Ингэж нэг дуусгах гэж. Бараг бүтэн сар ганц ном л уншлаа шт. Уншиж байгаа ном явж өгөхгүй болохоор өдөр хоног ч бас явж өгөхгүй байгаа юм шиг санагдаад хэцүү юмаа. зааа ямар ч байсан энийг дуусгасим чинь одоо номнуудыг машинднаа :PPP

Энэ яахудэээ арай л урт уйтгартай бусад номнуудыг нь харахыг ч хүсэхгүй болгосон л ном байлаа :))

Instantly as visceral as her more popular later work, Rand's first novel set in early 20th-century communist Russia can really stir you up -- that is, if you support her views on individualism and passion for life. Like her other novels, the characters are boldly drawn archetypes, strong and obvious, minus extraneous detail that could be distracting from the philosophical ideal overlaying the plot. While Rand experienced first-hand much of the life in Russia she portrays in We the Living, Rand smartly understood that fantasy can often be more effective than reality, hence we have incredible co-incidences, master manipulators, tragic love triangles (c'mon, what girl doesn't dream of being loved by two dynamic men?), valiant death scenes, all these sort of “super-life” scenarios not totally believable, but intended to enthrall the reader, likely just as Rand was enthralled by writing it. Where her human characters fall short in terms of detail, the city of St. Petersburg (a personified sub-character in the book) is rendered with excessive descriptive minutia - and this is where the book gets a bit sleepy. You can tell Rand had a real fondness for "old Russia" by the sensitive way she paints her portrait of a city woven into the lives of her characters. As a young, idealistic writer, Rand tackled with gusto multiple genres in one book (a teaser for things to come, e.g. Atlas Shrugged), thus We the Living is part love story, part action-adventure, part political intrigue, and to her credit, it totally works. There are certainly some rough spots, but overall, a respectable effort and a damn good read.

It's funny because this book usually only gets 5 stars or a 1 star, and here I am giving it a three star.
I'll come up with a coherent review in the morning. Overall it was a good classic. Exhausting. But good.

Duuschlaa gjuu dee, jaahan haramsal... muuhai tugsgul, eswel uuriiguu olson bardam, emzeg negnii jargaltai tugsgul geh uu yag onood heleh ug oldohgui bn, saihan hair bsn yumsn, 2 hair bsn yumsn, ali aliigni uzlee de gj bodogdjiin, daanch 2ulangni aldchihlaa neg talaas...
nuguu talaas hen negnii togtooson uzel surtaliin gai gamshgaar niigem, huvi humuus herhen uurchlugdj, amidral yamr aihtar programchlagdan hev zagwart ordg yumbe, leningrad hotiig uzehsen, bas kira teneg shd, emegtei hund heleh zunduu ug bhda yaj tiim anir chimeegui bolj haragdahiin nuutsiig bas il gargaj toochchihloo shuu dee, zolios, zorig gedeg ug hamtda hereglegdh niilmel ug bhda gsn 9n zuiliin zuils bodogdono, setgel huurul deed tsegte l bh shig bn, bichihgui ungursn olon zuil hedii bga ch bodood tungaagaad uldeh tarhind orson bgaasai gj husne... ene bichsn commento unshih buriidee medremje sanah gj tog tog hiilgew...

Ugh, the heroines in Rand's books are always beautiful, strong, dark women who resemble the author (except that she was not beautiful). It makes you never want to think about yourself for fear you'll begin to fancy yourself beautiful, strong, and dark and write a repulsive book about how independent you are even though you are pursued by several suitors.

Ayn Rand is/was an interesting, intelligent woman. This is her first novel. If you're reading it simply for the novel then skip the introduction. If on the other hand you are interested in Ms. Rand's thought processes then by all means read the introduction. This is (of course) a newer edition (as the book was written in 1925. Ms. Rand wants us to understand that this is not a novel about the Soviet Union but a novel (in her words) of "man against the state".

While I am not a "student" or follower of Ms. Rand and her philosophy (Objectivism) I do find her quite insightful..."in some ways".

There are places where I definitely disagree with Ms. Rand but on the other hand there are places she is right on and has been borne out by history. (Simply read her short discourse on "5 year plans" in the introduction).

This book tells the story of (basically) a woman. Most on Ms. Rand's writings do. She can be found in each of her books and this (even though her first) is no exception. Lets not forget that Ms. Rand's family lost everything to the Soviet revolution and while this isn't strictly about "the Soviet Union" that is a dictatorship that is "included".

