This is short and blunt and to that end I'll be short and blunt. Anthem has many of the elements one would expect dystopian fiction. But an utter lack of a devolved storyline. There's a story here but it moves very fast and is told past tense. The last bit is just a series of statements on how the narrator plans to live or his "anthem". major theme is coming from a restricting society of "we" to the superior induvial "I" this would be a good introduction to the dystopian genre but to someone who has read all the great work i the field like A brave new world, we, and 1984 I'd rather like those more comprehensive stories!

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.

الكتاب يتكلم عن حرية الشخص والعبودية والفلسفة السياسية.
لا نعرف من هو بطل قصتنا ولا نعلم من أين هو وأين يعيش، يصف نفسه وكل من في الكتاب بشكل جماعي بصيغة (نحن أو هم) عوضاً عن شكل فردي، لأن هذا هو ما بُنِيّ عليه وأسسته المصالح على هذا المبدأ، ولكن كل شيء سيتغير في نهاية الكتاب حيث سيعي بطلنا ما هو كونه وشخصه ويتحرر عن جمع نفسه ويفرّد ذاته ويقرر محو العبودية وسلاسلها.

كتاب قصير جداً ويمكن إ��هائه في جلسة واحدة، جميل وكتب بنمط شعري سلسل ولكن مبهم، وفي نفس الوقت سنشعر ببعض السياسة الدستوبيّة ترأس الأحداث.
ذكرّتني بدستوبيا ١٩٨٤ لجورج أورويل ونظام الأخ الكبير، ولكن هنا في هذا الكتاب سيكون كل شيء مختلف وأصلي، حيث ستأخذك الأحداث إلى فانتازيا وخيالات مفرطة.

بیشتر 3.5 تا 4.
سرود رمانکی پادآرمانشهری از جنس رمان های 1984 و... بود. شاید بتونم تنها مشکل اصلی این روایت کوتاه رو همین شباهت بدونم که حداقل برای من، تکراری و یکم خسته کننده شده.

اما سرود چی داشت؟ لحن و نثر کوبنده. انگار یه طوفان تو سر آین رند بوده و جوری داستان رو نوشته که انگار خود نویسنده هم، عین شخصیت اصلی رمان، تحت تعقیب بوده موقع نوشتن این کتاب! اما در عین حال، نثر آین رند یه لطافت خاصی تو خودش داشت. با این حجم کم، آین رند دنیایی ساخته که توش «مَنیّت» از بین رفته و «ما»، اونو به لجن کشیده و قرن ها به عقب برده (یه چی تو مایه های سریال revolution) . این عقب رفتن تا حدی بوده که مردم پس از فاجعه‌ای، به دوران شمع و کشاورزی روی آوردن. چقدره که با خوندن همین رمان و فلسفه سرایی های نویسنده راجع به آزادی و «ما» و «من» و... یاد وضعیت اسفناکمون تو ایران خواهیم افتاد.

با خوندن «سرود» یاد رمان «میرا» خواهیم افتاد.

I tried to read this again because I thought it was relevant to something I've been writing but it's just eugh. Pronoun verbed the noun. Noun verbed over there. I wanted nice things but he was a BAD MAN!!! And he said, he said NO NICE THINGS. EVER!! Because I am BAD!!!!!! Repeat.

I guess it is a pretty good oversimplified narrative about what there is to fear about socialism, but the oversimplification creates a deliberate narrow-mindedness that is to the detriment of the book's argument. When he's-wrong-I'm-right dystopias were refreshing and new, I doubt that was the case, but they can't be gotten away with now.

If you are a writer, please do read this, because if you ever think you're clever for devising some four-legs-good piece of dystopia about some big system or perceived societal wrong, guaranteed there are fifty versions already, and they are all heavy-handed terrible garbage—you don't suck for thinking about writing one, just go with your second or third idea instead.

You know that way when you watch a really bad anti-smoking ad that it irritates you with its lack of subtlety hence lack of respect to you as an audience and perversely makes you want to take up smoking (almost)? Very few people know how to debate properly. It doesn't strengthen your argument to say 'The way I do things is correct and his way is stupid', instead of 'I see the advantages and disadvantages of both strategies but prefer my way.' You know? But there's all these videos all over YouTube: why the left/right doesn't work. Uhhh they both work just fine in moderation, in different ways, and without moderation they both suck in different ways. The problem's people, man. So many of them are just the worst!!!

