I don't know about anyone else, but February always seems to be such a busy month to me. So for this month's reading, I chose Ayn Rand's Anthem, a short book--barely 100 pages--to accommodate everyone's schedules.
I read this book in high school and actually enjoyed it, unlike other books I've read by Ayn Rand. I was going to read it again before posting, but was unable to find the time. Consequently, I have no review to share with you. I guess you'll just have to share your own reviews in the comments!
So I read the book. Of course it evoked all the emotions that would be expected. First of course was the frustration that they were under such a ridiculous regime. Then relief that they broke out and then happiness that he was a single person. Then I thought Ayn Rand carried it a little too far in the whole me thing. Of course we are responsible for ourselves, our actions, and our decisions but it is not wrong to take other people and their desires into account. It made me think of keeping information from people so that when they get a little they go crazy with it, making it difficult to have any kind of balance. The whole story also reminded me a little or how it seems our current government is going and that was just plain scary. Thanks for the motivation to read that one.
ReplyDeleteI read the book too. (Last night. I read it online. It's really short! I didn't realize how short it was, but reading it online I really zipped through it.)
ReplyDeleteA couple of thoughts. First of all, I am in a class on literature from this period right now and I thought it was so interesting that Rand took the capitalist viewpoint. A lot of books from this period focus on the communist party, especially if the protagonist is less-advantaged. However, Rand is clearly making a statement against communist thinking. I found this intriguing.
What I also found intriguing was the seemingly anti-feminist reading that jumped out at me as I read it. I have been reading a lot of books lately with a feminist overtone, and this one made me mad when I read it this time (which I don't recall feeling the last time I read this, 7 years ago).
Here are just a few examples: When they get to the house and the guy gives this speech about not sharing it with anyone else, the girl says: "Your will be done." That made me mad. What about her will? Can't she think for herself too? And then again (in ch. 10) the boy says, "We did this work alone, for no words of ours could take the Golden One away from the big glass which is not glass. They stood before it and they looked and looked upon their own body." Great. This big man goes out and does all the work because the woman can't pull herself away from the mirror.
And then, the man gives both of them names. "I read many books for many days. Then I called the Golden One, and I told her what I had read and what I had learned. She looked at me and the first words she spoke were: "I love you." So what, she had just been thinking about how much she loved him and staring at the mirror for days while he had been exploring what it meant to be human? Why couldn't she have a part of naming herself, or of naming him? The real kicker was when he said, "Gaea is pregnant with my child." Oh yeah? What about her child?
I know, of course, that this was written in the 30's. But really, it was written by a woman. She could have given women just a little more credit!!
Other than that, I thought this novella was a little over the top, but it definitely had an agenda and, like I said with the last book, when you are forging new territory you usually have to be extreme. I read it more like I would a political pamphlet than a logical chain of events, though. (Really? He just happens upon all of these discoveries?) I think it was successful at what it set out to do, which was proclaiming the wonders and celestial quality of capitalism in contrast to the suffocating nature of communism.
I'd never heard of this one of Rand's books, so was glad for the chance to read a short one that gave me a chance to finally say I've read something of hers.
ReplyDeleteMy first comment deals not with the book itself, but with writing in general. The copy I checked out was the 50-year anniversary addition with an added intro and appendix. The appendix was a copy of the original British edition with all of Rand's pre-American publishing editorial changes marked in her own hand. Eight years passed from the time the book was published in England, and Rand's style matured greatly. Though I didn't comb through every page, I was delighted to see how she cut out wordiness and made it all so much more concise, stylistic, and powerful. It was a fun adventure to see how her ability improved over those eight years, and motivated me to continue to improve my writing.
I read the other comments before reading the book, so I kept that in mind. I felt she was a bit extreme at the end, but then, the first part was extreme, too, so it was just literary balance. It seemed more like symbolism to me - not to be taken too literally. Then I read the introduction and some of the things Ayn Rand said. It turns out that Rand actually held to a philosophy like that found in the last two chapters, so I guess she wasn't just trying to balance the extremes. My next points focus on that philosophy.
First of all, I was struck, like Mom, with the implications for our current situation. Our president has been called by some a "malignant narcissist" which diagnosis I tend to agree with. Yet he is part of the same philosophy that Rand was denouncing in the beginning of the book. It generally turns out that those who are most forceful about the "we" are actually the most interested in their own "I." In all of these situations, there is some supposed benevolent dictator - those who know better than we what will make all men happy, but they are actually only seeking their own power by subverting our freedom.
One of the comments in the introduction (written by a proclaimed atheist) got me thinking. He talked about being selfless, and basically said that, like the people in Rand's book, when we get caught up in "we," we lose the "I," or basically the selfless are self-less. The complete wrongness of this philosophy was amazing (in a bad way) to me. Compare that idea with the truth taught by the Savior that when we lose ourselves in service, we actually find ourselves. Then I checked myself - the Lord didn't actually teach that when we lose ourselves in others we are found, but that "whosoever will lose his life --for my sake--, the same shall save it" (Luke 9:24, emphasis added). I'm so grateful for the light of the gospel to give clarity to the world. True happiness is to be found in worshiping the Lord first.
Satan is tricky in his attempts to make evil appear good. Something that seems right - helping others and being selfless can actually be wrong when it is inappropriately administered. When we have the light of the restored gospel, we can see that the source of real truth and freedom is God, and only by living his gospel FOR HIM fully can we be happy. Rather than looking to ourselves or around at others to find our priorities and duties, we must look to the Lord and see what He would have us do. Rand (in her great ignorance of higher things) completely left out that option.
I pretty much agree with the things that have been said. I read this in high school as well, and at the time I was simply grateful to be assigned something that was a bit lighter than we typically were given. This time through was a bit different.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying question that kept surfacing as I read was, "How is their society different from Zion?" Of course, it was, but I was trying to pick out key elements in the society depicted that are not present in Zion. After all, they did exhibit many Zion-like attributes. I concluded that the biggest things missing were agency and love. Because the people were not given the freedom to choose, they were completely miserable. Even though they never had to worry about poverty, crime, or other societal problems, no one was happy. That showed me how truly important and valuable the gift of agency is.
Secondly, they didn't have a true feeling of love for their fellow-men. They weren't serving out of love--they were serving their society because of the ideals that were pounded into their minds. Love is the central principle that binds us together, and human relationships bring us some of the greatest joys possible in life. Their society was simply robotic.
I could definitely echo some of the frustrations and thoughts listed above, particularly my annoyance with the whole "ME/I/EGO" theme at the end. I was also quite startled at the ideas presented about the nature of women. I think my sentiments about these things have already been given proper voice, though, so I'll just leave it at that.