The novel discussed in the following is a very recent publication. First of all, it may be ranked with famous traditional dystopias such as George Orwell's 1984, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World or Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. In all of these there are some parallel themes and motifs which will accordingly be dealt with. Apart from being a warning of a future society, in The Every there are many ecological and environmental references which will also be discussed, for this topic almost daily is gaining an increasing significance for our planet.

Ecological Principles in Dave Eggers's Dystopia The Every Willi Real

Introduction

In both novels there is a young female protagonist: Mae Holland applies for a job in The Circle as Delaney Wells does in The Every. Mae Holland plans to become a member of the company, whereas Delaney Wells pursues a hostile intention as she wants to become a member of The Every in order to destroy it (p. 20). Therefore the novels have a similar starting-point. However, in The Every, Delaney's purpose sounds both more ambitious and, in a way, also more promising for the reader, since it seems to imply more action, possible conflicts and also a higher degree of tension. In addition, Mae acts as a single person while Delaney has a friend: she and Wes Makazian take a skeptical attitude towards technological progress; they want to destroy the company in order to have a chance (p. 29). This is further developed by the following statement: “Humanity will finally turn away from the endless violations of decency, privacy, monopoly, the consolidation of wealth and power and control”, Delaney said (p. 166f). When she is interviewed, Delaney, with Wes's help, presents an own app (which in this novel is used as the standard abbreviation for software applications), which can do a qualitative analysis of friendship and which does not remain without influence on her interviewer. As a result, Delaney Wells's application for a post in The Every is successful.

Delaney was brought up as an only child: Her parents, being shopkeepers (p. 58), had little time for their girl so that she often resisted their orders, liked to be alone and do things her own way (p. 58). Nevertheless she also frequently contacted other people, and she was very fond of animals (p. 58). At the age of 12, Delaney got a very expensive telephone whose technical possibilities were fascinating and which, at least for some time, was something like a gate to the world for her (p. 59). Eventually she somehow got tired of this medium, and after her studies she became a forest ranger wandering through extensive forests on her own and taking care of them (p. 64). Then one day, allegedly for her practical activity, telephones became obligatory, which was said to be for her own protection (p. 64). Yet Delaney opposed this idea as she now felt subject to surveillance (p. 65).
This is a first major motif in The Every: later on, the reader significantly learns that „the observed world, the recorded world is a safer world“ (p. 152). This is also reminiscent of the well-known slogan: „Big Brother is watching you“(2), with which Orwell's 1984 readers will certainly have unfavorable associations such as pressure, fear, subservience, arbitrariness, etc. In David Eggers's novel, Delaney is asked whether she would like to work in a large company, where they “are looking for a certain degree of absorbability” (p. 19). To this question Delaney by emphasizing this rarely used term replies in the affirmative (p. 19): “I do”, she said. Absorbability (Italics in the original). This means that The Every, at least partly, want “to take in” or “suck up” their members, i.e. their very personality is at stake. Consequently she is allowed and invited to start her quick career in a community which threatens the individuality of persons in many ways.

The Every as a Progressive Vision

These key principles are reminiscent of George Orwell's three paradoxes in 1984: War is Peace/Freedom is Slavery/Ignorance is Strength(3). They represent slogans which, in the course of the novel, are repeated for propaganda purposes over and over again in order to suppress this society's members(4). By way of contrast, the statements from The Every may seem to be democratic, liberally-minded and to call for favorable associations. At least, with the people concerned, they are very popular.

All of these data are classified, there are uncountable votes concerning them by the public, which means that everybody is allowed to vote on anything. This seems to mean progress because there is a permanent “war on subjectivity” (p. 19), which elsewhere is just called “objectivity waiting for data” (p. 212, p. 569). In other words, the question arises whether it is possible to derive convincing insights from subjectivity or to move from individual standpoints to well-founded majority opinions which are expressed by percentages. The belief in numbers is outstanding: for the Everyones numbers will be numbers (p. 462) as these do not lie (p. 231). This seemingly tautological statement has the emphatic implication that in the humble attitude of The Every's residents, numbers should be trusted in any case(5). Thus everybody may give an opinion on anything; however, it seems at least doubtful whether everybody can be right on everything and that the sum of subjective opinions will lead to interpersonal truths. And it is questionable as well whether this kind of democracy in practice will work well.

