Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Anthem
Anthem
Anthem
Ebook76 pages1 hour

Anthem

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Hailed by The New York Times as "a compelling dystopian look at paranoia from one of the most unique and perceptive writers of our time," this brief, captivating novel offers a cautionary tale. The story unfolds within a society in which all traces of individualism have been eliminated from every aspect of life — use of the word "I" is a capital offense. The hero, a rebel who discovers that man's greatest moral duty is the pursuit of his own happiness, embodies the values the author embraced in her personal philosophy of objectivism: reason, ethics, volition, and individualism.
Anthem anticipates the themes Ayn Rand explored in her later masterpieces, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Publisher's Weekly acclaimed it as "a diamond in the rough, often dwarfed by the superstar company it keeps with the author's more popular work, but every bit as gripping, daring, and powerful."
LanguageEnglish
Release dateNov 26, 2013
ISBN9780486782713
Author

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand (1905–1982) wrote the bestselling novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) and founded the philosophy known as objectivism. Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, Rand taught herself to read at the age of six and soon resolved to become a professional writer. In 1926, she left Communist Russia to pursue a screenwriting career in Hollywood, and she published her first novel ten years later. With her next book, the dystopian novella Anthem (1938), she introduced the theme that she would devote the rest of her life to pursuing: the inevitable triumph of the individual over the collective. 

Read more from Ayn Rand

Related to Anthem

Related ebooks

Classics For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Anthem

Rating: 3.6285714285714286 out of 5 stars
3.5/5

105 ratings110 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I read this book on the serial reader app. It is the first Ayn Rand book I have read and I really enjoyed it. I read it during my breaks during work and it was very hard to put down when it was time to go back to work. I felt the story was very original and I was excited to see what would happen to Equality 7-2521. His society was very disturbing although I did find the ending to be equally disturbing. The use of the plural pronouns made the story that much more intriguing to me.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Anthem by Ayn Rand is a fabulous dystopian-era read. Reminiscent of Margaret Atwood’s dystopian reads, this one will hook you from the very first page. And at 105 pages, you’ll speed through Anthem!Equality 7-2521 is a member of society and seems to be too smart for his own good. The society focuses on unity, instead of the individual, a collective “we.” But this doesn’t work for Equality 7-2521 because he has goals, wishes, hopes that seem to place him on the outskirts of society.When he discovers an opening to a closed-off and unused sewer, he takes it for himself as a sort of laboratory. While it is highly illegal to do so, but Equality 7-2521 spends much time in his underground lair, writing in a secret journal (which is how we know what’s going on in the story) and conducting scientific experiments.For the full review, visit Love at First Book
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Originally reviewed on A Reader of Fictions.

    Actually, I have already read Anthem, ages ago, when I was in my sophomore year of high school, so long, apparently, that the yellow of my highlighting is scarcely discernible. At the time, I loathed it, as I did much of my required reading. Now that I'm older and better educated, I have a much better understanding of what Ayn Rand was up to. Though heavy-handed, there is a lot that is interesting in Ayn Rand's brief philosophical work.

    Readers unfamiliar with Ayn Rand should know some things before they launch into Anthem. One thing that would be helpful to know is that she's crazy. Her ideas are incredibly radical. She believes in the power of the individual and has loathing for anything that compels a person to do anything. As such, she very much does not approve of collectivism, and that is what she is challenging in Anthem. Though written in story format, Anthem is a thinly veiled philosophical and political tract. This was just a way for her to tell you her opinions, which she will do via her character.

    The dystopian society depicted in Anthem is a fascinating one, and I really wish that she had done justice to it. This story would have benefited greatly from more pages and less of the dreaded opinion hammer. In the world of Anthem, men live in the collective, raised to be entirely equal. They go from the Home of the Infants to the Home of the Students to the Home of their designated employment to the Home of the Useless. This is the life of all men. There is no individual, only the collective.

    To accomplish this sense of the group, the story is told in first person plural, a very unusual storytelling method, also seen earlier in Dystopian August in What's Left of Me. In essence, this means that the main character, Equality 7-2521 refers to himself as we, because there is only the we. All his life, Equality 7-2521 has not fit in properly, because he is too clever, too curious, too tall and too aware of his superiority. As such, he is forced into a menial profession. His desire for learning cannot be quenched, though, and he finds ways to sneak around and gather knowledge, quickly surpassing the Scholars of his community.

