One of my favorites!

اقتباس :
"كيف تتحقق سعادتي إن كانت كل الأيادي، حتى القذرة، تستطيع الوصول إليها ؟ ما حكمتي إن كان حتى للحمقى أن يملوا عليّ أفكاري؟ ما حريتي إن كانت كل المخلوقات، حتى الشاذة والعاجزة، أسيادي؟ ما حياتي إن لم أفعل بها غير الانحناء والخضوع والطاعة؟

ليس هذا العبث منهجي بعد الآن."
2.5

3.5 stars

I read this for school and actually enjoyed it! Kinda reminded me of The Giver.

این ریویو خیلی جاهای داستان رو لو می‌ده.

«برابری ۷_۲۵۲۱» توی یک پادآرمان‌شهر زندگی می‌کنه. جایی که فردیت در اون هیچ معنایی نداره و آدم‌ها مثل ربات، فقط کارهایی رو انجام می‌دن که براش برنامه‌ریزی شده‌ن.
تفاوت برابری با بقیه اینه که ذهنی پرسشگر داره. این کنجکاوی براش نوعی نفرینه که نمی‌ذاره راحت به خلق خدمت کنه.

«نفرینمان همواره ما را به جست‌وجوی چیزی وامی‌دارد که نمی‌دانیم چیست.»
(خیلیامون می‌فهمیمت، برابری عزیز.)

برابری می‌خواد عضو شورای دانشمندان بشه تا بتونه به پرسیدن و دنبال پاسخ گشتن ادامه بده، ولی اون رو عضو شورای رفتگرها می‌کنن و تا بیشترین حد ممکن از فضای پرسش و پاسخ دور می‌شه.
دومین سرکشی برابری جاییه که یه «دوست» پیدا می‌کنه. همون دوست هم باعث‌ می‌شه سر از تونلی دربیاره که پر از کتاب‌های ممنوعه‌ست.
فکر می‌کنم این‌جا، یکی از جاهاییه که تونل نماد زایشه و این‌جا برابری رسماً دوباره متولد می‌شه.
آخرین عصیان هم عشقه. عشق‌ انسانی؛ عشق مرد و زن. برابری، خلاف قوانین، عاشق‌ زنی به اسم آزادی (که عدد بعدشو بلد نیستم) می‌شه.
در نهایت هم علیه شورای دانشمندان، شورایی که بیشترین ارادت رو بهشون داشت، شورش می‌کنه.

روند داستان رو خیلی دوست داشتم. نمادهاش، هرچند گاهی گل‌درشت، ولی زیبا بود.
فقط پایانش ناامیدم کرد. این همه داستان‌پردازی، باید به یه مانیفست معمولی ختم بشه؟ انگار نویسنده مطمئن نبود حرفشو فهمیده باشیم، دوبارهٔ همهٔ حرفاش رو توی چندصفحه و خیلی واضح زد.

همین دیگه. اولین‌باره این مدلی می‌نویسم. ضعف‌ها رو به بزرگی خودتون ببخشید.

«ما، برابری ۷-۲۵۲۱، خوش‌حالیم که زنده‌ایم. اگر‌ این رذیلت است، پس ما آرزوی فضیلتی نداریم.»

Anthem: Inferior to Big Three Dystopias: We, Brave New World, and Nineteen Eighty-Four
Originally posted at Fantasy Literature
It’s incredible the number of thematic similarities between Ayn Rand’s Anthem (1938) and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We (1924), as well as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932). While there’s no direct evidence that Ayn Rand plagiarized those earlier works, it’s undeniable the debt owed to their dystopian future societies where the individual has been completely sublimated to the needs of the state. Moreover, I believe that We and Brave New World are superior works, both as literature and as novels of ideas. Finally, if we are discussing the greatest dystopian novels of the 20th century, we cannot ignore the most powerful condemnation of totalitarianism, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).

Since I had already read We, Brave New World, and Nineteen Eighty-Four, Anthem felt like a much shorter and less nuanced version of those books. In Anthem, the protagonist is named Equality 7-2521, and individual thought and preferences are forbidden – the World Council decides all things, and the main character only uses the terms “we”, “our”, and “they” instead of “I”, “myself”, “he”, “she” etc. Children are raised by the state (just like in We and Brave New World), and although Equality is quick to learn and aspires to be a Scholar, he is assigned the menial task of Street Sweeper. He tells this story in the form of a diary. While sweeping, he discovers a hidden tunnel that reveals knowledge of the Unmentionable Times of the past, when men had freedom, individuality, and initiative. He falls in love with a girl named Liberty 5-3000, and they create forbidden nicknames for each other, “The Golden One” and “The Unconquered”.

Equality discovers a glass a box in the tunnel, and after much tinkering rediscovers the power of electricity, he naively decides to bring this to the attention of the World Council of Scholars for the benefit of mankind. They however are outraged that a lowly street sweeper would have the presumption to suggest an improvement to society. He is thrown in the Palace of Corrective Detention (just like Orwell’s later Ministry of Love), but escapes easily into the Uncharted Forest outside the City. Equality and Liberty reunite and find a house in the mountains. They read a numbers of books from the ancient times and discover just how much of man’s knowledge has been lost and suppressed by the oppressive World Council. The book ends with a heavy-handed speech about individual freedom, self-interest, invention, and reason.

