there were words but not necessarilly meaning as if this would somehow replicate the conflicted and confused state of the narrator.
I really liked the beginning and was interested in the bits where he 'died' but felt sometimes that he was gesturing towards effects he couldn't quite pull off.
But it must be said that I don't read a lot of sci-fi stuff - Ballard, Dick, Gibson are really my limit and my points of reference for this are more Huxley and Orwell and they are pretty big texts to compare any novel with.
Pushkin's great-grandfather, was Abram Petrovich Gannibal, a page raised by Peter the Great, who originated from Africa,
I think this thus highlights the closed and frankly philistine attitude of the narrator.
I am glad that I am not the only one who got a bit lost - moments where there were words but not necessarilly meaning as if this would somehow replicate the conflicted and confused state of the narrator.
I really liked the beginning and was interested in the bits where he 'died' but felt sometimes that he was gesturing towards effects he couldn't quite pull off.
But it must be said that I don't read a lot of sci-fi stuff - Ballard, Dick, Gibson are really my limit and my points of reference for this are more Huxley and Orwell and they are pretty big texts to compare any novel with.
IdleRich
IdleRich
OK, I read the first half of this yesterday and I'm definitely enjoying it. Few quick thoughts on what I've read and on what you lot have said already.
First, on the translation, am I missing something on this bit (page 19 of my edition) or is it a mistake or what?
So far, I like the style, I like the story and I'm enjoying it. It has got a bit more confusing in the last few pages with the disjointed sentences and words and dot-dot-dots but I think that, at the moment at least, it's working for me as showing the narrator's increasing confusion, we'll see how it goes I guess.
First, on the translation, am I missing something on this bit (page 19 of my edition) or is it a mistake or what?
Also, when he's talking about the square root of minus one and it's described as irrational - surely that's not right? In fact his problem with irrational numbers doesn't really seem to make sense, how could he be a mathematician that can design a space rocket without using irrational numbers (pi for one)?
I like this idea but I'm not sure he pulls it off perfectly. The first few pages of the book where he describes what is going on and how they have no feelings and stuff doesn't quite ring true - I don't think it ever can really. On the other hand it's very readable indeed and it immediately feels quite ambitious in what it's setting out to do and to reconcile those two things is difficult.
Think I'd agree with that - what's all that stuff when he starts going on about how "women are lips"?
This has only happened once so far but I wasn't exactly sure what it was supposed to represent.
Ta, wouldn't have known that myself.
So far, I like the style, I like the story and I'm enjoying it. It has got a bit more confusing in the last few pages with the disjointed sentences and words and dot-dot-dots but I think that, at the moment at least, it's working for me as showing the narrator's increasing confusion, we'll see how it goes I guess.
you
Well-known member
Im really torn about this book - sometimes the tenuous metaphors and analogies really give a sense of the turmoil he goes through in trying to understand things like love, freedom etc through an mathematical and logical approach. On occasions these aspects really make me think the narrator is struggling in a world very different from our own. However more often than not I think they are just rather clumsy attempts by the author at injecting some drama or romanticism into the proceedings. Maybe if this was left out and the narrator was totally cold and devoid of imagination ( please insert joke about any modern trash author here ) then the impression of the world and totality of the conditioning would more complete and enveloping albeit less dramatic emotionally textured??
Some of the analogies just go on to a point where im struggling to keep track of what hes actually talking about... I never know if this is intentional of not.
Some of the analogies just go on to a point where im struggling to keep track of what hes actually talking about... I never know if this is intentional of not.
jenks
thread death
I suppose if we separate out the ideas of the novel from the delivery then we might be happier.
For 1920 whatever it pretty much nails a template for dystopian fiction - loyal party member slowly realises that this perfect society is less than perfect. The way we are allowed into his head via a diary, the appearing triumph of rationalism over emotion, sex and childbirth, population depletion. It's all in there - it's interesting which bits Huxley and Orwell take. Huxley goes down the technological route whilst Orwell is more interested in the machinery of totalitarianism.
I wonder if it reads better in Russian? The novel is very much a series of setpieces which are very gripping and quite acute about human experience but there is also that feeling that he ahs to amke the narration of the novel 'modern', i.e fractured and allusise without actually quite having teh skill to keep it all whole - a problem with a whole slew of 20s fiction trying to keep pace with the modernist experiement.
As usual I may be making far too many sweeping statements here - it is my wont.
I am really enjoying Player pIano which i had dismissed as early Vonnegut and thus a bit crap - none of it at all - look forward to discussing the pair when everyone has caught up.
For 1920 whatever it pretty much nails a template for dystopian fiction - loyal party member slowly realises that this perfect society is less than perfect. The way we are allowed into his head via a diary, the appearing triumph of rationalism over emotion, sex and childbirth, population depletion. It's all in there - it's interesting which bits Huxley and Orwell take. Huxley goes down the technological route whilst Orwell is more interested in the machinery of totalitarianism.
I wonder if it reads better in Russian? The novel is very much a series of setpieces which are very gripping and quite acute about human experience but there is also that feeling that he ahs to amke the narration of the novel 'modern', i.e fractured and allusise without actually quite having teh skill to keep it all whole - a problem with a whole slew of 20s fiction trying to keep pace with the modernist experiement.
As usual I may be making far too many sweeping statements here - it is my wont.
I am really enjoying Player pIano which i had dismissed as early Vonnegut and thus a bit crap - none of it at all - look forward to discussing the pair when everyone has caught up.
IdleRich
IdleRich
A couple of related points there I think, and, while I can see where you're coming from, I think that they're a little harsh. I think that he does a pretty good job of imagining and then recreating for the reader an (almost) unimaginable state. Of course that's what authors are supposed to do but this strikes me as a very difficult one to get right. Also, he's always keeping it readable. I guess he doesn't quite have the skills of some of the people you are comparing him to but, as you suggest, I think he deserves extra points for what he is trying to put across.
I guess I'm agreeing in a way, the ideas are good and the delivery is less good. I just think I'm enjoying the delivery more than you two.
Interesting. I think the story seems to be written very simply but that that is deceptive and that some bits are kind of confusing. I read a little bit two days ago after coming back from the pub and I didn't take it in at all, I had to read those bits again yesterday to know what was going on.
Been thinking about this since you said it but I don't think that he fills the same role does he? Or am I missing something?
I seem to remember that Orwell acknowledged it as an influence while Huxley didn't ( or at least only indirectly) is that right?
Anyway, if I get half an hour to read today I will finish it and have more to say. I'll try and pick up Player Piano after work.