I actually read a recently printed graphic novel version of Anthem adapted by Jennifer Grossman and illustrated by Dan Parsons (did many Star Wars graphic novels). Rand originally wrote this dystopia sci fi novella back in the late 1930's. It's given a beautiful, but somewhat dark and gritty visual interpretation by Parsons, that made it easy and fun to read. I've read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the past, both good, but somewhat laborious reading. I read this in about thirty minutes and it felt like cheating, getting through an Ayn Rand work in that little time! However, it might be the most pointed Rand work, emphasizing her beliefs in such short order.

The plot itself is straight-forward. The planet has nearly experience destruction at the hands of (nuclear?) war leaving a dark time. Mankind rises in a 'great rebirth' only though an extreme authoritarian world order that worships 'We' at the complete expense of indvidual freedom. Individuals are not allowed to read, think, choose their occupation, or even love. This keeps society in near perpetual dark ages for an extended time, with only a revolutionary breakthru coming in the form of candle making!!! A man and woman dare to break free and I'll stop there to avoid any spoilers.

As an allegory it's effective, although somewhat heavy-handed. It hammers on the point that if we take socialism too far, we give up too many freedoms and destroy our ability to create, grow, and even love. I don't disagree with the central theme, except to say life isn't that simple. We have to have some level of social order and give up some freedoms to have peace and to support the less fortunate, etc.. The trick is what is right level? That's not answered here. However, it's a great reminder that we cannot lose our basic individual freedoms and people do occasionally forget that. We cannot lose 'I' due to the complete worship of 'We'!

I’d like to preface this saying I’m reviewing this based on the novel itself rather than the political sphere it encompasses. I loved it - I think it’s a wholly human and simple novella that has importance. Hence the four stars.

However- if taken for the philosophical and political work it had been intended I would suggest other sources. I myself lean towards principals of socialism and found the arguments Rand conceived within this to be incredibly thought-provoking, but alas a complete misunderstanding of what I believe socialism to be. Which isn’t a negation of individuality but a celebration of individuality through a society that can collectively support and uplift one another.
Heck yes, it’s utopian but someone’s got to have harsh ideals in this current climate.

Despite my obvious reasons to dislike this novel - it was brilliant. One of the best dystopian novels I've read.

Compared to the voluminous Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, Anthem is a chapter.

But Rand may have been better adapted to writing shorter fiction because this one packs a lean, economical and hungry punch. Dystopian but told like a fable, this is a serious work that works on multiple levels. Very good.

Of the three works, I liked them in this order:

The Fountainhead
Anthem
Atlas Shrugged

When dystopian novels - or any science fiction novels - are useful, it's not because they predict the future in any exact way. It's fun when they happen to get it right, but it's beside the point. They're not about the future; they're about now. So Zamyatin's We (1921) shows a future in which individuality has been willfully destroyed in order to point out the shortcomings of the post-revolution Soviet state. Huxley's Brave New World (1931) takes Henry Ford's philosophy to its logical extreme not because he thinks we might end up there precisely, but to criticize what it's up to right now.

Dystopia in the hands of a good writer is an elaborate way of saying, "Chill, dude." In the hands of a nutjob, it's Anthem.

Like Huxley before her, Rand rips off We blatantly. The generic names assigned to people and the annihilation of the individual; the impersonal mating system; the illegality of being alone; the shutting-out of nature; the mythical past war that destroyed civilization; the banning of literature; most obviously, the very word "We," which is used elegantly in Zamyatin's masterpiece and like a fucking jackhammer in Anthem (1937).

But at its core, Anthem is about something different. It uses its extreme vision of the future to propound an equally extreme philosophy for today, and that's why it's crazy talk.

The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it...the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong...

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it?

This is a sophomoric thing to say. When you take collective living to its grotesque extreme, it doesn't mean that any collective thinking at all is terrible. It means that you shouldn't take it to its grotesque extreme. Zamyatin knew this. It doesn't take a genius, but it's still beyond Ayn Rand. Anthem is an overreaction. It's loony, extremist, fanatic. It's stupid.

And this book is terrible. It's amateurishly written, as all her books are. Its characters are ludicrously one-dimensional - particularly its lone woman - as all her characters are. It steals its setting wholesale from We, and then drives it pell-mell over the edge of a cliff: Rand's plagiarized We without understanding it. It's poorly written and poorly thought, and it's a crap book.

