Congrats, Aynnie! You've received my first single star rating! I read this in high school when I was reading a lot of dystopian future literature and thought it was by far the worst of the lot. Granted, if I'd read it when I was younger I might have liked it more, but saying that the even younger, less mature, more pretentious version of my teenage self would have liked something is hardly a glowing endorsement.

As such I've steered /way/ clear of her door-stoppers. I don't think you really need to come up with some faux cerebral excuse to justify selfishness; if you're going to be self-centered your actions are ultimately justified by your own selfish inner drives, not your intellect. At best Rand was a shrewd self-marketed Cold War personality. At worst she's cynical, petty, pedantic, and most unforgivable of all, _boring_.

I will admit to skimming.

Nothing wrong with the book but I just read it for the first time. This is not one I read as a kid.

Having read so much dystopian, so many books like this, I did have a tough time getting into Anthem.

I did not feel like I knew the characters and I felt distant from the book in general. It was sort of an impersonal read and did not linger with me when I was done. At all.

When I start to do the skim thing so early in a book, I kind of know it's not for me. To date, this remains the only book of hers that I have read.

The word that comes to mind is "bland." I did not feel too much when reading this and so I couldn't really get all that involved.


So..did not hate it..did not love it. It was a very unmemorable reading experience though I realize I maybe in the minority on this.

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.

Give her credit. Rand was an effective spokesperson for the libertarian branch of conservatism for a time, before her eccentricities caused people to stop taking her seriously and others had to step up to defend libertarianism.

The defense is ongoing, but doomed, I suspect. Libertarianism feels too much like a utopian scheme that inevitably must fail in actual practice. It is too narrow, focusing on only a few things that make human lives valuable while ignoring a host of others.

I am not qualified to speak on behalf of conservatives, but it is clear that many of them sense this narrowness and that's why libertarianism has had only limited impact influencing conservative thinking. Even among conservatives, it seems that most outgrow Rand eventually, though she will always enjoy some popularity among undergraduates.

It may be the maturing influence of meeting life's struggles that leads most adults to acquire that sense of citizenship that balances gratitude for what we have with responsibility for service to others. Young people have not had that experience yet, and can be forgiven for an incomplete view of what makes a happy and productive life.

But more to the point of GoodReads is that Rand is not a talented writer. Her prose is like a bludgeon. It is mind-numbing. There is no subtlety or nuance. Nothing to excite your aesthetic sensibility. Even if you think her ideas are interesting, her books are not good art. Anthem has the saving grace of being short, but it exhibits little in the way of interesting writing.

Part I of a multi-part review series.

Standard libertarian dishonesty that seeks to conflate egalitarian doctrine generically with various unpleasant practices. For instance, the state holds back technological development--primitivism--wishing to punish narrator for the comically unlikely invention of an electrical light. State also keeps knowledge of the past secret, of "the towers which rose to the sky, in those Unemntionable Times, and of the wagons which moved without horses, and of the lights which burned without flame." Narrator's invention is also rejected because it will "bring ruin to the Department of Candles," which is less a primitivist position than a cartel's protectionism, hardly a progressive idea. There can be egalitarian primitivism, sure--though hardly anyone advocates that. More than likely this is intended to be a slur on egalitarian progressivism, i.e., socialism.

Likewise, in the assertion "we are nothing," we see the self-abnegation common to fascist doctrine, which libertarians are pleased to associate with egalitarianism, even though fascism seeks to undo even those limited forms of egalitarianism that libertarians will recognize, usually. (Not Rand, however, for in this text the state has a "free and general vote of all men"--so perhaps the indictment of egalitarianism is total, and Rand joins with Dostoevsky, Conrad, and other anti-democratic rightwing writers--though of course Dostoevsky and Conrad are good writers, and worth reading, despite the bad politics.) In the same vein, the prohibition on speaking to persons in other trades is old syndicalist/corporativist doctrine of generating controls on civil society within employment groups, and managing the struggle of capital and labor through industry mediation, preventing thereby class-based unions of workers and limiting them to their own shops and factories, at the mercy of the employer.

Similarly, egalitarianism is equated herein with religious mysticism, such as in "the will of our brothers, which is holy." This is one of the most douchey (douchiest?) criticisms of socialism, and I'm surprised that there are people who still make it. Rand takes it so far as to have public burnings of heretics, as though this were 15th century England and heresy were punished by writ de heretico comburendo.

We also see sexual pairings decided by a council of eugenics, which is an odd thing to associate with progressive egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is toward the end of novella conflated with "serfdom," which is Hayekian enough, I suppose--though this is manifestly idiotic, the merger in imagination of feudalism and socialism. (It may not be socialism, though: we see that narrator admits to possession of "stolen" items--so there is definitely some sort of property ideology here. If this were intended to be a critique of socialism, though, then the dystopia is not very effective in eradicating property ideology--I'll just go ahead and regard that as a writerly default of misconception or inartful execution or both.)

