A perversely optimistic narrative delivered in dense, powerful prose. I'm a sucker for Rand's salient imagery and deftly braided plot lines, and she pulled hard at both in this one. Beautiful, engrossing, painful, distressing, carnal, raw.

On a lighter note (or not): I found experiences of Party membership in the book eerily evocative of my time in grad school. Theme-based seminars. Politically charged moral assumptions. Malnutrition. Unemployment. Hopelessness.
"When Kira finished, a few hands clapped drowsily...
A consumptive and intellectual young man... said...
Kira knew that she had to argue and defend her thesis; she knew that the consumptive young man had to argue to show his activity; she knew that he was no more interested in the discussion than she was, that his blue eyelids were weary with sleeplessness, that he clasped his thin hands nervously, not daring to glance at his wristwatch..."

2009 - I liked this book the best of Ayn Rand's three big fiction books, as a novel.
Perhaps it was because it was so very autobiographical in some ways of her time in St. Petersburg/Petrograd during and after the Russian Revolution. The gritty realism of how unjust and desperate such a system, the Soviet Socialist system was becoming, appeals to my love of historical realism.

The passionate love affairs and beliefs of the conflicting characters were very vividly drawn. Even though I have not read it fully in over 30 years, but read it twice in the previous 10, the characters, plot, setting and theme will not be forgotten.

I also enjoyed the movie that was made from it in Mussolini's Italy during WWII, which was edited and re-released in the late 80s in the US. Alida Valli was mesmerizingly great as the main character, Kira, and it was the later film star Rossano Brazzi's first movie. Several other great Italian actors were in it too, and their performances added richly to the movie. The script stayed quite close to the book, except in one or two places where the wartime/fascist censors had to be appeased.

Book and movie - both highly recommended.

".......My heart is a tractor raking the soil,
My soul is smoke from the factory oil..." = page 163

I just 're-found" this old paperback in my old backpack stashed under my parents house. I never finished it. I originally found it in the back seat pocket hold-it-all on a Garuda flight from Indonesia...wondering if we'd ever make it through the electrical storm- the plane kept suddenly dropping and the lights flickering & I was frantically searching for the map/plan of the planes exit doors (there wasn't a map ;( so I started reading We the Living to calm my nerves. Back then Garuda pilots weren't well trained. Anyhow the actual paperback has traveled far. Inside front and back pages has listed various pilots who had picked up the book and read it between flights..and where they flew to - flight hours etc..also interesting reading. (Ballarat to Bermuda to Nassau to Mexico city to Acapulco to HNL to Nani to Sydney to Heathrow to Bangkok to Delhi to Tehran to London, to Sydney, to Longreach, to Djkarta....

I think I finally fell asleep after too many Arrack toddies...(Batavia Arrack is distilled in Indonesia. It is the "rum" of Indonesia & made from sugar cane & I used to like it in coffee though the arrack bought in roadside cafes was more moonshine than the real thing & infinitely stronger somehow). Before falling asleep I remembered thinking there were some political similarities between Russia and Indonesia at the time - well the police corruption to start with anyway and Arrack seemed to be the Indonesian peasant's vodka.. (1970's).

This book disturbs me and I don't quite know how to respond to it. On the one hand, the reality of Soviet Russia in the 1920's is haunting; the descriptions of food (or the lack of it) stayed with me, making me reflect on and enjoy my own meals while I was reading it and for a few days after. I also feel that it would work as a companion piece for 1984 because the tensions between the sordid details of daily life and the hypocrisy of the political system are clearly seen in both books. Rand's philosophy is clear but not too overstated so it is easy to read it simply as a novel, not a political tract. I'm okay with all of that.
What I don't care for are the characters themselves. Kira is the worst sort of passive woman; I know I'm supposed to see her as a strong individual, but she is neither. Her goal of being an engineer is not enough to sustain her, and it is barely shown - just stated. It feels like a detail added on after a first draft of the novel to distinguish Rand from Kira (she makes a point of the difference in her introduction). Her passion for Leo is all about being subjugated by him - at one point he is even described as her "slave-owner." Details that were originally used to show how supremely unconnected Kira was from the mundane tribulations of life ("Kira never noticed what she ate" "Kira never noticed what she wore") are reversed the moment that Leo enters the picture - all of a sudden Kira is a fashion plate and wants Leo to notice how she is dressed. All of the details about how Leo can't be subjected to the sight of her cooking or cleaning truly upset me. I know I am approaching this book from a feminist perspective, but what kind of love is only able to be sustained in a perfect atmosphere with no glimpses of the everyday? Leo is loathesome; the words arrogant, contemptuous, and mocking are used in almost every passage about him - and we are supposed to admire him? Like a "young god"? Why? Just because he's hot? Really, that's what it seems to come down to. Most of the minor and background characters are awful - I can't think of a single description of a child that doesn't involve nose-picking. The older women are shrill, the older men are empty shells.
Overall, I think the world that is portrayed in We the Living is worth seeing; the characters Rand admires are not my choice for admirable human beings but there are moments in the novel where they go beyond their cardboard versions of Rand's philosophy to show true humanity.