Ecological Principles of The Every

In this organisation, many rules exist by which the importance of climate change is emphasized which is also connected to the idea of progress. To quote but a few examples: First of all, the campus where the Everypeople live should be free from plastic (p. 83): as it is not subject to decay it constitutes a threat to the environment, in particularly to the oceans of our planet. Thus plastic material should be recycled (p. 359) or, in a similar way, plastic and other non-biodegradable articles should be removed; for a clean environment they may also be burned (p. 154). Organic waste is transformed into valuable compost. It goes without saying that this problem is still very topical nowadays.
Besides, the use of paper is undesirable and strongly discouraged (p. 83), because it is made out of wood, and modern readers will certainly know that too many forests have already been cut down. The first reference to paper in the novel runs like this: “All that paper. All that money lost, so many tens of thousands of unnecessary jobs, trucks, planes, dead trees, carbon” (p. 25). So it does not come as a surprise that paper books are to be abolished (p. 202) and, for the use at school, e-books are recommended (p. 263). Elsewhere it is announced that cash and paper will soon be outlawed (p. 535). It is also well known that in Brazil the destruction of large parts of the South American rainforest seems to be unstoppable (p. 93). And it has become a truism that trees and forests bind a lot of carbon dioxides.
It is in accordance with this insight that vehicles powered by fossil fuels are unwanted. They require an exemption (p. 84) as, understandably, the general political aim is to keep carbon emissions low or, if possible, to even achieve carbon neutrality (p. 464). From this it has to be concluded that the effects of climate change and Eggers's vision of human life in the near future belong together in this novel.

Thus it is of topical interest: the general problem for the writer is that too many unnecessary objects are hoarded, which ultimately may mean the end of the world (p. 100). The fight against climate change, then, is an essential question for human survival. This impression is enhanced by the fact that an environmental catastrophe is described which is meant to happen between 1990 and 2025 (cf. pp. 92-93). This episode also shows that contemporary readers are appealed to by the writer directly.

On every Friday there is a presentation for everybody when talks are being given in order to document recent progress. These occasions are called Dream Fridays. On Delaney's first Friday, there is much talk of environmental protection. Generally speaking, the Everyones demand a great deal of respect for the environment and all living creatures (p. 277) (7). Pollution has been an ever increasing problem in Europe since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, and carbon emissions have become responsible for the increasing warming of our planet. Since their schooldays Delaney and Wes have known a carbon impact calculator to measure emissions (p. 225). In the following, some specific examples of environmental damage are given which can be traced in the text of The Every.

One level of pollution concerns transport. In a software application Wes explains how to find out about the carbon costs for importing bananas (cf. pp. 195–198). If these are transported by container ships, from Central America (Guatemala) to northern California for example, the greatest imaginable pollution of the oceans occurs, which is finally supplemented by the use of lorries, that is by internal combustion engines. This standpoint is supported by the statement that “a 15-ton-fuel burning vehicle is ... environmentally offensive” (p. 280) (8). In this way shame is created towards the product transported, which is expressed by coining the term bananaskam (p. 196) (9). Therefore the Everyones refuse to eat bananas any longer, a fact which they are very proud of (p. 198). This is also true for pineapples or any other fruit that has traveled more than a few hundred miles (p. 442). People obviously prefer regional food (fruit and vegetables), because they want to avoid transport, which produces a lot of carbon emissions which again are detrimental to their environment. In other words: food should be produced and transported sustainably (p. 309).

