Anthem

Rating:
Summary: A silly dystopia
Review: It seems difficult to discuss this book without getting into a Capitalism vs. Socialism argument, which misses the real problem of "Anthem": It's just an absurd book--predictable, heavy-handed, and weakly imagined.

Rand's depiction of totalitarianism is basically unconvincing. History has shown that dictatorial governments prefer to hide their real intentions behind hypocritical rhetoric; they would not be so obvious as to call a retirement center "the Home of the Useless" (oh, please), as Rand does here. Why, in a society presumably devoid of religion, does the narrator keep referring to his "sins"? And in all seriousness, I can't see how a government could last for more than two days if it allowed its citizens to make love only once a year. Wasn't there an editor around to bring up these questions?

The plot is constructed in such a way as to telegraph every twist well in advance, as if Rand were afraid of losing the reader. Any half-way alert reader should be able to guess what will come of the narrator's pivotal encounter with the Home of the Scholars. One wonders why the vaultingly intelligent (or so we're told) narrator did not see it coming as well.

This book made me giggle. The "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"-ish speech that closes the book is embarassingly overbaked. The romance sub-plot also reaches rare heights of corniness. Ah, young love: "We stood still; for the first time did we know fear, and then pain. And we stood still that we might not spill this pain more precious than pleasure."

Whatever the merits of Objectivism, it does not seem to promote the creation of fine literature. Or even decent sci-fi.

Rating:
Summary: A classic introduction to Ayn Rand
Review: This book is a tale of a future were people are not permitted to pursue their own endeavors for their own reasons at their own ability. It chronicles the rise of a man who is held back by restrictions placed on him by those who "know better". Eventually, he breaks free of these chains and finds the truth about himself, his capabilities and the world around him. A short story by Ayn Rands standards it conveys the ideas of her other books and her philosophy, Objectivism, in an easy to understand way.

Rating:
Summary: Simple and direct
Review: Anyone who has not lived under a totalitarian collectivist regime, as most of the other spoiled, leftist, deluded reviewers of this book clearly have not, cannot appreciate how groundbreaking Ayn Rand's philosophy was when it was first published. Anthem represents a distillation of that philosophy, first seen in Fountainhead and refined in the later work Atlas Shrugged.

To extoll altruism is the greatest evil. A person who would sacrifice himself for others would gladly sacrifice you as well. This is the lesson that history has taught us and that Ayn Rand tries, with increasing futility, to remind us. Naturally, a book like Anthem is going to be repugnant to religionists, communists, socialists, and other monsters. They are more comfortable in their mystical world of hurt and suffering than the objective and benevolent alternative offered by Ms. Rand.

A fair criticism of this particular book is it's absolutism and almost cartoonish polemic approach to illustrating Objectivism as a philosophy. This was deliberately intended. Rand struggled to express her philosophy in as few words as possible and to use her brilliant gift of symbolic writing to do this. If any part of this book is 'dated' it is Rand's unfortunate gender ethics -- which are very much a part of her original environment of pre-Soviet Russia. Her outstanding philosophy, however, rings through this book and is clearly needed more than ever, at least in the USA where Christian demogogues are so eager and willing to sacrifice the liberties of others.

Rating:
Summary: Unique, yet scary
Review: This title actually deserves 4.5 stars, but you can't put that. This book takes place in a time where individualism has been demolished: you cannot make your own decisions, you cannot create anything on your own, or that isn't approved, and you can't speak out if you find something unfair. Our hero, Equality 7-2521, watches someone burned at a stake for discovering an unknown, 'evil' word, when he is but a child. This inspires him. He wants to know EVERYTHING, but is sentenced to be a street-sweeper forever. This is his story of finding himself, and his plan to save his world. At first, this book is confusing and seemingly pointless.After a few days of meditating on it, though, you realize how much this book makes you think,and how fantastic it really is.

Rating:
Summary: Heavy-handed melodrama
Review: I originally read this because of the Rush album (2112) in the early '80's. I wanted to read the work that influenced the album and I really enjoyed her work a great deal at the time. In fact, I probably enjoyed it more than the Rush album. However, her story didn't age well for me and I'm not the impressionable high school kid anymore.
Rand's basic philosophy behind the work is frustrating to me now. As a christian, I certainly believe she had the right to believe what she wanted as I have the right to disagree with the logical conclusion of her philosophy. I gave it 3 stars simply for the concept.