This was my first encounter with Ayn Rand and I loved the book. It is very alertly and vividly written, you live basically in the Postrevolution Petrograd and share the stories alongside Kira, Leo and Andrei.
The descriptions made me think of the 80s in Romania, the rationalizations and the whole apparatus that watched over us.

I think this book shows the foundations of Rand's philosophy, one of them being that the state is in the service for its citizens and not the other way around. I don't know much about these things but I know that the state is composed of its citizens so practically they are responsible for themselves inside the state. Who they vote, how they work, what they learn and how they live in respect of their health. I think she is referring to totalitarian / autocratical states. She loved the capitalistic American way of living and that is evident in the book. However, the citizen of the capitalistic states also are in charge themselves with the wellbeing of their state, don't they? But next one will be Atlas Shrugged and I will find out more about her ideas. Because actually I find her praising of the selflessness / ego-ism quite interesting. It is very tricky. However, I think altruism is overrated and apart from family and very closed ones, nobody is really altruistic. Only when this is good for his own sake (sic!).

If you read it, who would you like to be? Andrei or Leo?

«Ми, живі»
⠀
Айн Ренд
⠀
Наш Формат, 2021
⠀
«We the Living»
⠀
Ayn Rand, 1936
⠀
Зберігаючи гідність вони втрачали людську подобу!
⠀
Трепанація людської сутності!
⠀
Чи можна врятувати голодну країну втопивши її в революційній крові?
⠀
Чи можна врятувати кохання зрадою?
⠀
Чи можна наситити шлунок торгуючи совістю?
⠀
Вивернуті душі, якими система грається, як пазлами.
⠀
Немає цільного добра.
⠀
Немає гідності.
⠀
Немає рівності.
⠀
Всі рівні, лише у смерті!
⠀
Цей роман про ЛЮДИНУ.
⠀
Про її ницість і велич.
⠀
Про її пристосуванство.
⠀
Книжка про комунізм, очима інтелігенції, яка втратила владу, багатство, становище та своє право на життя.
⠀
Герої постійно змінюються, як змії, вони скидають личини: білий, червоний, людина.
⠀
Сюжет реалістично-драматичний, який безжально розриває хід думок та очікувань.
⠀
Авторка повільно розтинає всіх героїв, від героя - до жертви всього один крок…
⠀
Головна героїня книжки - аристократка Кіра Арґунова пройшла всі кола пекла заради кохання й свободи!
⠀
Все, що вона хотіла - жити!
⠀
Жити своїм розумом, бажаннями, але хто сказав, що в системі індивід має право на інакшість?
⠀
Це моя 4-та книжка Ренд.
⠀
Книжки живі, вони дихають і волають до вас голосами своїх героїв!
⠀
Рекомендую!
⠀
Рецензія для @nashformat.ua
⠀
Цитата:
⠀
« - Тобі не відомо ,- її голос раптом здригнувся від почуття, якого вона не могла приховати,-що і в найкращих із нас усередині є таке, чого не сміють торкатися чужі руки? Те священне, про що кожен може сказати «воно моє», і саме тому це є священним? Не відомо, що ми живемо тільки для себе - найкращі з нас, ті, хто чогось варті? Не відомо, що в нас є те, чого не сміє торкнутися жодна держава, жоден колектив, жодне число мільйонів?
⠀
Його відповідь була:
⠀
- Ні.»
⠀
Про книжку:
⠀
«Роман, що змальовує вплив Російської Революції на трьох людей, які вимагають права жити власним життям і слідувати своєму власному щастю. Твір досліджує боротьбу особистості проти держави в радянській Росії.
⠀
Це також розповідь про пристрасне кохання молодої жінки, яке тримається як фортеця проти розбещуючого зла тоталітарної держави.
⠀
Вперше опублікований у 1936 році.»
⠀
#примхливачитака

