Anthem

This fable about a man who flees the organic collective society of the "we" and rediscovers individuality may, upon a first reading, seem dated. After all, we live in the shadow of the greatest "Me" generation the world has ever known, right?

But there is something alarming and insidious in a world where language is taken away from a people, where students or employees or dissidents are punished for the words they use, where political correctness supersedes meaning. As I recently re-read Rand’s novella, I could not help but think that Equality 7-2521 not only lived in a world bereft of self, but a world bereft of meaning, and I wondered if the path to that world began with the bowdlerization of social and political discourse and ended show more with the demise of the self. show less

Ayn Rand is a point of fascination for me. On a completely selfish level her philosophy, Objectivism, makes perfect sense. But then, in the words of another great philosopher George Carlin, I do this stupid thing called 'thinking'. I start thinking about how, like or hate it (and I hate it), humanity either stands together or falls apart (oh look, something resembling a pun). And the ones, the supposed 'true' individuals are either all facade (surrounded by coruscating hypocrisies such as supportive family and friends, good jobs, no real actual problems to individuate themselves against) or, the other 'true' individuals who care nothing for nobody and anything save themselves....what's that word for those people? Sociopaths.

Look, Rand. show more Morality's a bugaboo, I hear you, really I do. And (organized) religion and factory style spiritualism (pumped out by a funny hat leader of your preference or obligation) have made the curse of it worse. But without connectivity, without interactivity, without our fellow men (and women, if I can reference Batman Returns in a very overly circuitous way) our only alternative is either suicide (hey, Camus), sociopathy (too many to list) or such an intense solitude (ala Gogol and his straw eating self) that you render yourself God unto yourself (narcissism supreme) or simply hide yourself into complete irrelevance. I enjoy Objectivism (as shown in Anthem and in my continued laborious scaling of The Fountainhead) but merely as an extended thought experiment. Nothing more.

And don't even ask me about the Libertarians. show less

This might make a good introduction to Ayn Rand--it was mine. And unlike her other works, you can download it free--and legally--online at Project Gutenberg and other sites. Perhaps her estate thought it might entice new readers? It's short, for one--a mere novella of just 128 pages--not a behemoth like Atlas Shrugged, which runs to over a thousand pages. Rand is a controversial but interesting thinker. I don't think I've ever read more invective hurled at another writer than I've seen in reviews of her works. In some ways she does invite that--not just because she kicks several sacred crows, but her uncompromising challenge, even insults to those who disagree. She once defended her title The Virtue of Selfishness saying she called it show more that for "the reason that makes you afraid of it."

And this is a paean to selfishness--to self and the power of the individual and an indictment of collectivism. Yet I have two liberal friends, who I doubt will ever read another book of Rand's, who sheepishly admit they like this book a lot. (Although one of them thinks Rand mars it at the conclusion with the clanging anvil of a speech--I rather agree.) Anthem is the most lyrical thing Rand ever wrote--almost a prose poem. I've read it owes a lot to Zamyatin's We, which I've never read, but then I hear so does Huxley's Brave New World. On its own terms, this is a striking, memorable dystopia I find as worthy of being read as 1984 or Brave New World. show less

My absolute favorite read of the year, and it isn't even close. This is a masterpiece in the world of the novella, one that rivals The Metamorphosis and easily beats out Heart of Darkness. It also is the greatest work of dystopia I've read, surpassing even 1984. I'll leave the hot takes at that.

Anthem is beautiful. I don't often describe books in that way, but there isn't a better word for it. It does a haunting job of describing the world, and it does a beautiful job of making its characters exist in that world. The dystopia aspect is simple, and not anything groundbreaking, but the response is what gives this its kick. Small rebellions lead to false hope which turns into an angry escape.