The problem of transport is closely connected with traveling. The Everyones believe that economic damage is done by traveling round the world; elective travel (which is usually completely self-arranged) is said to be immoral and to do violence to the earth (p. 284). In contrast to this, there is a plea for ecologically and environmentally responsible traveling (p. 132), which, for example, would include ecological airlines. In general, traditional traveling is said to imply a lot of CO2 emissions. This also applies to cruises (p. 134), for example those to Venice, which is threatened to such a high degree by huge ships that the town is almost certainly subject to decay in the near future (10).The opposite is desirable in order to make tourism sustainable.
To conclude: all real travel could be seen as a crime against the planet (p. 177). Later on, every trip is considered as an unwanted carbon moment (p. 465; cf. p. 284). As a future alternative, as ecologically progressive trips (p. 131f), people are advised to go over to virtual traveling: its three dimensional quality is said to be excellent already: this would not only drastically reduce the costs, but it would also essentially reduce the environmental burden for our planet (cf. pp. 136-141).

In an ecological context further problems are caused by the textile industry(11). As a matter of fact, this branch of industry is said to produce 10-15 % of global greenhouses emissions, which is more than those of aviation and marine gases taken together (p. 329). This is due to the fact that the surplus production of clothes is the standard procedure so that a large portion of them is never needed. More than that, limitless choice is said to be killing the planet (cf. the subtitle of the novel). Worse still is the overproduction: goods are offered for one month only, half of them are not bought but transported back to the producers and burned (p. 329). It is easy to imagine that the ecological costs implied for this are unheard of (p. 329).

In The Every therefore, one particular department tries to develop environmental assurance of the consumers and their conscience of consumption (p. 324). Delaney has obviously developed some ecological awareness already when she is wearing recycled cotton jeans for example (p. 325), which is probably due to two reasons. On the one hand, she knows that environmentally sustainable clothes are very expensive (p. 324), and, on the other hand, she wants to defy the production of too much waste (cf. also the procedure in The Every described on p. 310 and p. 467): she opposes any sense of wastefulness which contributes to producing more garbage (p. 325). This is in sharp contrast with Brave New World for example, where conscription of consumption is the general rule, which in Huxley's novel is the necessary corollary of mass production which was introduced by Henry Ford in the early years of the 20th century. Accordingly, the outsider Alpha-Plus Bernard is condemned as “a conspirator against Civilization itself” (p. 130).

The Every, which is situated in Northern California, then, is a community social, political and economical, in which people try to realize the ideal of collective carbon neutrality (p. 464). Rather than exploiting Nature, which is metaphorically called “humanity's aggression towards its mother” (p. 286) (12), people make an ecological use of natural resources (cf. p. 557) (13). They are asked to give up choice for the sake of the planet (p. 333), to reduce their ambitions and consumption, to control their desires, to do without some things and to abstain from others so that nothing is wasted (p. 467). All this may be regarded as sensible. The social body, then, in terms of economy, is „a closed ecosystem which is very wary of, or even hostile to anything that might upset that equilibrium” (p. 273).

Yet in terms of ecology, The Every is neither a perfect nor an ideal community: there are some restrictions which are obviously going too far. In this social body, not only internal combustion vehicles (such as buses or lorries) are prohibited, but trains as well (p. 289). This is disturbing in view of the fact that, in the twenty-first century, in some industrial countries at least, trains may be driven by green electricity already. As to commuting, the text points out that the Everyones are to work where they live or live where they work (p. 290). This assumption, as a counterpart, matches the rule that those who go on foot or by bike to their work are rewarded (p. 291). Implicitly, then, commuting is forbidden as well. Generally speaking: on every occasion, the personal carbon imprint is tracked and supervised (p. 539f; cf. p. 561). This leads as far as forbidding personal shopping (p. 466) as people are supposed to get all the necessary food from one place.

On the whole, such restraints verge on the absurd. By not leaving the house, by staying at home people are supposed “to save the planet” (p. 291), which may have two meanings. It may refer to the protection of Nature which is certainly justifiable in itself, but it may even refer to all human beings, that is to include the survival of mankind. However, some measures are definitely exaggerated and satirically distorted, which exceed the measure of what is necessary to achieve their objectives. On the whole, then, The Every is a community which, at least in ecological respect, cannot entirely be recommended.