Разказва се за Съветска Русия след революцията, за живота на обеднялата буржоазия и физическото оцеляване в години на диктатура. Писателката сама определя романа като своя интелектуална биография. Книгата е много интересна, макар и тежка.
Обаче ми беше по-претенциозна някак. В лицето на главната героиня Ранд описва своите мисли, чувства и идеи. Направи ми впечатление, колко е умна, смела, амбициозна. Влюбват се с най-красивия и желан младеж в Петроград, син на адмирал, горд и непреклонен, обикновено гледа презрително. Освен всичко това, в нея е влюбен и най-честният и безкомпромисен комунист. Иначе жените–партийни активистки са неугледни, нахални, не готвят, не чистят, само ходят по събрания. Дотук със смешното. Другото е отчайващо тъжно и чак трагично. По магазините няма нищо, ако пуснат нещо е с купони, за да имаш купони трябва да работиш за новата власт. Глад, мизерия, отнемане на жилището, Сибир. И пропаганда за светлото бъдеще. Книгата е много хубава, ако ви интересува темата за живота при диктатура. Романът е много смело написан за онова време /публикуван 1936 год./, силен и въздействащ.

Objectionable content is found in the form of strong sexual undercurrents throughout the novel. Though there’s nothing graphic or explicit, the emotional center of the book is a love triangle between three unmarried people. Importantly, these elements are not intended to titillate: rather, they provide a rough, raw look at human weakness and vulnerability. There’s a smattering of profanity and some disturbing imagery throughout, but little else problematic.
It would be easy to write off “We the Living” as a sordid tale of sex and misery. Such a superfluous analysis, however, misses the point of the book. The heart of “We the Living” is its devastating critique of Soviet society, as shown through the eyes of three unique individuals. Though achingly painful at times to read, it plumbs the depths of human weakness to discern an important conclusion: life must have purpose in order to be meaningful.

The one great benefit of reading We the Living is that it encapsulates pretty exactly what Rand spends many hundreds more pages doing in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: mainly, hating on the collective, venerating capitalism, and (God help us all) describing how free-thinking women shouldn't be slaves to anyone except their capitalist sexual partners.

I find Rand's philosophy beyond problematic, but to my mind We the Living helps explain just how she arrived at the ideas she entertained and became the person she did. It's not precisely an autobiography (only, as she demurs, "in the intellectual sense") but her descriptions of life in Soviet Russia are drawn from personal experience, and it's not difficult to see how that kind of traumatic personal experience could drive someone to the opposite philosophical extreme. I offer no theories whatsoever on what makes her romantic relationships so ridiculously rape-tastic. (Because that way lies madness.)

Frankly, your mileage may vary with Rand depending on your political beliefs, but if you have to read something just to be able to engage in a conversation about her, I'd say start here. It's an early work, but I can promise from painful experience that her writing style never improves, so you might as well go for the short one. (And avoid Anthem. For the love of all that's holy, avoid Anthem!)

Πόσο το αγάπησα αυτό το βιβλίο! Πόσο πόνεσα διαβάζοντας το τέλος! Το ξεκίνησα κ ένιωσα όπως τότε που είχα ξεκινήσει την τριλογία από τον Μπρούντζινο καβαλάρη. Η Πετρούπολη μου ξύπνησε μνήμες… Αναρωτιέμαι πόσο αίμα χάθηκε σε επαναστάσεις… γιατί τέτοια αντιπαλότητα… γιατί τόσο μίσος…Κάθε άνθρωπος έχει τα δικά του πιστεύω κ είναι σεβαστό… έχει το αναφαίρετο δικαίωμα της επιλογής… για ποιο θα πρέπει να αφαιρούνται ζωές επιλογές οι επιθυμίες κ οι επιλογές δε συμβαδίζουν; Δυστυχώς αυτό δε θα το καταλάβουμε ποτέ!

Hepimiz zavallı ve şaşkın yaratıklarız. Fazla acı çekiyor ve pek az şey biliyoruz.

İçine ihtilal girmiş bir aşk hikâyesi mi yoksa devlet – birey çatışmasını anlatan bir hikâye mi okudum, ayırt edemiyorum.
Yazarın bireyciliğe ve devletçiliğe dair düşüncelerini okuyacağımı zannederken neredeyse kitabın sonuna kadar sadece temel ihtiyaçlar çerçevesinde dolanıp durduk. Daha kitabın ilk sayfalarından Kira’nın, ailesinin, sevgilisinin, amcasının ve işte diğer bütün karakterlerin siyasal anlamda ne tarafı savunduğunu biliyoruz. Bir taraf komünist ve emperyalistken, diğer taraf objektivist.