    Along the way, he becomes attracted to a woman, something entirely forbidden. He even has the audacity to speak with her and to call her by an individual name (The Golden One). Through all of his rebellion, however, his ultimate goal is to gain acceptance from his community. He wants to show them what he has discovered and to improve their lives. He just wants to be one of them, and, if not admired himself, have his invention admired.

    As I said, this could be a powerful tale about the importance of language and individualism. Rand could have made her point more strongly had she shown the reader the truth of it, rather than telling us, from her lordly perch, what we should believe, a rather ironic issue. Her tale about the importance of learning for oneself and not being told what to do is trying to set the reader's opinions.

    The other aspect I find rather upsetting is the role of the female character, Liberty 5-3000. She too sees something wrong in the society, as evidenced by her fearless, sharp eyes. However, the reader does not get to learn anything about her besides that and her attraction to Equality 7-2521. While he is inventing things, she continues to do her work. He thinks of her as The Golden One (which refers to her lovely appearance), while she thinks of him as The Unconquered (which speaks to his powerful spirit and intelligence). Even worse, when they learn about people having names just for themselves, he gives himself a name he finds fitting...and then he chooses one for her. Let her pick her own goddamn name. The patriarchal attitude inherent in this made me so incredibly angry, especially when coming from a powerful woman.

    For anyone interested in reading dystopias, Anthem is certainly worth perusing, especially since it's so brief. Were Ayn Rand still alive, I bet she would have some choice things to say about No Child Left Behind; imagining this really amuses me.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A true dystopian novel in the spirit of 1984 and Brave New World. Anthem takes a harsh view of collectivism and ends by glorifying the individual. This being the first thing by Ayn Rand I've read, I was impressed by her writing, but a little jarred by the swinging being two extremes (collectivism and individualism in this case). Certainly a book worth discussion and thought.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A thoughtful bleak look at a degraded society and the discovery of freedom. It reminds me of Farenheit 451 and 1989 but in a way that is entirely different and mesmerizing.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is again yet another GREAT book by Ayn Rand. It's much shorter than her other books (Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) but still very interesting.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    A parable depicting Rand's concept of individualism, otherwise known as Objectivism. Not the most riveting piece of literature.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    A dark portrait of the future. Rand pushes her agenda by showing an extreme case of individualism versus collectivism. Interesting.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This was a fairly thin dystopian novel. Not much was said here that you couldn't read in something like "We" or "1984." Rand's tone was fairly didactic, but that isn't surprising given Rand's reputation. Overall, I give it 3 out of 5 stars because I did enjoy it, but I felt that more could have been done with it.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    My kind of book, utopian societies yum! First off I love the idea that the main character's name ( and everyone else's) is a concept attached to a number. Example, our main character Equality 7-2521. The descriptions of the society are facinating and the book has a happy ending. I really enjoyed the book (wish it was longer though)and would recommend it to anyone for a light read. Really, how long can you go without saying "my" "I" or and with out recognizing most societies' need for individualism, it's quite interesting how this book portrays a society that can. Read it.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Summary: Ayn Rand explores her favorite theme in a dystopian society where "I" is not allowed only "we" and "they". Two brave souls escape and figure out the wonder of living on your own terms and the value of "I".
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This is my first foray into Ayn Rand, not really knowing much about her philosophy except its focus on individualism vs collectivism. This is a dystopian novella, originally written in 1937, today's reader may find the story/plot cliched but one must remember those cliches came from these early writers of dystopia. It's a well-written story of a man finding himself rebelling against the post-apocalyptic world he's only known. He's being force-fed happiness and seeing through it. It ends happily enough for him and a mate he meets of like-mindedness who escape. However, unlike dystopian books written today Rand had a purpose and agenda for writing her story. the last two chapters summarise what was wrong with this society they lived in (utter hard-core socialism) then continues with how the main character will build a better future (based on Rand's philosophy). I find her "individualism" to be similar to today's "libertarianism" and frankly disagree with those philosophies since they make man his own God. However, her observations on socialism and what have come to be predictions speak volumes on our world today where the "We" use "groupthink" to merge socialist idea into realities in our present sorry society. I'm rratherinterested in reading more Rand, not that I agree with her individualistic, capitalist ideologies but I find her warnings of socialism prophetic and wonder whether I'll find her other observations of living through such an era enlightening to me as I continue the fight against such regimes.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    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 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?
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This is on of Ayn Rand's shorter works that encapsulates her ideas about objectivism. I read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school and found them troublingly off-putting. Anthem was no different in that respect. While I sympathize with Rand's emphasis on the importance of individuality, I have trouble with the idea that differences between human beings can and should be used as justification for unequal treatment. Condemning people to street sweeping because they are "less good" in some way than other human beings is no better than condemning people to street sweeping because they do not fit with the dominant culture's idea of "good" people, which is one of the great evils put forth by this novella. I don't think that individual differentiation should be erased by any means, but neither do I think that constructing a social system based on some perception of inherent goodness is an act of justice. Inherent goodness is a relative concept that changes with context and according to the views of the dominant majority. I think there is a middle road to be had here, one that respects individuality and skills without using that respect as an excuse for allowing the suffering of groups deemed less valuable in some way.