Delaney Wells and Wes Makazian

Originally Delaney and Wes are friends who have the same objective of ruining the community although they never discuss any strategical steps in order to achieve this aim. Yet in The Every, as a rule they are separate from each other: they do not live together so that it is only from time to time that they can meet. On such an occasion it comes as a surprise for the reader that Wes and Delaney disagree concerning their attitude towards The Every (cf. pp. 465ff). The following dialogue, which is started by Wes and in which he is given much more room by the writer, represents a kernel passage of the novel as a whole:

"There is only one entity on earth that really has the power … to turn around catastrophic climate change. You smell the fires? … Have you been watching the sea levels? Any meaningful impact will have to be enacted on a global scale, and there are no countries, no organizations that have remotely the power the Every does. […] The impact the Every can make in weeks is more important than whatever little privacy offenses they commit” (p. 470).

Wes obviously is no longer an enemy of The Every as for him the old life was selfish and irresponsible, anti-social and anti-human (p. 467). Moreover, he has become increasingly sensitive to the extent of the climate change so that for him “offenses of privacy” are more or less insignificant. Anyway, they are far less important than any measures for the planet which is facing its death (cf. p. 354f). He thus acts in the interest in and to the benefit of the welfare of the community.

When Delaney points to the fact that The Every was bombed by a terrorist and they do not yet know who was responsible (p. 470; cf. p. 496), Wes replies: “I'm beginning to like the idea of a life without bombings. Without crime. Without violent death or the possibility of it” (p. 470f). Besides, for Wes the Everyones bring order into our life (p. 471), which is also expressed by the first part of the subtitle in order to emphasize its meaning. Significantly he betrays his identification with the community by using the pronoun of the first person in the plural (“We”): “Del, you have to acknowledge that they get stuff done. They bring order. […] We eliminate so much of the chaos of life, so much of the struggle, so much of the unnecessary running around, driving, shopping, choosing, throwing away. Overspending, overconsuming - this goes hand in hand with a more sustainable way of life” (p. 471).
On the whole, Delaney has little to comment on Wes's ideas. To begin with, she points out that there is an increasing number of suicides in The Every (p. 470) and that people who are not for the new system, simply “die off” (p. 471). This point is not taken very seriously by Wes. For him it is the necessary consequence if such residents have chosen to disagree: it is the price they have to pay for not supporting progress. Moreover, Delaney has one crucial argument for her standpoint, however. For her this procedure would mean the end of freedom and free will (p. 470), which, like in Wes's argument about order, is also referred to in the novel's subtitle, so that it may also claim a deeper meaning. For Delaney the loss of freedom and free will would be the end of human conscience as well as of men's moral responsibility. That is, mankind's very humanitarian character is at stake and, implicitly, their very sense of life is called into question. Anyway, for Huxley's John The Savage in Brave New World, it would include less perfection and more suffering. Nevertheless, at least at first sight, Wes's arguments seem to represent the superior standpoint of the two.

In terms of Eggers's novel, the absence of free will is no real loss since individual insecurity is said to have been overcome and the control of life has been ceded to other people. This is called freedom from choice, which, as a rule, will mean bondage or servitude of human beings. By way of contrast, in The Every, the loss of decision making is some kind of liberation connected with the reduction of stress. And in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale, there is an interesting distinction between two kinds of freedom, namely freedom of choice and freedom from choice (p. 39). What, at first sight, seems to be a slight difference of preposition only, reflects the fundamental difference between freedom and submission as well as that between choice and servitude. In the context of The Every, however, it also means progress from (the burden of) decision-making to the removal of stress (which is equivalent to the end of uncertainty and fear). When Delaney realizes that she cannot convince her friend, she concludes that they may be friends in the future but that they will not be allies any longer (p. 471) (14).