Yazar uzun uzun felsefi düşüncelerini kitaba eklemektense her iki tarafında ne şartlar altında yaşadığını yazarak bir nevi seçimi size bırakmış. Zaten kitabın son yüz sayfasına kadar bu, bu şekilde devam ediyor ve biz de o süreçte bu iki uç noktanın günlük yaşantılarını okuyoruz. Ne yediklerini, nerede barındıklarını, neyden kaçındıklarını, neyi sevip ney sevmediklerini en ince ayrıntısına kadar okuyoruz. Hatta bazen öyle olaylar yaşanıyor ki durup, ‘Ya bu Kira neden kendisini savunmuyor, neden ağzını açıp tek laf etmiyor?’ diye sorguluyorsunuz, yazarın bazı şeyleri hikayenin sonuna sakladığını bilmeden.

Tüm bunların yanında kitapta birbirine tezat bulduğum düşünceler de vardı. Mesela Kira, kendini bir yaratıcıya veya bir devlet sistemine adamayı aşağılayıcı bulurken kendisini o kadar da sevmeyen ve sırf kendisi ile aynı ideallere sahip diye kendini bir erkeğe adıyor. Leo’nun yediği içtiğiyle o ilgileniyor, barınacakları yerle o ilgileniyor ve dahası. Tüm bunlara karşılık Leo tam bir hiçlik abidesi. Kitap boyunca ‘Yaşamak İstiyorum!’ diyorsunuz ama Kira sen hiç yaşamadın ki.

Yazar aynı zamanda Tanrı’ya da inanmıyor. Tanrı ile ilgili düşüncelerin, benimle uyuşmuyor çünkü yazar asıl inanç ile insanların inandığı şeyi ayırt edememiş gibi geliyor bana. Ben de hep insanların neye inandıklarına inansaydım yalan yok ben de inançsız olurdum. Mesela,
*“Since they say that God is perfect and man can never be that perfect then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him, which is wrong.” Hangi inanç sistemi bunu savunuyor, bilmiyorum.
Ya da,
*Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth. Zaten cennet dediğin şeyi burada yaratman lazım, bu yüzden yeryüzündesin. Yani artık insanlar 'Erdemli bir insan ol, Tanrı seni cennetle mükâfatlandıracak.'a takılıp, inanç denilen şu bu kadar maddesel forma sokmamalı. Tabi ki düşündüğü, inandığı şeye saygı duyuyorum ama bilirsiniz insanlar arasında dolanan kalıplaşmış Tanrı inancını.

Bu süreçlerden sonra sonunda kitabın sonuna geliyoruz, her şey çorap söküğü gibi sökülmeye başlıyor ve Kira tam anlamıyla artık inandığı şeye neden inandığını, sözcüklere döküyor. Ayn Rand’ı büyük bir kesim bencilliğin tanrıçası diye değerlendirse de yazarın kitapta okura sunduğu devlet inancına ait resim benim yaşadığım ülke standartlarına çok uyduğundan sanırım ben kendisine devlet- bireycilik hususunda destek verirdim. Çünkü bu bencillik değil bu, yaşama istediği daha doğrusu ne için yaşadığınızı bilme arzusu. Devlet için mi kendi ideallerin için mi? En temelinde yazar bunun çizgisini anlatmaya çalışıyor fikrimce.


*Alıntı1
*Alıntı2
*Ayn Rand Hakkında Daha Fazlası İçin
"Ben insanlarla mücadele etmek istemiyorum. Beni yalnız bırakmalarını istiyorum. Yaşamak istiyorum."

***Spoiler Uyarısı***
.
.
.
.
Sahiden Andrei'yi kim öldürdü? Kira mı? Parti mi?

Что такое Скорочтение? (promo)

Заметки из книги:

"Любой бог - какой бы смысл ни вкладывался в это слово - это воплощение того, что человек считает выше себя. А если человек ставит выдумку выше самого себя, значит, он очень низкого мнения о себе и своей жизни."

"Это был детский сад партии - пионеры."

"Она удивлялась ..., почему слова "Но он ведь умрет" значили так мало для них, а слова "Но он не государственный служащий" значили так мало для нее и почему это так трудно было обьяснить."

"Раньше это был Санкт-Петербург; война сделала его Петроградом; революция сделала его Ленинградом"

"
- Это что, правосудие или какой-то фарс? - спросил Лео.
Председательствующий торжественно ответил:
- Так называемое беспристрастное правосудие - буржуазный пережиток. Наше правосудие - классовое. В этом наша сила!"