What do you think?
Rate this book
We the Living
Ayn Rand's first published novel, a timeless story that explores the struggles of the individual against the state in Soviet Russia.
First published in 1936, 'We the Living' portrays the impact of the Russian Revolution on three human beings who demand the right to live their own lives and pursue their own happiness. It tells of a young woman’s passionate love, held like a fortress against the corrupting evil of a totalitarian state.
'We the Living' is not a story of politics, but of the men and women who have to struggle for existence behind the Red banners and slogans. It is a picture of what those slogans do to human beings. What happens to the defiant ones? What happens to those who succumb?
Against a vivid panorama of political revolution and personal revolt, Ayn Rand shows what the theory of socialism means in practice.
Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was born in pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg to a prosperous Jewish family as Alisa Rosenbaum. When the Bolsheviks requisitioned her family's business, they fled to the Crimea, and she later moved to America as soon as she was offered the chance. After beginning her writing career with screenplays, she published the novel 'We the Living' in 1936. Her status was later established with 'The Fountainhead' (1943) and her magnus opus, 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957). Also a prolific non-fiction writer, as well as the founder of the philosophical school of Objectivism, she has had an unequivocal impact on both literature and culture, regardless of one's perspective of her works.
First published in 1936, 'We the Living' portrays the impact of the Russian Revolution on three human beings who demand the right to live their own lives and pursue their own happiness. It tells of a young woman’s passionate love, held like a fortress against the corrupting evil of a totalitarian state.
'We the Living' is not a story of politics, but of the men and women who have to struggle for existence behind the Red banners and slogans. It is a picture of what those slogans do to human beings. What happens to the defiant ones? What happens to those who succumb?
Against a vivid panorama of political revolution and personal revolt, Ayn Rand shows what the theory of socialism means in practice.
Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was born in pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg to a prosperous Jewish family as Alisa Rosenbaum. When the Bolsheviks requisitioned her family's business, they fled to the Crimea, and she later moved to America as soon as she was offered the chance. After beginning her writing career with screenplays, she published the novel 'We the Living' in 1936. Her status was later established with 'The Fountainhead' (1943) and her magnus opus, 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957). Also a prolific non-fiction writer, as well as the founder of the philosophical school of Objectivism, she has had an unequivocal impact on both literature and culture, regardless of one's perspective of her works.
464 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1936
About the author
Ayn Rand
490 books9,442 followersPolemical novels, such as
The Fountainhead
(1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,626 reviews
May 7, 2007
Here's the thing: this book is fucking awesome. I'm a big fan of this theme - the whole "individual vs. the state" story. I think most of the books I've read in this vein were descended from "1984", but this is without doubt my favorite execution of the familiar thematic focus. This book was just so evocative for me; it did an incredible job of capturing the crushing force of living under a sociopolitical regime that cares not for the wants or needs of the individual. I found something incredibly uplifting about this tale of unrelenting downward pressure. It was simply...beautiful.
I've recommended it to i-don't-know-how-many people, and very few people I've ever met have read it, but this book is one of my top 3, no doubt. I've never even read any of Ayn Rand's other books, which I guess makes me weird, but if I had to choose one book to keep me company while I was tossed into some super maximum security prison in the depths of the belly of the beast, it would be this one.
I've recommended it to i-don't-know-how-many people, and very few people I've ever met have read it, but this book is one of my top 3, no doubt. I've never even read any of Ayn Rand's other books, which I guess makes me weird, but if I had to choose one book to keep me company while I was tossed into some super maximum security prison in the depths of the belly of the beast, it would be this one.
March 20, 2008
I just finished this book. My soul has never been so pained by a novel. Very few books affect me like this one did. I cannot explain other than it was so beautifully horrific. I knew very little about Communism or what the USSR was like. It caused so much anger and frustration in me, but the pain comes from the truths that it enlightens about humanity. We are creatures of pain and suffering and joy and and triumph. And no matter what pain we are dealt...we still have the capacity within ourselves to find the beauty and will that makes us go on; life. This is the first Ayn Rand novel I have read. It is her first novel. I would highly recommend this. It is an inventment of your soul, so read this when you have the endurance to enjoy Ayn Rand's We The Living.
February 23, 2022
It could've been great philosophic book, with an amazing picture of post-revolution almost dystopian society. It full of fresh ideas and deep thoughts. But I hate the toxic love story and annoying characters. It's suppose to be a tragedy of human individual against the government, but it turns to be a tragedy of a woman trying to save a man who isn't worth it.
July 20, 2020
"Το "Εμείς οι ζωντανοί" δεν είναι ένα μυθιστόρημα για τη Σοβιετική Ρωσία. Είναι ένα μυθιστόρημα για τον άνθρωπο ενάντια στο κράτος. Κεντρικό θέμα του είναι η ιερότητα της ανθρώπινης ζωής - χρησιμοποιώ τη λέξη ιερότητα όχι με τη μυστικιστική της έννοια, αλλά με την έννοια της υπέρτατης αξίας".
Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, υπάρχει το ερωτικό τρίγωνο των Kira, Leo και Andrei.
Η Kira, η τραγική πρωταγωνίστρια της ιστορίας, ερωτεύεται τον Leo, γιο ενός κυβερνητικά ταπεινωμένου ναύαρχου ο οποίος αντιτάχθηκε στην επανάσταση.
Επειδή βλέπει τον εαυτό του ως πολύ ανώτερο πνευματικά για να βυθιστεί στα επίπεδα κουπόνια
των πεινασμένων και απεγνωσμένων Κομμουνιστών, αρνείται την κομματική πίστη στο σφυροδρέπανο της ελεύθερης καταναγκαστικής θυσίας και παγώνει κάθε προσπάθεια των επαναστατών να τον εντάξουν στην κομματική τους μάστιγα.
Η Κίρα τον θεωρεί τον ιδανικό άνθρωπο. Τον αγαπάει βαθιά, αληθινά, αβίαστα και αφόρητα. Προσπάθησαν να φύγουν από τη χώρα μαζί, αλλά πιάστηκαν στους συντροφικούς σπιούνους που εμπορεύονταν συναλλαγές με την παρέα των δουλέμπορων λαθρομεταναστών, και στέλνονται πίσω, πριν φτάσουν πραγματικά οπουδήποτε.
Ο Andrei είναι ένας σοβαρός κομμουνιστής - μέλος της GPU-
Η Kira τον συναντά στο τεχνικό ινστιτούτο αρχιτεκτονικής και στατικής μηχανικής, που φοιτά αρχικά, μέχρι τις πρώτες συντροφικές εκαθαρρίσεις των πάλαι ποτέ αστικών απογόνων, αυτών που τώρα πρέπει να εκδιωχθούν απο παντού στο όνομα της σοβιετικής πολιτικής και της δικτατορίας του προλεταριάτου.
Με βάση τα όνειρα της, ποθούσε να χτίσει κάποτε ουρανοξύστες απο μέταλλο και γυαλί και γέφυρες απο χάλυβα, τεράστιες και οικουμενικές.
Ισχυρά οχυρά κτίσματα που θα προστάτευαν την ανθρώπινη ανάγκη για αξιοπρέπεια και κτητική ιδιοτέλεια βολικής και διακριτικά ηδονικής, συναισθηματικής απόλαυσης και σαρκικής λαγνείας. Μόρφωση. Έρωτας. Ελευθερία.
Όλα αυτά εκπορευόμενα απο ένα ελεύθερο πνεύμα και μια ψυχή απολυτρωμένη απο χρώματα και προκηρύξεις πληρωμένης αυτοθυσίας.
Σπονδές στον βωμό του μπολσεβικικού ελέγχου που δεν μαρτυρά��ι πόσο θα διαρκέσει, η Kira είναι αδιάφορη στην πολιτική και αγνοεί τους περιορισμούς τόσο του παλαιού καθεστώτος όσο και της νέας κομματικής ιδεολογίας. Είναι νεαρή, ελκυστική χωρίς πολλή προσπάθεια καλλωπισμού, και φοβισμένη.
Σε αντίθεση με πολλές γυναίκες που αισθάνονταν για τους άλλους και φαινομενικά ήθελαν να τους ευχαριστήσουν όλους, η Kira έχει μια ισχυρή αίσθηση ορίων και επιδιώκει να ευχαριστήσει μόνο τον εαυτό της.
Προσπαθεί μάταια να πείσει τον Andrei - που την αγαπάει σαν την αναπνοή του- πως οι λοβοτομημένες ιδέες του περί ανθρώπου και εξάρτησης του απο την αφοσίωση στο κράτος είναι τοξική, ψυχικά πεθαμένη.
Μόνο πολύ αργότερα και όπως πάντα πολύ αργά ...τον πείθει.
Ενάντια σε ένα ζωντανό τραγικό και γκροτέσκο πανόραμα πολιτικής επανάστασης και προσωπικής εξέγερσης, η Ayn Rand δείχνει τι σημαίνει στην πράξη η θεωρία του σοσιαλισμού, του καπιταλισμού, του ολοκληρωτισμού, του φασισμού και του κομμουνισμού. Ελάχιστες οι διαφορές τους, πληθώρα απο αμοιότητες μεταξύ τους. Σε κάθε κατηγορητήριο της κομμουνιστικής προλεταριακής κοινωνίας που βρίθει επο δυνάστες σε κάθε πόστο .
Πόσο πολύ θυμίζει το κλασικό του Όργουελ,
"Animal Farm". Εκείνοι που πιστεύουν ειλικρινά στα ιδανικά και αργοπεθαίνουν στο όνομα της ισοτιμίας
και της αγωνιστικής πάλης υπέρ των αβοήθητων
ψυχών / μαζών, απο θεούς και δαίμονες,
ιερούς ή κολασμένους, σοφούς ή παρανοϊκούς,
ηγέτες ή παρασιτικούς ηγεμόνες πνευματικής μισαλλοδοξίας, αξιωματούχους ή εμμονικούς πατρικίους, φιλοσόφους ή εγκληματίες της ανθρωπότητας, και διάφορες άλλες κατατάξεις στην κλίμακα της υπαρξιακής γραφειοκρατείας, καταλήγουν να αξιοποιηθούν από τους κυνικούς χειριστές της εξουσίας.
Η μαρξιστική ερμηνεία της θρησκείας εφαρμόζεται στη δική του ιδεολογία - ένα οπιούχο για να πείσει τους εκμεταλλευόμενους να ανεχθούν αυτό που διαφορετικά δεν θα ανέχονταν, η Ραντ φαίνεται να λέει ότι είναι καλύτερο να αγκαλιάσουμε την εγωιστική απληστία του καπιταλισμού από την υποκριτική προσποίηση του κομμουνισμού, και μέσα απο αυτά τα καθεστώτα όπου το σύστημα λειτουργεί πάντα προς όφελος τους.
Ένα μεγάλο σώμα από λιγότερους αξιωματούχους και απλούς καθημερινούς ανθρώπους, έχοντας ήδη κυνικά παραιτηθεί από τα υποτιθέμενα ιδανικά του συστήματος, έχουν καταλάβει πώς να χειρίζονται τα πράγματα προς όφελός τους, ενώ ταυτόχρονα αποφεύγουν ευσεβώς τις επιδιώξεις για την λαοκρατική θυσία και ούτω καθεξής, μαθαίνουν να επιβάλλουν επίσημη γνώμη, έγκριτη και κρατική και κραταιά.
Αυτοί οι άνθρωποι, που ισχυρίζονται ότι έχουν την ισχυρότερη πίστη - σε αυτήν την περίπτωση, στην ιερή αξία του λαού - σίγουρα δεν παραιτούνται από το συμφέρον τους υπέρ της αυτοθυσίας.
Αυτή είναι η υπόθεση της ιστορίας. Τι κάνει ο κομμουνισμός στην ψυχή σας; Τι θα κάνει σε οποιαδήποτε χώρα και στους ανθρώπους της.
Συνθλίβει το πνεύμα τους. Καταστρέφει το άτομο με τις ελπίδες του, κάθε όνειρο και επιθυμία.
Μα ναι, φασισμός είναι, έντονα κόκκινος,
με πέτρινες σκιές βράχων βουλιαγμένων στους βάλτους απο αίμα, ατσάλι, λάσπη και εμβατήρια.
Απο τα κόκαλα των νεκρών στα έλη της Πετρούπολης, θαυμάστε τη χώρα που χτίστηκε απο νεκρούς.
Τέλεια. Τώρα έχετε μόνο τρεις επιλογές όταν ζείτε σε έναν κόσμο που συντρίβει το Εγώ σας.
Όταν δεν μένει τίποτα.
1) Αυτοκτονία - τελικά έσπασες, δεν σε κατηγορώ.
2. Φραγή εγκεφαλικής λειτουργείας σε νεκρώσιμη κατάσταση. . Το μόνο πράγμα που έχετε, αυτό που
δεν μπορούν να πάρουν είναι το μυαλό σας.
Έτσι, πνίγετε σε ωκεάνια βάθη και υπερβατικούς ορίζοντες, κάνετε οτιδήποτε για να ξεχάσετε αυτό που δεν θα έχετε ποτέ. Δεν συμβιβάζεστε, δεν λυγίζετε,
αλλά σπάτε. Κομμάτια.
Όποιος κι αν ήσουν χάθηκε, εξαφανίστηκε μεταμορφώθηκε σε ένα άδειο κέλυφος υπαρξιακού χάους.
Είναι σαν μια άλλη μορφή αυτοκτονίας.
3)Φεύγετε, προσπαθήστε να δραπετεύσετε. Δεν συμβιβάζονται αυτά, εκείνα και τα άλλα.
Ούτε αυτό που πιστεύετε, λυγίζετε ή σπάτε.
Δεν χάνετε την ελπίδα όμως ούτε παραδίδετε τη ζωή που γνωρίζετε, είναι εκεί έξω,λίγο μακριά, μα δεν πειράζει, είναι για εσάς. Τρέχετε μέχρι να μην μπορείτε να τρέξετε πια και να ξεφύγετε ή να πεθάνετε προσπαθώντας. Είτε έτσι είτε αλλιώς παραμένετε ανεξέλεγκτοι.
Κανένα από αυτά τα πράγματα δεν επιτρέπεται σε μια συλλογική κοινωνία. Κάθε ιδέα, σκέψη, ανάγκη, οτιδήποτε σε κάνει άτομο, αποκλείεται από εσένα.
Κάθε αναπνοή που παίρνεις δεν είναι δική σου.
Ανήκει στους συντρόφους σου τους αδελφούς και τις αδελφές σου. Δεν υπάρχει «εγώ» στον σοσιαλισμό, τον κομμουνισμό, τον ολοκληρωτισμό, ανεξάρτητα από την ετικέτα που του δίνετε.