Rating:
Summary: This is one of the better reviews
Review: Why do people write so much in the reviews? You either like it or you don't.
If you like 1984 you'd like this. But. if you like 1984, then you'd think Anthem to be a pale copy to Welles' work. I got hooked on Ayn Rand in High school. I'm in college now and I still find her books fascinating. But many of the reviewers here, I think, have read about the cult she had and how her books tend to warp teenagers. But- Allen Greenspan himself was a big Objectivist himself. (I think still is). If you thought she wrote good when you were 10 and then thought she wasn't as good when you reached 40, chances are, it's not that the writing is bad, it's you can't accept the idea. The way she writes is still solid.
Ayn Rand writes well. Take in her messages. Anyone majoring in philosophy, engineering, science, english, economy will like her books.
<<<<<<<<<<Oh yeah. Ayn Rand is good for children too. I'm having my lil brother read it. Good story to put into personal library. But it's not worth the price Amazon sells it for. Buy Anthem used. You don't need it to be mint for your collection. It looks better used.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rating:
Summary: A great book for teenagers... but it doesn't age well
Review: I remember reading "Anthem" for the first time when I was fourteen. I loved it-- both for being quick, simple, digestible, and entertaining heroic story, and for being a story with a message that I, in that rebellious self-centered phase we *all* go through as teenagers, really wanted to hear-- namely that I ought to regard my own wishes, desires, thoughts, and values as superior to those of everyone else, and that anyone who sought to restrict me, to tell me what to do, how to behave, etc., was an evil tyrant. That message is a very powerful one for adolescents who are just coming to form their own sense of self and who are starting to question the legitimacy of authority (parental, educational, andotherwise). It is, I think, of especial appeal to middle-class adolescents (like I was) who have led comfortable enough lives that they haven't ever really had to take on any truly meaningful responsbilities of their own-- either for their families or anyone else. I recently re-read the book and found that the story is still enjoyable as a story-- but that message that can be so appealing, so powerful, and so self-affirming to teenagers-- i.e. "I'm the most important thing in the world, and to hell with everyone who tries to tell me what to do" doesn't really hold up in the face of the real, practical, experience of the world that one gains in adult life. The fact of the matter is that life isn't simply a black-and-white contrast between heroic individuals and nameless, faceless, bureaucratic drones who try to crush their individuality in the name of some vaguely defined social good. Life involves people, working both individually and collectively, trying to accomplish things that they need to do to stay alive and in an attempt to achieve some sort of happiness in spite of the complex, changing, and frustrating world that human beings have always lived in and will always live in. Only rarely do the real conflicts in life revolve around a conflict between "the individual" vs. some abstract entity called "society"-- and that's the real weakness with Rand's message-- both in "Anthem" and elsewhere. She can convey her point only by exaggeration to ridiculous degrees, between the good noble heroic individual and the indistict amorphous entity that she calls "society" (or the caricatures of those who purport to be speaking for it). The fact of the matter is that our lives primarily revolve around friendships, familial relationships, lovers, colleagues, partners, teammates, etc.-- not "society" as some abstract conception, and even when we participate in larger collective organizations, it is because we have a vested interest in them. "Anthem", like Rand's other fiction" simply does not-- and probably cannot-- address the complex reality of real tensions and conflicts between people (or among groups of people). For her, everything must boil down to the simplistic parellel between "the individual" (taken as an abstraction) and society (taken as an abstraction). Of course, this criticism is one that I think Rand would herself agree with. I think she'd say that her fiction is designed to lead the reader to think philosophically-- abstractly, about individualism vs. collectivism as approaches to life. To that, however, I'd respond (philosophically)that the problem there is the assumption that individualism and collectiveism can only be understood in terms of "vs."... as philosophers from Hegel on have pointed out in their writings about intersubjectivity. Then again, this takes us somewhaat away from "Anthem", so I'll leave it at that... Anyway, when all's said and done I've got to say that "Anthem" is still a fine read, and it's one that I thing adolescents and teenagers will really take to. Really, if there were one book that deserved to be considered the "bible of teenage rebellion", it would be "Anthem". However, as they get older, it's also one that most of them will come to grow out of, as they come to realize that life really just isn't as simple as this....