Literature is never dangerous. To read literature is just to have someone else's idea. And ideas are never dangerous. I have all kinds of ideas: good ones, bad ones, silly ones. The dangerous thing is bad judgment: when you're wrong about which ideas are good, and which are bad. Go ahead and read Anthem, but don't be mistaken: it's a bad idea.

"خوشا پر کشیدن
خوشا رهایی
خوشا اگر نه رها زیستن
مُردن به رهایی!
آه
این پرنده
در این قفسِ تنگ
نمی‌خواند"

داستان در یک پادآرمان‌شهر اتفاق میفته که همه‌چیز حتی اراده و اختیار توسط شورا از مردم سلب شده.
فردیت افراد سرکوب شده و تمام فعالیت‌ها باید با توجه به جمع انجام بشه.
استعداد و علایق آدم‌ها نادیده گرفته میشه و حتی شغل اون‌ها توسط شورا انتخاب میشه و جالب‌تر اینکه این وضع به قدری برای همه عادی شده و به پذیرش همگانی در اومده که کسی مخالفت نمیکنه.
و این داستان، داستانِ رهاییه.
داستان رها شدن از بندِ بردگی و به دنبالِ "خود" دویدن.
زیباترین قسمت کتاب، اولین روز رهایی بود که از خواب بیدار میشه و همه‌چیز براش تازه‌ست و احساساتی رو تجربه میکنه که همگی جدیدن.
لحظه‌ی کشفِ زندگی :)))

Anthem is a parable more than a novel and its purpose is to praise individualism. Equality 7-2521 is the new Prometheus, bring "fire" to humanity that is under the bondage of collectivism and anti-intellectualism. Though the plot is formulaic and at times the pages read like propaganda, the last two chapters are poetic and indeed an anthem to individualism, and perhaps to elitism. After reading ten chapters of "we," "us," and "they," it is refreshing to see the word "I." As Prometheus has discovered fire, so Equality 7-2521 "I" and he, like his predecessor, will bring it to mankind.



When I was reading Anthem, I kept thinking of Yevgeny Zamyatin's novel We. In both books, "we" and collectivism and the totalitarian state dominate the story and the alphanumeric names stand out. But whereas Yevgeny Zamyatin analyzed the evils of Scientific Taylorism, Rand praised individualism as mankind's salvation.

Given Rand's experiences with Leninism and Stalinism, we can understand her enmity toward collectivism and anti-intellectualism. For her, only an individual's thoughts, talents and all the qualities of excellence that rise above the mass's mediocrity can defeat the evils that seek to destroy civilization. And so, Equality 7-2521 surpasses his brothers and sisters and will lead them out of bondage.


Ayn Rand

Whether we agree with Rand's philosophy or not, Anthem gives us a taste of the ideas she would expand upon in later novels.

Based on everything I've heard about Rand, from her supporters, her detractors, or in interviews with the author herself, I feel there is no reason to believe that this book or any of her others contain anything that is worth reading, not even as 'cautionary example'. Since my goal here is to read as many good books as possible and to do my best to avoid bad ones, I'm going to be giving Rand a wide berth.