The word usage is also brilliant. The writing is show more perfect for the story beats, which makes sense once you read it. Rand didn't just tell a story, she WROTE it, and that is what defines classics in my opinion. And that is what makes this the best one day read I could ever recommend to any reading skill level, period. show less

Ugh. Rand's simplistic allegory paints the world in black and white - there is the individual vs. the collective, a struggle which ultimately stands for freedom vs. totalitarianism. If she had read Freud or Darwin, she would know that human beings are a communal species - while it is true that individual rights should be protected and genius should be nurtured, you can not completely take a person out of the context of the community. This novel, and indeed all of her writing, is based on a false dichotomy, which was probably her reaction to seeing the results of the Russian Revolution - a reactionary response to a reactionary period in history. Unfortunately for Rand and the Soviets she despised, the world is much more nuanced than show more their respective dogmas will admit. I might have given this book two stars for the coherence of its philosophy, but a star was deducted for packaging the brief story with a sycophantic introduction by Rand disciple Leonard Peikoff, along with additional materials tailored to the Randroid cult of personality. show less

This novella takes place sometime in the far distant future in a totally controlled society and it will surely make you stop and think long after you turn the final page. It is about a dystopian society, yet I wonder if it is not really about what some would consider a utopian society. Everything is decided by a Council. There is no danger to speak of. There are no uprisings. There is no dissent. If there should be, it is halted immediately and the guilty one is subjected to severe physical punishment. There is no due process. All societal threats have been removed because of the severe consequences for infractions. Conversation is controlled and limited so no new ideas are generated. Children are raised in group homes. There is no show more parental involvement. Adults live in homes organized by profession. Older adults are consigned to Homes for the Useless to await the end of their days at about age 40. No one is educated unless they are chosen to be by the Council of Vocations. Careers are not chosen but assigned. Mating and procreation is strictly controlled. It is basically a slave society, but the slaves don’t know anything else but that life, and so they meekly obey.
The author has written a prescient tale of an America that becomes unrecognizable. The time of its publication is pertinent. Written in 1937 and published in 1938, it echoes the rising number of abuses instituted by Adolf Hitler, practices which were gaining enormous support. The theme of Arbeit Macht Frei on the gates of the Concentration Camps, “work will make you free” is a repetitive theme in the novella. Mating is conducted according to a strict schedule with mates chosen by the Council of Eugenics, This harkens back to Hitler’s Lebensborn program, created to raise a society of pure Aryans. It illuminates his effort to control thought and behavior with the rising popularity of the Hitler youth movement; the young were trained and taught to hate those that were different, those that were not pure Aryans. They were taught to blindly obey, even if it meant betraying their own family and friends for the benefit of Hitler’s Germany. The survival of the whole, the Fatherland, was of utmost importance.
In the society of the book, everyone is supposed to be the same. Individuals are identified by numbers because individuality is forbidden. The individual exists only for the benefit of the group, not for themselves. Free thought and free choice is forbidden. Feelings are forbidden. Strict schedules guide and govern daily life. Children are raised in group homes. At 15 a Council decides their futures. Hard work is the main goal in life. Ambition does not exist. There is no need for political correctness; politics, and conversation are both forbidden. Obedience is absolute. In this new world, it is forbidden to make mention of the past “Unmentionable Times”. History has disappeared entirely. The “we” is worshipped as a “G-d”. There is no “I” allowed. Nameless people are identified by a number and occupation, i.e. equality 7-2521 is a street cleaner. Others are in groups that are scholars, others are half-brains like Union 5-3992. Liberty 5-3000 is a woman. It is a crime to think, smile or walk about without purpose. It is a crime to be too tall because it makes you stand out, it makes you different. Even those who live past 40 are gaped at like animals in a zoo.
