jenbsbooks's review against another edition
3.0
My 9th grader was reading this for school, so I thought I'd read it too, so we could discuss it some. Very quick read. I found it interesting. I've read a lot of dystopian, and it's always interesting when one was written quite a few years ago, seeing what an author may have envisioned for a future.
Here though, it seems an antiquated society. Very strict structure. The elimination of the individual. It was odd as the narration referred to himself as "we" and "our" and "their" ... which was the point. The society here was a little reminiscent of The Giver (I realize this ^ was written first, but I read The Giver first), with the babies not raised by those who gave birth to them. Having certain ages mean levels of development, the assignment of occupations, the "old" being "done" ...
Unfortunately my son hasn't been very open to discussions, or sharing his study notes or quizzes ... it always interests me to know how the school/teacher is approaching the story, what they are questioning and emphasizing.
Here though, it seems an antiquated society. Very strict structure. The elimination of the individual. It was odd as the narration referred to himself as "we" and "our" and "their" ... which was the point. The society here was a little reminiscent of The Giver (I realize this ^ was written first, but I read The Giver first), with the babies not raised by those who gave birth to them. Having certain ages mean levels of development, the assignment of occupations, the "old" being "done" ...
Unfortunately my son hasn't been very open to discussions, or sharing his study notes or quizzes ... it always interests me to know how the school/teacher is approaching the story, what they are questioning and emphasizing.
starch_potato's review
4.0
To say I was surprised by Anthem would be an understatement. I recommend this novella to anyone remotely interested in Ayn Rand.
While reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, my main criticisms of Rand were of her repetitive style, of her shallow philosophical insight, and of the flatness of her characters. This book, however, is different. It is a short, distilled version of Rand's message, without much dialogue and with a short enough length that does not leave Rand an opportunity for repetition. This format fits Rand's style much better.
I don't agree with Rand's philosophy (I'm not even sure it's worthy of being called a philosophy), as I don't think a society can (or should) survive when everyone cares only for themselves, but I do think her core ideas about individualism are worthy of acknowledgement -- especially as there aren't enough philosophical criticisms of collectivism itself (that is, even when divorced from totalitarianism). Her metaphysical ideas (not present in this book) are not worthy of much consideration, in my opinion.
For anyone unfamiliar with Rand, I would recommend reading Anthem -- it is short, clear, and to the point. For those who wish to read more of her ideas on individualism, I recommend you try The Fountainhead next. I very much disliked Atlas Shrugged, and would not recommend it to anyone who's not deeply interested in Rand's thought. I will add that the Audible narrator for both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is excellent.
1984
There are many similarities to 1984 by Orwell; from the themes and atmosphere to specific story beats: protagonist living under a collectivist totalitarian rule, finding a hidden safe place to think and write about forbidden things, being discovered and tortured (though not really comparable), falling in love with a woman who thinks similarly, meeting her in a forest and discovering freedom and physical love.
Anthem was published in 1938, and 1984 was published in 1949, both first in the UK. I won't be surprised if Orwell was inspired by this book, as there are too many similarities, though it's still possible they were both simply a product of the times.
The main difference in substance is that Rand criticizes collectivism in all its forms, while Orwell is careful to only criticize totalitarianism.
The main difference in style is of breadth and imagination: Anthem sticks to the simple core message, while 1984 presents a more fully-formed futuristic society, including the distinct mechanisms and ruling tactics which make it possible. In other words, Anthem is more philosophical while 1984 is more political and technical.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche's Influence is apparent in all of Rand's works, but while she was very interested in his ideas on individualism, she claims to have developed her core ideas independently. She also distanced herself from him in the following years due to their differing opinions on fundamental issues.
For Nietzsche, only select individuals can live a truly individualistic life, and they are the ones to lead others and to shape societies. For Rand, each individual should live for himself alone -- without relying on others or leading others -- and she believes society would flourish as a result.
Even though she had read Nietzsche's works, I doubt she understood his insights; as can be glimpsed from her own metaphysical philosophy, which argues in favor of ideas Nietzsche had fully debunked.
Rand worshiped the "I", while Nietzsche deconstructed this "I" and found what lies underneath; this "I" is changeable and divisible, and is not metaphysically fundamental. Furthermore, the "I" does not "cause" our thoughts, but rather is a result of them (or simply accompanies them).
But I have digressed far enough.
While reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, my main criticisms of Rand were of her repetitive style, of her shallow philosophical insight, and of the flatness of her characters. This book, however, is different. It is a short, distilled version of Rand's message, without much dialogue and with a short enough length that does not leave Rand an opportunity for repetition. This format fits Rand's style much better.
I don't agree with Rand's philosophy (I'm not even sure it's worthy of being called a philosophy), as I don't think a society can (or should) survive when everyone cares only for themselves, but I do think her core ideas about individualism are worthy of acknowledgement -- especially as there aren't enough philosophical criticisms of collectivism itself (that is, even when divorced from totalitarianism). Her metaphysical ideas (not present in this book) are not worthy of much consideration, in my opinion.