For readers who are familiar with Huxley's Brave New World, there are two obvious parallels. On the one hand, Wes insists on a world of order in which there is neither bombing, nor crimes, nor violence. On the other hand, in Huxley's novel it is pointed out by the World Controller Mustapha Mond that in their world state stability is complete: there is no hunger, no war, no disease, and as a consequence of promiscuity, there is neither rape nor abuse of children. If there exists a problem nevertheless, the drug soma may be used as a reliable way out for a temporary holiday(15). However, Mond's standpoint excludes real progress; rather than stability there is stagnation in the world state(16). Obviously, there is some resemblance between Mustapha Mond's and Wes's arguments, whereas Delaney's standpoint which is based upon free will and moral responsibility resembles that of the Savage. In the final dialogue (end of chapter XVII in Brave New World), the World Controller points out to John the Savage that he “claims the right to be unhappy”. “Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent, the right to have syphillis and cancer, … the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow, the right to catch typhoid, the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.” To which John replies: “I claim them all”, thus insisting on his personal rights and including the entire gamut of human weaknesses and shortcomings (p. 207). As a result, this controversy represents two rival solutions for an appropriate vision of life.
To conclude: This is rather an impressive paragraph in the novel. Without any doubt, the writer has a very wide range of imagination, for which I would like to categorize his work as a “novel of ideas”(17).

The Confrontation between Mae Holland und Delaney Wells

Although Mae Holland is the protagonist of Eggers's The Circle, where she acquires the title of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (p. 18), and thus assuming power (p. 151), she is only occasionally mentioned in its sequel. As a matter of fact, she makes herself scarce and personally appears on the scene only twice, and in both cases she meets Delaney Wells. During their first encounter they apparently act on kind and friendly terms (p. 518). Mae Holland's embrace of Delaney is very tight (p. 518): thus she seems to be very empathic. Delaney, on her part, ironically thinks their meeting will be the beginning of a long friendship (p. 522). Mae especially thanks Delaney for her contribution to their community, and the two agree to make an excursion in Delaney's native country Idaho, which will be for the two of them exclusively (p. 522). This will consist of a-one-hour ascent in the mountains in order to watch a spectacular waterfall from above. Delaney is offered a travel bonus and offered to travel home in a carbon-free manner (p. 516).
Although the two talk to each other in an amiable way, neither of them is honest. Delaney thinks in terms of The Every's destruction, whereas Mae has particular plans for Delaney (p. 522), which, as shown later, ironically means her opponent's death. Thus their talk is of apparent harmony, which cannot be understood on the literary level only. It is Delaney who develops some fundamental ideas concerning ecology which could function as basic elements in a software application to which Mae agrees more or less by paying lip service to it. To a large degree, both of them pursue a strategy of deceit. For Mae Holland, Delaney's behavior is treachery (p. 573).

Thus there is a lot of talk about valuable resources, about production, consumption and waste (p. 556). Of course, environmental standards should be respected (p. 557f) (20). Besides, both women agree that some improvement would be desirable and that production and consumption should be matched: “What if we could control production and demand with surgical precision?” (p. 556). The challenge for them is to find out the necessary facts about supply and demand with greater accuracy. The situation of The Every would considerably improve if they could make what they need and manufacture only what they will sell (p. 561). This would also mean a reduction of transport because the disposal of one third of the articles unwanted would become superfluous. If some things do not sell, there should occur no production, which would mean that human beings have less options. People should give up all things unnecessary, which is alluded to in the third and last part of the subtitle (“limitless choice is killing the world” and also expressed by the slogan: “Fewer choices. Everyone rejoices” (p. 558). Elsewhere Eggers speaks of “the paralysis of unlimited options” (p. 177, p. 179), and of constraints as “the key to liberation” (p. 202). Moreover, Delaney argues, our planet would be saved (p. 561). Such a plan could be supervised with the help of the Personal Carbon Index (PCI) and pushed through with societal punishments including the social shame aggregate (p. 561). If its consequences were positive, there would be less waste and order would be the result (p. 562). The Everypeople were to become free from choice (p. 563, cf. above), which means that decisions are made for them by other people. Thus ends the first part of Delaney's ecological ideas, which have become a tool for her in planning to ruin The Every.