The text also demonstrates a severe lack of understanding regarding the content of egalitarian doctrine, attributing to egalitarianism undesirable policies that have no intrinsic relation to egalitarianism, such as statutes or customs or aesthetic standards that forbid or censure writing, height, having distinct tastes, having an independent will, having friends, having sex, creating works of art, doing any job other than what is assigned, speaking of historical events, leaving the city, and so on. It's one long strawperson, and it is so pervasive that not even someone as ludicrously uninformed as this author could have got it so wrong without trying--so perhaps it's best to assume a lack of good faith, considering the magnitude of the errors.

In other words, there is no form of barbarism or silliness that Rand does not associate with egalitarian politics, including the moronic assertion that with egalitarianism, humanity "fell lower than his savage beginning."

As though that weren't bad enough, text is just plain bad as a writing. Narrator states that "it is a sin to give men other names which distinguish them from other men," but yet everyone encountered has a name that distinguishes. Sure, there's a generic term and a number, but that produces a distinction. It appears, accordingly, that author didn't really think this through very far. Same, the hasty assertion that "never have men said this to women," when narrator refers to his amorous interest as "our dearest one." Another dumb moment: "A street Sweeper walking in upon the World Council of Scholars! It is not to be believed! It is against all the rules and all the laws!" Certainly not all the laws, on that one very specific point, which is presumably sufficiently rare that it is not to be believed when it does in fact occur?

Biggest writerly & conceptual default however is in what author must have considered the climax, when narrator sheds "we" as his first person singular pronoun and begins using "I." This feeds into the puerile doctrine that "we" is tyranny. It's all juvenile hyperindividualist Stirner stuff, and I can see why teenagers like this sort of thing.

The problem with the shift from "we" to "I" is that narrator always had the conceptual scheme for "I," an individualism from the first page, literally--but lacks only the word, substituting in another signifier for the first person singular grammatical function, which he always already possessed. The entire story is about narrator's individualist deviations. And he's not alone. The other characters involved each have their own deviations from the alleged rules (which are not very well enforced--he walks out of prison, and leaves a trail that amorous interest follows to find him, but there is no pursuit by law enforcement.) So, it's all one big red herring, really, and the facts represented by the narrative do not bear out narrator's dogmatic posturings.

Overall, terrible, poorly conceived & executed writing, filled with dishonest criticisms of left politics, substituting in childish ideas that should embarrass rather than embolden the rightwing. One of the worst books ever written.

Recommended nevertheless for those who owe nothing to their brothers, persons who want to live where there is no odor of men, and teabaggers who want to be flattered.

Wow. Since I have read all those negative reviews on Rand books, what I expected is a 1 or 2 stars novel. This proved me wrong. This was amazing - I am not the big fan of the ending (which is why I didn't give it 5 stars), but this really was amazing. Rating: 4.3 stars. One of the best dystopian books I have ever read.

Of all the dystopian novels I have read, this one felt like one of the least inspired. The characters are one-dimensional, the story lacks context altogether, and is entirely made to support Rand's liberal philosophies. Sure, it's really short--so is Animal Farm, but that is a story with depth. Ironically, they both claim to be about Soviet Russia--or at least the author's experience with such. I hope I can claim that my reasoning for disliking this book has more to do with its content, and less to do with the Ayn Rand's complete and utter ignorance.

I should say right up front that I'm not at all familiar with Ayn Rand. I own a couple of her books, but I never read any of them until now. I never studied her in school and I'm not familiar with her philosophies, though I know that they are somewhat controversial and polarizing. And I am not a philosophical type person... so take this review with a grain of salt.

This is my first experience reading any of her work, and... I'm not really all that impressed. I got the lack of individuality theme right around paragraph two or so, when I realized that Equality 7-2521 wasn't literally referring to multiple people when he said "we" but just to himself. And so it wasn't that hard to predict where this was going. Maybe it's because I've read and seen quite a lot of dystopian themed work in my life, but this came across as very predictable to me. In fact, bits of it reminded me of Logan's Run and THX 1138, though I do realize that this was written well before both of those.

So, this society is based on The Borg the collective, and all existence is supposed to be to toil for the good of the whole. There's no explanation of how they got to this point and the population is very small, in the thousands, so I'm thinking that since there's mention of a great fire, there must have been a war or nuclear blast or something, and the survivors rebuilt society in the best way that they knew how... We need some people to clean up, we need some people to figure stuff out and help rebuild, we need some people to grow food, and some people to cook it, and some people to teach the next generation, and so on. But somewhere along the line, the people in power decided they liked it, and that limiting individual thought and convincing people that the whole is the only thing that matters, and any not following the rules would be whipped or killed, allowed them to keep it. Just your standard communist cult.