    I understand Rand's background coming out of the communist Soviet Union, but I don't think that socialism is the social ill that she paints it as in her works. Socialized medicine seems a very good idea to me, for instance. There is no reason that anyone in this country should not be getting the medical care that they need.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    “Anthem” takes place in the future in a dystopian (opposite of Utopian) society. No one is allowed to address themselves as “I”, “me”, etc. Under the title of my ancient copy (this version was printed in 1963– before I was born!!), it’s subtitled “A Great Novelist’s Provocative Story of a Fearful Society That One Man Dares to Defy”. That One Man is known as Equality 7-2521.Equality 7-2521 is unhappy. Then he falls in love. However, love is forbidden in this society. Members are allowed to reproduce only once a year. No love-making allowed at any other time. Equality 7-2521 eventually runs off with Liberty 5-3000. They learn the meaning of the word “I” and what it means to be individuals.My copy of the book was only 123 pages long. So it was a quick read. So what did I think of it this time around, since the last time I read it was at least 20 years ago? Well, it was OK. I felt the writing was somewhat dated; and that the portion of the book after the defiant couple runs off was very short compared to the rest of the book. I’m not sure that they could really have lived Happily Ever After, just the two of them, as a new Adam and Eve.Ayn Rand seems to be an author whose works readers either love or hate. At the time of this review, I have not yet read any of her other works; so based on that, I rate this book two stars.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    First: Some questions that went through my head while reading this.
    1. If we lived in a collective society, how would we experience or ignore certain events that come to pass that would feel abnormal or alien to us?
    2. Would the mind automatically wonder of things forbidden? or would this happen to only a few? (like the main character and what he thinks is his curse).
    3. Is this society possible? could it ever exist? Are we already living in a society where this is happening (in certain ways)?

    To be someone without an identity, a mindless herd. I put myself in the shoes of the main character and threw myself into this word as best I could... and I found it to be terrifying to think of. Thinking of it, I realize that out society has many similarities to the world and characters within the story. Going day to day, doing the same thing, without original thought or identity is something that happens all the time. But the question is... how much does original thought and identity really matter? If looked at on a whole, our existence matter very little once our time has ended. We believe it's important to have our own voice and ideas but in the end it plays a part only DURING our existence in the here and now. If you put religion or spiritual beliefs into the equation then the view will change but without those things there is hardly a reason for doing anything or experiencing anything.

    I do not like feeling this way about life and tend to avoid if fairly successfully. This book brought those questions and thoughts through my mind again. It is just another way of looking at our existence and trying to make meaning of it. This is not to say it is the truth behind our humanity and the meaning of life.... nothing. It should be tread lightly lest you take it's subject matter too closely to your heart and mind.