Υπάρχει μόνο εμείς.
Βασικά όμως είναι μια ιστορία αγάπης.
Δύο εντελώς διαφορετικοί άντρες με διαφορετικές ζωές και φαινομενικά δύο πολύ διαφορετικές φιλοσοφίες για τη ζωή.
Το μόνο που έχουν κοινό είναι η «ψυχή» τους
(όχι μια πνευματική ψυχή »). Αυτοί οι δύο άντρες, ψυχογραφούν τη ζωή που χάνεται, ο τρόπος με τον οποίο η πράξη τους γίνεται συνή��εια , αντιδρούν και αγωνίζονται, μα βλέπουν τη ζωή τελείως διαφορετικά και ίσως είναι αυτό που τους προσελκύει στην ίδια ματαιότητα.
Όταν η χώρα τους, τα πολιτικά μέτρα,
τα α��τισυστημικά συστήματα αφαιρούν
τα πάντα, ό,τι ήταν δικό τους ,τους χρησιμοποιεί ως παράδειγμα της χειρότερης ανθρωπότητας,
αφαιρεί την ελευθερία τους, την ατομική βούληση να είστε, αλλά ποιοι να είστε, πείτε τι σκέφτεστε, αλλά ψιθυριστά και κρυφά, συμμορφωθείτε στις υποδείξεις του Σοβιέτ αλλά στην ΕΣΣΔ κάνετε ό, τι θέλετε, ζήστε όπως θέλετε να ζήσετε ... τι κάνετε, γιατί αδιαφορείτε, γιατί παγώνετε τις σκέψεις πριν γίνουν λόγια, γιατί σκύβετε το κεφάλι, γιατί είναι μακριά και μακάρια η Σιβηρία, γιατί αρρωσταίνετε, γιατί, μα γιατί πεθαίνετε, πριν το εγκρίνει το Κόμμα ;
Είναι ειλικρινά λυπηρό το γεγονός ότι παρόλο που ο κολεκτιβισμός είχε αποτύχει καθ 'όλη τη διάρκεια της ιστορίας, ωστόσο εξακολουθούμε να βλέπουμε χώρες να επαινούν τέτοια στέρηση της ζωής, όπως παρέχεται απο τη μια κοινωνία στην άλλη. Ρωσία ή Βενεζουέλα ποια διαφορά να βρω.
Μεγάλη πλούσιες χώρες, έγιναν κάποτε τίποτα, καιροσκοπικοί οραγανισμοί, κάτι λιγότερο από μια αυταρχική αναρχία.
Κανείς δεν είχει σχεδόν καμία πιθανότητα να γίνει αυτόνομο, παραγωγικό άτομο, εκτός εάν υποκλιθεί
στις κυβερνητικές αρχές.
Τα πάντα, από τα κοινά αγαθά έως τις μερίδες τροφίμων, γίνονταν πιο σπάνια με την πάροδο του χρόνου. Και αν εναντιωθείς στο σύστημα, υπάρχει η εκτέλεση καθηκόντων απο την εθνική φρουρά.
Σε άλλα νέα, και αφού έβγαλα τα εσώψυχα μου, και μπράβο σας αν φτάσατε να διαβάσετε το παραλήρημα μου ως εδώ, ( σας αγαπώ)
σκούπισα κάποια λίγα δάκρυα, και είπα
υποτίθεται ότι είναι αυτοβιογραφικό αυτό το υπέροχο βιβλίο, στην πραγματικότητα είναι μια ιστορία αγάπης ως επί το πλείστον και η παλαιότερη εκδοχή της φιλοσοφίας της εφαρμόστηκε στη μυθοπλασία, βασισμένη πολύ χαλαρά στις εμπειρίες της Ayn προτού απομακρυνθεί από την αντισημιτική κολεκτιβιστική Ρωσία, καταπιεσμένη κατά τη διάρκεια του τσάρου και περισσότερο μετά την κομμουνιστική επανάσταση.
Καλή ανάγνωση
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.
Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, υπάρχει το ερωτικό τρίγωνο των Kira, Leo και Andrei.
Η Kira, η τραγική πρωταγωνίστρια της ιστορίας, ερωτεύεται τον Leo, γιο ενός κυβερνητικά ταπεινωμένου ναύαρχου ο οποίος αντιτάχθηκε στην επανάσταση.
Επειδή βλέπει τον εαυτό του ως πολύ ανώτερο πνευματικά για να βυθιστεί στα επίπεδα κουπόνια
των πεινασμένων και απεγνωσμένων Κομμουνιστών, αρνείται την κομματική πίστη στο σφυροδρέπανο της ελεύθερης καταναγκαστικής θυσίας και παγώνει κάθε προσπάθεια των επαναστατών να τον εντάξουν στην κομματική τους μάστιγα.
Η Κίρα τον θεωρεί τον ιδανικό άνθρωπο. Τον αγαπάει βαθιά, αληθινά, αβίαστα και αφόρητα. Προσπάθησαν να φύγουν από τη χώρα μαζί, αλλά πιάστηκαν στους συντροφικούς σπιούνους που εμπορεύονταν συναλλαγές με την παρέα των δουλέμπορων λαθρομεταναστών, και στέλνονται πίσω, πριν φτάσουν πραγματικά οπουδήποτε.
Ο Andrei είναι ένας σοβαρός κομμουνιστής - μέλος της GPU-
Η Kira τον συναντά στο τεχνικό ινστιτούτο αρχιτεκτονικής και στατικής μηχανικής, που φοιτά αρχικά, μέχρι τις πρώτες συντροφικές εκαθαρρίσεις των πάλαι ποτέ αστικών απογόνων, αυτών που τώρα πρέπει να εκδιωχθούν απο παντού στο όνομα της σοβιετικής πολιτικής και της δικτατορίας του προλεταριάτου.
Με βάση τα όνειρα της, ποθούσε να χτίσει κάποτε ουρανοξύστες απο μέταλλο και γυαλί και γέφυρες απο χάλυβα, τεράστιες και οικουμενικές.
Ισχυρά οχυρά κτίσματα που θα προστάτευαν την ανθρώπινη ανάγκη για αξιοπρέπεια και κτητική ιδιοτέλεια βολικής και διακριτικά ηδονικής, συναισθηματικής απόλαυσης και σαρκικής λαγνείας. Μόρφωση. Έρωτας. Ελευθερία.
Όλα αυτά εκπορευόμενα απο ένα ελεύθερο πνεύμα και μια ψυχή απολυτρωμένη απο χρώματα και προκηρύξεις πληρωμένης αυτοθυσίας.
Σπονδές στον βωμό του μπολσεβικικού ελέγχου που δεν μαρτυρά��ι πόσο θα διαρκέσει, η Kira είναι αδιάφορη στην πολιτική και αγνοεί τους περιορισμούς τόσο του παλαιού καθεστώτος όσο και της νέας κομματικής ιδεολογίας. Είναι νεαρή, ελκυστική χωρίς πολλή προσπάθεια καλλωπισμού, και φοβισμένη.
Σε αντίθεση με πολλές γυναίκες που αισθάνονταν για τους άλλους και φαινομενικά ήθελαν να τους ευχαριστήσουν όλους, η Kira έχει μια ισχυρή αίσθηση ορίων και επιδιώκει να ευχαριστήσει μόνο τον εαυτό της.
Προσπαθεί μάταια να πείσει τον Andrei - που την αγαπάει σαν την αναπνοή του- πως οι λοβοτομημένες ιδέες του περί ανθρώπου και εξάρτησης του απο την αφοσίωση στο κράτος είναι τοξική, ψυχικά πεθαμένη.
Μόνο πολύ αργότερα και όπως πάντα πολύ αργά ...τον πείθει.
Ενάντια σε ένα ζωντανό τραγικό και γκροτέσκο πανόραμα πολιτικής επανάστασης και προσωπικής εξέγερσης, η Ayn Rand δείχνει τι σημαίνει στην πράξη η θεωρία του σοσιαλισμού, του καπιταλισμού, του ολοκληρωτισμού, του φασισμού και του κομμουνισμού. Ελάχιστες οι διαφορές τους, πληθώρα απο αμοιότητες μεταξύ τους. Σε κάθε κατηγορητήριο της κομμουνιστικής προλεταριακής κοινωνίας που βρίθει επο δυνάστες σε κάθε πόστο .
Πόσο πολύ θυμίζει το κλασικό του Όργουελ,
"Animal Farm". Εκείνοι που πιστεύουν ειλικρινά στα ιδανικά και αργοπεθαίνουν στο όνομα της ισοτιμίας
και της αγωνιστικής πάλης υπέρ των αβοήθητων
ψυχών / μαζών, απο θεούς και δαίμονες,
ιερούς ή κολασμένους, σοφούς ή παρανοϊκούς,
ηγέτες ή παρασιτικούς ηγεμόνες πνευματικής μισαλλοδοξίας, αξιωματούχους ή εμμονικούς πατρικίους, φιλοσόφους ή εγκληματίες της ανθρωπότητας, και διάφορες άλλες κατατάξεις στην κλίμακα της υπαρξιακής γραφειοκρατείας, καταλήγουν να αξιοποιηθούν από τους κυνικούς χειριστές της εξουσίας.
Η μαρξιστική ερμηνεία της θρησκείας εφαρμόζεται στη δική του ιδεολογία - ένα οπιούχο για να πείσει τους εκμεταλλευόμενους να ανεχθούν αυτό που διαφορετικά δεν θα ανέχονταν, η Ραντ φαίνεται να λέει ότι είναι καλύτερο να αγκαλιάσουμε την εγωιστική απληστία του καπιταλισμού από την υποκριτική προσποίηση του κομμουνισμού, και μέσα απο αυτά τα καθεστώτα όπου το σύστημα λειτουργεί πάντα προς όφελος τους.
Ένα μεγάλο σώμα από λιγότερους αξιωματούχους και απλούς καθημερινούς ανθρώπους, έχοντας ήδη κυνικά παραιτηθεί από τα υποτιθέμενα ιδανικά του συστήματος, έχουν καταλάβει πώς να χειρίζονται τα πράγματα προς όφελός τους, ενώ ταυτόχρονα αποφεύγουν ευσεβώς τις επιδιώξεις για την λαοκρατική θυσία και ούτω καθεξής, μαθαίνουν να επιβάλλουν επίσημη γνώμη, έγκριτη και κρατική και κραταιά.
Αυτοί οι άνθρωποι, που ισχυρίζονται ότι έχουν την ισχυρότερη πίστη - σε αυτήν την περίπτωση, στην ιερή αξία του λαού - σίγουρα δεν παραιτούνται από το συμφέρον τους υπέρ της αυτοθυσίας.
Αυτή είναι η υπόθεση της ιστορίας. Τι κάνει ο κομμουνισμός στην ψυχή σας; Τι θα κάνει σε οποιαδήποτε χώρα και στους ανθρώπους της.
Συνθλίβει το πνεύμα τους. Καταστρέφει το άτομο με τις ελπίδες του, κάθε όνειρο και επιθυμία.
Μα ναι, φασισμός είναι, έντονα κόκκινος,
με πέτρινες σκιές βράχων βουλιαγμένων στους βάλτους απο αίμα, ατσάλι, λάσπη και εμβατήρια.
Απο τα κόκαλα των νεκρών στα έλη της Πετρούπολης, θαυμάστε τη χώρα που χτίστηκε απο νεκρούς.
Τέλεια. Τώρα έχετε μόνο τρεις επιλογές όταν ζείτε σε έναν κόσμο που συντρίβει το Εγώ σας.
Όταν δεν μένει τίποτα.
1) Αυτοκτονία - τελικά έσπασες, δεν σε κατηγορώ.
2. Φραγή εγκεφαλικής λειτουργείας σε νεκρώσιμη κατάσταση. . Το μόνο πράγμα που έχετε, αυτό που
δεν μπορούν να πάρουν είναι το μυαλό σας.
Έτσι, πνίγετε σε ωκεάνια βάθη και υπερβατικούς ορίζοντες, κάνετε οτιδήποτε για να ξεχάσετε αυτό που δεν θα έχετε ποτέ. Δεν συμβιβάζεστε, δεν λυγίζετε,
αλλά σπάτε. Κομμάτια.
Όποιος κι αν ήσουν χάθηκε, εξαφανίστηκε μεταμορφώθηκε σε ένα άδειο κέλυφος υπαρξιακού χάους.
Είναι σαν μια άλλη μορφή αυτοκτονίας.
3)Φεύγετε, προσπαθήστε να δραπετεύσετε. Δεν συμβιβάζονται αυτά, εκείνα και τα άλλα.
Ούτε αυτό που πιστεύετε, λυγίζετε ή σπάτε.
Δεν χάνετε την ελπίδα όμως ούτε παραδίδετε τη ζωή που γνωρίζετε, είναι εκεί έξω,λίγο μακριά, μα δεν πειράζει, είναι για εσάς. Τρέχετε μέχρι να μην μπορείτε να τρέξετε πια και να ξεφύγετε ή να πεθάνετε προσπαθώντας. Είτε έτσι είτε αλλιώς παραμένετε ανεξέλεγκτοι.
Κανένα από αυτά τα πράγματα δεν επιτρέπεται σε μια συλλογική κοινωνία. Κάθε ιδέα, σκέψη, ανάγκη, οτιδήποτε σε κάνει άτομο, αποκλείεται από εσένα.
Κάθε αναπνοή που παίρνεις δεν είναι δική σου.
Ανήκει στους συντρόφους σου τους αδελφούς και τις αδελφές σου. Δεν υπάρχει «εγώ» στον σοσιαλισμό, τον κομμουνισμό, τον ολοκληρωτισμό, ανεξάρτητα από την ετικέτα που του δίνετε.
Υπάρχει μόνο εμείς.
Βασικά όμως είναι μια ιστορία αγάπης.
Δύο εντελώς διαφορετικοί άντρες με διαφορετικές ζωές και φαινομενικά δύο πολύ διαφορετικές φιλοσοφίες για τη ζωή.
Το μόνο που έχουν κοινό είναι η «ψυχή» τους
(όχι μια πνευματική ψυχή »). Αυτοί οι δύο άντρες, ψυχογραφούν τη ζωή που χάνεται, ο τρόπος με τον οποίο η πράξη τους γίνεται συνή��εια , αντιδρούν και αγωνίζονται, μα βλέπουν τη ζωή τελείως διαφορετικά και ίσως είναι αυτό που τους προσελκύει στην ίδια ματαιότητα.
