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.»

Ayn Rand is I think deserving of the appellation "an odd duck". One of her dearest ideas (and I would suppose ideals) is the the right, willingness and ability to think for one's self. But she functioned in her life with the approach, "my way or the high-way".

This book is worth reading and I think there are valuable things to take away from this little novella. But you need to be able to think. Ms. Rand is a classic case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." I'd say, read and learn, but don't be guilty of the simply absorbing and following...think for yourself.

Any more on this and I'll have to go into my own ideas and thoughts. Happy to talk about them, but I won't foist them on you in the review.

Ayn Rand was the most overrated writer (I can't even call her a philosopher) of the 20th century, and a great gaping asshole to boot. This book is yet another to support those facts.

ديستوبيا خيالية عن مجتمع يسمى ب "نحن" وكل من فيه يتحدث بصفة الجمع وليس بالمفرد. يعيش الجميع في امكنة واحدة ثم يقسمون الى مجموعات (بدون اي تعيين) تخدم مجالا معينا. البطل وُضع في مجموعة الكناسين وكان يتمنى ان يكون في مجموعة المخترعين او المكتشفين او العلميين. اكتشف طريقة لصنع الكهرباء وعندما شرحه لمجلس العلماء وضعوه في سجن وضرب الى ان أُدمي جسده. هرب وهرب الى ان وصل الى الغابة. وهناك سمع صوت خطوات واذا بها المرأة التي احبها. استمروا بالهرب من المجهول الذي ربما سيلاقيهم الى ان وجدوا شيئا لم يروه من قبل !! وجدا بيتا جميلا وبه كل ما يحتاجه المرء وأهمها الكتب. هنا اكتشفوا الأنا وليس ال نحن.

القصة تتحدث عن الشيوعية بالطبع اذ ان الكاتبة قد هربت من روسيا ايام الشيوعية وما ادهشني في الكتاب تلك السيطرة العالقة في اذهاننا بأن الرجال هم المكتشفون والمخترعون والنساء كلهم الا تابعات لذلك الرجل. توقعت في الحقيقة ان تعكس هذه الرؤية وهي المرأة الهاربة. ولكن ما يعلق بالنفس البشرية على مر الازمنة من سيطرة الرجل يبقى هو المسيطر هنا الى درجة انه حتى كاتبة القصة بقت معلقة في هذه الذهنية على الرغم من رفضها مجتمع ال نحن وهربها الى مجتمع الانا؟

ما رأيي انا في هذه القصة؟ دعوني افكر! متى استطاع الانسان ان يتفرد؟ ألسنا كلنا مقيدون بأحكام وتشريعات وعادات وتقاليد؟ الا تحكمنا قوانين (سواء كانت صحيحة او قبيحة) لابد ان نوضح لها؟ لنتحدث عن الكتب المدرسية؟ هل اخترناها نحن؟ ام ان مجموعة ما أقروها؟ ولنذهب للجامعات هل اقرر انا ماذا سأقرأ ام ان هناك منهاجا معينا عليي اتباعه؟ وحتى اذا قمت ببحث ما لابد ان استشير البحوث التي انتجت قبل بحثي وأقارنها بما أقول. لهذا لدينا قلة من الاينشتانيين والبيكاسويين والكورويين وغيرهم من حفنة العلماء الذين اكتشفوا بدون ان ينظروا لبحوث جرت قبلهم؟

مقارنات: يشبه الكتاب بعض الكتب الاخرى ولكنها جميعا كتبت من بعده مثل ١٩٨٤ والكتب الاخرى لجورج اورويل وهناك ايضا قصة عن جعل الناس يعيشون في بنايات ضخمة جدرانها وحتى حماماتها من زجاج ونورها يشتعل ليلا ونهارا (نسيت اسمها ولعل احد ما سيقرأ مراجعتي ويذكرني بإسم الكتاب)

إقتباسات

كيف تستطيع ان تعرف نفسك بانك انت هو مجموعة الاشياء التي حدثت لك؟ ان اساسا كنت واعيا لوجودك قبل حدوث اية احداث لك. انت اساسا كنت واعيا لوجودك قبل حدوث أية أحداث لك

الكل هو الواحد والواحد هو الكل
لا يعيش بشر دون “نحن” العظيمة
جماعة واحدة متكاتفة الى الابد
نعيد هذا لانفسنا مرارا فلا ينفعنا قط
قال المعلمون لنا جميعا: اياكم وعقد نيتكم على المهنة التي تودون ان تقوموا بها بعد مغادرتكم دار الطلاب. سوف تشتغلون بما يفرضه عليكم مجلس المهن.
نحن الان ندعم الفكر ونحن جالسون في نفقنا هنا، في كلماتهم. يحرم علينا ان نكون غير سعداء. فسروا لنا ذلك، فقالوا إن البشر أحرار، والارض مسخرة لهم، وكل ما على الارض مسخر لكل البشر وان ارادة كل البشر فيها الخير للكل فلا مناص إذا ان يكون البشر كلهم سعداء

إحدى تلك الحرائق اسمها “حريق المخطوطات” وكذلك سميت “فجر البعث العظيم” لأن جميع كتابات الاشرار ونصوصهم قد تلفت بالحرق، فألمحت معها كل الكلمات التي خطها أولئك الاشرار

إننا نعلم كل الاشياء الموجودة وعليه فإن الاشياءالتي لا يعرفها البشر غير موجودة

ان اسرار هذه الارض ليست مكشوفة لكل البشر وإنما فقط لاولئك الذين يبحثون عنها. وإننا على يقين من هذا، لأننا عثرنا على سر لا يعلمه اي من اخوتنا

لم نفكر بما فعلنا قبل ان نفعله. انحنينا لنرفع الذهبية على قدميهم، لكننا لما لمسناهن كأن شيئا لوث عقلتا. عانقنا جسدهن ولثمنا فمهن . خرج النفس مرة من شفتي الذهبية وكان نتهيدة وذراعيه تطوقنا.