Men and women do not fraternize. This keeps emotions in check, which reminded me of religious rules forcing women to cover their bodies in burqas to prevent men from having sexual thoughts about them. Women are separated from men except at times of mating. Mates are chosen by the Council of Eugenics. Love does not exist, nor do any other human emotions because all opportunity to experience feelings has been removed. Equality 7-2521 refers to everyone as they and himself as we. He has no self-identification because everyone exists for the benefit of everyone else, not for one man alone.
Candles light the world. There are no mirrors so Equality does not know what he looks like. He has been told he is evil. He is too tall. His eyes are too bright. He thinks and it is not allowed. He knows that he is different. He thinks that hard work will redeem his sins, but he has no idea what his sins actually are. Soon, he begins to break rules. He believes he is doing something that is good, but he is not allowed to believe in what he does, only what the group does. He is committing more and more sins. He is learning and for him, further education has been forbidden. When he comes upon Liberty, during his work as street sweeper, he begins to feel something he has not felt before. It awakens something unknown in his body. Before long, she acknowledges similar feelings. They communicate without speaking.
How will their relationship change the existing society? With individualism will the sins of jealousy and greed renew again? Will humans form their own groups and will they shut others out or be inclusive? Will selfishness once again rear its head and survive? What new sins will be birthed by their transgressions? Will free will and choice bring about a new beginning that is doomed to end? Will the story of Adam and Eve be relived with Prometheus and Gaea, aka Equality and Liberty? Will they lose interest in the needs of others to further benefit only themselves? Will there be no happy medium? Will the “absolute and unbridled” thirst for knowledge ultimately corrupt them too, as in the Unmentionable Times? Will the desire to seek their own pleasure destroy their desire for righteousness and compassion? Will they be too naïve to make the necessary changes and march forward into a better future?
Is there a middle ground between dystopia and utopia? Can overregulation be curbed to the point where it does no harm? Can socialism find a way to fund all without benefitting the few at the top who are protected from the tentacles of its policies? Can non-conformity by positive before it becomes too negative and demanding of others for constant approval? Is it like the bible story of Adam and Eve? Will the sins of Gaea and Prometheus benefit or injure the new world they wish to create? If obsession with self becomes more prevalent, does it always mean selfishness will be the end result? Can obsession be prevented?
This book makes one think hard about society and its needs. In this brief little tale, the sins of our current society are evident. Our history is being rewritten, revised, as I write. Political Correctness demands it, as it has curbed free speech as well. Some think they have the one right way for all and demand to be followed. If they don’t get there way they find means to achieve it that may not be politic. Where the many ruled, times are changing, as in the tale. Now the individual has begun to take a supreme place in the dialogue of the day. Small groups of individuals band together and rise up, like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. They demand that everyone agree with their ideas or they riot or commit acts of civil disobedience which go unpunished. Some ideas are “over thought”. Fear rules most of our daily lives; there is the fear of terrorism, of some uses of science as in cloning and stem cell research, of some religious beliefs, some life choices, some alternate lifestyles, of the unknown, of change, and of those that make rules for others but exempt themselves. Is our Council of Elders, i.e. Congress, guilty of making too many rules, or of not following those they made? Will Americans have to find a place to “hide” to find peace and freedom eventually, like Equality and Liberty eventually did? What awaits us in the future? show less