    The books world is a nightmare. It is the type of society that I have nightmares about. Having no free will, no identity. Where is the reason for life? Everything is a machine, no reason for anything. It touches on many topics that I fear from my own thoughts. It was hard to read only because it brought those fears around again. On the other hand, I put myself into the world and felt the excitement of discovery, of seeing familiar things in a new light. Of appreciating what we have in the world around us and not wanting more then what is usual. All these things I have been reminded of through this book. I highly recommend it but caution those who will take those subjects and brood on them... I know it can be done and it's not easy to handle. Stay away, if you are one of those few.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This is on of Ayn Rand's shorter works that encapsulates her ideas about objectivism. I read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school and found them troublingly off-putting. Anthem was no different in that respect. While I sympathize with Rand's emphasis on the importance of individuality, I have trouble with the idea that differences between human beings can and should be used as justification for unequal treatment. Condemning people to street sweeping because they are "less good" in some way than other human beings is no better than condemning people to street sweeping because they do not fit with the dominant culture's idea of "good" people, which is one of the great evils put forth by this novella. I don't think that individual differentiation should be erased by any means, but neither do I think that constructing a social system based on some perception of inherent goodness is an act of justice. Inherent goodness is a relative concept that changes with context and according to the views of the dominant majority. I think there is a middle road to be had here, one that respects individuality and skills without using that respect as an excuse for allowing the suffering of groups deemed less valuable in some way.

    I understand Rand's background coming out of the communist Soviet Union, but I don't think that socialism is the social ill that she paints it as in her works. Socialized medicine seems a very good idea to me, for instance. There is no reason that anyone in this country should not be getting the medical care that they need.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Bureaucrat or bungling idiot? "We" or "I"? I was rooting for our hero in his quest for happiness...foiled at many turns. Only an idiot would miss the individualist theme of this book.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I read this book just a few months ago and at first it wasn't very interesting. It's one of those books you have to keep reading to get into. Towards maybe the second or third chapter, you can't put it down. The story is touching. It tells of a communist society and a boy who's different from everyone else and he knows it. But it's against the law to think you're better than anyone else, even when you absolutely know you are. It's a good story and I recommend it to anyone looking for an interesting story about breaking away from society.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Pulled this out of an old box of books that belongs to DH. While I can appreciate the concept of individualism, this was a little over the top. I'm also not a fan of her atheistic views.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    One of my friends recently asked me to read one of his favorite books, he said though, if I am going to read it I have to read Anthem first. So I agreed and picked up this pretty short book. I adored it. The writing style of this author is so beautiful, she writes in a way that I feel is lost to the modern novel.