Rating:
Summary: read my review!!
Review: Okay, straight to my thoughts, no summary. As far as the storyline goes, the book is alright. The reading level is not too hard, and it's pretty easy to understand. The only confusing part is the "we" and stuff. The author Ayn Rand is mysterious writer. I do not like how she has written this book. From what I understand, she was raised in the Russian communist society. The reason I dislike this book so, is because of how she tries so hard (or so it seems) to make this sound like a real society. It is not possible, and frankly, I do not believe that the American society is like the one described in this book whatsoever. The bases of which America was first founded on was freedom, which is totally opposite from the communist rule in this book. Overall the book is okay, but as a strong Christian, I do not believe in the ideas it outputs. Read it is fine, give your own opinions!

Rating:
Summary: Debateably Influential
Review: The debate of individualism versus collectivism can begin with this book. As a freshman in high school, I read it in three hours, and thought it ranked on the scale with the usual teenage rebellion books... "Loneliness of a Long-Distance runner," "Catcher in the Rye," "A Separate Peace."

Is it meant to address political correctness, and the faults of being unable to express what I think, rather than what I think you want me to think? Or does it better address what Luther faced at the time of the Reformation? Maybe more closely, rather than Luther... but the Anabaptists?

Arguably, communism could be a focal point of debate, but more deeply than politics is the freedom to believe. Ironically, as Ayn Rand was atheist, I found it encouraging for myself to believe more deeply as a Christian.

Would I recommend it? Sure... any reader from the Oprah/Deepak Chopra pop-philosphy crowd will love it, to the "Song of Myself"/Walt whitman reader, to readers of Jack Kerouac's beat movement books, to the quick reader of Christian books (Prayer of Jabez) to the longer Christian fiction/allegory reader (Left Behind) to the serious student of theology and Christian Scripture.

I fully recommend this book.

Anthony Trendl

Rating:
Summary: Sophomoric and boring
Review: I read this book a couple years ago, when I still had the gumption to push my way all the way through a book regardless of merit. I remember that at the time, I was so angry with this book that I wanted to throw it accross the room.

Why so, you may ask? Well, for starters, Ayn Rand is no kind of writer. She employs no interesting, engaging or otherwise enjoyable technique into the narrative. It reads like an informational brochure: it is entirely expository. So the book is obviously not about making pretty phrases. This is frustrating, but allowable in certain circumstances (take for instance, The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, which is no kind of great literature, but it changed the course of history all the same).

However, when one gets around to understanding what Ayn Rand's basic message is (this should happen somewhere around page 3, since she doesn't really build up to it, but instead uses the "hammer" approach of stating it over and over and...), the message is extraordinarily weak. See, Rand takes a true statement (The Soviet Union was evil), transforms it into a blanket statement (Socialist societies are evil), then takes the inverse of this statement (Capitalism is just), and puts that forth to it's extreme as an absolute virtue (individualism is perfection). Such is the foundation of Ayn Rand's books.

This chain of logic is embarassingly sophomoric. Firstly, just because one socialist nation was evil doesn't mean that all are. Are all Capitalist nations evil because of the evil and corruption in Mexico (a capitalist nation)? Next, just because one thing is evil doesn't mean that its opposite is just. In fact, the opposite of Nazism would be (drumroll, please...) COMMUNISM!!! And we all know that the Nazis were evil, right? And finally, the moral rectitude of a thing does not make the more extreme version of that thing more correct. Can we extrapolate that because people enjoy having dogs as pets that the only pet anyone should be allowed to have is a dog? I think not!

So, in short, Anthem is a poorly-written book based on a remarkably deficient chain of logic. I have nothing against anti-socialist literature on the face of it, but I cannot stomache a book as poorly put-together as Anthem.

Persons interested in politically-motivated works of fiction should consider reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley for it's fascinating dual-take on a collectivist system, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair for it's gut-wrenching exposé of the horrors of the meat industry (and of the excesses of Capitalism) as well as its fascinatingly rabid pushing of Socialism, or just about anything else. I do not exaggerate when I say that Anthem could easily be the worst book I have ever read.