سرود نوشته آین رند ، نویسنده سرشناس روسی – آمریکایی شرح وحکایت یک پادآرمان‌شهراست . داستان خانم رند در تاریخ نامعلومی اتفاق می‌افتد که بشردرآن گویی وارد عصر تاریکی شده‌. همهٔ انسان‌ها به صورت دسته جمعی زندگی می‌کنند و مفهوم فردگرایی و حتی نام افراد هم حذف شده‌است . ویرانشهر خانم رند ، حالتی بسیار ابتدایی و بدوی دارد . افراد در جامعه ای زندگی می کنند که مسئولان آن به دنبال حداقلی از پیشرفت هم نیستند ، آنان در بهترین حالت خواهان حفظ شرایط موجود هستند . در این جامعه ، هیچ‌کس نام یا هویت شخصی ندارد و همه با شماره‌ شناسایی می‌شوند و ابراز احساسات و تفکر مستقل ممنوع است.
این جامعه توسط یک دولت تمامیت‌خواه اداره می‌شود که به دنبال ایجاد یک جامعه‌ی آرمانی است. این دولت معتقد است که تنها راه رسیدن به آرمان‌شهر، از بین بردن فردگرایی و ایجاد یک جامعه‌ی یکدست است .
شخصیت اصلی داستان، در چنین جامعه‌ای رشد کرده. او از همان ابتدای داستان کم کم متوجه می‌شود که احساسات و خواسته‌های او با آنچه جامعه به او می‌آموزد یا از او می خواهد متفاوت است . او به دنبال پاسخ‌هایی برای سوالاتش است و به دنبال افرادی دیگر می گردد که مانند او فکر کنند .
در ستایش من
با وجود داستانی معمولی و شاید تکراری ، اهمیت کتاب را باید در پیام آن دانست . نویسنده بر اهمیت فردگرایی و آزادی های فردی در زمانه ای تأکید کرده که استالین در شوروی ، هیتلر در آلمان و موسولینی در ایتالیا ، خواهان حذف من و ساخت جامعه بر پایه ما بودند . این کتاب تاکیدی ایست بر این که انسان‌ها موجوداتی فردی هستند و حق دارند که فکر کنند، احساس کنند، و زندگی خود را بسازند.
من در برابر ما
رند با استادی و مهارت ، فلسفه من یعنی فردی بودن انسان ها و حق زندگی کردن بر اساس ارزش ها و آرمان های خود را در برابر ما یعن�� اهمیت اجتماع و همکاری ، مسئولیت جمعی و فرمانبرداری مطلق قرار داده ، گرچه در کتاب در کنار پادآرمان شهر ، جامعه جدیدی هم بر اساس فردگرایی و آزادی ساخته می شود که می توان آنرا نماد پیروزی من بر ما دانست اما شاید در ادامه و در جامعه جدید ، افراد به این نتیجه برسند که ما نیز مهم است و افراد در هر جامعه ای نیاز به همکاری و پیروی از قانون دارند .
سرود نثری لطیف و دلنشین دارد که هم به کوبندگی داستان و هم به درک حال و روز راوی آن کمک کرده . ترجمه خانم تناسان را می توان درخشان دانست . او هم در برگرداندن احساسات لطیف راوی و هم در ترسیم فضا تاریک و سرد داستان ، کاملا موفق عمل کرده است .

Definitely the only book by Ayn Rand I will ever need to read, unless I happen to be reincarnated as an asshole. When people start modeling their book covers after Mussolini-era Italian architecture, worry.

A dystopian novella set in the world where totalitarian collectivism has triumphed to the greatest extent. I did see Rand's potential as a writer, but in this book, her ideas are underdeveloped, and far too simplistic for my taste, and for her to be considered a philosopher, at least at this stage. Book did have some quotable passages but nothing fascinating or invigorating. Also, Rand’s objective is not only simplistic but troubling at times. I’m all up for the quality critique of collectivism and agree with the premise of the importance of maintaining personal identity and freedom, but Rand preaches the overcorrected extreme form of individualism, that is egoism at its core, that I really can’t stand behind. She sees the collective aspect of society as the source of all evil and is completely neglecting its value.

For the word "We" must never be spoken, save by one's choice and as a second thought. This word must never be placed first within man's soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all the evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie. 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. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

The foundation for objectivism is laid as rational selfishness is advocated. The sacred meaning of existence is in indulging one's ego. Not for people that see value in altruism! Also, libertarian views are noticeable as she values personal freedom and self-reliance above anything else. And the essence of complete freedom is deliverance from the influence of others. Can help but think that her appeal is built upon psychological trauma from group oppression intertwined with wounded self-worth and need for the approval of egotistical worldview.

To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else.

Rand also considers the idea of falseness and the impossibility of unconditional love. For her, love to be true and authentic has to be conditional.

And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned. I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey.

Besides farfetched ideas and unrefined philosophy, the storyline was unimaginative, with substantial plot holes, and world-building unconvincing. It is a short novel but much more could have been done, and I read writers that did wonders in fewer pages.
I would recommend this book only to people who don’t read at all or don’t read as much, as it is fast-paced and conveys some ideas without requiring a lot of focus or attention, but for a vivid and more experienced reader, I don’t think this work can bring a great deal of satisfaction. (In that sense it reminds me of Fahrenheit 451, I just don’t think that these books are meant for me.) And I can hardly imagine someone seriously interested in philosophy to be excited while reading her ideas - bit maybe I’m wrong, I saw that some of my intelligent friends on GR did like this book and enjoy objectivism, at least as a thought experiment.

If Rand concepts get more complex and advanced in later books as it is said, I think I would like to read them, knowing the level of influence she had and the controversy she sparked. Because of that aspect alone, I’m interested in her work, but for now, not impressed at all.

After spending the entire book fetishizing rugged individualism and extolling the importance of not letting anyone think for you, the first thing the narrator does after escaping is tell the woman what he has decided her name will be. Sigh.

No.