    I loved the content of the book. I think that this book feels like a true dystopian. If you are a fan of dystopian fiction and have not read this book, you are missing out. It is written very stylized and very methodical, as the world in the book is. I enjoyed that most of all. I was awwed by this author and already started 'The Fountainhead".
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is a work that has inspired me to live outside the box, to stand for my belief and to live life. This is an excellent work for those who want to believe in something within themselves.
  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    I wanted to like this book. It's quite readable but still awful. I think Ayn Rand is a very interesting character. I'm not an objectivist but I still like Ayn, she just can't write fiction, not at all. I don't mind the 2D characters, it's that the story is so unbelievable. There is quite alot of science in this book and it's clear that Ayn has no idea what she's talking about.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    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 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.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Anthem is a very short, but very packed novel. I read it as sort of an introduction to Ayn Rand, but I think it would have made more sense to have read it after "The Fountainhead."This book, in my mind, takes place at least two hundred years from now and serves as a warning to those who might agree with fountainhead characters such as Ellsworth Toohey (or at least his public philosophy). If said philosophies were to be implemented upon society, then we would indeed have a world just like that of "Anthem."The last twenty or so pages were a bit preachy as Rand lays out some of the fundamental aspects to her philosophy (objectivism). The ending differs from that of most dystopic novels in that it has a happy ending; The protagonist is not squashed by the powers that be. The protagonist escapes to freedom, and devices a plan of changing society. I almost wish Rand had written a sequel to "Anthem," to show the protagonists efforts and how he changed society.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    On a whim, I decided to read Anthem by Ayn Rand. I'd noticed it popping up on Middle School and High School reading lists in recent years. Since this book wasn't part of the reading curriculum in my school years I was curious to read it and see why it was being revisited now. As I started reading I made a couple of early observations. First was the odd usage of point of view and pronouns. If you've read the synopsis or any brief outlines of the book you are aware that this book is set in a dystopia where individualism has been eradicated to the sense that the idea of "I" or "me" has been eliminated. Thus, while the book is written in "first person", it is written in first person "plural." That is, the narrator speaks and writes using "we" to narrate rather than "I." Even as he speaks of actions he did alone, he writes "we" rather than "I." The other observation I made was that of simplicity. The sentence structure and the delivery of ideas and concepts was very blunt and matter of fact. While there were certainly a lot of nuances and details still left to be learned about this world and the people inhabiting it, the sentences and observations were very to the point. As such, Rand's messages quickly became very clear and often felt a little heavy handed and over the top.As you might expect in a world without individualism, I found the characters and the world to lack in terms of depth. Our narrator (whose name was "Equality-7###") was the only character with any depth to him at all and that was presented as an abomination and subversive to society. Indeed, everyone and everything was expected to be precisely the same and completely equal.The story of the book progresses as you might expect with the primary tension being because of the narrator's break from same-ness and the consequences of that break if, and when, it is discovered. With more than a century of dystopic fiction (and a recent resurgence in the past decade), it was fairly easy to predict how things might play out. As a result, the story and the plot obviously aren't the most compelling things about this book.Rather, this book is more a book of philosophy. As the title suggests, this could be seen as a sort of celebration or eulogy. This book is meant as a way for readers to forge their own personal "anthem" in celebration of their individualism and rights to be their own person. The philosophies presented by this book are natural expressions of the author's personal struggles in Russia and her opposition to Communism. But why might this novel be finding its way back onto school desks in America in the 21st century? Without getting too political, I can see a couple of reasons.First, as I mentioned above there's been a recent growth in the popularity of dystopian fiction. Kids are latching onto this genre and devouring it. Schools can attempt to tap into this popularity by prescribing dystopian literature as part of the curriculum. But the schools will likely want to steer clear of work that is too violent or racy. As a result, we find a book like Anthem that contains almost no violence or anything else to push it beyond a "PG" rating.Secondly, and I think this speaks somewhat to the popularity of dystopian novels now generally, people are more and more dissatisfied with the state of things and are seeking ways to analyze and overcome the problems they see within society. Studying this and other dystopian novels is a way to have a "safe" conversation about a fictional society and then to ponder the potential relation to the real world and our out thoughts and ideals.Another thought occurred to me while reading...one of strong familiarity. As I read, I kept finding myself thinking of other novels, most particularly The Giver by Lois Lowry. Knowing that The Giver frequently shows up as school reading, I could see lesson plans reading both novels and then writing papers or doing presentations comparing and contrasting the two novels or perhaps writing their own short story dystopia.Curious as to if Anthem had influenced The Giver, I did a few searches and found this post from Lois Lowry speaking in response to claims of similarities (or outright plagiarism) that she sometimes receives. As I've often pointed out to people, there are few stories/movies/etc. that I would call 100% original. Everything has similarities somewhere. And when you look within very specific genres you will likely find even more similarities. In my mind, these similarities don't suggest plagiarism but rather that two (or more) individuals had similar ideas that they presented in similar ways. Sometimes the timing and the similarities are uncanny (I remember discussions when the movies "A Bug's Life" and "Antz" were released so closely together...while high level ideas had similarities, there were plenty of differences). In cases where an author has experienced a previous work, there are sometimes even more similarities. I think an author should be aware of this but if the author has an idea they want to share in their own way, they should do so. That's my long-winded way of saying that you shouldn't shout " plagiarism" unless an author is blatantly and obviously copying something without paying homage or presenting their own ideas and concepts. Overall, I found Anthem to be a thoughtful read. The story and characters were naturally flat but the ideas and concepts were interesting even if the author really beat you over the head with them. As to the relevance of this story in our modern era of personal freedoms, there is still plenty of space for improvement even in the most open societies. As a piece of literature and philosophy, we can learn from Anthem and use it to inspire conversations moving forward. While it's certainly not the most eloquent or profound piece of writing, it is a worthwhile read and gives good food for thought.***3 out of 5 stars
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is the first Ayn Rand book I've ever read. I'm currently reading The Fountainhead as well.I've been aware of Ayn Rand's views on collectivism, capitalism, and objectivism for many years now and I share her beliefs and ideology.Anthem is a very simple story, I read the whole book in about two hours. It's the story of a man who grows up being constantly punished for thinking for himself. The concepts of "I" and self are completly forbidden in this mass collective society.I love Miss Rand's style of writing and the great use of metaphor and imagery. The protagonist, Equality 7-2521's discovery of electricity and light describes the underlying theme that the collective mind lives in darkness and ignorance. It is the individual that matters, the individual that discovers and invents, the individual that creates.How poignant it is to think that this book, written in the 30's, really speaks to our day and our society's slow migration towards collectivism. It's a frightening wake up call for anyone who wishes to remain free from slavery. In Ayn Rand's own words, from the forward - "People who want slavery should have the grace to call it by it's true name. Collectivism is slavery."
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    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 with the demise of the self.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    An interesting critique of socialism; probably best not to try and base a neo-conservative agenda on it though.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Bland, flat, simplistic, primitive account of dystopian government and the conflict between individual vs. the collective. Read Huxley or Orwell instead.