Όταν η χώρα τους, τα πολιτικά μέτρα,
τα α��τισυστημικά συστήματα αφαιρούν
τα πάντα, ό,τι ήταν δικό τους ,τους χρησιμοποιεί ως παράδειγμα της χειρότερης ανθρωπότητας,
αφαιρεί την ελευθερία τους, την ατομική βούληση να είστε, αλλά ποιοι να είστε, πείτε τι σκέφτεστε, αλλά ψιθυριστά και κρυφά, συμμορφωθείτε στις υποδείξεις του Σοβιέτ αλλά στην ΕΣΣΔ κάνετε ό, τι θέλετε, ζήστε όπως θέλετε να ζήσετε ... τι κάνετε, γιατί αδιαφορείτε, γιατί παγώνετε τις σκέψεις πριν γίνουν λόγια, γιατί σκύβετε το κεφάλι, γιατί είναι μακριά και μακάρια η Σιβηρία, γιατί αρρωσταίνετε, γιατί, μα γιατί πεθαίνετε, πριν το εγκρίνει το Κόμμα ;
Είναι ειλικρινά λυπηρό το γεγονός ότι παρόλο που ο κολεκτιβισμός είχε αποτύχει καθ 'όλη τη διάρκεια της ιστορίας, ωστόσο εξακολουθούμε να βλέπουμε χώρες να επαινούν τέτοια στέρηση της ζωής, όπως παρέχεται απο τη μια κοινωνία στην άλλη. Ρωσία ή Βενεζουέλα ποια διαφορά να βρω.
Μεγάλη πλούσιες χώρες, έγιναν κάποτε τίποτα, καιροσκοπικοί οραγανισμοί, κάτι λιγότερο από μια αυταρχική αναρχία.
Κανείς δεν είχει σχεδόν καμία πιθανότητα να γίνει αυτόνομο, παραγωγικό άτομο, εκτός εάν υποκλιθεί
στις κυβερνητικές αρχές.
Τα πάντα, από τα κοινά αγαθά έως τις μερίδες τροφίμων, γίνονταν πιο σπάνια με την πάροδο του χρόνου. Και αν εναντιωθείς στο σύστημα, υπάρχει η εκτέλεση καθηκόντων απο την εθνική φρουρά.
Σε άλλα νέα, και αφού έβγαλα τα εσώψυχα μου, και μπράβο σας αν φτάσατε να διαβάσετε το παραλήρημα μου ως εδώ, ( σας αγαπώ)
σκούπισα κάποια λίγα δάκρυα, και είπα
υποτίθεται ότι είναι αυτοβιογραφικό αυτό το υπέροχο βιβλίο, στην πραγματικότητα είναι μια ιστορία αγάπης ως επί το πλείστον και η παλαιότερη εκδοχή της φιλοσοφίας της εφαρμόστηκε στη μυθοπλασία, βασισμένη πολύ χαλαρά στις εμπειρίες της Ayn προτού απομακρυνθεί από την αντισημιτική κολεκτιβιστική Ρωσία, καταπιεσμένη κατά τη διάρκεια του τσάρου και περισσότερο μετά την κομμουνιστική επανάσταση.
Καλή ανάγνωση
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.
March 10, 2009
If you ever want to acquire a keen appreciation for food, read any story about the USSR. History or fiction, doesn't matter. Mildewed millet and one loaf of bread a month is enough to break anyone!
We The Living is an illustration of the loneliness that seems the unavoidable consequence of any who possess an Objectivist viewpoint.
One passage in the book made me laugh in appreciation for how true it rang in my life. Kira says,
This is because no matter to whom you are speaking, no matter what religion they follow, God is always the highest conception of the highest possible. A believer in God has placed their highest conception above their own possibility, above their own life. Whatever such a person believes in, it isn't life.
Just as celebrations are for those who have something to celebrate, life is for the living, not those who cherish the thoughts of their own death, and the after-life rewards which await them for their obedience.
We The Living is an illustration of the loneliness that seems the unavoidable consequence of any who possess an Objectivist viewpoint.
One passage in the book made me laugh in appreciation for how true it rang in my life. Kira says,
"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do--then I know they don't believe in life."
This is because no matter to whom you are speaking, no matter what religion they follow, God is always the highest conception of the highest possible. A believer in God has placed their highest conception above their own possibility, above their own life. Whatever such a person believes in, it isn't life.
"It's a rare gift," Kira says, "to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it."
Just as celebrations are for those who have something to celebrate, life is for the living, not those who cherish the thoughts of their own death, and the after-life rewards which await them for their obedience.
August 19, 2015
Fountainhead was the first book from Ayn Rand that I read. I found it deeply inspirational, book that pushed me to think outside the box. And it talked about one of my favorite subjects, individualism. I thought, Oh my God, what a book. I felt even emotionally exhausted, but in a good way. Then I read Anthem, which I thought was good, but not as Fountainhead. I felt as if Fountainhead was the standard of measuring her work. I didn't think anything can surpass it. But, oh boy I was wrong.
I haven't had the chance to read Atlas Shrugged yet, but I don't think that it can surpass We the living. This book left me physically and emotionally shaking at the end. It is one of the best books I have ever read. So real, so outstandingly written. It shows in the most appealing way that life is never black and white, among other things. It is a must read. You don't need to like Ayn Rand or her philosophy to like this book. It is a true literature masterpiece. Very few books have shaken me so much.
I haven't had the chance to read Atlas Shrugged yet, but I don't think that it can surpass We the living. This book left me physically and emotionally shaking at the end. It is one of the best books I have ever read. So real, so outstandingly written. It shows in the most appealing way that life is never black and white, among other things. It is a must read. You don't need to like Ayn Rand or her philosophy to like this book. It is a true literature masterpiece. Very few books have shaken me so much.
May 19, 2021
2009 - I liked this book the best of Ayn Rand's three big fiction books, as a novel.
Perhaps it was because it was so very autobiographical in some ways of her time in St. Petersburg/Petrograd during and after the Russian Revolution. The gritty realism of how unjust and desperate such a system, the Soviet Socialist system was becoming, appeals to my love of historical realism.
The passionate love affairs and beliefs of the conflicting characters were very vividly drawn. Even though I have not read it fully in over 30 years, but read it twice in the previous 10, the characters, plot, setting and theme will not be forgotten.
I also enjoyed the movie that was made from it in Mussolini's Italy during WWII, which was edited and re-released in the late 80s in the US. Alida Valli was mesmerizingly great as the main character, Kira, and it was the later film star Rossano Brazzi's first movie. Several other great Italian actors were in it too, and their performances added richly to the movie. The script stayed quite close to the book, except in one or two places where the wartime/fascist censors had to be appeased.
Book and movie - both highly recommended.
Perhaps it was because it was so very autobiographical in some ways of her time in St. Petersburg/Petrograd during and after the Russian Revolution. The gritty realism of how unjust and desperate such a system, the Soviet Socialist system was becoming, appeals to my love of historical realism.
The passionate love affairs and beliefs of the conflicting characters were very vividly drawn. Even though I have not read it fully in over 30 years, but read it twice in the previous 10, the characters, plot, setting and theme will not be forgotten.
I also enjoyed the movie that was made from it in Mussolini's Italy during WWII, which was edited and re-released in the late 80s in the US. Alida Valli was mesmerizingly great as the main character, Kira, and it was the later film star Rossano Brazzi's first movie. Several other great Italian actors were in it too, and their performances added richly to the movie. The script stayed quite close to the book, except in one or two places where the wartime/fascist censors had to be appeased.
Book and movie - both highly recommended.
May 4, 2016
Ayn Rand is/was an interesting, intelligent woman. This is her first novel. If you're reading it simply for the novel then skip the introduction. If on the other hand you are interested in Ms. Rand's thought processes then by all means read the introduction. This is (of course) a newer edition (as the book was written in 1925. Ms. Rand wants us to understand that this is not a novel about the Soviet Union but a novel (in her words) of "man against the state".
While I am not a "student" or follower of Ms. Rand and her philosophy (Objectivism) I do find her quite insightful..."in some ways".
There are places where I definitely disagree with Ms. Rand but on the other hand there are places she is right on and has been borne out by history. (Simply read her short discourse on "5 year plans" in the introduction).
This book tells the story of (basically) a woman. Most on Ms. Rand's writings do. She can be found in each of her books and this (even though her first) is no exception. Lets not forget that Ms. Rand's family lost everything to the Soviet revolution and while this isn't strictly about "the Soviet Union" that is a dictatorship that is "included".
As you read I think you'll see that Ms. Rand has hit the proverbial nail on the head in many ways. She points out that free people are quite often "taken in" by the idea that while the "effects" of totalitarianism..."colectiveism"...state controlled governing systems are negative the "ideals" are "noble". That, she points out has been the attitude of every free state that has ever fallen to totalitarianism.
Stalin referred to those who held this view as "useful idiots".
Ms. Rand also points out that to see this one has to be intellectually honest and open minded, willing to see it. Looking at America now it should be obvious to us but for some reason most don't see it despite the loss of prosperity, unemployment, loss of freedoms (including the erosion of rights GUARANTEED in the Bill of Rights) (yes several of the first 10 amendments have already been breached and the courts don't seem in any hurry to reverse this.) most not only don't see it...but seem to be voting for it.
Where do I disagree with Ms. rand? Well, she was very much a "my way or the highway" thinker. She herself had little patience with those who disagreed with her as her attitude seems to be that they just couldn't, or wouldn't see it. Also I'm a Christian and she seems to have seen little difference between putting others before yourself willingly and having the "State" force the view that everyone must exist "for the State". There is some argument by Objectivists that she saw the difference but simply rejected religious belief. That could be the case as I noted, I'm not a "student" of Ms.Rand's philosophy, I've simply read her work and some little about her.
Wherever you stand or whatever you think about the woman herself this is a book I'd recommend. It has some value and can have the effect of making us look at what we have before we lose it. I rate it a 3 as it's not quite as readable as some of her later work (it is her first after all) and can get dry. Still it's worth a read.
While I am not a "student" or follower of Ms. Rand and her philosophy (Objectivism) I do find her quite insightful..."in some ways".
There are places where I definitely disagree with Ms. Rand but on the other hand there are places she is right on and has been borne out by history. (Simply read her short discourse on "5 year plans" in the introduction).
This book tells the story of (basically) a woman. Most on Ms. Rand's writings do. She can be found in each of her books and this (even though her first) is no exception. Lets not forget that Ms. Rand's family lost everything to the Soviet revolution and while this isn't strictly about "the Soviet Union" that is a dictatorship that is "included".
As you read I think you'll see that Ms. Rand has hit the proverbial nail on the head in many ways. She points out that free people are quite often "taken in" by the idea that while the "effects" of totalitarianism..."colectiveism"...state controlled governing systems are negative the "ideals" are "noble". That, she points out has been the attitude of every free state that has ever fallen to totalitarianism.
Stalin referred to those who held this view as "useful idiots".
Ms. Rand also points out that to see this one has to be intellectually honest and open minded, willing to see it. Looking at America now it should be obvious to us but for some reason most don't see it despite the loss of prosperity, unemployment, loss of freedoms (including the erosion of rights GUARANTEED in the Bill of Rights) (yes several of the first 10 amendments have already been breached and the courts don't seem in any hurry to reverse this.) most not only don't see it...but seem to be voting for it.
Where do I disagree with Ms. rand? Well, she was very much a "my way or the highway" thinker. She herself had little patience with those who disagreed with her as her attitude seems to be that they just couldn't, or wouldn't see it. Also I'm a Christian and she seems to have seen little difference between putting others before yourself willingly and having the "State" force the view that everyone must exist "for the State". There is some argument by Objectivists that she saw the difference but simply rejected religious belief. That could be the case as I noted, I'm not a "student" of Ms.Rand's philosophy, I've simply read her work and some little about her.
Wherever you stand or whatever you think about the woman herself this is a book I'd recommend. It has some value and can have the effect of making us look at what we have before we lose it. I rate it a 3 as it's not quite as readable as some of her later work (it is her first after all) and can get dry. Still it's worth a read.
March 31, 2018
Sometimes you should read the introductions before you start a book, and other times you should just jump in to the story. This particular anniversary edition of Rand's first novel (originally published in 1936) has an introduction with a major spoiler regarding a choice the main character Kira makes in her life, a choice that is the heart of the book. Even though I skipped the rest of the cursed intro, I was annoyed at knowing that detail. I prefer to discover such things on my own.
Oh, well. The important part to remember, and what makes this book relevant to me at this moment in history is this, from Rand's 1958 forward:
"We The Living is not a story about Soviet Russia in 1925. It is a story about Dictatorship, any dictatorship, anywhere, at any time, whether it be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or ~~ which this novel might do its share in helping to prevent ~~ a socialist America."
This book is supposed to be semi-autobiographical. Once again I quote Rand's forward:
"I was born in Russia, I was educated under the Soviets, I have seen the conditions of existence that I describe. The particulars of Kira's story were not mine; I did not study engineering -- I studied history;I did not want to build bridges -- I wanted to write; her physical appearance bears no resemblance to mine, neither does her family. The specific events of Kira's life were not mine; her ideas, her convictions, her values were and are."
This is a grim story and it was not easy for me to spend much time on it. I needed to take breaks, to get out of its grey world that was so full of despair, broken dreams and twisted ideals. And truthfully, I did not care much for Kira at any point, although I admired her intense desire to be true to herself and to live her own life, the way any human being should be allowed to do. People are individuals, and while I accept the need for certain rules and regulations of society, no person or government or ideology should force those individuals into identical molds like bricks in a wall.
Not in Russia a hundred years ago, not in America today, not anywhere ever.
Oh, well. The important part to remember, and what makes this book relevant to me at this moment in history is this, from Rand's 1958 forward:
"We The Living is not a story about Soviet Russia in 1925. It is a story about Dictatorship, any dictatorship, anywhere, at any time, whether it be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or ~~ which this novel might do its share in helping to prevent ~~ a socialist America."
This book is supposed to be semi-autobiographical. Once again I quote Rand's forward:
"I was born in Russia, I was educated under the Soviets, I have seen the conditions of existence that I describe. The particulars of Kira's story were not mine; I did not study engineering -- I studied history;I did not want to build bridges -- I wanted to write; her physical appearance bears no resemblance to mine, neither does her family. The specific events of Kira's life were not mine; her ideas, her convictions, her values were and are."