For anyone unfamiliar with Rand, I would recommend reading Anthem -- it is short, clear, and to the point. For those who wish to read more of her ideas on individualism, I recommend you try The Fountainhead next. I very much disliked Atlas Shrugged, and would not recommend it to anyone who's not deeply interested in Rand's thought. I will add that the Audible narrator for both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is excellent.
1984
There are many similarities to 1984 by Orwell; from the themes and atmosphere to specific story beats: protagonist living under a collectivist totalitarian rule, finding a hidden safe place to think and write about forbidden things, being discovered and tortured (though not really comparable), falling in love with a woman who thinks similarly, meeting her in a forest and discovering freedom and physical love.
Anthem was published in 1938, and 1984 was published in 1949, both first in the UK. I won't be surprised if Orwell was inspired by this book, as there are too many similarities, though it's still possible they were both simply a product of the times.
The main difference in substance is that Rand criticizes collectivism in all its forms, while Orwell is careful to only criticize totalitarianism.
The main difference in style is of breadth and imagination: Anthem sticks to the simple core message, while 1984 presents a more fully-formed futuristic society, including the distinct mechanisms and ruling tactics which make it possible. In other words, Anthem is more philosophical while 1984 is more political and technical.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche's Influence is apparent in all of Rand's works, but while she was very interested in his ideas on individualism, she claims to have developed her core ideas independently. She also distanced herself from him in the following years due to their differing opinions on fundamental issues.
For Nietzsche, only select individuals can live a truly individualistic life, and they are the ones to lead others and to shape societies. For Rand, each individual should live for himself alone -- without relying on others or leading others -- and she believes society would flourish as a result.
Even though she had read Nietzsche's works, I doubt she understood his insights; as can be glimpsed from her own metaphysical philosophy, which argues in favor of ideas Nietzsche had fully debunked.
Rand worshiped the "I", while Nietzsche deconstructed this "I" and found what lies underneath; this "I" is changeable and divisible, and is not metaphysically fundamental. Furthermore, the "I" does not "cause" our thoughts, but rather is a result of them (or simply accompanies them).
But I have digressed far enough.
ansalreads's review
1.0
This was the most confusing book I have ever read. Literally only made some sense when I did a discussion in class. will forever hate books I have to read for school‼️
mrreadsbooks's review against another edition
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
2.0
literatureatheart's review
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.5
duffypratt's review
1.0
This is a terrible book. It doesn't work as a story, or as literature, or as philosophy, or in any conceivable way. The ideas are simple, stupid, and stultifying.
Start with the world. It's a dystopia. The key characteristic of the world is that everyone works perpetually for the common good, and for nothing else. In the process of doing this, somehow, the world has abandoned all technology, to the point where the candle is considered a great invention. The book takes place in the distant future, and there are unmentionable times. And how did we get from there to hear? Well, we won't mention that. Nothing is offered as a plausible, or even an implausible, explanation for this change. Except that somehow, we are supposed to accept that this is the inevitable result of what would happen if people started cooperating with each other.
Now the characters. There are none. There are a couple who come close. The first person narrator comes the closest. He wants to be a scholar, but instead is assigned to street sweeping. He takes off from the community each night to spend time alone writing this book inside a tunnel of some sort (probably an abandoned subway tunnel). No-one ever seems to notice that he has take off and that he is not participating in the community endeavors, whatever they are, because we have no idea of what they are.
There is also his girlfriend. She is notable only because she absolutely worships him. Why? We have no idea.
During the book, he "discovers" electricity and tries to show it to the scholars so he, too, can become one. They reject him, torture him, and he runs away. The girlfriend follows him. All of this is conveyed with zero tension, zero drama, zero believable action. He runs into the forbidden forest. There he encounters .... nothing dangerous. Nature poses no threat at all to him. He doesn't have to actually do anything to prevail. Everything comes easily.
Once off on their own, they find a library. He learns that there used to be a word "I", and it changes his world. He now understands that his own personal happiness is the most important thing. The only end that is worth pursuing. And he intends to spread this new word to like minded thinkers, and to his "friends." Who will his friends be? People who worship his ideas, just like his girlfriend, and thus worship him, again like his girlfriend.
There is nothing in this book which suggests that surviving in a state of nature might be difficult. There is nothing to suggest that people might have to compete with each other for limited resources, and that, to accomplish that end, they might join together to co-operate with each other against their common enemy. Those difficulties are ignored because they would not fit nicely with the simple-minded "philosophy" that's being propounded.