Book preview

Anthem - Ayn Rand

DOVER · THRIFT · EDITIONS

ANTHEM

Ayn Rand

DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC.

MINEOLA, NEW YORK

DOVER THRIFT EDITIONS

General Editor: Mary Carolyn Waldrep

Editor of this Volume: Alison Daurio

Bibliographical Note

This Dover edition, first published in 2014, is an unabridged republication of the work originally published by Pamphleteers, Inc., Los Angeles, California, in 1946.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rand, Ayn.

Anthem / Ayn Rand.

      pages cm

eISBN-13: 978-0-486-78271-3

1. Men—Psychology—Fiction. 2. Individuality—Fiction. 3. Time travel—Fiction. 4. Psychological fiction. 5. Science fiction. I. Title.

PS3535.A547A7 2013

813'.52—dc23

2013023795

Manufactured in the United States by Courier Corporation

49277X01     2014

www.doverpublications.com

AUTHOR’S FOREWORD

THIS STORY WAS WRITTEN IN 1937.

I have edited it for this publication, but have confined the editing to its style; I have reworded some passages and cut out some excessive language. No idea or incident was added or omitted; the theme, content and structure are untouched. The story remains as it was. I have lifted its face, but not its spine or spirit; these did not need lifting.

Some of those who read the story when it was first written, told me that I was unfair to the ideals of collectivism; this was not, they said, what collectivism preaches or intends; collectivists do not mean or advocate such things; nobody advocates them.

I shall merely point out that the slogan Production for use and not for profit is now accepted by most men as a commonplace, and a commonplace stating a proper, desirable goal. If any intelligible meaning can be discerned in that slogan at all, what is it, if not the idea that the motive of a man’s work must be the need of others, not his own need, desire or gain?

Compulsory labor conscription is now practiced or advocated in every country on earth. What is it based on, if not the idea that the state is best qualified to decide where a man can be useful to others, such usefulness being the only consideration, and that his own aims, desires or happiness should be ignored as of no importance?

We have Councils of Vocations, Councils of Eugenics, every possible kind of Council, including a World Council—and if these do not as yet hold total power over us, is it from lack of intention?

Social gains, social aims, social objectives have become the daily bromides of our language. The necessity of a social justification for all activities and all existence is now taken for granted. There is no proposal outrageous enough but what its author can get a respectful hearing and approbation if he claims that in some undefined way it is for the common good.

Some might think—though I don’t—that nine years ago there was some excuse for men not to see the direction in which the world was going. Today, the evidence is so blatant that no excuse can be claimed by anyone any longer. Those who refuse to see it now are neither blind nor innocent.

The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn’t mean this!"

Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ulimate consequences to which these principles will lead.

They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

—AYN RAND.

April, 1946

Contents

Author’s Foreword

Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

Chapter V

Chapter VI

Chapter VII

Chapter VIII

Chapter IX

Chapter X

Chapter XI

Chapter XII

I

IT IS A SIN TO WRITE THIS. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!

But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.

It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head.

The walls are cracked and water runs upon them in thin threads without sound, black and glistening as blood. We stole the candle

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1