This is a grim story and it was not easy for me to spend much time on it. I needed to take breaks, to get out of its grey world that was so full of despair, broken dreams and twisted ideals. And truthfully, I did not care much for Kira at any point, although I admired her intense desire to be true to herself and to live her own life, the way any human being should be allowed to do. People are individuals, and while I accept the need for certain rules and regulations of society, no person or government or ideology should force those individuals into identical molds like bricks in a wall.
Not in Russia a hundred years ago, not in America today, not anywhere ever.
May 6, 2007
Erotica at its best. We the Living is about a young lady with a brilliant mind and a ferocious appetite for sex. The book begins with Kira, a hot little harlot who might have been working at a strip joint (if they weren't so damn bourgeois!), as she seeks to find a nightlife for herself in her newly Soviet city of Petrograd. Posing as a prostitute in a red light district, she quickly forms her first life-long sexual bond with the first guy who comes along. He happens to be a philosopher, and that's how this book meets its philosophy quota. Over time, her close personal friendship with a secret police agent (WTF?!?) becomes sexual, and the real story begins. Truly, trying to masquerade as faithful to multiple sexual partners is something we can all relate to. A must read for any hip cat.
November 9, 2022
Nov 9, 2022: EDIT —
I really love this book. A lot. LOL
Aug 26, 2022: EDIT —
Just here to say and emphasize how much I deeply loved this book, I finished it over a month ago and still feel the deep, painful attachment to it. Good god, I sit and look at quotes from the book and still fall more and more in love with this book. I may even say this is my all time favorite book ever.. I truly believe so.
JULY 17, 2022 —
Okay, deep breathes now. I need to remind myself that this story is "fiction", and I quote because everything about it is so true and raw, incredibly historically accurate of Lenin/Stalins communist USSR; but Ayn's characters are fiction..(I find myself reminding myself for hours after finishing this book.)
I'll keep this short and simple. Rand does something many do not. She captures Communism in the emotional, physical and daily light - not in its fact to fact stoic manner.
When you read about communism, especially Russian communism, you don't see how this political ideology affects people emotionally. You don't see how it destroys a family structure from the inside out. You don't see the betrayal in humans, the mistrust, the anger. You don't see the death, not the physical death where a corpse is involve, but the death of ones ambition, ones mind, ones personality, ones love and faith - something we humans NEED to survive and be.. human. Ayn captures this is such a manner, I found myself breathless reading her book, closing it and trying to take in the air around me. Because it hurts to know that despite the fictional characters, in the millions that suffered communism, many were bound to have a similar story.
I fell in love with Andrei. Never have I ever believed I could see the view point of a Communist and defend one against myself so badly as I have with this character. For Ayn Rand to show the human, the essence of why one has resulted in such a powerful position and defend a collective ideology that omits free speech and still love the character, is nothing short of phenomenal. Ayn did something I have never seen before.
Who is this book for?
If you are not from a Communist background and want to see what its like to live under a communist regime, if you want to touch up on your history, if you are a self proclaimed twitter communist and think you know what communism is, or simply, if you want a beautiful story that'll break your heart for days, this is the book for you.
I really love this book. A lot. LOL
Aug 26, 2022: EDIT —
Just here to say and emphasize how much I deeply loved this book, I finished it over a month ago and still feel the deep, painful attachment to it. Good god, I sit and look at quotes from the book and still fall more and more in love with this book. I may even say this is my all time favorite book ever.. I truly believe so.
JULY 17, 2022 —
Okay, deep breathes now. I need to remind myself that this story is "fiction", and I quote because everything about it is so true and raw, incredibly historically accurate of Lenin/Stalins communist USSR; but Ayn's characters are fiction..(I find myself reminding myself for hours after finishing this book.)
I'll keep this short and simple. Rand does something many do not. She captures Communism in the emotional, physical and daily light - not in its fact to fact stoic manner.
When you read about communism, especially Russian communism, you don't see how this political ideology affects people emotionally. You don't see how it destroys a family structure from the inside out. You don't see the betrayal in humans, the mistrust, the anger. You don't see the death, not the physical death where a corpse is involve, but the death of ones ambition, ones mind, ones personality, ones love and faith - something we humans NEED to survive and be.. human. Ayn captures this is such a manner, I found myself breathless reading her book, closing it and trying to take in the air around me. Because it hurts to know that despite the fictional characters, in the millions that suffered communism, many were bound to have a similar story.
I fell in love with Andrei. Never have I ever believed I could see the view point of a Communist and defend one against myself so badly as I have with this character. For Ayn Rand to show the human, the essence of why one has resulted in such a powerful position and defend a collective ideology that omits free speech and still love the character, is nothing short of phenomenal. Ayn did something I have never seen before.
Who is this book for?
If you are not from a Communist background and want to see what its like to live under a communist regime, if you want to touch up on your history, if you are a self proclaimed twitter communist and think you know what communism is, or simply, if you want a beautiful story that'll break your heart for days, this is the book for you.
July 13, 2021
«Ми, живі»
⠀
Айн Ренд
⠀
Наш Формат, 2021
⠀
«We the Living»
⠀
Ayn Rand, 1936
⠀
Зберігаючи гідність вони втрачали людську подобу!
⠀
Трепанація людської сутності!
⠀
Чи можна врятувати голодну країну втопивши її в революційній крові?
⠀
Чи можна врятувати кохання зрадою?
⠀
Чи можна наситити шлунок торгуючи совістю?
⠀
Вивернуті душі, якими система грається, як пазлами.
⠀
Немає цільного добра.
⠀
Немає гідності.
⠀
Немає рівності.
⠀
Всі рівні, лише у смерті!
⠀
Цей роман про ЛЮДИНУ.
⠀
Про її ницість і велич.
⠀
Про її пристосуванство.
⠀
Книжка про комунізм, очима інтелігенції, яка втратила владу, багатство, становище та своє право на життя.
⠀
Герої постійно змінюються, як змії, вони скидають личини: білий, червоний, людина.
⠀
Сюжет реалістично-драматичний, який безжально розриває хід думок та очікувань.
⠀
Авторка повільно розтинає всіх героїв, від героя - до жертви всього один крок…
⠀
Головна героїня книжки - аристократка Кіра Арґунова пройшла всі кола пекла заради кохання й свободи!
⠀
Все, що вона хотіла - жити!
⠀
Жити своїм розумом, бажаннями, але хто сказав, що в системі індивід має право на інакшість?
⠀
Це моя 4-та книжка Ренд.
⠀
Книжки живі, вони дихають і волають до вас голосами своїх героїв!
⠀
Рекомендую!
⠀
Рецензія для @nashformat.ua
⠀
Цитата:
⠀
« - Тобі не відомо ,- її голос раптом здригнувся від почуття, якого вона не могла приховати,-що і в найкращих із нас усередині є таке, чого не сміють торкатися чужі руки? Те священне, про що кожен може сказати «воно моє», і саме тому це є священним? Не відомо, що ми живемо тільки для себе - найкращі з нас, ті, хто чогось варті? Не відомо, що в нас є те, чого не сміє торкнутися жодна держава, жоден кол��ктив, жодне число мільйонів?
⠀
Його відповідь була:
⠀
- Ні.»
⠀
Про книжку:
⠀
«Роман, що змальовує вплив Російської Революції на трьох людей, які вимагають права жити власним життям і слідувати своєму власному щастю. Твір досліджує боротьбу особистості проти держави в радянській Росії.
⠀
Це також розповідь про пристрасне кохання молодої жінки, яке тримається як фортеця проти розбещуючого зла тоталітарної держави.
⠀
Вперше опублікований у 1936 році.»
⠀
#примхливачитака
⠀
Айн Ренд
⠀
Наш Формат, 2021
⠀
«We the Living»
⠀
Ayn Rand, 1936
⠀
Зберігаючи гідність вони втрачали людську подобу!
⠀
Трепанація людської сутності!
⠀
Чи можна врятувати голодну країну втопивши її в революційній крові?
⠀
Чи можна врятувати кохання зрадою?
⠀
Чи можна наситити шлунок торгуючи совістю?
⠀
Вивернуті душі, якими система грається, як пазлами.
⠀
Немає цільного добра.
⠀
Немає гідності.
⠀
Немає рівності.
⠀
Всі рівні, лише у смерті!
⠀
Цей роман про ЛЮДИНУ.
⠀
Про її ницість і велич.
⠀
Про її пристосуванство.
⠀
Книжка про комунізм, очима інтелігенції, яка втратила владу, багатство, становище та своє право на життя.
⠀
Герої постійно змінюються, як змії, вони скидають личини: білий, червоний, людина.
⠀
Сюжет реалістично-драматичний, який безжально розриває хід думок та очікувань.
⠀
Авторка повільно розтинає всіх героїв, від героя - до жертви всього один крок…
⠀
Головна героїня книжки - аристократка Кіра Арґунова пройшла всі кола пекла заради кохання й свободи!
⠀
Все, що вона хотіла - жити!
⠀
Жити своїм розумом, бажаннями, але хто сказав, що в системі індивід має право на інакшість?
⠀
Це моя 4-та книжка Ренд.
⠀
Книжки живі, вони дихають і волають до вас голосами своїх героїв!
⠀
Рекомендую!
⠀
Рецензія для @nashformat.ua
⠀
Цитата:
⠀
« - Тобі не відомо ,- її голос раптом здригнувся від почуття, якого вона не могла приховати,-що і в найкращих із нас усередині є таке, чого не сміють торкатися чужі руки? Те священне, про що кожен може сказати «воно моє», і саме тому це є священним? Не відомо, що ми живемо тільки для себе - найкращі з нас, ті, хто чогось варті? Не відомо, що в нас є те, чого не сміє торкнутися жодна держава, жоден кол��ктив, жодне число мільйонів?
⠀
Його відповідь була:
⠀
- Ні.»
⠀
Про книжку:
⠀
«Роман, що змальовує вплив Російської Революції на трьох людей, які вимагають права жити власним життям і слідувати своєму власному щастю. Твір досліджує боротьбу особистості проти держави в радянській Росії.
⠀
Це також розповідь про пристрасне кохання молодої жінки, яке тримається як фортеця проти розбещуючого зла тоталітарної держави.
⠀
Вперше опублікований у 1936 році.»
⠀
#примхливачитака
July 24, 2012
This book disturbs me and I don't quite know how to respond to it. On the one hand, the reality of Soviet Russia in the 1920's is haunting; the descriptions of food (or the lack of it) stayed with me, making me reflect on and enjoy my own meals while I was reading it and for a few days after. I also feel that it would work as a companion piece for 1984 because the tensions between the sordid details of daily life and the hypocrisy of the political system are clearly seen in both books. Rand's philosophy is clear but not too overstated so it is easy to read it simply as a novel, not a political tract. I'm okay with all of that.
What I don't care for are the characters themselves. Kira is the worst sort of passive woman; I know I'm supposed to see her as a strong individual, but she is neither. Her goal of being an engineer is not enough to sustain her, and it is barely shown - just stated. It feels like a detail added on after a first draft of the novel to distinguish Rand from Kira (she makes a point of the difference in her introduction). Her passion for Leo is all about being subjugated by him - at one point he is even described as her "slave-owner." Details that were originally used to show how supremely unconnected Kira was from the mundane tribulations of life ("Kira never noticed what she ate" "Kira never noticed what she wore") are reversed the moment that Leo enters the picture - all of a sudden Kira is a fashion plate and wants Leo to notice how she is dressed. All of the details about how Leo can't be subjected to the sight of her cooking or cleaning truly upset me. I know I am approaching this book from a feminist perspective, but what kind of love is only able to be sustained in a perfect atmosphere with no glimpses of the everyday? Leo is loathesome; the words arrogant, contemptuous, and mocking are used in almost every passage about him - and we are supposed to admire him? Like a "young god"? Why? Just because he's hot? Really, that's what it seems to come down to. Most of the minor and background characters are awful - I can't think of a single description of a child that doesn't involve nose-picking. The older women are shrill, the older men are empty shells.
Overall, I think the world that is portrayed in We the Living is worth seeing; the characters Rand admires are not my choice for admirable human beings but there are moments in the novel where they go beyond their cardboard versions of Rand's philosophy to show true humanity.
What I don't care for are the characters themselves. Kira is the worst sort of passive woman; I know I'm supposed to see her as a strong individual, but she is neither. Her goal of being an engineer is not enough to sustain her, and it is barely shown - just stated. It feels like a detail added on after a first draft of the novel to distinguish Rand from Kira (she makes a point of the difference in her introduction). Her passion for Leo is all about being subjugated by him - at one point he is even described as her "slave-owner." Details that were originally used to show how supremely unconnected Kira was from the mundane tribulations of life ("Kira never noticed what she ate" "Kira never noticed what she wore") are reversed the moment that Leo enters the picture - all of a sudden Kira is a fashion plate and wants Leo to notice how she is dressed. All of the details about how Leo can't be subjected to the sight of her cooking or cleaning truly upset me. I know I am approaching this book from a feminist perspective, but what kind of love is only able to be sustained in a perfect atmosphere with no glimpses of the everyday? Leo is loathesome; the words arrogant, contemptuous, and mocking are used in almost every passage about him - and we are supposed to admire him? Like a "young god"? Why? Just because he's hot? Really, that's what it seems to come down to. Most of the minor and background characters are awful - I can't think of a single description of a child that doesn't involve nose-picking. The older women are shrill, the older men are empty shells.
Overall, I think the world that is portrayed in We the Living is worth seeing; the characters Rand admires are not my choice for admirable human beings but there are moments in the novel where they go beyond their cardboard versions of Rand's philosophy to show true humanity.
March 29, 2018
If you liked Ayn Rand’s other books, you’d like this one too.
If you like her politics and enjoy her writing, then this is a must-read because it’s practically an autobiography.
If none of the above applies, then this would be an unpleasant experience.
Moved to https://covers2covers.wordpress.com/2...
If you like her politics and enjoy her writing, then this is a must-read because it’s practically an autobiography.
If none of the above applies, then this would be an unpleasant experience.
Moved to https://covers2covers.wordpress.com/2...
March 30, 2016
Part VIII of a multi-part review series.
Anti-communists in early Soviet Russia very astonishingly come to bad end.
Introduced by Peikoff, who claims that Rand’s first novel was, instead of this one, almost “set in an airship orbiting the earth” (v) which would’ve been kinda cool, except now we have Against the Day, which likely would’ve embarrassed Rand’s hypothetical effort as much as Solzhenitsyn humiliates this one.