At first sight, all these statements do not sound unattractive, yet there are some logical gaps in them. For example, Delaney shows to be well aware of the danger of unemployment for many people (p. 493 and p. 442), yet she does not point out now that a loss of innumerable jobs would rise from her planned state of affairs: auto parts suppliers, people providing global transport facilities (such as ships, trains, planes ...) would lose their jobs to a very high degree, a great deal of commerce and business would become superfluous. This would mean that in this social community many conflicts were likely to arise.

The following ideas concerning Delaney's app and Mae's responses could be summarized as follows: „One number that includes everything, from cradle to grave” (p. 565). That is, one number is used in order to evaluate the personality of people: ”Quantity and quality of friendships. Everything would get factored in one number”. “And the scale would be...” “One to a thousand” (p. 565). And from their early days of life, children, students and all other adult people collect scores for good behavior, whereas bad conduct will be punished by loss of some scores (p. 566). This is meant to end uncertainty (p. 569) as well as to establish order and transparency (p. 566), for everybody will know at every point of time where they stand. It is claimed as well that everybody is stimulated to activate their best selves (p. 566). Moreover, this procedure is said to bring fairness into play as it may be classified as “an all-encompassing virtue rating“ (p. 567). If people want to know how to live, “the data will tell you how to live. What should I do? The numbers will know” (p. 568). This goes as far as the numbers dictating humans any small step in daily life: “We know people don't want to make decisions, and we 're perfecting the tools to make them for people. Our tools already tell you when to exercise, what to eat, what to do and not do, what to buy and not buy, what to say and not say” (p. 568). Such is the degree of 'voluntary' submission of humans in The Every: it is progress without freedom.
Eventually Delaney emphasizes that she will give her ideas like all the others to The Every without asking for credit (p. 571). There can hardly be a better example of dramatic irony. The offer to help Mae in controlling the movement turns out to be an illusion as well. This unit as a whole may be regarded as the climax of the novel.

All this may sound very nice in theory, but it is very far from truth and reality. In practice the world would look completely different, as Delaney's concept is based on an extreme formalization of human behavior. It could be used in an app, but it would lead to many conflicts caused by human envy. Comparing oneself to others will also imply frustration and aggression. Most significantly, it is not explained on what criteria scores are distributed, and, as a consequence, some people will always feel treated unjustly. Rather than order, there will be chaos, struggle and violence. To conclude: numbers can neither replace values nor represent virtues.

The Outcome of the Novel

This is the final moment where The Every shows their true face. From the very beginning there are “privacy offenses” (cf. above), but they are not only justified because of majority votes (seemingly democratic procedures) but also by the company's objectives. First of all, there are cameras everywhere, so there is comprehensive surveillance. This means that people are closely observed with very effective lenses from drones, surveillance zeppelins can detect any unauthorized things coming from any direction (p. 400), and they can observe minute muscle indicators on people's faces which they have no way of suppressing so that the software sees it all (p. 342). In other words: technology ensures that no errors go unrecorded (p. 534).

All these measures are meant to enhance the safety of the community. If control even includes people's mimicry, this implies progress as to the transparency of the organization. Control is also advocated to help to prevent and to pursue crimes (p. 427 and p. 412), for example to stop child abuse and spousal abuse (p. 422). If people's private conversations are transcribed and analyzed in order to check their truth (p. 507), this is said to overcome any feeling of insecurity and to contribute to (law and) order in the organization. And order, transparency and safety are among the Everyones' virtues, which are over and over again justified in the name of progress. It belongs to the moral principles in The Every that their residents never stand in the way of progress (p. 290). This rule gains in importance since any new notion is inherently progressive (p. 290), which is evidence of the fact that everything else is sacrificed to progress. In other words: progress is made absolute, because for everybody there is only one possibility, namely to vote for or against the community: that is, people may either eat or die. Thus for The Every residents the proverb is valid: “Trust is good, control is better.” In their minds, control is regarded as the most important achievement in life as control means the end of personal fear, thus bringing their lives closer to refinement.