As you read I think you'll see that Ms. Rand has hit the proverbial nail on the head in many ways. She points out that free people are quite often "taken in" by the idea that while the "effects" of totalitarianism..."colectiveism"...state controlled governing systems are negative the "ideals" are "noble". That, she points out has been the attitude of every free state that has ever fallen to totalitarianism.

Stalin referred to those who held this view as "useful idiots".

Ms. Rand also points out that to see this one has to be intellectually honest and open minded, willing to see it. Looking at America now it should be obvious to us but for some reason most don't see it despite the loss of prosperity, unemployment, loss of freedoms (including the erosion of rights GUARANTEED in the Bill of Rights) (yes several of the first 10 amendments have already been breached and the courts don't seem in any hurry to reverse this.) most not only don't see it...but seem to be voting for it.

Where do I disagree with Ms. rand? Well, she was very much a "my way or the highway" thinker. She herself had little patience with those who disagreed with her as her attitude seems to be that they just couldn't, or wouldn't see it. Also I'm a Christian and she seems to have seen little difference between putting others before yourself willingly and having the "State" force the view that everyone must exist "for the State". There is some argument by Objectivists that she saw the difference but simply rejected religious belief. That could be the case as I noted, I'm not a "student" of Ms.Rand's philosophy, I've simply read her work and some little about her.

Wherever you stand or whatever you think about the woman herself this is a book I'd recommend. It has some value and can have the effect of making us look at what we have before we lose it. I rate it a 3 as it's not quite as readable as some of her later work (it is her first after all) and can get dry. Still it's worth a read.

It could've been great philosophic book, with an amazing picture of post-revolution almost dystopian society. It full of fresh ideas and deep thoughts. But I hate the toxic love story and annoying characters. It's suppose to be a tragedy of human individual against the government, but it turns to be a tragedy of a woman trying to save a man who isn't worth it.

Socialism is always bad.

Fountainhead was the first book from Ayn Rand that I read. I found it deeply inspirational, book that pushed me to think outside the box. And it talked about one of my favorite subjects, individualism. I thought, Oh my God, what a book. I felt even emotionally exhausted, but in a good way. Then I read Anthem, which I thought was good, but not as Fountainhead. I felt as if Fountainhead was the standard of measuring her work. I didn't think anything can surpass it. But, oh boy I was wrong.

I haven't had the chance to read Atlas Shrugged yet, but I don't think that it can surpass We the living. This book left me physically and emotionally shaking at the end. It is one of the best books I have ever read. So real, so outstandingly written. It shows in the most appealing way that life is never black and white, among other things. It is a must read. You don't need to like Ayn Rand or her philosophy to like this book. It is a true literature masterpiece. Very few books have shaken me so much.

СССР след великата съветска социалистическа революция - глад, абсолютна мизерия, хората се редят на километрични опашки за хляб и сапун (друго няма), разстрели на улицата…

Това е положението след като комунистите вземат властта. Да произвеждаш и продаваш каквото и да е – това е забранено, защото държавата щяла да се грижи за всичко. Но ако не си член на партията – просто забрави за всякаква грижа – медицина, училище, работа, даже храна.

Това е първата книга на Айн Ранд и за разлика от другите не е философска – а е исторически роман. „Ние, живите“ разказва за Русия, но съвсем спокойно можеше да бъде написана и за Германия по времето на Хитлер или за която и да е друга античовешка, идеологическа тирания в новата световна история.

Разказ за това как поставен в условията на диктатура, принуждаван да мрази това, което е, човек, бил той аристократ, селянин, бивш богаташ или чистосърдечен комунист – се превръща в животно и прави всичко, за да оцелее… или просто умира.

Really wish this woman would've let me read her book but jeesus can she ever not write!!
Paragraph of clothing description.
Weird disorganised mess of characters.
What a stranger was thinking the protagonist was thinking, for some reason. So much "had been" and "were done" passiveness sucks the energy out of everything.
Interesting bit of dialogue.
Really bad bit of dialogue.
Who was that? Where are we?
What?!

Twice I've given up on Atlas Shrugged, haven't really liked the ones I did manage to finish, so wasn't holding out for anything great here. I got somewhat of a surprise though: a Rand book that didn't leave wanting to tug away at my hair whilst reading. I found lots to like about this, with it's level of historic realism of Soviet Russia from the first half of the 20th century being captured really well. And finally!, in Kira, a Rand protagonist that actually gets the thumps up from me. A beautifully told but harsh novel, that for a 25 year old was quite an achievement. One of the better novels I've read that attacks Communism. I might even be tempted to have a crack at The Fountainhead one day, but will likely never return to Atlas Shrugged.