Finally the guy names himself Prometheus, and his girlfriend Gaia. Prometheus, presumably, because he is bringing the fire and light to humanity. And Gaia because she will be the mother of the new earth. The Prometheus allusion was already so obvious that I groaned when it was made explicit. But Gaia? She was the mother of Prometheus, so in this book, we are to conclude that the narrator is sleeping with his own mother? Moreover, in the Greek myths, Gaia basically goes to perpetual sleep, and Prometheus is left chained to a rock with his liver eaten daily by vultures. These are the icons we should aspire to? Even the myth comparison only works on the most superficial level, and falls apart when looked at from the Wikipedia level of depth.
Finally, for the first ten chapters, this book employs its own sort of newspeak, being written in a language where the first person singular has been abolished. This makes the book entirely annoying to read, but that one detail is the only way that the language has changed as a result of hundreds or thousands of years of collectivism. Worse, the elimination of those words has done nothing to eliminate the ideas that underly them. The narrator still knows how to refer to himself individually, and to others. It's just slightly more awkward. In contemporary english, we use the word "you" interchangeably to refer to the singular and the plural, and it causes little to no confusion. Getting rid of "I" and using "we" to refer to the plural or the individual would not cause any great shift in people's ways of thinking. In a limited way, we already do that with the word we: monarchs typically refer to themselves as "we" when speaking officially, as a kind of recognition that the monarch is both the individual and the state at the same time. No one has any problem dealing with that. So even the central conceit of this book is an abject failure. We are not amused.
Start with the world. It's a dystopia. The key characteristic of the world is that everyone works perpetually for the common good, and for nothing else. In the process of doing this, somehow, the world has abandoned all technology, to the point where the candle is considered a great invention. The book takes place in the distant future, and there are unmentionable times. And how did we get from there to hear? Well, we won't mention that. Nothing is offered as a plausible, or even an implausible, explanation for this change. Except that somehow, we are supposed to accept that this is the inevitable result of what would happen if people started cooperating with each other.
Now the characters. There are none. There are a couple who come close. The first person narrator comes the closest. He wants to be a scholar, but instead is assigned to street sweeping. He takes off from the community each night to spend time alone writing this book inside a tunnel of some sort (probably an abandoned subway tunnel). No-one ever seems to notice that he has take off and that he is not participating in the community endeavors, whatever they are, because we have no idea of what they are.
There is also his girlfriend. She is notable only because she absolutely worships him. Why? We have no idea.
During the book, he "discovers" electricity and tries to show it to the scholars so he, too, can become one. They reject him, torture him, and he runs away. The girlfriend follows him. All of this is conveyed with zero tension, zero drama, zero believable action. He runs into the forbidden forest. There he encounters .... nothing dangerous. Nature poses no threat at all to him. He doesn't have to actually do anything to prevail. Everything comes easily.
Once off on their own, they find a library. He learns that there used to be a word "I", and it changes his world. He now understands that his own personal happiness is the most important thing. The only end that is worth pursuing. And he intends to spread this new word to like minded thinkers, and to his "friends." Who will his friends be? People who worship his ideas, just like his girlfriend, and thus worship him, again like his girlfriend.
There is nothing in this book which suggests that surviving in a state of nature might be difficult. There is nothing to suggest that people might have to compete with each other for limited resources, and that, to accomplish that end, they might join together to co-operate with each other against their common enemy. Those difficulties are ignored because they would not fit nicely with the simple-minded "philosophy" that's being propounded.
Finally the guy names himself Prometheus, and his girlfriend Gaia. Prometheus, presumably, because he is bringing the fire and light to humanity. And Gaia because she will be the mother of the new earth. The Prometheus allusion was already so obvious that I groaned when it was made explicit. But Gaia? She was the mother of Prometheus, so in this book, we are to conclude that the narrator is sleeping with his own mother? Moreover, in the Greek myths, Gaia basically goes to perpetual sleep, and Prometheus is left chained to a rock with his liver eaten daily by vultures. These are the icons we should aspire to? Even the myth comparison only works on the most superficial level, and falls apart when looked at from the Wikipedia level of depth.
Finally, for the first ten chapters, this book employs its own sort of newspeak, being written in a language where the first person singular has been abolished. This makes the book entirely annoying to read, but that one detail is the only way that the language has changed as a result of hundreds or thousands of years of collectivism. Worse, the elimination of those words has done nothing to eliminate the ideas that underly them. The narrator still knows how to refer to himself individually, and to others. It's just slightly more awkward. In contemporary english, we use the word "you" interchangeably to refer to the singular and the plural, and it causes little to no confusion. Getting rid of "I" and using "we" to refer to the plural or the individual would not cause any great shift in people's ways of thinking. In a limited way, we already do that with the word we: monarchs typically refer to themselves as "we" when speaking officially, as a kind of recognition that the monarch is both the individual and the state at the same time. No one has any problem dealing with that. So even the central conceit of this book is an abject failure. We are not amused.
hotsake's review against another edition
4.0
It's a fun story and very timely but the point and argument that the story is making and is deeply flawed and any extreme in any direction is not sustainable or peaceful.
jackalopeboi's review
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0