Let me briefly summarize Zamyatin’s We. It is a totalitarian society gone mad, where happiness is defined as the absence of free will, and emotions are considering mental illness. Society is completely regimented with mathematical precision by the government (headed by the iron-fisted Well-Doer), public executions of any aberrant Numbers are carried out by the Well-Doer under the Machine (all individuals only have letters and numbers to distinguish them), and nature is suppressed outside a Wall that encloses a perfectly organized geometrical glass city where citizens live like clockwork, regimented by the Tables of Hours down to their waking, working, exercise, eating, even copulation. The story also takes the form of a diary written by D-503, builder of the Integral spaceship, which is intended to go forth and subject other planets to the benign dictatorship of the One Ship. He gets involved with a dangerous subversive named I-330, who drinks alcohol, smokes, and flirts with D-503. They start to meet in secret in a cottage outside the city, carrying on a passionate affair. I-330 drags him unwillingly into a plot to overthrow and destroy the United State. However, D-503 is caught and lobotomized by the state. He informs on I-330 and her conspirators, who are also captured and sentenced to death. However, the seeds of revolution have been planted by their valiant efforts, and the future of the One State is questionable. In the novel, the forest outside the glass city also represents freedom from oppression and state control.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether Anthem was directly influenced by We or Brave New World. All four dystopian works have overlapping themes that were profoundly influential in depicting the evils of totalitarian and fascist regimes between the two World Wars. But judging Anthem strictly in terms of its depiction of a future totalitarian state, I think it is far too slim and dogmatic to measure up to We, Brave New World, or Nineteen Eighty-Four. It mainly serves as a short and accessible vehicle for Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, which celebrates individual self-interest, reason, knowledge, and capitalism. Those ideas are more fully expressed in her later mega-novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), which are beyond the scope of this review. I wouldn't dream of reading the full versions (32hrs and 55hrs on audiobook), but I might be willing to try the abridged versions (8hrs and 11hrs) just to be "educated" in Rand's philosophy.

جالب بود این کتاب
یه کتاب آرمانشهر یا مدینه فاضله که توی کمترین حجم ممکن نوشته شده با کلی چیزهای خارق‌العاده، واقعاً کتاب خوبی بود من خیلی از خوندنش لذت بردم و دقیقاً المان‌ها و اون ویژگی‌های یک کتاب آرمانشهر رو با وجود حجم کم تو خودش داشت حتی من می‌تونم بگم از یه سری از کتاب‌هایی که توی این سبک خوندم بیشتر این کتاب رو دوست داشتم و خوشم اومد.
توی این کتاب ما شاهد یه دنیایی هستیم که توی این دنیا کل شهرها گویا با همدیگه یکی شده و یک حکومت جهانی رو تشکیل داده و این حکومت جهانی تحت حاکمیت شورای جهانی اداره میشه..... بقیه چیزها هم که خود دوستان به هم بخونن دیگه....
توی این کتاب هم یک نفر بلخره سر از لاک خودش در میاره و چیزی سوای اون موارد و موردهایی که بهش گفته شدن فکر می‌کنه...
اما مهم‌ترین نکته این کتاب که شاید خیلی از کتاب‌های هم سبک خودش بهش اشاره بکنه اینه که توی این کتاب به وضوح ما می‌بینیم که حکومت‌های تمامیت‌خواه به راحتی توی این دنیا تونستن من یا خود رو افراد بگیرند و در واقع فردیت رو به طور کامل حذف کنند جوری که شخصیت اول اون آخرا دنبال این می‌گرده که ببینه دوست دارم یا ابراز محبت کردن به صورت فرد نه به اون صورتی که حالا یادشون دادن به چه نحوه؟ و هرچی می‌گرده توی دایره لغاتش پیدا نمی‌کنه این خیلی جالب بود.... نکته دیگه‌ای که توی این کتاب باید بهش توجه کرد سطح علمی این دنیا انقدر پایینه و انقدر این‌ها پایین نگه داشته شده که شخصیت اول این کتاب میره یک وسیله‌ای رو به یک نحوی ابداع می‌کنه و نشون بزرگان اندیشمند اونجا میده. و یه دیالوگ جالب داره، دیالوگ مخرب این بود که یکی از شخصیت‌ها برگشت گفت تا از مشعل به چراغ دستی برسیم ۵۰ سال طول کشید و ... اینا
خلاصه کتاب خیلی خوبی بود من واقعاً خوشحالم که فرصتی دست داد تا این کتابو بخونم و بدون کوچکترین تردیدی این کتاب به دوستانی که این سبک از کتاب‌ها را می‌پسندند پیشنهاد میدم

As I read Anthem, I kept thinking of 1984, not just because both books depict a dystopian future where a totalitarian government suppresses individuality, but because both books predict dehumanizing changes in mass psychology that have come to pass in my lifetime.