نحن بعد ذلك تائهون، معذبون نبحث عن كلمة فلا نجدها.

Short, with too much focus on the message of Ayn Rand and to little on the story.

The setting of Anthem is quite similar to “We” from Yevgeny Zamyatin, with a totalitarian state whose unnamed citizens are designated by ideals and numbers (the main character for instance is Equality 7-2521) and speak of themselves as we, since I is banned. The state is however not high tech like in We, but medieval, with the invention of the candle just a few years “old”.

Rand’s language in Anthem veers somewhere between a rather plain YA and the bible, which yields some quite nice one-liners. Rather cliche like our street sweeper also finds the love of his life (”Rather shall we be evil with you than good with all our brothers.”& ”We wish to be damned with you, rather than blessed with all our brothers.”) and a secret, well preserved stash of books from our time to help his elevation to a libertarian.
A bit underwhelming in my opinion.

Quotes:
”This is a great sin, to be born with a head which is too quick. It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them.”

“And everything which is not permitted by law is forbidden.”

“But we, Equality 7-2521, are glad to be living. If this is a vice, then we wish no virtue.”

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.

"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!

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.

“Your mouth is cut of granite, but our brothers are soft and humble. Your head is high, but our brothers cringe. You walk, but our brothers crawl. We wish to be damned with you, rather than blessed with all our brothers.”
- Ayn Rand
Anthem

“Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven.”
- John Milton
Paradise Lost

I know a lot of my friends will disagree (possibly quite vehemently), but I find Ayn Rand’s philosophy fascinating. I do not agree with her, nor do I completely disagree with all of her ideas. I find her interesting in the same way that I enjoy epistemology. I like thinking about her ideas, while at the same time feeling that the argument, while having merit, does not even come close to providing any of the answers she thinks it does.

It’s hard to examine one of Rand’s books from any point other than that of philosophy (whether you agree with her or not) as it is prominently on her mind throughout. That said, looking at this one from just a literary standpoint, I confess I was impressed with the stylistic touches (the narrator being so ingrained into a collective society as to always use “we” instead of “I”) and how she builds up the idea of a collapsed society. It’s actually a wonderful dystopian set up, made even more impressive by having been written in the 1930s, before many of the big standouts of dystopian literature. I would have almost said it was a must read for fans of that sub-genre (and indeed it may still be depending on your outlook). It was all going so well until the last two chapters which pretty much ruined what was potentially a 5 star read.

Let’s break out the spoiler tag for a good portion of the review, as I can't really discuss my issues without getting into major spoiler territory.

So yes, Rand's philosophy was woven throughout the book, but where it was woven into the text in a thoughtful way before hand, making the reader (or at least this reader) think about her ideas in depth and consider merits and faults, the final is too blunt. In fact, she pretty much has her character just give a manifesto and outline for the future (shades of what things to come in Atlas Shrugged). Let me give a few choice quotes and address my issues here (other than that a carefully told story ended with a blunt anvil drop of an ending).

Set up here: our narrator finds a house. Decides to essentially turn it into a fortress keeping all but the likeminded individuals out. His love interest is by his side, and expecting a child.

"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."

This is very humorous given that he met his love interest by just passing by her on multiple occasions, having a borderline clichéd love at first sight moment, and tying to make sure he always walked the same path every day just to see her. Oh, and while we’re at it, she is mostly devoid of a personality other than blind devotion and worship of this character. Who has this love been “earned,” just through blind faith in you? Is this how you purpose to find your “likeminded” thinkers, by gaining nothing but the blind followers you purpose to hate? Another collective “we,” just a “we” that follows you?

“Now I look ahead. My future is clear before me. The Saint of the pyre had seen the future when he chose me as his heir” (An explanation here is in order: when he was a kid he saw a man burned to death for breaking the rules of the “collective we.” The man didn’t scream as he was burned to death, and at one point our narrator thought he looked at him). “as the heir of all the saints and all the martyrs who came before him and who died for the same cause, for the same word, no matter what name they gave to their cause and their truth.”

The delusions of grandeur in this statement are stunning. He chose you did he? How? By glancing at you while he was burning to death? Truly you must be the chosen one! I know this was supposed to be an inspirational speech and come off as “heroic,” but it comes off as someone with an extreme ego inflating it and creating something of a prophesy about himself. Hell, this comes off as the rise of a god damn supervillian.

Here’s the thing, and I can’t stress this enough; Rand created a shocking and terrible view of the future. The world the narrator presents to us IS terrible. In taking the idea of a group and placing it above all else, she presents a cold world that seems to care, but hurts itself. It’s cleverly done and horrific… but the alternative she presents is just as extreme in the opposite direction. There is no middle ground. You are either with her or against her, and frankly both possibilities are horrifying to me.

So, is the book worth a read? Damn it, yes it is. It is a classic work of dystopian fiction and if you like the genre, you'll be in for a fascinating early example that does post apocalyptic better than most books that came out after the atomic bomb was actually dropped. Just don't expect a proper story with a beginning, middle and end. Be prepared for Rand's philosophy and be prepared for a speech that seems to close the book with "this is my opinion and I'll end the book just to hear no argument!"

3/5 stars.

6/10

Me: Mom, can I have We?
Mom: no, we have We at home.
We at home:

Jokes aside it’s a decent variation on the themes We discussed about two decades prior.

No.

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.