I don't necessarily think that socialism or collectivism is inherently bad. There are many communities that make it work, but when free will, knowledge, self, and choice are banned, and the collective replaces one's identity and purpose, that can be bad. This book illustrates this extreme form, and at the end once the main character discovers his sense of self, he claims that he will never again use the term "we". I guess I can understand wanting to break away from that concept completely and live truly freely and aware, but it struck me as just as ignorant, because how else will you refer to a group to which you belong by choice? The main character is not ALONE, he's just discovered he is an individual. There's a difference, and that difference matters, because "we" can be a good type of inclusive, and does not necessarily equate to a loss of self.

Rand seemed to have strong opinions on this, and that's cool... I just don't entirely buy into them.

Anyway, I liked that it was journal style, even though it was technically 1st person. It worked though in this case, because for him, there is no concept of a singular person existing just in their own head, so it's like he assumed from the very beginning that his writings would be read by someone else. I liked that he was also learning about himself as he wrote, so it was kind of like he was explaining things to himself and discovering his own thoughts at the same time. But, once he starts reading at the house, and discovers his sense of self, Rand goes a bit wild via this character. He definitely doesn't read like a 21 year old, and definitely not a 21 year old who has only had limited education and has been discouraged from thinking and questioning his whole life. His epiphany reads like a lifelong philosophy scholar coached him. It was a little overwrought at the end.

Still, I didn't HATE it, so I guess that is a plus. It's just one of those books that will eventually just fade to nothingness or blur together with every other dystopia I've read or will read. There's nothing really compelling here. It was just OK.

"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 :)))

After decades of studiously avoiding book clubs, I joined one recently because of who invited me to join. I expected that I would be forced out of my comfort zone and it turns out that I was right. I wouldn’t have read Ayn Rand otherwise.

I had read her more monumental works in middle school, not really figured them, and got back to reading Alistair Maclean and Robert Ludlum. Later, I would find that when a cretin wanted to show off, he (as it happened, it was always a he) would often carry one of those monumental books to impress people.

I started reading Anthem – as mentioned above, the book club’s choice – with the intent that I would read without any prejudice, and use the experience, if nothing else, as an exercise in learning more about writing.

I am not sure that was a feasible aim and I have to confess prejudice is not easy to overcome. I did get to the end of the book. There is perhaps one passage, where the narrator falls in love, that was passably readable. Otherwise, this is a book that would appeal to morons. Of course that is a large market in these times when major democracies are led by crackpots whose popularity increases as they exhibit more evil intent. I understand one of those crackpots is an admirer of this work.

The plot is flimsy. A man who has been shunted to a mediocre livelihood in a totalitarian society kind of gets lucky and discovers electricity. He builds an electric light. He gets beaten up, but that’s no problem for him. Soon after being flogged, he carries the light into a hall full of scholars who, instead of treating him like the hero he should be, say that he has violated the laws of the land and his assigned station in life. Our hero smashes a glass window with his hand and jumps out of the hall. Oh, he’s carrying the light at the time. He escapes into a forest. The woman he loves, and who loves him, follows him there. He builds a bow and arrows (it’s likely that the light helps him, but we are told about it) and they get by. They discover a nice house. She gets pregnant. They live happily ever after, equipped with the knowledge that to be selfish is good. I forgot what happens to the electric light.

Oh, the woman is suitably subservient to him. She kneels before him to accept him as her master. And in the end, he chooses names for himself and for his wife. I’m sure that delights Ms Rand’s fans, of whom there seem to be many.

❤

I have always loved Ayn Rand's work. There is such a depth to each, a plethora of space to explore and discuss. This one in particular reminds me of the importance for individuality. It is good to be connected, but it isn't healthy or positive for that connectivity to overstep boundaries and rule your life. Diversity and free thinking and free will are very important for progression and problem solving, so the society that the protagonist breaks from held people back from their potential--for example, the protagonist was a thinker who was given a laborer's job, so his skills were being wasted.

Knowledge is power, but individuality is as well.

I cannot believe I just realized now I did not have this book marked as read! I read this back in high school and loved it!

For those thinking about trying Ayn Rand, this is a good intro book considering it is only a little over 100 pages and her other popular titles (mainly talking about Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) are quite daunting in their length.

Now, in the past I have had trouble reviewing Ayn Rand because she is controversial. Usually this leads to people not being able to separate a review of a book from a political statement. Since I don't like arguing politics and figure everyone is entitled to their opinion, I will again attempt to avoid putting any sort of political spin on this one - but it may not be completely avoidable.

For me, this book is in the same category as 1984 and Brave New World. It is a commentary on where we might be going if we are not careful. In this book, the main issue is loss of self in forced servitude to the larger governmental machine. The writing is creative and riveting enough that it is very easy to finish this in one sitting.

Check out Anthem and read it with an open mind (even if it doesn't match your politics) and I think you will find an interesting, enjoyable, and thought provoking classic.