In Orwell’s novel, people live under constant video surveillance. When I read this back in the 80’s (yes, I read it in 1984), I never imagined that this would ever happen, much less that people would grow so accustomed to it that it would seem normal. While we may not be watched in our own homes (at least not yet), the moment we leave our homes all our movements are captured by video cameras.

Those who complain of the lack of privacy are told: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have no reason to object. Therefore, if you do object, you must be doing something wrong.” The idea that some people would resent the indignity of having their every movement recorded is never considered. Have privacy and dignity become outdated?

I had a similar reaction to the enforced use of plural pronouns in the world of Anthem. Instead of “I,” one must refer to oneself as “we.” Instead of “he” or “she,” other individuals must be referred to as “they.” For example:

“ ... we looked straight upon the Golden One, and we saw the shadows of their lashes on their white cheeks and the sparks of sun on their lips” (26).

The effect on the reader is disorienting. I had to constantly remind myself that “we” is the young protagonist and “they” is the woman he loves.

In our society, “we” has not caught on as a replacement for “I” (at least not yet), but “they” is creeping further and further into our language as a replacement for “he” and “she.” Thus I experience a similar disorientation in real life when an individual is referred to as “they.” Sometimes context clues reveal that the referent is one individual rather than more than one, but it is not always clear.

What has caused this peculiarity of speech? The habit is generally believed to stem from situations where an individual is unknown. For example: “The new librarian has their work cut out for them.” This is believed to solve the problem of not knowing whether the new librarian has his work cut out for him or her work cut out for her.

But this is not the full explanation. If it were, “they” would never be used when the identity of the individual is beyond dispute. Moreover, this peculiarity of speech has become so pervasive that it is even corrupting written language.

George Orwell has something to say on this subject. In “Politics and the English Language,” he says “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.”

Our language is not simply evolving to meet new demands. On the contrary, it is deteriorating into something that is both dehumanizing and dishonest. Words mean something. In Anthem, individuality is erased from language in order to erase it from thought. Something like this appears to be happening in our society.

When we erase “he” and “she,” we erase the singularity of the individuals these words represent. We erase uniqueness. We erase maleness and femaleness—something we typically do with animals. (In fact, it is notable that when we want to humanize an animal, we make a conscious effort to use “he” or “she”.)

When we speak as if the individual’s identity is irrelevant, the result is that we cease to regard the individual’s identity as relevant. We go from not knowing who an individual is to not caring. This is what Orwell means when he says that language can corrupt thought.

Pronoun usage in English may present some difficulties, but reducing us all to nameless, faceless, sexless “theys” is not the answer. Dehumanization is never the answer.

“It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil.” - Ayn Rand, Anthem

Before my Goodreads days, before I knew anything about Ayn Rand, I kept spotting her name on booklists and decided to buy a few of her books. It took me a while to learn that Rand was persona non grata.I did read Atlas Shrugged and surprisingly found it quite fascinating despite not ascribing to her philosophy of objectivism in the least, and despite finding the characters highly unlikeable.

‘Anthem’ was interesting. I liked the writing style, and I enjoyed Rand’s depiction of a dystopic world, one in which the pronoun ‘I' is not used as it is a collectivist society with no time for individuality. This is a society in which writing is considered a sin, where you are given your career choice on the whims of those in charge (the Council of Vocation), not on your ability or personal preferences; a very rigid society where at 40 years of age, you are considered old and useless.

Anthem did remind me of Orwell’s 1984 in a way. To me, the protagonist Equality 7-2521 was another Winston, someone who didn’t like the status quo, who was awakened but didn’t want to risk his life to show others that he was.
My only problem with this book is that it was too short! I would have loved to see how the story played out.

"The word 'We' is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it"

Brilliant! This novella is before the Rand's popular heroes Howard Rork and John Galt. This dystopic fiction talks of a society where the word "I" does not exist, where indivuduals do not have names, where love and friendship are considered transgressions of preference, where your vocation is chosen is by a council of elders.

The society is an extreme take on Lenin's Russia and the message towards the end on the human spirit is powerful. One human breaks the mould and emerges - a criminal in the eye of the society, while hero in the eyes of his beloved. They give each other names such as the Golden one and the unconquered.

This novella is almost like a chapter and if you do not compare it with the later books, one of the quick and inspiring reads.

Reading of this particular edition is brilliant on librivox!

Quick read with a lasting impression. Released over a decade before George Orwell's '1984', this is Rand's objection to the idea of Socialist unity and embraces the idea of the human ego and individualism.

Rand herself described this story as a poem, allowing the story to flow. She is able to enforce her philosophy of 'objectivism' without the challenge of a long winded novel (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?)

Although her writing in 'Anthem' is more transparent then her norm, the book still captivates and makes it's point.

I really liked this book. I think it conveys Rand's message better that he more well known books. The characters and the story are far more interesting. Very inspiring.
This is the best edition of it available at Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Anthem-General...

If one ever needed proof that Rand, aside from a thoroughly revolting specimen of humanity, was also a God-awful writer, whose books are a complete waste of good paper, then they should go ahead and read this incoherent, rambling, idiotic piece of rubbish. No wonder so many of Rand's faithful readers and adherers to her brand of 'philosophy' (lol) are staunch Trump supporters. Worthless trash posing as literature.