<p>I had to read anthem for school.. thought it was stupid and a waste of time... yeah let's read this book about a dystopian society run by an oppressive government (i.e., thought-police). but equality succeeds in the end, making his own "master race" etc... that was stupid, but the worst part is it FAILS to show how destructive such a society is. didn't equality SUCCEED? yes, beat the system. read 1984 instead. 1984 is a) a good book and b) actually shows how destructive the system is since winston was "converted" to the system</p>
<p>dear god.</p>
<p>do you even know what anthem was about?</p>
<p>it is about man's triumph in his individualism. Ayn Rand did not write the book as another 1984 -- she expects you to logically recognize the destructiveness of the system to one's individuality. Yes, Equality succeeds, but not to make a "master race" but to be able to live as he wants with freedom.</p>
<p>her purpose was to illustrate her characterization of man as a heroic being. of man's triumph over depravity. What you are advocating is flawed heroes all around...for them to give in.</p>
<p>Not everyone gives in.</p>
<p>Authors decide their own purpose.</p>
<p>I agree 1984 is a good book. However, Rand is not Orwell. Anthem is not 1984.</p>
<p>I picked up Atlas shrugged once.</p>
<p>First off, let me just say that I'm not dumb. I'm not gonna go spout off SAT or IQ scores or whatever, because that's lame. I didn't quit reading the book because it was too hard for me to understand.</p>
<p>I quit because that book sucked.</p>
<p>I have a bunch of friends who love her philosophies and stuff, so I gave it a try. When I realized the first 30 pages sucked, they said, "the beginning is kinda slow, give it a chance." So i did. For another 50 or so pages. Still sucked. So I quit.</p>
<p>Her writing style is convoluted and full of unecessary junk. Her philosophies might be good (I don't think I ever got to them), but if she can't string a sentence together and convey them effectively, she's a faiure as a writer.</p>
<p>her writing style is bad? what would you consider an example of good?</p>
<p>coledoesntcare--What you said is somewhat ironic, because Ayn Rand prided herself on her writing which she thought was very concise and to the point, in other words--very objective, which is also the title she gives to her philosophy, objectivism. Thus, she, along with many others, thought her writing was in tune with her philosophy--which is never a bad thing.</p>
<p>And even though her philosophy may be questionable, I have personally never heard nor read any criticism about her writing. It is indeed concise yet filled with imagery that can cause you to play a clear movie of the book in your head. In one of her nonfiction books titled "The Art of Fiction," she actually compares her writing with some of the greatest writers of all time, including Alexandre Dumas, William Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, Victor Hugo and etc. by actually using excerpts, which makes it easy for any reader to see how smooth and beautiful her writing really is, and so I highly recommend you (and any other literature fan) read it (it's pretty short) if you ever have the time.</p>
<p>1984 *** are you 4 real? Read Anthem again!</p>
<p>Agreed, Anthem is much more different from 1984, you probably didn't get the major theme since you only read an eighth of the novel. But I highly suggest reading Fountainhead first, it doesn't really start off slow at all, so it should get you hooked from the start.</p>
<p>no, not to give in, but to try and fail, demonstrating how destructive the system is. equality succeeded in the end, so how is the system destructive? or at least, AS destructive as rand might want to have you believe? also, are you saying there's no theme of individualism in 1984? LOL... then what was that whole thought crime thing about? or newspeak? yes, 1984 is a little bit more of totalitarianism and not 100% about individualism, but the two novels are similar in the collectivism caused by the totalitarianism. aside from that, I didn't find anthem an enjoyable read, nor am I fan of ayn rand. I didn't find her work very exciting or profound, nor am I interested in reading her other stuff</p>
<p>Well, I think what Taggart was trying to say is that 1984 is more political, and focuses on the politics as it is, whereas Anthem focuses not as much on the collective group as does 1984, but rather on the individual MUCH MUCH more. The aim in Anthem is not to see how a group can control individuals, but to see how an individual can control him/herself in any given condition. That is her complete philosophy. While it may seem to be a subtle difference to you, it is in reality a grand one to those who know Rand's philosophy fundamentally.</p>
<p>Not to mention 1984 ends tragically, since Orwell's point was to warn the public. If it ended positively, of course the point of warning would be made meaningless. But Rand's books are all that of the romantic school of art, where all endings are positive to show that man can accomplish ANYTHING under any circumstances. Such is why Rand severely criticizes certain writers like Shakespeare, for their naturalistic endings in which they define human nature as limited. Ayn Rand feels it is limitless. This spurs lots of controversy, but I just added this to additionally show how 1984 and Anthem differ.</p>