To sum up: the community may appear to be peaceful since there is neither physical torture in prisons nor mental subjugation like brainwashing for political opponents. But as so often, in this case appearances are deceptive. Control in The Every is so perfect that nobody can escape it: even small differences and nuances will be found out by the apps. The fate of Delaney shows that this system is intolerant as well as relentless. Even if Wes in his debate with Delaney is superior, the readers have to ask themselves whether it can be the writer's intention to praise this progressive society. I would like to argue that Wes's seemingly argumentative superiority is part of Dan Eggers's satirical intention.

Again Aldous Huxley may be quoted, as the subject of social control in Brave New World and The Circle has been studied very carefully(21). In this study, there is only one thesis I would not accept, namely that Mae was brainwashed(22). This is not convincing because of the plain fact that Mae Holland felt attracted by The Circle from the very beginning of the text(23), so she did not have to undergo a basic change of mind or attitude such as Orwell's protagonist Winston Smith, who in 1984, undergoes a brainwashing process which is described at great length. Finally, in Orwell's novel we are told that “he [Winston Smith] had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother” (p. 239) (24).
It is directly expressed in the text that Delaney has fallen to her death in a remote canyon (p. 575) - very probably because Mae has pushed her into it. Anyway, Delaney whose plan was to bring death to a powerful company and which turned out to be a complete failure is certainly murdered by Mae, without that she has any guilt feelings. In The Every the status quo will go on existing with Mae at the top, who, ironically at least three times in the text, is classified as a very ineffective leader because she never has any original ideas in order to achieve progress (p. 223, p. 294, p. 401). In contrast, Delaney's former friend Wes has become one of the respected Everyones: he is admired very much and even deified (p. 310; cf. p. 467). Delaney's former academic teacher, namely Professor Agarwal, thus summarizes what The Every is like: “feeding the urge to control, to reduce nuance, to categorize, and to assign numbers to anything inherently complex. To simplify. To tell us how it will be” (p. 297). Certainly this value judgment of hers is entirely justified.

Consequences

Technology has redefined what it means to be human (cf. preliminary quotes to the novel). Besides, there is a permanent over-estimation of numbers and quantitative categories such as statistical results and percentages. As a result, the reception of insights and knowledge is very superficial so that little or no understanding occurs. There exists a semblance of progressiveness, which is without real progress. People have achieved a high state of technology, they are not aware that they are subject to this development, however. They do not realize that technology has broken free from them, that it takes too much on itself and that they themselves have become victims and addicts of this development. And this is what the writer's critical objective aims at: ultimately the novel is to be praised for his ingenious criticism of modern technology. Thus, in The Every, there can be semblance of happiness only. Like in Brave New World there is a lot of danger for the individual. As a whole, the novel is clearly dystopian; in Eggers's work, the dystopian community and ecological problems are closely woven together. In sum, the novel's plot is not very complex: descriptive and analytical elements play a more decisive role than the narrative ones. Without a doubt, the writer's imagination is very rich, which keeps the novel as a whole from being too overtly didactic.

Additional Note

Notes

(2) This is even true of people's tax declaration: “ETR (Effective Tax Rate) allows the truth to emerge … the more our behavior is seen and recorded” (p. 361). There are at least two more variations of this idea: If you feel observed “your behavior improves” (p. 423) and “Every wanted a watched world without risk or surprise or nuance or solitude” (p. 551)].

(3) George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (Harmondsworth: Penguin: 1949), p. 7.

(4) From Orwell there is also a close connection to the three keywords to be found at the beginning of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World as the world state's motto runs: “Community, Stability, Identity”; cf. Rudolph Franklin Rau (ed.) (Stuttgart: Klett, 2007), p. 7. In the context of the whole novel it becomes perceptible that the social cell is much more significant than the individual well-being.