I have heard of Ayn Rand, her books and her controversial philosophy. This was the first of her titles that I read, and sounds like a precursor to her later novels.

A dystopian story: a totalitarian government, with the protagonist having the will to identify and isolate one's self, a release of force that presumably was locked inside for far too long.

Looks like all of these ideas (in Anthem as well as probably in at least some of her later books) were a result of herself, in her childhood, facing the Tsarist regime as well as the later oppressive Communist state in early Soviet Russia; perhaps even an effect of the growing Fascism in Europe in the mid-1930s, and with the fear of something like that also happening in the United States with the election of President Roosevelt in 1933 during the time of the Great Depression (1929-39), wherein eventually Rand moved and had lived since 1926.

Anthem was good in the sense because it stops at the moment when the protagonists release themselves from being under total control of the State, and identify that there exist something as their own selves. As far as it went to that limit (and not to the extreme, as perhaps in her later novels, I presume), I personally felt satisfied.

A good book, nothing great. Not really recommended. But I believe if one has to read Ayn Rand's books, one should also read her corresponding life-story and the history of those times to truly understand why she became and wrote what she did, her works which I personally feel are too dangerous for its presence in the current era of worldly events (and not in accordance with Dharma), perhaps even evil as some readers have suggested.

My desire to choose such, hm..., strange books is frightening me. But let's leave my daemons aside. Reading "Anthem" alerted me with an unusual narrative: "we", "our", "they" were used to describe both the narrator and others. There were no such words as "Me", "Myself" or "I" in the biggest part of the book, as in the world of the main character they are forbidden to speak. It was intriguing and of course it left some confusion in me, because at first it was hard to sort singulars and plurals. The people in this book aren't individuals and individuality is doomed. Even their names are strange: Equality 7-2521 or Liberty 5-3000. The strongest part of this book (and the most attractive) is the struggle to find identity, individuality and freedom. Though with some limitations.

As I like when strong female and tough male characters blend, this book was definitely not my type, because any such allusion was removed. The society and the main activists are distinctly masculine, with no star identity for women in the book. The only significant woman gets her short praise but She quickly turns into an insignificant support. She is all love and devotion and He is more interested in reading. She even can't get her own name, when at last He discovers freedom and his "I", He does that for her. Even after freeing himself He doesn't want to free all the people in the damned city, just some of his friends, who are male of course. Oh, and what happens when She is expecting a child. The child will definitely be a boy. Eh, and who is She to judge the wonderful masculine world in this book, She is just a helpless woman near the feet of the WONDERFUL man, who is so kind to lead her. Jesus Christ with the holy Mary!




I just can't believe that this book was written by a woman.

One of my favorites!

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed after reading this book. It was written a very long time ago and her philosophy is not going to be popular, especially with my Feminist friends.

In all honesty, I read this because someone (during a rant on Facebook about Terry Goodkind) compared his work with Ayn Rand's. I enjoyed his Sword of Truth series and thought this might be for me. (It isn't). I get that they thought that he was pushing his views and philosophy on his readers but to compare his work with this? No.

My advice would be not to bother with reading this one. It's your choice though.

Thanks for reading.

Lol wtf

a long day at work with a lot of that work left unfinished
+ happy hour drinks with colleagues, no they're more than that, with friends
+ I have to get around to reviewing a book by mutterfookin' AYN RAND of all things
=

DRUNK ЯEVIEW #?

so I've been on a hiring spree lately, just hiring people left and right because yay my work is actually getting multiple contracts and that means we can actually hire people instead of everyone doing two jobs per usual nonprofit social services type staffing patterns, so anyway I hired this one young lady who is clearly super smart and super organized and super perfect for the job I hired her for, good job mark, yet again, but she is 21 and so I wonder sometimes if her big brain is the tail wagging the 21 year old, who is very, very much 21 years of age, or at least what I remember of myself when I was 21. namely, emotional. and critical. and all about RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. still, I'm pleased with the hire, she's great, I love her. and what does everything I just wrote even mean? in the context of this book? i dunno but it sorta made sense to me as I wrote it.

anyway, she somehow found out that I am a quote unquote Reader, and so she loaned me one of her favorite books. namely, this book. Anthem. my reaction was decidedly undecided when she mentioned this was one of her favorites. I hate everything I know about Ayn Rand. I am the sort of ass who, way back when i was 21 and in college, actually broke up with a lady I was dating because it was clear that all of the Ayn Rand she was reading was influencing her, she was quoting Ayn Rand for crissakes, anyway it was too much because Ayn Rand's ME ME ME style of libertarian philosofuckery just drives me up the wall and I can't have that in someone I'm dating. so she turned around and started dating my roommate, so someone got that last laugh there and it wasn't mark monday.

