“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.

Anthem is one of Ayn Rand's earlier works, where she starts shaping the core ideas of her philosophy called Objectivism. While she touches on these concepts, they aren't fully fleshed out, and some extra research is needed to understand them. The story is set in a Neo-Luddite dystopia where people are stripped of their individuality and institutions control every aspect of life. The main character, Equality 7-2521, commits multiple transgressions challenging the herd mentality that dominates society.

The four pillars of Objectivism--metaphysics (objective reality), epistemology (reason), ethics (self-interest), and politics (laissez-faire capitalism)--are present in Equality 7-2521's journey. His secret experiments and discoveries demonstrate a commitment to objective reality and independent thought. He values reason and evidence over blind acceptance of dogma. His focus on his own needs and well-being represents a choice of self-interest over the collective's well-being. Private property and laissez-faire capitalism are hinted at in the ending and not thoroughly explored.

Equality 7-2521's character arc, while significant, feels underdeveloped, barely touching on the practical and emotional challenges he might face. Rand's writing is unpolished--it's unengaging, dry, and awkwardly phrased, and I struggled to finish reading. The dialogues are forced, robotic, and unrealistic, and the events and descriptions are simplistic, leaving little room for interpretation. The book does criticize collectivism and the lack of individuality or competition for ideas, albeit in a very superficial manner without diving into the complexities of such a system.

The real tragedy of this book is that the billions of copies that have been printed could have been more appropriately used to build homes for people in third world countries. This book could not be more self indulgent if it came with a bottle of Absynthe and a membership to MENSA. Not only is it impossibly boring to read, the characters are so one dimensional that they put V.C. Andrews to shame. Do yourself a favor: set this on fire and use the fourteen hours that it burns to read Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series instead. You won't regret it.

I don't know what the point of this book is. It desperately wants to be 1984, but in no way shape or form comes close. It's absolutely mindless and I gained nothing from it at all. The resolution is so absurd, and the premises is equally absurd. The last words:

n  And here, over the portals of my fort, I shall cut in the stone the word which is to be my beacon and my banner. The word which will not die should we all perish in battle. The word which can never die on this earth, for it is the heart of it and the meaning and the glory.

The sacred word:
EGOn

What does this mean? Honestly. The take away is that we should be fundamentally selfish in order to avoid.... forming into.... a mindless hivemind? Why is that the only conclusion drawn from charity and selflessness? It's never explained, it's never formed into reality. It's just a statement.

It's not worth reading but it's short enough that I guess I am glad to know what I was "missing". Danny Salinger's review says it better than me: "This book might have been revolutionary for its time, but we've moved on as a culture. We've gotten over the novelty of selfishness being a virtue and social control being a bad thing, and we've managed to produce far more intelligent treatments of the subject."

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'!

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

The baby version of Ayn Rand philosophy, heavy handed, unimaginative, and unfortunately assigned to my son for high school reading. I struggle with Ayn Rand because I agree with some of her points and I vehemently disagree with others. The point is that bad things happen when the left or the right gain too much control because we always seem to end up in the same place with the government oppressing individual freedoms. It is really stunning to think of the millions of copies of this book that have been sold. I would say skip it, but if your child is assigned to read it please do read it. I'm a firm believer that parents should read any book their child is assigned in school to read.

نوفيلا لطيفة، تجربة كثيفة رغم قصرِها.

دستوبيا كلاسيكية عن عالمٍ شموليّ تتلاشى فيهِ الفردانية، إلى درجةِ أنَّ يشيرُ المرء إلى نفسهِ بضمير (نحن)، وأن اكتشاف كلمة (أنا)، ليس فقط تدنيسًا لطهرانية المجتمع المفترضة، إلا أنه شبهُ مستحيل (خاصة بعد شطب الكلمة من اللغة)، ويتطلب رحلة مضنية (على طريقة جوزيف كامبل)، ويشبهُ بلوغه الخلاص الصوفيّ؛ وأقل ما يمكن قوله عنه أنه انفجارٌ لغويٌّ يجعل المرء يرى العالم بعينٍ أخرى.

يسهل وضع "ترتيلة" على رفٍ واحد مع "نحن" لـ يغفيني زامياتين، "مزرعة الحيوان" و"1984" لـ جورج أورويل، و451 فهرنهايت لـ برادبيري، والمفاجأة أنها سبقتها جميعًا. كتبت ترتيلة في 1937 ونشرت في 1938. نحنُ زامياتين نشرت (الطبعة الكاملة) في 1952، وأورويل نشر مزرعة الحيوان في 1945، وبرادبيري في 1953. لا أدري لماذا تخلو مراجعات تلك الأعمال من الإشارة إلى آيان راند بصفتها رائدة في كتابة أدب المدينة الفاسدة، وعرابة لأعمال فاقتها شهرة (وأناقة أحيانًا).

اللافت في الرواية هو الاشتغال على اللغة، تفجيرُ إمكانياتها كجهاز قمعي، وأيضًا كآلية تحررية. فكرة اشتغلَ عليها أورويل في 1984 من خلال تقليص القواميس حتى لا يعودُ المرء قادرًا على الوصول إلى كلمةٍ مناسبة لأفكاره. تكريس الاغترابِ من خلال جعل التعبير تعجيزيًا. على خلاف أورويل، جعلت راند التحرر من خلال اللغة. وقد وجدتُ نفسي أتبسّمُ مليًا، في الصفحة الأولى تحديدًا، لأنّني يندرُ أن أقرأ رواية تتحدث بضمير المتكلم (نحن)، يمكن للرواية أن تقول أشياء كثيرة من خلال تفصيلة فنية بهذه البساطة.