Rand’s own forward contains the normal cacogogic posturing. For instance:
“Writers are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made” (xiii);
Neo-spenglerianism: “The rapid epistemological degeneration of our present age” (xiv);
“The Naturalist school of writing consists of substituting statistics for one’s standard of value” (id.);
A nice admission regarding the maturity of her ideas: “I am still a little astonished at times, that too many adult Americans do not understand the nature of the fight against Communism as clearly as I understood it at the age of twelve: they continue to believe that only Communist methods are evil, while Communist ideals are noble” (xv);
To support her juvenile contention that the soviet system is unable to produce anything, she answers Sputnik and the Soviet nuclear program with “Read the story of ‘Project X’ in Atlas Shrugged“ (xvi). So, even here, in her first novel, we do not escape the constant refrain of spurious John Galt glossings.
She concludes the forward with “The specific events of [protagonist’s] life were not mine; her ideas, her convictions, her values were and are” (xvii). This statement is stunning in two respects: the first discredits any and all “events” recorded in the novel--I was initially willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a Russian ex-pat, that some of the events described may have a factual basis. But she has thrown the “events” of the novel under the train. It accordingly lacks credibility as a document reflecting historicity.
The second respect is that, even while distancing herself from the events described, she adopts protagonist’s ideology. Protagonist goes on to record the following observations, which should be considered as incorporated by reference in extenso to author’s ideology:
Defining the relevant class position: protagonist’s family once owned a textile factory, which was nationalized (21), and protagonist once lived in a “vast mansion” and “had an English governess” (45);
“From somewhere in the aristocratic Middle Ages, [protagonist] had inherited the conviction that labor and effort were ignoble” (49);
Regarding the Russian Revolution: protagonist did depose and state that “It is an old and ugly fact that the masses exist and make their existence felt. This is a time when they make it felt with particular ugliness” (58) (my only question is how the Evil Bolsheviks held off on shooting her until page 460?);
Affirmed that protagonist believes in “miracles” (61);
Regarding the “Internationale”: “She tried not to listen to the words. The words spoke of the damned, the hungry, the slaves, of those who had been nothing and shall be all; in the magnificent goblet of the music, the words were not intoxicating as wine; they were not terrifying as blood; they were gray as dish water” (73);
Protagonist adopts Rand’s comment from the preface regarding the distinction between methods and ideals: “I loathe your ideals” (89), said to a GPU agent, which inexplicably does not get her shot in this Evil Empire tale;
Reveals herself to be a real peach: “Can you sacrifice the few? When those few are the best? Deny the best its right to the top--and you have no best left. What are your masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnant souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their brains? And for those who would sacrifice the few who know life, who are life? I loathe your ideals because I know no worse injustice than the giving of the undeserved. Because men are not equal in ability and one can’t treat them as if they were. And because I loathe most of them” (90)--we should compare Mussolini’s comments from a 1922 article (anthologized in Italian Fascisms From Pareto to Gentile): “The sun of the Russian myth has already set. Light is no longer shining from the East, where terrible news of death and famine is coming out of Russia; we are receiving desperate appeals by socialists and anarchists in Petrograd against Lenin's reactionary policies. Professor Ulianov is now a Tsar scrupulously following the internal and external policies of the Romanovs. The former Basle professor did not perhaps imagine that he would end up as a reactionary; but obviously governments have to suit themselves to those they govern and the enormous human army of Russians--patient, resigned, fatalistic and oriental--is incapable of living in freedom; they need a tyrant; now more than ever, they, like every other people in fact, even those in the West, are anxiously looking for something solid in their institutions, ideas, and men, havens where they can cast anchor for a while and rest their souls, tired out with much wandering.” Coupled with Mussolini’s concept that fascism is managed inequality, with rule by the elite, the triumph of the few over quantity, it is readily apparent that Rand’s politics are one-part fascistic, at least in their assumptions, if not in their overall policy preferences. She may rant about individualism, whereas fascism specifically opposes individualism, but conceptually the misanthropy is substantially identical, as is the basis for the opposition to left economics;
In the midst of world historical occurrences, protagonist laments the lack of compliments for “her new dress” (98), obsesses over “lipstick and silk stockings” (119), and files a civil case over some converted home furnishings (180), which case is lost;
She resents “novels by foreign authors in which a poor, honest worker was always sent to jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feed the starving mother of his pretty young wife who had been raped by a capitalist and committed suicide thereafter, for which the all-powerful capitalist fired her husband from the factory, so that their child had to beg on the streets and was run over by the capitalist’s limousine with sparkling fenders and a chauffeur in uniform” (136-37) (does that book actually exist?);
She is very proud of herself “that she was actually corrupting a stern Communist. She regretted that the corruption could go no further” (157);
And on and on. There’re egregiously annoying bits on protagonist throughout, but do I need to report any more? Safe to conclude, rather , that she’s horrible (and that conclusion has nothing to do with maintaining two separate sexual relationships simultaneously), and that her ideas and convictions are author’s ideas and convictions, as stated in the forward, the misanthropic ideas and fascistic convictions. Good job!
Novel otherwise has a number of amusing defects:
The NEP is noted to be a “temporary compromise,” which appears to me to misstate the relationship between so-called war communism and the new economic policy (32) (and again at 308-09);
Predicts with hope the fascist invasion of Russia: “Do you think Europe is blind? Watch Europe. She hasn’t said her last word yet. The day will come--soon--when these bloody assassins, these foul scoundrels, that Communist scum” (38);
It is asserted that “Czar Alexander II had magnanimously freed” the Russian serfs (48);
And so on. There’s plenty to criticize, and I lack the energy. Suffice it to say that the criticism of left policy here is less about its proper function (as alleged in Atlas Shrugged) and more about the deviation from policy, as noted in a “breach of party discipline” (104) and in a litany of abuses of non-doctrinal nature (321-22), and again in communist apparatchik conspiracy with aristocrat boyfriend later (394 ff.);
Slavophile philosopher proclaims at one point that Russia “has lost [its future] in materialistic pursuits. Russia’s destiny has ever been of the spirit. Holy Russia has lost her God and her Soul” (154);
Protagonist’s boyfriend tells her other boyfriend that “I’m studying philosophy […] because it’s a science that the proletariat of the RSFSR does not need at the moment” (155);
A fairly dismissive attitude toward human suffering: “Petrograd had known sweeping epidemics of cholera; it had known epidemics of typhus, which were worse; the worst of its epidemics was that of ‘John Gray,’” which is apparently some form of popular dance (id.)—I’d’ve thought that the human suffering should be the point of an anti-communist writing;
One of protagonist’s boyfriends alleges “the essential immutability of human nature,” a comical conceit (302);
Has communists expressing their “idealism” (309), which is not a Marxist doctrine, of course (we could be charitable and assume that the commies doing the expressing are incorrect doctrinally, I suppose—but then that weakens the Atlas Shrugged critique that the failures of communism arise from its correct implementation);
Novel misunderstands or misrepresents the Leninist theory of democratic centralism in such comments as “why do you think you are entitled to your own thoughts? Against those of the majority of your collective?” (311)—leninist centralism is not necessarily something that I’d endorse, but this is a bogus caricature;
Protagonist’s second boyfriend crumbles ideologically for no apparent reason, just up and throws in the towel, presumably after pre-reading Atlas Shrugged, considering that he has adopted part of Galt’s rant: “We were to raise men to our own level. But they don’t rise, the men we’re ruling, they don’t grow [this, merely in 1925!], they’re shrinking. They’re shrinking to a level no human creatures ever reached before [!!!]. And we’re sliding slowly down into their ranks. We’re crumbling, like a wall, one by one. Kira, I’ve never been afraid. I’m afraid, now. It’s a strange feeling. I’m afraid to think. Because…because I think, at times, that perhaps our ideals have had no other result” (334), which is a line of revelation not earned by any preparatory work in the novel whatsoever. Didn’t Rand state that she abhors the undeserved? This character reversal and recantation is one of the most undeserved that I can recall.
Anyway: a more or less dull, tendentious, below average novel, made horrible by author’s marginal contributions. Full of laments from dispossessed Russian aristocrats, which we are apparently to take seriously--protagonist’s primary boyfriend is a dispossessed aristocrat. Presentations of Soviet propaganda items falls flat, insofar as they are not typically manifestly insane, but sound in the same register as any other state’s propaganda, which normally ranges from boringly true (“Just Say No to Drugs!”) to blatantly self-serving and thus readily identifiable and disregardable (“The Leader is Good!”). Problem is that the tendentious anti-communist conclusion is not well supported by the facts of the novel, which records deviations from communist party discipline and reinforces the communist propaganda that saboteurs, traitors, and speculators were fucking up the economy. That kind of inconsistency is less than persuasive.
Recommended for those who miss their priceless pieces of antique porcelain, readers who smuggle human flesh out of this wolf trap, and Sir Galahads of the blackmail sword.
Anti-communists in early Soviet Russia very astonishingly come to bad end.
Introduced by Peikoff, who claims that Rand’s first novel was, instead of this one, almost “set in an airship orbiting the earth” (v) which would’ve been kinda cool, except now we have Against the Day, which likely would’ve embarrassed Rand’s hypothetical effort as much as Solzhenitsyn humiliates this one.
Rand’s own forward contains the normal cacogogic posturing. For instance:
“Writers are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made” (xiii);
Neo-spenglerianism: “The rapid epistemological degeneration of our present age” (xiv);
“The Naturalist school of writing consists of substituting statistics for one’s standard of value” (id.);
A nice admission regarding the maturity of her ideas: “I am still a little astonished at times, that too many adult Americans do not understand the nature of the fight against Communism as clearly as I understood it at the age of twelve: they continue to believe that only Communist methods are evil, while Communist ideals are noble” (xv);
To support her juvenile contention that the soviet system is unable to produce anything, she answers Sputnik and the Soviet nuclear program with “Read the story of ‘Project X’ in Atlas Shrugged“ (xvi). So, even here, in her first novel, we do not escape the constant refrain of spurious John Galt glossings.
She concludes the forward with “The specific events of [protagonist’s] life were not mine; her ideas, her convictions, her values were and are” (xvii). This statement is stunning in two respects: the first discredits any and all “events” recorded in the novel--I was initially willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a Russian ex-pat, that some of the events described may have a factual basis. But she has thrown the “events” of the novel under the train. It accordingly lacks credibility as a document reflecting historicity.
The second respect is that, even while distancing herself from the events described, she adopts protagonist’s ideology. Protagonist goes on to record the following observations, which should be considered as incorporated by reference in extenso to author’s ideology:
Defining the relevant class position: protagonist’s family once owned a textile factory, which was nationalized (21), and protagonist once lived in a “vast mansion” and “had an English governess” (45);
“From somewhere in the aristocratic Middle Ages, [protagonist] had inherited the conviction that labor and effort were ignoble” (49);
Regarding the Russian Revolution: protagonist did depose and state that “It is an old and ugly fact that the masses exist and make their existence felt. This is a time when they make it felt with particular ugliness” (58) (my only question is how the Evil Bolsheviks held off on shooting her until page 460?);
Affirmed that protagonist believes in “miracles” (61);
Regarding the “Internationale”: “She tried not to listen to the words. The words spoke of the damned, the hungry, the slaves, of those who had been nothing and shall be all; in the magnificent goblet of the music, the words were not intoxicating as wine; they were not terrifying as blood; they were gray as dish water” (73);
Protagonist adopts Rand’s comment from the preface regarding the distinction between methods and ideals: “I loathe your ideals” (89), said to a GPU agent, which inexplicably does not get her shot in this Evil Empire tale;
Reveals herself to be a real peach: “Can you sacrifice the few? When those few are the best? Deny the best its right to the top--and you have no best left. What are your masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnant souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their brains? And for those who would sacrifice the few who know life, who are life? I loathe your ideals because I know no worse injustice than the giving of the undeserved. Because men are not equal in ability and one can’t treat them as if they were. And because I loathe most of them” (90)--we should compare Mussolini’s comments from a 1922 article (anthologized in Italian Fascisms From Pareto to Gentile): “The sun of the Russian myth has already set. Light is no longer shining from the East, where terrible news of death and famine is coming out of Russia; we are receiving desperate appeals by socialists and anarchists in Petrograd against Lenin's reactionary policies. Professor Ulianov is now a Tsar scrupulously following the internal and external policies of the Romanovs. The former Basle professor did not perhaps imagine that he would end up as a reactionary; but obviously governments have to suit themselves to those they govern and the enormous human army of Russians--patient, resigned, fatalistic and oriental--is incapable of living in freedom; they need a tyrant; now more than ever, they, like every other people in fact, even those in the West, are anxiously looking for something solid in their institutions, ideas, and men, havens where they can cast anchor for a while and rest their souls, tired out with much wandering.” Coupled with Mussolini’s concept that fascism is managed inequality, with rule by the elite, the triumph of the few over quantity, it is readily apparent that Rand’s politics are one-part fascistic, at least in their assumptions, if not in their overall policy preferences. She may rant about individualism, whereas fascism specifically opposes individualism, but conceptually the misanthropy is substantially identical, as is the basis for the opposition to left economics;
In the midst of world historical occurrences, protagonist laments the lack of compliments for “her new dress” (98), obsesses over “lipstick and silk stockings” (119), and files a civil case over some converted home furnishings (180), which case is lost;
She resents “novels by foreign authors in which a poor, honest worker was always sent to jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feed the starving mother of his pretty young wife who had been raped by a capitalist and committed suicide thereafter, for which the all-powerful capitalist fired her husband from the factory, so that their child had to beg on the streets and was run over by the capitalist’s limousine with sparkling fenders and a chauffeur in uniform” (136-37) (does that book actually exist?);
She is very proud of herself “that she was actually corrupting a stern Communist. She regretted that the corruption could go no further” (157);
And on and on. There’re egregiously annoying bits on protagonist throughout, but do I need to report any more? Safe to conclude, rather , that she’s horrible (and that conclusion has nothing to do with maintaining two separate sexual relationships simultaneously), and that her ideas and convictions are author’s ideas and convictions, as stated in the forward, the misanthropic ideas and fascistic convictions. Good job!