<p>^ yes.</p>
<p>You know, you're an interesting character, ny.</p>
<p>Why, I think that is the first compliment (at least I hope it was one) I have ever heard out of you (to me, of course). I'll just have to put this on the record...and thank you.</p>
<p>I've only made one snipe towards you. =]</p>
<p>...that I remember anyhow.</p>
<p>Let's see, there was that cartoon...and you reprimanded me for spamming. Yeah, I think it was only two. But then I jeered you for giving free SAT tutoring. So minus one, and you only have one one me, but then this compliment adds to another minus one, and so we are even. Good. And don't reprimand me for spamming this thread, 'cause I promise I won't do it again, I was just following up on your post. But it's good, we're even.</p>
<p>The kids in the English class I TA for are reading The Lord of the Flies right now. They all read it already, in middle school, before most were old enough to get more than the basic facts of the plot from it. It's on the curriculum because books with boys are supposed to appeal more to boys. </p>
<p>The students are in 10th grade now, and they've done extensive serious work with novels. The teacher is working on getting them to see the author's point and how he expresses it. </p>
<p>What's my point? </p>
<p>Many of the students are suprised at how much they like the book the second time around, now that they see a deeper and more interesting level of meaning that they didn't realize was there the first time around. So maybe, awb1989, you're just not "there" yet. Try not to take it as an insult, because it's not intended that way. When people complain about the quality of "classics" as works of literature, I think it's usually because they're not ready to read them yet. They just havent' tapped into that deeper and more interesting level of the book that some of the students in my English class have found.</p>
<p>nyjunior-</p>
<p>The hundred or so pages I read just failed to spark my interest. All of the diehard fans I talked to (all two of them, but still...) admitted that there were slow parts, and that sometimes the book could be frustrating but the philosophies were worth sticking around for. It turned me off that people who liked the book and reccomended it to me had to apologize for it.</p>
<p>And i still maintain that her writing style is convoluted. There was way too much uneccessary description, too many adjectives and adverbs and not enough nouns and verbs. A good writer knows when to shut up and get to the point. She can say that she has a direct writing style all she wants, but that does not make it so.</p>
<p>Maybe I picked this one up at the wrong time. The past few years, I've been reading alot of minimalist books. Vonnegut's stuff is amazing. I'm a diehard Palahniuk fan. I've read a few of Amy Hempel's short stories, and I love them, but my library doesn't carry her books and I'm poor...</p>
<p>The people who can say the most with the least amount of words are the true master. hemingway was dead on with his theory of omission, and Atlas Shrugged was a beast of a book. I'm not sure she omitted a thing.</p>
<p>coledoesntcare-</p>
<p>nyjunior doesn't care, Taggart already complimented me, and I am happy-->:)</p>
<p>And just because the book is thick (I think that's what you meant with Atlas Shrugged, not sure though) doesn't mean that it is wordy, it means that there is a lot of plot.</p>
<p>Also, don't be afraid of descriptive writing my friend. I suppose you do not like Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas, or Leo Tolstoy either, huh? I've read books by all of them and Rand certainly is not any more wordy than these three legends.</p>
<p>of course rand has more to say about individualism than orwell. but I don't like rand, and don't find her work engaging in the least.</p>
<p>Elorax- I don't get your point. hm, let's see, I've read Anthem, 1984, Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, and War and Peace in school (among others, those just come to mind at the moment). I thoroughly enjoyed the Dostoevsky books and 1984. War and Peace was appreciable, though I wasn't a huge fan of it. I felt Anthem was a waste of my time. Anyway, there's no way you can compare Rand's work to giants of world literature like Dostoevsky. And if I re-read it now and still didn't like it, you could say I'm still not "ready" for it... that philosophy could go on until the day I die, I'd rather not waste my time with it.</p>
<p>If that's the way you feel, then don't waste your time with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, there's no way you can compare Rand's work to giants of world literature like Dostoevsky.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>but he can, and did.</p>
<p>I don't know what sparked off Anthem, and I didn't really like it all that much. However, I don't think Rand wrote it for stylistic effect. If you really want to read a shorter book that showcases her literary talent, there's We the Living. However, I doubt you care enough to do so.</p>
<p>So I really have no idea why you're on this thread.</p>
<p>It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.</p>
<p>Said awb1989: </p>
<p>"that philosophy could go on until the day I die, I'd rather not waste my time with it." </p>
<p>I agree with Taggart, then don't waste your time.</p>