mklodor's review
adventurous
dark
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
mamatkperk's review
3.0
Dark, heavy and mostly depressing. It had some good insights into problems, we as humans are struggling to solve: climate change, politics etc. but no solutions. Having said this though the story will stick with me as most of the problems are relatable and some of which have even crossed my mind in the past two years. What if we don’t act to rectify global warming? What if there is a civil war… ? What if…?
randomreader41's review
5.0
You ever read something so thought provoking that it leaves you staring at the wall? This is what Anthem has accomplished for me. I have been looking forward to this book since I read Noah’s previous novel, Before the Fall. I went into this one totally blind and I’m so glad I did. (I actually encourage more people to do it.) Any who, back to Anthem. Anthem is a book that makes you think about things going on in the world today and how we can better fix it. Even though the subject material can be upsetting for some, for me it was enlightening and I understood why he used what he used to describe his point or to make you see why the analogy is used.
My favorite line so far: What if empathy doesn’t lead to anything?
This is definitely a five star read and should be read by everyone alike. Great discussion book for book clubs and just general conversation.
My favorite line so far: What if empathy doesn’t lead to anything?
This is definitely a five star read and should be read by everyone alike. Great discussion book for book clubs and just general conversation.
thelitficagenda's review
1.0
I got about 140 pages into this before deciding to call it quits. It started out intriguing and i felt invested in wanting to know what was going on, but then it took such a strange turn and I don’t know what I was reading about anymore or what purpose it was trying to serve.
I feel bad DNFing a gifted copy of a book but this wasn’t for me. Thank you Grand Central Pub for the gifted copy
I feel bad DNFing a gifted copy of a book but this wasn’t for me. Thank you Grand Central Pub for the gifted copy
emanck15's review
4.0
That was quite the ride. Honestly, I don't even know how to describe this book. Present day anarchist dystopian political satire? The writing is incredible. The characters intriguing. The action non-stop. The plot... somewhat convoluted. I'm really not sure how I'm supposed to feel. Some of the references were a little too close to reality, but I think that was the point.
Now that I'm beginning to process what I've just read... I'm really stuck on the author's words at the end about empathy. And honestly, I'm quite confused how we got here... "Is our dilemma that we aren't feeling enough empathy? Or is empathy itself the problem?"... "Empathy, like any emotion, can be manipulated... Empathy, therefore, is a tool that can be used for good, or for ill." ... "What if- like happiness or misery- feelings of empathy hit you intensely in the moment but then wane over time? For example, when we see a homeless child, we feel a swell of empathy. The feeling brings with it a bloom of moral righteousness... We carry that feeling of moral goodness with us through the rest of our day, and yet the child is still homeless."
24 hours after writing this review, I'm still thinking about empathy... maybe that's the point of all of this. Would we be where we are today if we demanded action? We have this giant social issues boiling over in our country, but we sit back and allow our politicians to take YEARS to even begin to discuss (argue) change. When our neighbor is affected by something, we feel empathy for them, but do we go out of our way to change their situation. Sure there is the rare instance where we make a donation of our time or money, but only when we can "afford" it. Would we be where we are today, if we truly thought of what's best for society rather than what's best for us? Okay, additional rambling done.
Overall, I liked it and I hated it all at the same time. I really am curious if this has the potential to become the social commentary future generations look back at to dissect the chaos of the world in 2020. Is this the cautionary tale we reference in the future? Could they look to Hawley, like we currently look to Orwell, Huxley, Bradford, Attwood, and more... ?
Now that I'm beginning to process what I've just read... I'm really stuck on the author's words at the end about empathy. And honestly, I'm quite confused how we got here... "Is our dilemma that we aren't feeling enough empathy? Or is empathy itself the problem?"... "Empathy, like any emotion, can be manipulated... Empathy, therefore, is a tool that can be used for good, or for ill." ... "What if- like happiness or misery- feelings of empathy hit you intensely in the moment but then wane over time? For example, when we see a homeless child, we feel a swell of empathy. The feeling brings with it a bloom of moral righteousness... We carry that feeling of moral goodness with us through the rest of our day, and yet the child is still homeless."
24 hours after writing this review, I'm still thinking about empathy... maybe that's the point of all of this. Would we be where we are today if we demanded action? We have this giant social issues boiling over in our country, but we sit back and allow our politicians to take YEARS to even begin to discuss (argue) change. When our neighbor is affected by something, we feel empathy for them, but do we go out of our way to change their situation. Sure there is the rare instance where we make a donation of our time or money, but only when we can "afford" it. Would we be where we are today, if we truly thought of what's best for society rather than what's best for us? Okay, additional rambling done.
Overall, I liked it and I hated it all at the same time. I really am curious if this has the potential to become the social commentary future generations look back at to dissect the chaos of the world in 2020. Is this the cautionary tale we reference in the future? Could they look to Hawley, like we currently look to Orwell, Huxley, Bradford, Attwood, and more... ?
ryecontois's review
1.0
Negative five stars. Absolutely hated this book. The author talked about a whole lot of NOTHING for 90% of the book. The actual story was so interesting… except there was almost none of it.
Do not buy this book.
Do not buy this book.
briajane's review
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
jessmanners's review against another edition
3.0
I feel deeply conflicted about this book. On the one hand, I liked the characters, and cared about what happened to them, and was impressed by the way Hawley linked them all together, BUT, on the other hand, it felt like this was just written in a fugue state and he was just trying to process all the horrors of the past...year? 18 months? since 2016? in one novel, and then that felt a bit kitschy--to combine oxycontin, Trump, Covid-19, blue/red pills, Fight Club, incels, climate change, Parkland, the insurrection and the shaman, Charlottesville, Epstein, and on and on and on and on just felt like...a lot. And then it occurred to me that part of the problem is that this is supposed to feel like a dystopian satire, but (as Hawley himself knows) all those things themselves are too ridiculous to properly satirize...so, for example, when you get a monologue from a podcasting (unnamed) Trump about sausages or whatever, it doesn't really land, it just feels like, yeah, sure, I can see that. It doesn't feel particularly sharp or insightful, it just feels...plausible. And I can see the argument that this is sort of the point of this book-as-therapy...that we're basically in the End Times already.
He gets super meta at the end, which I sort of appreciate, but also sort of feel is a copout--he doesn't know how to resolve the plot, so he tells us that he doesn't know how to resolve it. He makes us empathize with him as he talks about the dangers of using people's capacity for empathy to manipulate them...
Anyway, I just don't know! I want to talk to someone who reads this book 15 years from now, and hear what they have to say. Will all of the references be too obscure? Will it feel like a fascinating window into this period of horrible history? Will no one read anymore because we'll have fully descended into the hellscape he imagines...?
Oh, but also: I want someone to explain the witch to me. I still feel uneasy with Magical Realism. Is it Magic or is it Not?
He gets super meta at the end, which I sort of appreciate, but also sort of feel is a copout--he doesn't know how to resolve the plot, so he tells us that he doesn't know how to resolve it. He makes us empathize with him as he talks about the dangers of using people's capacity for empathy to manipulate them...
Anyway, I just don't know! I want to talk to someone who reads this book 15 years from now, and hear what they have to say. Will all of the references be too obscure? Will it feel like a fascinating window into this period of horrible history? Will no one read anymore because we'll have fully descended into the hellscape he imagines...?
Oh, but also: I want someone to explain the witch to me. I still feel uneasy with Magical Realism. Is it Magic or is it Not?
wildflowerz76's review
DNF. From the back blurb: "Something is happening to teenagers across America..." It's not a spoiler to reveal that "something" is teen suicide. It's revealed in the beginning of the very first chapter. Hard pass.