Novel otherwise has a number of amusing defects:
The NEP is noted to be a “temporary compromise,” which appears to me to misstate the relationship between so-called war communism and the new economic policy (32) (and again at 308-09);
Predicts with hope the fascist invasion of Russia: “Do you think Europe is blind? Watch Europe. She hasn’t said her last word yet. The day will come--soon--when these bloody assassins, these foul scoundrels, that Communist scum” (38);
It is asserted that “Czar Alexander II had magnanimously freed” the Russian serfs (48);
And so on. There’s plenty to criticize, and I lack the energy. Suffice it to say that the criticism of left policy here is less about its proper function (as alleged in Atlas Shrugged) and more about the deviation from policy, as noted in a “breach of party discipline” (104) and in a litany of abuses of non-doctrinal nature (321-22), and again in communist apparatchik conspiracy with aristocrat boyfriend later (394 ff.);
Slavophile philosopher proclaims at one point that Russia “has lost [its future] in materialistic pursuits. Russia’s destiny has ever been of the spirit. Holy Russia has lost her God and her Soul” (154);
Protagonist’s boyfriend tells her other boyfriend that “I’m studying philosophy […] because it’s a science that the proletariat of the RSFSR does not need at the moment” (155);
A fairly dismissive attitude toward human suffering: “Petrograd had known sweeping epidemics of cholera; it had known epidemics of typhus, which were worse; the worst of its epidemics was that of ‘John Gray,’” which is apparently some form of popular dance (id.)—I’d’ve thought that the human suffering should be the point of an anti-communist writing;
One of protagonist’s boyfriends alleges “the essential immutability of human nature,” a comical conceit (302);
Has communists expressing their “idealism” (309), which is not a Marxist doctrine, of course (we could be charitable and assume that the commies doing the expressing are incorrect doctrinally, I suppose—but then that weakens the Atlas Shrugged critique that the failures of communism arise from its correct implementation);
Novel misunderstands or misrepresents the Leninist theory of democratic centralism in such comments as “why do you think you are entitled to your own thoughts? Against those of the majority of your collective?” (311)—leninist centralism is not necessarily something that I’d endorse, but this is a bogus caricature;
Protagonist’s second boyfriend crumbles ideologically for no apparent reason, just up and throws in the towel, presumably after pre-reading Atlas Shrugged, considering that he has adopted part of Galt’s rant: “We were to raise men to our own level. But they don’t rise, the men we’re ruling, they don’t grow [this, merely in 1925!], they’re shrinking. They’re shrinking to a level no human creatures ever reached before [!!!]. And we’re sliding slowly down into their ranks. We’re crumbling, like a wall, one by one. Kira, I’ve never been afraid. I’m afraid, now. It’s a strange feeling. I’m afraid to think. Because…because I think, at times, that perhaps our ideals have had no other result” (334), which is a line of revelation not earned by any preparatory work in the novel whatsoever. Didn’t Rand state that she abhors the undeserved? This character reversal and recantation is one of the most undeserved that I can recall.
Anyway: a more or less dull, tendentious, below average novel, made horrible by author’s marginal contributions. Full of laments from dispossessed Russian aristocrats, which we are apparently to take seriously--protagonist’s primary boyfriend is a dispossessed aristocrat. Presentations of Soviet propaganda items falls flat, insofar as they are not typically manifestly insane, but sound in the same register as any other state’s propaganda, which normally ranges from boringly true (“Just Say No to Drugs!”) to blatantly self-serving and thus readily identifiable and disregardable (“The Leader is Good!”). Problem is that the tendentious anti-communist conclusion is not well supported by the facts of the novel, which records deviations from communist party discipline and reinforces the communist propaganda that saboteurs, traitors, and speculators were fucking up the economy. That kind of inconsistency is less than persuasive.
Recommended for those who miss their priceless pieces of antique porcelain, readers who smuggle human flesh out of this wolf trap, and Sir Galahads of the blackmail sword.
April 13, 2020
Una buena novela sobre la vida cotidiana durante la fase NEP del desarrollo del totalitarismo en la URSS, años 1923 a 1925. Lo que me atrajo de la obra fue que estuviera escrita por Ayn Rand, una de las personas más influyentes en el desarrollo del liberalismo en el siglo XX, dentro de la rama libertaria, junto a Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek o, en España, Jesús Huerta de Soto o últimamente, Juan Ramón Rallo.
Gran parte de lo que cuenta sobre la URSS en su primeros años es autobiográfico, así que saber la experiencia vital que padeció la pobre Rand en sus primeros años, hasta que logró escapar de aquel infierno, tiene su punto para los que nos gustó "La rebelión del Atlas". La novela relata un triángulo amoroso convencional y funciona más o menos bien hasta un final bastante bueno. Si no te interesa Ayn Rand ni su enfoque del liberalismo, te puede parecer excesivo 4 estrellas, entonces déjadlo en 3 estrellas...
Gran parte de lo que cuenta sobre la URSS en su primeros años es autobiográfico, así que saber la experiencia vital que padeció la pobre Rand en sus primeros años, hasta que logró escapar de aquel infierno, tiene su punto para los que nos gustó "La rebelión del Atlas". La novela relata un triángulo amoroso convencional y funciona más o menos bien hasta un final bastante bueno. Si no te interesa Ayn Rand ni su enfoque del liberalismo, te puede parecer excesivo 4 estrellas, entonces déjadlo en 3 estrellas...
November 7, 2020
Είναι σαφώς page-turner, ασχέτως που τελευταία γυρνάω τις σελίδες πολύ αργά (it's not you, Ayn Rand, it's me). Κατά τα λοιπά, δεν μπορώ να πω ότι εντυπωσιάστηκα. Συμπαθητική ιστορία, πολύ μέτρια η απόδοση. Θα του έβαζα ένα τίμιο 6/10 νομίζω.
April 11, 2020
Socialism is always bad.
October 28, 2013
Би төвт үзэл буюу эгоизм, либерал үзлийн томоохон төлөөлөгч гэгддэг ширүүн дориун харцтай Еврэй эмэгтэйг дотроо ийм романтик хүн байх юм чинээ төсөөлсөнгүй. Айн Рэндийн анхны удаа хэвлүүлсэн "Бид амьд хүмүүс" гэх энэхүү романы үйл явдал 1922-25 онд тухайн үеийн ЗХУ-ын Петроград одоогийн Санкт-Петербург хотод ээдрээт хувь тавилангаар холбогдсон гурван залуугийн түүхээр өрнөнө.
Кира бол зохиолын гол баатар. Урьд өмнө нь бишгүй л роман уншиж байсан ч зохиолын гол дүрд ингэтлээ татагдаж байсан удаагүй билээ. Эмэгтэй хүн хэдий зөөлөн, эмзэг мэт боловч хайртай хүнийхээ төлөө тэрхэн жижигхэн биенээс ямар их хүч чадал, өр зөөлөн сэтгэл нь хэрхэн ган болд мэт хувирч, дал мөрөөр нь тас хийсэн өвлийн шөнүүдийг шүд зуун тэвчиж гарч чаддаг ямар их сэтгэлийн тэнхээтэй гэдгийг Кирагын дүрээс харж болно.
SPOILER ALERT!
Кира Лео-д эргэлт буцалтгүйгээр дурласан. Зөвхөн Леогийн дэргэд нь сэрж, тоос тортогтой керосин дээр цай буцалгаж хамтдаа жирийн нэгэн өглөөг умгар байрныхаа жижигхэн халаас өрөөнд угтахын төлөө тэр юу ч хийхэд бэлэн. Лео ч бас түүнд хайртай. Гагцхүү Кира Лео хоёр энэ цаг үеээс өмнө эсвэл хойно төрсөн бол нэгнийхээ толгой цайж холын холд явах хүртэл нь хамт байж үр ачаа тойруулаад л энэ түүх аз жаргалтай төгсөх байсанд би огт эргэлзээгүй. Гэвч тэдний хувь заяа цаг хугацааны ээдрээтэй эргүүлэг дунд байсан учраас бүх зүйл эсэргээрээ төгссөн юм.
“Октябрийн хувьсгал” буюу бидний сайн мэдэх ЗХУ ын алх хадууртай ажилчин ангийг ухуулсан хувьсгал бодит амьдрал дээр хэрхэн жигшүүртэй, харгис хэрцгий бууж, энэ хоёр хосын ирээдүйг багалзуурдсан булингарт нийгмийн хүчирхэг гарыг нь өөрийнхөө хүзүүндээ тултал мэдэрч уншиж дуусгах хүртэл уншигч надад ердөөсөө ч амар байсангүй.
Хүн бол нийгмийн амьтан гэдэг. Гэхдээ эцсийн эцэст бид бүгд л хайрлаж дурлаж, дуртай зүйлсээ хийж, хүсэл мөрөөдлийнхөө төлөө явах эрхтэй. Тэгэх ч хэрэгтэй. Бид бусад хүмүүсээс өөр сонирхол, өөр хүсэл мөрөөдөлтэй мөртлөө атал хэн нэгний төлөө тэднийгээ хөсөр хаяж, нэг ижил санаа, нэг ижил цамцтай насаараа өөрийн биш өөр хэн нэгний төлөө борив бохис хийлгүй ажиллах ёсгүй. Кирагийн хүссэн зүйл ердөө л энэ. Тэрээр сайн инженер болоод том том гүүр, шилэн барилгуудыг барьж байгуулж, Леотой хамт Санкт Петурбургийн жиндүүхэн шөнүүдээр түлэх түлштэй дээр нь халаачих хоолтой байхыг хүссэн.
Гэвч хувьсгал нэрийн доор боловсролтой хувийн хөрөнгөтэй бүхнийг жигшин зэвүүцэж, бүх хөрөнгийг нь хураан авч, хана налуулан толгой даруулан буудаж, арай хийж амь зуух хэсэг нь идэх хоолгүй, өмсөх хувцасгүй өглөө бүр хар даран сэрж өлмөн зэлмүүн амьдарч байсан бараан үе ажээ.
Айн Рэнд яг энэ үед(1905) Оросд төрж аав нь эмийн сангийн эзэн чинээлэг хүн байсан ч “Октябрийн хувьсгал” аар эд хөрөнгөө бүгдийг нь хураалгаж амьдрахад хүнд бэрх энэхүү үеийг биеээрээ туулж гарсан учраас ч энэ романаа бодитой бичсэн байх.
Романы гурвалжингийн гурав дахь гол дүр нь болох Андрэй Таганов. Энэ залуу бол ядуу тариачин гаралтай, намын гишүүн, хатуу чиг баримтлалтай Кирагаас өөр хүнд хэзээ ч сэтгэлээ уудлаж үзээгүй боловуу гэмээр дотогшоо, жинхэнэ коммунисит залуу билээ. Тэрээр Кирад хайртай. Магадгүй Леогоос ч илүү хайртай байсан байх. Насаараа коммунист хичээлд сууж, хувьсгалд болохоос ч өмнө намд элсэж байсан Андрэйгийн үзэл бодлыг Кира эцсийн мөчид өөрчилж чаддаг. Энэ бол ердөө хүн хүнээрээ л үлдэх явдал байсан билээ.
Романы төгсгөл ойртох тусам эдгээр гурван залуугийн холбогдсон хувь тавьлан эрчлэгдэн мушгирсаар эцсийн бүлэгт тас татагдан урагдана. Төгсгөл нь миний хүлээж байсан төгсгөл биш боловч илүү төгс, илүү амгалан төгссөн билээ. Рэндийн орчноо илэрхийлэх уран тансаг хэв маяг, толгой эргэм романтик хайр дурлал, ээдрээтэй хувь заяа тэдгээр нь тухайн цаг үеийн нийгмийн байдалтайгаа хэрхэн уялдаж өөртөө шингээж авч байгааг нь бишрэн магтахаас ч үг минь багадаж байна.
Айн Рэндийн тухайн үеийн ЗХУ - аас 21 тэйдээ Америкийг зорин гарч явсан байдаг бол романы гол баатар Кира гарч явах замдаа өвлийн аниргүй дайдад ганцаараа амьсгал хураасан билээ. Магадгүй Кирагийн энэ дүр 21 тэй залуухан Айн Рэндийн толинд туссан тусгал юм.
Кира бол зохиолын гол баатар. Урьд өмнө нь бишгүй л роман уншиж байсан ч зохиолын гол дүрд ингэтлээ татагдаж байсан удаагүй билээ. Эмэгтэй хүн хэдий зөөлөн, эмзэг мэт боловч хайртай хүнийхээ төлөө тэрхэн жижигхэн биенээс ямар их хүч чадал, өр зөөлөн сэтгэл нь хэрхэн ган болд мэт хувирч, дал мөрөөр нь тас хийсэн өвлийн шөнүүдийг шүд зуун тэвчиж гарч чаддаг ямар их сэтгэлийн тэнхээтэй гэдгийг Кирагын дүрээс харж болно.
SPOILER ALERT!
Кира Лео-д эргэлт буцалтгүйгээр дурласан. Зөвхөн Леогийн дэргэд нь сэрж, тоос тортогтой керосин дээр цай буцалгаж хамтдаа жирийн нэгэн өглөөг умгар байрныхаа жижигхэн халаас өрөөнд угтахын төлөө тэр юу ч хийхэд бэлэн. Лео ч бас түүнд хайртай. Гагцхүү Кира Лео хоёр энэ цаг үеээс өмнө эсвэл хойно төрсөн бол нэгнийхээ толгой цайж холын холд явах хүртэл нь хамт байж үр ачаа тойруулаад л энэ түүх аз жаргалтай төгсөх байсанд би огт эргэлзээгүй. Гэвч тэдний хувь заяа цаг хугацааны ээдрээтэй эргүүлэг дунд байсан учраас бүх зүйл эсэргээрээ төгссөн юм.
“Октябрийн хувьсгал” буюу бидний сайн мэдэх ЗХУ ын алх хадууртай ажилчин ангийг ухуулсан хувьсгал бодит амьдрал дээр хэрхэн жигшүүртэй, харгис хэрцгий бууж, энэ хоёр хосын ирээдүйг багалзуурдсан булингарт нийгмийн хүчирхэг гарыг нь өөрийнхөө хүзүүндээ тултал мэдэрч уншиж дуусгах хүртэл уншигч надад ердөөсөө ч амар байсангүй.
Хүн бол нийгмийн амьтан гэдэг. Гэхдээ эцсийн эцэст бид бүгд л хайрлаж дурлаж, дуртай зүйлсээ хийж, хүсэл мөрөөдлийнхөө төлөө явах эрхтэй. Тэгэх ч хэрэгтэй. Бид бусад хүмүүсээс өөр сонирхол, өөр хүсэл мөрөөдөлтэй мөртлөө атал хэн нэгний төлөө тэднийгээ хөсөр хаяж, нэг ижил санаа, нэг ижил цамцтай насаараа өөрийн биш өөр хэн нэгний төлөө борив бохис хийлгүй ажиллах ёсгүй. Кирагийн хүссэн зүйл ердөө л энэ. Тэрээр сайн инженер болоод том том гүүр, шилэн барилгуудыг барьж байгуулж, Леотой хамт Санкт Петурбургийн жиндүүхэн шөнүүдээр түлэх түлштэй дээр нь халаачих хоолтой байхыг хүссэн.