How did I miss reviewing this book earlier? I must have been suppressing it.

Do you want to know who Ayn Rand is like? She’s like Rainman. Did you ever see that movie, with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman? Rainman (Hoffman) is an autistic savant, whom his brother Charlie (Cruise) wants to use to count cards in Las Vegas. And Rainman would be ideally suited to that too, if he could understand Charlie’s plan enough to cooperate effectively. But being an autistic savant, Rainman doesn’t really get it. He’s constantly distracted by completely irrelevant things, resulting in so much calamity that his brother is forced to abandon the scheme.



I’m pretty up front about my Libertarian beliefs, the nuances of which I won’t bore you with show more here- but suffice it to say that I spend a fair amount of time freaking out about the coercive power of the State. Along comes Ayn Rand, spinning yarns about independent-minded souls asserting themselves against oppressive bureaucracies, and I get all weak-kneed like a schoolgirl. Ayn can go on a five page tear like it was nothing, ranting about how the bulk of human suffering thoughout history has been at the hands of the State, and how the greatest innovations and improvements have come from individuals. I love that. That’s her savant superpower, and when it’s out in full display, you can find me behind her, pumping my fist in the air, yelling “Yeah! Give ‘em hell, Ayn!” Those are the times when I feel like she and I on the same team, and I’ve got a real affection for her.

But then… Ayn isn’t content to just talk about the right to be left alone, or how planned economies are unavoidably coercive. She’s got this philosophy she invented. “Objectivism”. It’s kind of a ridiculously glamorized plutocratic Übermensch worship, hopped up on high-powered social Darwinism and good old-fashioned selfishness. Too often Ayn’s books digress into a platform to hawk these pet philosophies, and I’m like “Shut up already with the Objectivism”. She’ll go off on some weird solliloquey attacking charities as a tool of the weak to exploit the strong, or some such nonsense, and I’ll get to wondering who exactly this is that I’ve fallen in with. And it isn't just that I’m not comfortable with her. I resent having to spend my energy explaining to other people why I like some of her stuff, but then resignedly agreeing that a lot of what she writes is a load of crap.

I feel like Ayn and I showed up together at a rally to protest the PATRIOT ACT, and we were really getting into it at first, yelling at the top of our lungs, voicing our discontent… but then after a few minutes, I realize I can’t hear her voice anymore, and when I look around, I spot her on the other side of the field, away from the rally. She’s foaming at the mouth, babbling incomprehensibly, with a glassy stare in her eyes. She’s perched up on a bulldozer next to Rush Limbaugh, and they’re getting ready to plow an orphanage into the ground. I run over, screaming “WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?!?!! THIS ISN’T WHAT WE CAME HERE FOR!!!”, but the bulldozer is way too loud, and she and Rush have already broken through one of the outer walls of the structure. The roof is caving in, and terrified orphans are pouring out of the back and sides of the building, running for their lives, screaming and crying. Limbaugh, cigar hanging out the corner of his mouth, is snickering and snorting to himself. Ayn’s eyes have rolled up into the back of her head, and her body is shuddering. Befuddled, wounded and shocked by what I’ve witnessed, I slowly walk back to the rally. The friends I came with –the ones I’ve been talking up Ayn to- have stopped taking part in the protest. They’re glaring at me silently, with uncomprehending expressions on their face, trying to decide whether I’m friend or foe…whether Ms Rand and I are birds of a feather, or if I’m basically a good guy who was duped.

So that’s the story of me and Ayn. It’s bittersweet, and I try to make the most of the sweet. I read Anthem in high school. Even then, the dramatic, overstylized narrative struck me as juvenile, but I was okay with it, because Ayn was telling me things about authority that I wanted to hear. I don’t want to get into the book too much. It’s a dopey story about a feudalistic world far in the future, ruled by shadowy Elders who suppress technology, and keep the peasants ignorant of their past. A lone figure discovers an old lightbulb, and discerns its principles (yeah, right). Envisioning all the benefits this new discovery will mean to mankind, he hurries off to tell the Elders. Of course they’ve known about its existence all along. They destroy the bulb, and send the peasant back to his field with a warning not to tell anybody what he saw... It's "Bill Nye The Science Guy meets the Grand Inquisitor."

Read this book if you must, but if you’re on the fence about it, I suggest you listen to Rush’s (the rock group’s, not the demagogue’s) 1976 classic album “2112”. It’s the same basic story as Anthem, if you substitute the lightbulb with an electric guitar, but it’s a lot more fun. Neil Peart was still new to the band back then, and they were “finding their sound”. Geddy’s vocals- while not for everybody, make for great effect, and Alex’s guitar work is badass- as usual. The album is long and the book is short, but I think you still come out ahead if your pick 2112.



“We have assumed control!”
(I just wanted to throw that in) show less