so my new staffer loaned me this book and i was all UH UH BUT AYN RAND SUCKS ARE YOU SERIOUS?? and she was all OH MY GOD JUST FUCKING TRY IT. so i did!

if you are one of the unwashed masses who doesn't know what Ayn Rand is all about, and God bless you if you are, here are some things about her (that I despise):

- totally against all forms of socialism because to Rand, socialism = the death of the individual

- the most important thing about this curious concept called "Self" is "Ego". Rand worships at the altar of EGO. per Rand, if you aren't your own #1, you may as well be dead. there are aspects of that mentality that I totally get and support, but Rand carries this to the point where concepts like "altruism" are inherently corrupt to her. an altruistic person per Rand is pretty much the definition of a total loser

- you are the captain of your own ship; if your ship carries important supplies that could help other people, who gives a fuck, fuck them; your ship needs to sail alone unless people are happy to sail under your personal captaincy. e.g. if you are a brilliant architect who designs a brilliant housing complex and then finds out that that your design is being used for public housing, God forbid, then you are fully entitled to blow up said brilliant housing complex because it is being used for the public good rather than for what you intended. YOUR PERSONAL DREAMS ÜBER ALLES!

which reminds me: one of my favorite films is King Vidor's insane adaptation of Rand's novel The Fountainhead, where what I just mentioned is the central struggle of the film (and I assume the novel). this over the top thing of beauty features a berserk plotline, berserk characters, a brilliant housing complex being blown up because God fucking forbid it may be used for public housing, and an incredible scene where architect Gary Cooper is drilling something and neurotic Patricia Neal is watching him drill and gets so worked up she uncontrollably starts beating the literal horse she rode in on, and then rides off, in a Randian heat over the studly I Am My Own Man-ishness of the Gary Cooper character. she gets so hot & bothered she actually delivers a smart slash of her riding crop before riding off. hot stuff!

n  n

n  n

n  n

but back to this book, finally

actual review:

I was surprised at how much I liked it, at first. it is one of those dystopic post-apocalyptic books where we are experiencing the day-to-day life of some poor zombie sap who is slowly realizing that he is living in a world of sad automatons and he is one of the few who gets how pathetic his life is. because everyone is supposed to be like everyone else, and he is an actual someone. as always, this is an automatically enjoyable narrative to live in because who doesn't think that way, at certain points in their lives (or at certain points in their day, cough)

the style and the prose itself impressed me. Rand is one of those surprising writers whose prose is stripped-down, clean, and neat while also being oddly poetic: phrases and sentences that are child-like, eager, but also full of longing and melancholy. she's a fully-formed writer as of Anthem, surprisingly only her second novel. even more impressive was her replacement of the word "I" with the word "We" which functioned as an implicit criticism of the communist mindset while giving the storytelling itself an excitingly declamatory feel. on a stylistic level, Anthem is a genuine pleasure to read.

oh I just got a text from a friend that was a link saying "typhoon pork bun woman" and I think I'm just not going to check that out right now. whatever could that mean??

anyway, this was turning out to be a from-leftfield 4 star book for me but then the last two chapters happened. there were hints before that, here and there, but I chose to ignore them. but Ayn Rand is gonna do Ayn Rand, and that's only bad news where women are concerned. per Rand, a person with a dick is a person who needs to make himself into his own man; a person without a dick should probably just follow and promise obedience to said dick.

THAT IS FUCKING DISAPPOINTING. but I suppose not surprising. and yet I am surprised! I'm always surprised when a woman is all about freedom and rugged individuality and notgivingaflyingfuckeroo about what society says... but for men only! not for the womenfolk! apparently women should just support their man, they are incapable of forging their own hard-won individuality because EMOTIONS. I wish this was a unique perspective but God knows I have come across it many times, in literature and ugh in real life too. my own experience of my own uh experiences but also of my male friends is that I, and they, are all super fucking emotional. this is not just a female trait! argh. but more to the point: the sole female in Anthem shows her worth by declaring her obedience to her ruggedly individualistic, freedom-living man. that's just fucking gross and I don't get it. self-hate much?

so anyway, looks like Survivor is on so time for me to end this review. also feels like I am going to have an interesting time reporting my findings to the person who loaned me this book. wish me luck!

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.