Гэвч хувьсгал нэрийн доор боловсролтой хувийн хөрөнгөтэй бүхнийг жигшин зэвүүцэж, бүх хөрөнгийг нь хураан авч, хана налуулан толгой даруулан буудаж, арай хийж амь зуух хэсэг нь идэх хоолгүй, өмсөх хувцасгүй өглөө бүр хар даран сэрж өлмөн зэлмүүн амьдарч байсан бараан үе ажээ.
Айн Рэнд яг энэ үед(1905) Оросд төрж аав нь эмийн сангийн эзэн чинээлэг хүн байсан ч “Октябрийн хувьсгал” аар эд хөрөнгөө бүгдийг нь хураалгаж амьдрахад хүнд бэрх энэхүү үеийг биеээрээ туулж гарсан учраас ч энэ романаа бодитой бичсэн байх.
Романы гурвалжингийн гурав дахь гол дүр нь болох Андрэй Таганов. Энэ залуу бол ядуу тариачин гаралтай, намын гишүүн, хатуу чиг баримтлалтай Кирагаас өөр хүнд хэзээ ч сэтгэлээ уудлаж үзээгүй боловуу гэмээр дотогшоо, жинхэнэ коммунисит залуу билээ. Тэрээр Кирад хайртай. Магадгүй Леогоос ч илүү хайртай байсан байх. Насаараа коммунист хичээлд сууж, хувьсгалд болохоос ч өмнө намд элсэж байсан Андрэйгийн үзэл бодлыг Кира эцсийн мөчид өөрчилж чаддаг. Энэ бол ердөө хүн хүнээрээ л үлдэх явдал байсан билээ.
Романы төгсгөл ойртох тусам эдгээр гурван залуугийн холбогдсон хувь тавьлан эрчлэгдэн мушгирсаар эцсийн бүлэгт тас татагдан урагдана. Төгсгөл нь миний хүлээж байсан төгсгөл биш боловч илүү төгс, илүү амгалан төгссөн билээ. Рэндийн орчноо илэрхийлэх уран тансаг хэв маяг, толгой эргэм романтик хайр дурлал, ээдрээтэй хувь заяа тэдгээр нь тухайн цаг үеийн нийгмийн байдалтайгаа хэрхэн уялдаж өөртөө шингээж авч байгааг нь бишрэн магтахаас ч үг минь багадаж байна.
Айн Рэндийн тухайн үеийн ЗХУ - аас 21 тэйдээ Америкийг зорин гарч явсан байдаг бол романы гол баатар Кира гарч явах замдаа өвлийн аниргүй дайдад ганцаараа амьсгал хураасан билээ. Магадгүй Кирагийн энэ дүр 21 тэй залуухан Айн Рэндийн толинд туссан тусгал юм.
January 10, 2021
Instantly as visceral as her more popular later work, Rand's first novel set in early 20th-century communist Russia can really stir you up -- that is, if you support her views on individualism and passion for life. Like her other novels, the characters are boldly drawn archetypes, strong and obvious, minus extraneous detail that could be distracting from the philosophical ideal overlaying the plot. While Rand experienced first-hand much of the life in Russia she portrays in We the Living, Rand smartly understood that fantasy can often be more effective than reality, hence we have incredible co-incidences, master manipulators, tragic love triangles (c'mon, what girl doesn't dream of being loved by two dynamic men?), valiant death scenes, all these sort of “super-life” scenarios not totally believable, but intended to enthrall the reader, likely just as Rand was enthralled by writing it. Where her human characters fall short in terms of detail, the city of St. Petersburg (a personified sub-character in the book) is rendered with excessive descriptive minutia - and this is where the book gets a bit sleepy. You can tell Rand had a real fondness for "old Russia" by the sensitive way she paints her portrait of a city woven into the lives of her characters. As a young, idealistic writer, Rand tackled with gusto multiple genres in one book (a teaser for things to come, e.g. Atlas Shrugged), thus We the Living is part love story, part action-adventure, part political intrigue, and to her credit, it totally works. There are certainly some rough spots, but overall, a respectable effort and a damn good read.
July 28, 2010
This is the worst novel ever written by the worst writer and thinker of all time: Ayn Rand. Hateful, pointless ramblings of a bitter speedfreak. Read Animal Farm for a fictional allegorical account of the Russian Revolution or non-fiction books. Avoid this bile like the hateful puke it is.
September 14, 2015
The one great benefit of reading We the Living is that it encapsulates pretty exactly what Rand spends many hundreds more pages doing in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: mainly, hating on the collective, venerating capitalism, and (God help us all) describing how free-thinking women shouldn't be slaves to anyone except their capitalist sexual partners.
I find Rand's philosophy beyond problematic, but to my mind We the Living helps explain just how she arrived at the ideas she entertained and became the person she did. It's not precisely an autobiography (only, as she demurs, "in the intellectual sense") but her descriptions of life in Soviet Russia are drawn from personal experience, and it's not difficult to see how that kind of traumatic personal experience could drive someone to the opposite philosophical extreme. I offer no theories whatsoever on what makes her romantic relationships so ridiculously rape-tastic. (Because that way lies madness.)
Frankly, your mileage may vary with Rand depending on your political beliefs, but if you have to read something just to be able to engage in a conversation about her, I'd say start here. It's an early work, but I can promise from painful experience that her writing style never improves, so you might as well go for the short one. (And avoid Anthem. For the love of all that's holy, avoid Anthem!)
I find Rand's philosophy beyond problematic, but to my mind We the Living helps explain just how she arrived at the ideas she entertained and became the person she did. It's not precisely an autobiography (only, as she demurs, "in the intellectual sense") but her descriptions of life in Soviet Russia are drawn from personal experience, and it's not difficult to see how that kind of traumatic personal experience could drive someone to the opposite philosophical extreme. I offer no theories whatsoever on what makes her romantic relationships so ridiculously rape-tastic. (Because that way lies madness.)
Frankly, your mileage may vary with Rand depending on your political beliefs, but if you have to read something just to be able to engage in a conversation about her, I'd say start here. It's an early work, but I can promise from painful experience that her writing style never improves, so you might as well go for the short one. (And avoid Anthem. For the love of all that's holy, avoid Anthem!)
June 26, 2016
Το πρώτο μυθιστόρημα της Ayn Rand (και το πρώτο βιβλίο της που διαβάζω, ελπίζοντας κάποτε να φτάσω και στο magnum opus της, το Atlas Shrugged) είναι μια εν μέρει αυτοβιογραφική καταγραφή των δεινών που πέρασε η τέως αστική τάξη στα πρώτα χρόνια μετά την Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση, μια πρώτη λογοτεχνική αποκρυστάλλωση της ηθικής και πολιτικής θεωρίας της συγγραφέα-φιλοσόφου για την άκρα εναντίωση στο κράτος και την απόλυτη προτεραιότητα της ατομικής βούλησης, της αυτοδιάθεσης και του αυτοπροσδιορισμού απέναντι σε οποιαδήποτε συλλογικότητα, αλλά κυρίως (κι εγώ εκεί στάθηκα) ένα bigger than life επικών διαστάσεων ερωτικό δράμα για τρεις ανθρώπους που τα έβαλαν και συνετρίβησαν από την Ιστορία. Οι χαρακτήρες λειτουργούν περισσότερο ως σύμβολα και κάποιες καταστάσεις ίσως είναι (προ)σχηματικές σ' αυτό το δριμύ αντικομμουνιστικό χρονικό, αλλά αυτό δεν κάνει το βιβλίο λιγότερο συναρπαστική λογοτεχνία, αφού ο πλούτος των λεπτομερειών για τη ζωή στην πρώιμη κομμουνιστική Ρωσία είναι εντυπωσιακός κι
οι περιγραφές της Πετρούπολης είναι μεγαλειώδεις, όσο και τα πάθη του ερωτικού τριγώνου και κυρίως της πρωταγωνίστριας Κίρα, μιας από τις πιο δυναμικές ηρωίδες που έχω συναντήσει σε βιβλίο.
οι περιγραφές της Πετρούπολης είναι μεγαλειώδεις, όσο και τα πάθη του ερωτικού τριγώνου και κυρίως της πρωταγωνίστριας Κίρα, μιας από τις πιο δυναμικές ηρωίδες που έχω συναντήσει σε βιβλίο.
March 18, 2016
It's funny because this book usually only gets 5 stars or a 1 star, and here I am giving it a three star.
I'll come up with a coherent review in the morning. Overall it was a good classic. Exhausting. But good.
I'll come up with a coherent review in the morning. Overall it was a good classic. Exhausting. But good.
July 12, 2014
In the foreword that she wrote for the 1959 edition of her own novel "We the Living", Ayn Rand wrote, "I had not reread this novel as a whole, since the time of its first publication in 1936, until a few months ago. I had not expected to be as proud of it as I am." Well, I'm glad that Rand is so proud of her own first novel. As for me, I am less than impressed.
The novel takes place between 1922 and 1926, during the turbulent years after the Bolshevik Revolution. Most histories and novels that I have read about that turbulent time tell of a Russia that was struggling for existence, barely legitimate in the eyes of her own citizens, in the midst of an ongoing civil war, and experimenting with a limited form of Capitalism that Lenin euphamistically called the "New Economic Policy." But that's not the Soviet Russia that Rand portrays in "We the Living". Instead, Rand describes a government that is an ultra-efficient in its oppression of its own citizens, which was able to find dissenters who merely think questioning thoughts about the new Soviet reality, and which is able to perform super-human feats to keep their own citizens in line.
I find many similarities between "We the Living" and Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle". Both novels were completed earlier in the careers of their authors, who both went on to write more influential works. Both are works of political propaganda. And both portray a world in which the oppressors (who are the evil Chicago capitalists in "The Jungle" and the Soviet government in "We the Living") can completely oppress anyone that they want. Granted that the political views of Sinclair and Rand are very different. But their political novels are very similar. It's ironic, isn't it?
I am no fan of the Soviet government. I really enjoyed Solzhenitzin's works that detail the oppression of the Soviet Union. I have no doubts that many people suffered from the Soviet tyrrany in the 1920s. But, please, even Solzhenitzin will acknowledge that the Soviet secret police were not Supermen. They could only do so much, in fact, must of the suffering that they caused was not because of their evil intent but rather because of their incompetence.
Another problem with Rand's novel is the same problem that exists in Rand's more well known novels, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." That problem is Rand's political philosophy, which is a strange combination of Nietzche's UberMensch, Bakunin's Anarchism, and a good dose of narcissism. A healthy dose of narcissism. In fact, Rand's philosophy is the worship of the self, the dogma of narcissism. And narcissism, in literature as in life, leads to emptiness and disappointment.
"We the Living" is the story of Kira, a young daughter of a man who owned a factory in the days of the Czar, who wants to become an engineer in the new Soviet experiment. She falls in love with another pre-Soviet aristocrat named Leo, and she causes another man, Andrei the Soviet soldier and GPU agent, to fall in love with him. Now, Tolstoy used the device of the love triangle to masterfully tell the story of Anna Karenina in the 19th Century. In that novel, the triangle caused a tremendous amount of agony for Anna and her lovers. But in "We the Living", the love triangle is really no big deal to Kira. When her two lovers find out about each other, bad things happen, as you could imagine. But Kira is not in the least concerned. It's very strange.
This novel is heavy with the self-righteousness of Rand's philosophy. That makes it hard to work through most of the time. Granted, there are a few places where the novel looks as though it will become interesting. But it never really does. That's a shame, because Rand has a ton of things to work with, given her setting in 1920s Russia, the love triangle, and her amoral outlook. But she can't get it done. In the end, the novel fizzles and dies. It's very disappointing.
I would really not recommend this novel to anyone, unless that person is just absolutely in love with Ayn Rand, and even then it's iffy. If you want to read a great novel about the Russian Revolution, I would recommend Sholokhov's "And Quiet Flows the Don", Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago" or Solzhenitzin's epic trilogy about the First World War and the revolution. It's really not worth reading "We the Living" if you can read any of those works.
The novel takes place between 1922 and 1926, during the turbulent years after the Bolshevik Revolution. Most histories and novels that I have read about that turbulent time tell of a Russia that was struggling for existence, barely legitimate in the eyes of her own citizens, in the midst of an ongoing civil war, and experimenting with a limited form of Capitalism that Lenin euphamistically called the "New Economic Policy." But that's not the Soviet Russia that Rand portrays in "We the Living". Instead, Rand describes a government that is an ultra-efficient in its oppression of its own citizens, which was able to find dissenters who merely think questioning thoughts about the new Soviet reality, and which is able to perform super-human feats to keep their own citizens in line.
I find many similarities between "We the Living" and Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle". Both novels were completed earlier in the careers of their authors, who both went on to write more influential works. Both are works of political propaganda. And both portray a world in which the oppressors (who are the evil Chicago capitalists in "The Jungle" and the Soviet government in "We the Living") can completely oppress anyone that they want. Granted that the political views of Sinclair and Rand are very different. But their political novels are very similar. It's ironic, isn't it?
I am no fan of the Soviet government. I really enjoyed Solzhenitzin's works that detail the oppression of the Soviet Union. I have no doubts that many people suffered from the Soviet tyrrany in the 1920s. But, please, even Solzhenitzin will acknowledge that the Soviet secret police were not Supermen. They could only do so much, in fact, must of the suffering that they caused was not because of their evil intent but rather because of their incompetence.
Another problem with Rand's novel is the same problem that exists in Rand's more well known novels, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." That problem is Rand's political philosophy, which is a strange combination of Nietzche's UberMensch, Bakunin's Anarchism, and a good dose of narcissism. A healthy dose of narcissism. In fact, Rand's philosophy is the worship of the self, the dogma of narcissism. And narcissism, in literature as in life, leads to emptiness and disappointment.
"We the Living" is the story of Kira, a young daughter of a man who owned a factory in the days of the Czar, who wants to become an engineer in the new Soviet experiment. She falls in love with another pre-Soviet aristocrat named Leo, and she causes another man, Andrei the Soviet soldier and GPU agent, to fall in love with him. Now, Tolstoy used the device of the love triangle to masterfully tell the story of Anna Karenina in the 19th Century. In that novel, the triangle caused a tremendous amount of agony for Anna and her lovers. But in "We the Living", the love triangle is really no big deal to Kira. When her two lovers find out about each other, bad things happen, as you could imagine. But Kira is not in the least concerned. It's very strange.