(5) The following statement may be considered as a pun, rather an attractive play on words: “We are numb and want to be number!” (p. 534). It points to the fact that human beings are reduced to silent numbers who, in spite of (or because of?) being allowed to have a vote on everything, are more or less speechless or even powerless. Paradoxically enough, they want this state of affairs to be even increased. Apart from that it shows the Everyones' general predilection for quantitative and measurable categories.

(6) For example, this even includes people's laughing which may last 34 to 36 minutes (p. 315), falling asleep should take no more than 12 to 13 minutes (p. 316) and should be encouraged by one's favorite music (p. 317). Duration of sleep should cover at least ten hours (p. 303) as this is supposed to support men's creativity in the best way possible (p. 303). If this concept does not work, the individuals will be punished (p. 316).

(7) This attitude is in accordance with the general principle of sustainability. It goes without saying that sustainability is among the key concepts of the modern activists' fight for the protection of the environment. As a technical term it is used to describe the use of natural resources when this use is kept at a steady level that is not likely to damage the environment.

(8) Later on, as alternatives to combustion engines, the questions come up whether a bus may be solar-powered (p. 356) or using (plant-based) bio fuel (cf. p. 242).

(9) This derogatory term consisting of banana and shame is repeated in the text several times (cf. p. 286, p. 309, p. 452). Newly coined words or combination of two words are rather frequent in The Every; many of them like OwnSelf, HelpMe or FaceIT are self-explaining.

(10) Cf. Wikipedia, s.v. Venice. At present large cruise ships are no longer allowed to tie up in the center of Venice because of causing too much environmental damage. Nowadays there exist plans to build a new cruise terminal, however, there are also many citizen protests against it.

(11) It goes without saying that the textile industry should not pollute local water supply (p. 560). In general, water is regarded as scarce and valuable. Therefore even rainwater pools are being used (p. 358).

(12) Aldous Huxley, too, warned mankind against exploitation in 1948 already: “ … modern man continued, generation after generation, to exploit the earth ...“ Ape and Essence“ (Vintage Classic, 2005), p. 129.

(13) In the first chapter of the Bible (Moses, 1:28), God tells Moses to subdue the earth. In our times, however, Nature is considered as composed of animals and plants, of animate creatures and inanimate things, and accordingly, man himself is not only part of God's creation but also responsible for it; see for example Pope St. Francis' encyclical published in 2015. Cf. Wikipedia, s.v. Dominium terrae.

(14) This seems to mean that their common plan to destroy the system, is over before it really has started so that there is disappointingly little tension in the novel.

(15) Cf. Willi Real, Brave New World as a Parody and Satire of Wells, Ford, Freud and Behaviorism in Advanced Foreign Language Teaching (FLT)“, unit 3.

(16) Several examples of irony may be traced in Brave New World, the first example of it being its very title; see preceding note.

(17) By this label Huxley's Brave New World has been classified as well: see Jerome Meckier, Aldous Huxley: Modern Satirical Novelist of Ideas, eds. Peter E. Firchow and Bernfried Nugel (Berlin, 2006), particularly chapter 3, pp. 23–40.

(18) Ultimately public opinion and/or majority votes determine what will become a law and what will bring peace. Most Everypeople want to have their lives dictated by others (p. 455); like Delaney, they argue that “the stress is gone, because all those decisions are gone” (p. 503).

(19) This interpretation may also be found in the internet: cf. www. Delaney.

(20) Similar themes are also discussed in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1985), such as the production in reduced living conditions, the avoidance of wastefulness, environmental pollution, and state control.

(21) Eva Oppermann, „Real and Digital Exile: Social Control in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) and David Eggers's The Circle (2013)”, Aldous Huxley Annual 20/21 (2020/2021], pp. 355-388.

(22) Cf. ib., p. 377.

(23) This is in sharp contrast with the film The Circle which was directed by James Ponsoldt and came out in 2017, starring among others the well-known Emma Watson and Tom Hanks.

(24) The process of brainwashing, at some length, is described in 1984, part III, chapters 5 and 6.