لو أنني قرأتُ (ترتيلة) قبل عشر سنواتٍ، مثلا، لتماهيتُ معها تمامًا. فكلّنا بشكلٍ أو بآخر يحاربُ لأجل فرادته في عالمٍ شموليّ. لكنني أعتقدُ بأن ما حدثَ في العقد الأخير يتطلب مراجعة نقدية لطبيعة الدستوبيات القائمة والممكنة. النظام اليوم لا يطلبُ منك أن تصبح نسخة من النموذج الذي فصّلت مقاساته السلطة بصراحة، بل يوهمكَ بأنك حرٌ فيمَ أنت تتحوّل إلى شخص منوم مغناطيسيًا يشتري أشياء لا يحتاجها. ما أريد قوله أن الديستوبيا التي تصنعها الرأسمالية في تغوّلها مختلفة في تفاصيلها عن الديستوبيا المستوحاة من المجتمعات الشيوعية. (التي هربت منها راند)، شيءٌ على غرار ما قرأناه في رواية (كواليتي لاند) العظيمة.

وأخيرًا، أعتقدُ بأن الرأسمالية استثمرتْ كثيرًا في فكرة الفردية (وليس التفرّد)، على طريقة جاءت مناقضة لطبيعة البشر بصفتهم كائنات تتوق إلى العلاقات والانتماء. وهي فكرة مضللة، والأهمّ أنها خاطئة ومضادة لطبيعتنا سيكولوجيًا وفسيولوجيًا أيضًا. لذا لا أستطيع أن ألوم راند إذا نادت بهذه الفكرة، فهي امرأة هاربة من روسيا إلى أمريكا في لحظة تاريخية حساسية. لكنْ يصعب عليّ قراءة عمل كهذا دون أن أقول، في هذه اللحظة التاريخية أيضًا، في 2021، الدستوبيا الرأسمالية ليست أقل سوءًا من الشيوعية.

شكرًا دار أثر على الاختيار الممتاز، وشكرًا نوف الميموني على الترجمة الجميلة.

"در ابتدا انسان در بند و برده‌ی خدایان بود. ولی زنجیرهایشان را پاره کرد. سپس به بندگی شاهان در آمد. ولی زنجیرهایشان را پاره کرد. بنده‌ی اصل و نسب، رنگ پوست و نژادش شد. ولی زنجیر آن‌ها را نیز از هم درید. به برادرانش اعلام کرد انسان حقوقی دارد که نه خدایان، نه شاهان و نه دیگر انسان‌ها، هر چقدر هم پر تعداد، نمی‌توانند آن را از اون بستانند، زیرا این حق انسان است و بالاتر از آن حقی نیست. او بر آستان آزادی ایستاد، آزادی‌ای که پیش از اون قرن‌ها برایش خون ریخته بود.
اما پس از آن همه‌ی دستاوردهایش را به باد داد و حتی از دوران بدویت وحشی‌اش هم پایین‌تر رفت.
چه چیزی موجب این اتفاق شد؟ چه فاجعه‌ای عقل و شعور انسان را از اون گرفت؟ چه تازیانه‌ای انسان را با شرم و سرافکندگی به زانو در آورد؟ پرستش واژه‌ی «ما»"

Elegantno preskočiti.

Toliko loše da me čak nije ni nerviralo.

3.5 to 4.0 stars. Though a very short novel (actually a novella), this is a classic of libertarian science fiction and a scathing indictment against collectivism. I probably would have only given this 3 stars but I loved the last two chapters of the book where Rand's fury at the communist/collectivist system explodes on to the page. Agree or disagree with her politics/philopsophy, one thing you can always say about Rand, she wasn't subtle and didn't hide her views or her passions.

Named to the Prometheus Hall of Fame (1987)

Свят, в който думата „Аз“ е непозната – съществува само „ние“ и колективът е всичко. Смисълът на живота е да работиш за другите и всякакви лични желания са забранени…

Това е светът в новелата „Химн“, в който хората даже нямат имена, а просто номера. Един от тях обаче си позволява да извърши нечуван грях – грехът на Предпочитането. Той Предпочита една жена пред всички останали т.е. влюбва се – а да предпочиташ един индивид пред друг по какъвто и да е начин е дискриминация и абсолютно забранено!

Отгоре на всичко, той случайно открива останките от една забравена цивилизация – цивилизация на бетон и електричество, твърде различна от тази на свещи и петилетни планове, в която живее човечеството в момента…

Химн е практически пост-апокалиптичен разказ, в който апокалипсисът е бил това, че хората са започнали да поставят другите пред себе си, започнали са да мислят за това, което искат другите, а не за това, което искат те самите.

И като резултат обществото се е превърнало в един мравуняк, в който всички работят до изнемога, а нямат никакъв личен живот, желания и стремежи, а цивилизацията запада и се връща едва ли не в каменната епоха - защото всяко развитие е плод на индивидуалния стремеж към знание, а наука не може да се гради на консенсус, мнение и съгласие, а само на спор, факти и лични постижения.