This novel is heavy with the self-righteousness of Rand's philosophy. That makes it hard to work through most of the time. Granted, there are a few places where the novel looks as though it will become interesting. But it never really does. That's a shame, because Rand has a ton of things to work with, given her setting in 1920s Russia, the love triangle, and her amoral outlook. But she can't get it done. In the end, the novel fizzles and dies. It's very disappointing.
I would really not recommend this novel to anyone, unless that person is just absolutely in love with Ayn Rand, and even then it's iffy. If you want to read a great novel about the Russian Revolution, I would recommend Sholokhov's "And Quiet Flows the Don", Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago" or Solzhenitzin's epic trilogy about the First World War and the revolution. It's really not worth reading "We the Living" if you can read any of those works.
September 20, 2011
I'm going to kind of branch out here and do a different review and talk just what I felt strongly about in this book. If you would like a brief summary, wikipedia does an excellent job.
Anyways, this book was one of the most devastatingly beautiful books I've ever read. The scene between Irina and Sascha broke my heart - it's one of the moments where, in typical Rand fashion, she weaves her characters into such real but horrendously tragic situations you just weep. I would recommend this book to some who is either (a) lacking motivation in their life (b) wants to know more from a fictional perspective what communism is like to live in (c) has had their heart broken by an ideal (d) Rand lovers.
I want to focus on the love triangle of Andrei-Kira-Leo here. What this book gets at is three types of love and the chaos that descends from them. For Andrei, it's infatuation. Oh Andrei, he's wonderful. The more the book progresses, the more you just want to remove him from the story line and rescue him from the horrors contained in this book. He's the dashing communist who falls in love with the revolutionary Kira, a woman of pure passion and ideals. He fights it, but his infatuation for this woman who encompasses everything he has ever wanted in a woman takes over and turns him into her pawn. Eventually, he breaks free, giving the ultimate sacrifice to Kira to show his "unending" (re: completely obsessive) love for her. Ultimately he (well, spoiler) loses, he takes his own life unable to bear to live without Kira. Weak.
So, Kira; Yes, our strong female lead, modelled after Rand herself. She's beautiful, talented, intelligent, and most importantly she wants to live and experience more than anything. The fight and drive of this girl is incredible and truly inspirational. What's her flaw? While posing as a hooker one night, she "meets her one" Leo. She does everything for Leo on his command. At first, things are beautiful between them - they are each other's halves. They don't do things based on other's opinions, they act according to their passion (which is primarily for each other). Kira loves Leo, even after his transformation (going to Crimea), where Leo changes drastically. Although carrying on a passionate affair with Andrei, she is loyal (I know, it's a paradox) to Leo always and that is the one ember that keeps her going, this all encompassing love. Even when Leo breaks her heart, she takes it (and takes it out on other people) and continues to passionately love him. Really weak. Kira, starting out promising, ends up being the most disappointing female Rand character yet. Her strength < her idealistic obsession with Leo. Ugh.
And Leo. He starts out wonderful, as I said, Kira's other half. However, he gives up on everything at one point. He may have loved Kira at one point, but he never loves her above himself. I think the ending here with Leo was a little farfetched, but essentially, Leo is an entirely selfish being. I give Kira this, the point Rand is trying to make is that without communism, Leo would have been the man for Kira, the one she first met. However, after he loses all hope, he becomes an alcoholic and mentally abusive towards Kira (especially in his frustration over her being the breadwinner). Leo becomes a character towards the end that you shake your head at and wonder how someone could be so ungrateful and so miserable.
If only Kira had gone abroad with Andrei to live happily forever. But that isn't the way Rand wanted it; she wanted to show two things. One, obviously, communism is evil (duh, it's a Rand book) and (2) blinding love will destroy who you are. I think she tries to redeem Kira in the end there, but Kira's failure to pursue the life of her dreams is a total failure in my mind, and she sacrificed all her opportunities for a glimmer of the Leo she first new. That is not solid advice to offer the younger generations Miss Rand, but at least in my mind, she conveys this solidarity in true love (Irina and Sascha) vs the destructive love (Andrei, Kira).
Read if you get a chance; The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have better defined characters, yet as Rand's first novel, We the Living leaves its mark on the reader.
Anyways, this book was one of the most devastatingly beautiful books I've ever read. The scene between Irina and Sascha broke my heart - it's one of the moments where, in typical Rand fashion, she weaves her characters into such real but horrendously tragic situations you just weep. I would recommend this book to some who is either (a) lacking motivation in their life (b) wants to know more from a fictional perspective what communism is like to live in (c) has had their heart broken by an ideal (d) Rand lovers.
I want to focus on the love triangle of Andrei-Kira-Leo here. What this book gets at is three types of love and the chaos that descends from them. For Andrei, it's infatuation. Oh Andrei, he's wonderful. The more the book progresses, the more you just want to remove him from the story line and rescue him from the horrors contained in this book. He's the dashing communist who falls in love with the revolutionary Kira, a woman of pure passion and ideals. He fights it, but his infatuation for this woman who encompasses everything he has ever wanted in a woman takes over and turns him into her pawn. Eventually, he breaks free, giving the ultimate sacrifice to Kira to show his "unending" (re: completely obsessive) love for her. Ultimately he (well, spoiler) loses, he takes his own life unable to bear to live without Kira. Weak.
So, Kira; Yes, our strong female lead, modelled after Rand herself. She's beautiful, talented, intelligent, and most importantly she wants to live and experience more than anything. The fight and drive of this girl is incredible and truly inspirational. What's her flaw? While posing as a hooker one night, she "meets her one" Leo. She does everything for Leo on his command. At first, things are beautiful between them - they are each other's halves. They don't do things based on other's opinions, they act according to their passion (which is primarily for each other). Kira loves Leo, even after his transformation (going to Crimea), where Leo changes drastically. Although carrying on a passionate affair with Andrei, she is loyal (I know, it's a paradox) to Leo always and that is the one ember that keeps her going, this all encompassing love. Even when Leo breaks her heart, she takes it (and takes it out on other people) and continues to passionately love him. Really weak. Kira, starting out promising, ends up being the most disappointing female Rand character yet. Her strength < her idealistic obsession with Leo. Ugh.
And Leo. He starts out wonderful, as I said, Kira's other half. However, he gives up on everything at one point. He may have loved Kira at one point, but he never loves her above himself. I think the ending here with Leo was a little farfetched, but essentially, Leo is an entirely selfish being. I give Kira this, the point Rand is trying to make is that without communism, Leo would have been the man for Kira, the one she first met. However, after he loses all hope, he becomes an alcoholic and mentally abusive towards Kira (especially in his frustration over her being the breadwinner). Leo becomes a character towards the end that you shake your head at and wonder how someone could be so ungrateful and so miserable.
If only Kira had gone abroad with Andrei to live happily forever. But that isn't the way Rand wanted it; she wanted to show two things. One, obviously, communism is evil (duh, it's a Rand book) and (2) blinding love will destroy who you are. I think she tries to redeem Kira in the end there, but Kira's failure to pursue the life of her dreams is a total failure in my mind, and she sacrificed all her opportunities for a glimmer of the Leo she first new. That is not solid advice to offer the younger generations Miss Rand, but at least in my mind, she conveys this solidarity in true love (Irina and Sascha) vs the destructive love (Andrei, Kira).
Read if you get a chance; The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have better defined characters, yet as Rand's first novel, We the Living leaves its mark on the reader.
September 28, 2014
Where to start? How to explain why I like it so very much?
I like Ayn Rand's style of writing. Her language is strong, clear and not in the least subtle. I think I could recognize it in the future. The reader observes what the characters do. Very little introspection. The plot fits the language and the behavior of the characters. Strong, determined people - no not people, just one character, but she is the central character. Kira is her name. This book is autobiographical, but only in the sense that it speaks of the author's life philosophy. The characters and the plot are all fictional. How Kira thinks is how Ayn Rand thinks....and if that doesn't appeal to you, well then the whole novel may not appeal to you. Do strong, determined people appeal to you?
This is a book that describes the Bolshevik era. It is set in Petrograd / St. Petersburg / Leningrad, predominantly the 1920s. It is a book about how Bolshevism destroyed people. It is also a love story.
The ending! It ends perfectly. Ayn Rand's writing, her description of places and events is so sharp and clear. The ending dazzles. You see it and you feel it and it moves you. The events fit the language. You want to know what will happen. You say, "Get to the end! Tell me! Tell me!" But at the same time you know you have to wait because Kira's path takes time too. That is what I mean when I say the words reflect the events.
Is the book realistic? Yes, I think so.
Mary Woods narrates the audiobook. She changes the speed with which she reads the story. Dialogs are read slowly so you can listen and think about what each is saying. Past events are read in a speedy blur. I have never run into such a technique before, but it is effective. I came to recognize the different characters by the different tones used.
I like Ayn Rand's style of writing. Her language is strong, clear and not in the least subtle. I think I could recognize it in the future. The reader observes what the characters do. Very little introspection. The plot fits the language and the behavior of the characters. Strong, determined people - no not people, just one character, but she is the central character. Kira is her name. This book is autobiographical, but only in the sense that it speaks of the author's life philosophy. The characters and the plot are all fictional. How Kira thinks is how Ayn Rand thinks....and if that doesn't appeal to you, well then the whole novel may not appeal to you. Do strong, determined people appeal to you?
This is a book that describes the Bolshevik era. It is set in Petrograd / St. Petersburg / Leningrad, predominantly the 1920s. It is a book about how Bolshevism destroyed people. It is also a love story.
The ending! It ends perfectly. Ayn Rand's writing, her description of places and events is so sharp and clear. The ending dazzles. You see it and you feel it and it moves you. The events fit the language. You want to know what will happen. You say, "Get to the end! Tell me! Tell me!" But at the same time you know you have to wait because Kira's path takes time too. That is what I mean when I say the words reflect the events.
Is the book realistic? Yes, I think so.
Mary Woods narrates the audiobook. She changes the speed with which she reads the story. Dialogs are read slowly so you can listen and think about what each is saying. Past events are read in a speedy blur. I have never run into such a technique before, but it is effective. I came to recognize the different characters by the different tones used.
April 28, 2020
Really wish this woman would've let me read her book but jeesus can she ever not write!!
Paragraph of clothing description.
Weird disorganised mess of characters.
What a stranger was thinking the protagonist was thinking, for some reason. So much "had been" and "were done" passiveness sucks the energy out of everything.
Interesting bit of dialogue.
Really bad bit of dialogue.
Who was that? Where are we?
What?!
Paragraph of clothing description.
Weird disorganised mess of characters.
What a stranger was thinking the protagonist was thinking, for some reason. So much "had been" and "were done" passiveness sucks the energy out of everything.
Interesting bit of dialogue.
Really bad bit of dialogue.
Who was that? Where are we?
What?!
October 2, 2009
I really don't know that there is much I can say about this novel that hasn't already been said. We The Living is the most tragic of Ayn Rand's novels and possibly the most under appreciated.
While it is clearly an early effort for her - her use of English is occasionally off and her style is not consistent throughout the novel - the story line is the most (I hate to use this word, but I can't think of a better way to put it) realistic of all her novels. There are no amazing machines or amazing feats in We The Living, the most amazing thing that anyone does is survive under the early Communist rule.
However, the survivors are the villains of the book. Rand never allows her heroes to exist under tyranny. Kira and Andrei struggle against it in their own individual ways, one choosing death over a life of lost ideals and the other dying in an attempt to escape.
Holding on to the idea of the individual must have been impossible in early Communist Russia. Rand should know - she escaped Russia in 1926. We The Living is probably one of the most accurate pieces of literature we have to depict what life was like under the initial Communist regimes. The 'great idea' that fueled the Revolution of 1917 turned in to what can only be called a 'great mess' that lasted for nearly 80 years and has still not completely resolved itself.
If you are interested in life in the 1920's, We the Living is a must read book. The people of Russia had a very different experience with this decade compared to those of Europe and the US. While for much of the decade the big cities of the Western world were the Land of Plenty, the general Russian population was suffering hardships that made the poorest mid-western farmer seem to be living the life of a King.
We the Living is a testament to man's ability to survive. It is a testament to Rand and held the seeds to her philosophy. It is an encouragement to all of us to strive to be the best we can be - even when the world is against us. It is also a warning to reason before revolt and to express as opposed to repress. You can take away an mans home, you can take away his possessions, you can take away his family, you can take his life, but his mind and soul are his and his alone unless he chooses to give them to you. It is a reminder to all of us, that every individual has that choice to make every day.
While it is clearly an early effort for her - her use of English is occasionally off and her style is not consistent throughout the novel - the story line is the most (I hate to use this word, but I can't think of a better way to put it) realistic of all her novels. There are no amazing machines or amazing feats in We The Living, the most amazing thing that anyone does is survive under the early Communist rule.
However, the survivors are the villains of the book. Rand never allows her heroes to exist under tyranny. Kira and Andrei struggle against it in their own individual ways, one choosing death over a life of lost ideals and the other dying in an attempt to escape.
Holding on to the idea of the individual must have been impossible in early Communist Russia. Rand should know - she escaped Russia in 1926. We The Living is probably one of the most accurate pieces of literature we have to depict what life was like under the initial Communist regimes. The 'great idea' that fueled the Revolution of 1917 turned in to what can only be called a 'great mess' that lasted for nearly 80 years and has still not completely resolved itself.
If you are interested in life in the 1920's, We the Living is a must read book. The people of Russia had a very different experience with this decade compared to those of Europe and the US. While for much of the decade the big cities of the Western world were the Land of Plenty, the general Russian population was suffering hardships that made the poorest mid-western farmer seem to be living the life of a King.
We the Living is a testament to man's ability to survive. It is a testament to Rand and held the seeds to her philosophy. It is an encouragement to all of us to strive to be the best we can be - even when the world is against us. It is also a warning to reason before revolt and to express as opposed to repress. You can take away an mans home, you can take away his possessions, you can take away his family, you can take his life, but his mind and soul are his and his alone unless he chooses to give them to you. It is a reminder to all of us, that every individual has that choice to make every day.
August 28, 2022
Twice I've given up on Atlas Shrugged, haven't really liked the ones I did manage to finish, so wasn't holding out for anything great here. I got somewhat of a surprise though: a Rand book that didn't leave wanting to tug away at my hair whilst reading. I found lots to like about this, with it's level of historic realism of Soviet Russia from the first half of the 20th century being captured really well. And finally!, in Kira, a Rand protagonist that actually gets the thumps up from me. A beautifully told but harsh novel, that for a 25 year old was quite an achievement. One of the better novels I've read that attacks Communism. I might even be tempted to have a crack at The Fountainhead one day, but will likely never return to Atlas Shrugged.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,626 reviews