Zora's Reviews > Anthem

I don't think the book was anything that spectacular but your review seems to be related to your own dogmatic issues.

Dogma: "the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted." - from Wikipedia

Hm. You know what's funny? The word "dogmatic" seems to pop up everywhere nowadays, in the same way that "existential" popped up in the 90's. I fail to see the application here. Perhaps you believe that my views are an expression of some larger organization to whom I pledge loyalty? Or perhaps you just think I'm a big meanie and couldn't think of an existential way to say it.

Cool, you found wikipedia!

Sorry to break it to you, but politics are as much of a "dogma" as religion. Politics = religion without god. In other words, they are made up belief systems for the mentally weak since they cause populations to "abide" by doctrines. People who need an organization of thought to belong to, if you wanna use your own sarcastic vocabulary. Your review states nothing about the book and is nothing but an annoying tirade. Let me know which of these words are "trendy" btw. This has everything to do with the topic at hand.

I used Wikipedia because it is the most obvious choice.
The topic at hand is whether or not my personal statements can be taken as dogmatic. Again, I fail to see the application. Please let me know when you can find my political motivation for calling a book "self indulgent," "boring," having "one dimensional characters," and complaining that it is too long.
I was not being sarcastic when I used the word "organization," nor do I understand what makes you think I was.
And, in defense of those "mentally weak" people who make up the majority of the population, religious, political and social groups have accomplished more in the arena of social progress than any single person could.
Here's a buzz word for you: "reactionary." Of course, I think the application here is accurate, but I'm sure you'll have a rational, logical response.

Wow, quite the debate. But I'm curious... Zora, are you sure you reviewed the right book? Anthem is a novella you can read in about 4 hours. Were you reviewing Atlas Shrugged or something?

On a personal note, I have a great affinity for this book. Having grown up with the Judeo-Christian idea that altruism and selflessness are the goals of life, the part of this book where the characters discover the lost "I" was permission I desperately needed to embrace my selfhood.

Anyway, I'm sure it's not for everyone, but it definitely had merit for me.

I am thinking of the right book- it took me at least a month to read this book, which is more likely because I could only handle a page or two at a time than anything. Perhaps it's not as long as I recall. It has been more than a decade.
Anyway, I'm glad you liked it. Two of my best friends are tremendous fans, although I doubt we will ever agree on this subject. Apples and oranges, I guess.

Alright, I have to be honest and admit that I've never actually read VC Andrews (by which I mean, of course, any of the various authors who have written under the pseudonym of VC Andrews,) but I saw that crappy incest movie about the four blonde kids living in the attic, and it didn't give me a three-day tension headache. At least VC Andrews has some kitsch appeal.

Enjoyed your eval Zora, cryptic and paced. One dimensional characters, AR modus operandi. Throughout her novels, they become even more cartoon like, hero's vs villains.

Love it, Zora! You are right on with this, I think.

Zora, i think you are slow in more than one way, i'm a freshman in high school, and i finished that book in less than three days and not in total hours, but i started on monday and finished on wed. and thats with sports and school, i find it hard to belive that you even read the whole book, you probably got confused when Equality went to the World Council of Scholars and decided to stop reading, that book is an easy read, compared to many politics related books, and i think you should try The Giver befor you pick up another hard read. And you're ruining a gret book just because you fail to have the brain compasity to understand a book made to state that communism is bad, was that hard to unnderstand?

Jonica, your review loses all the possible reason it may have in discussing literature due to your pathetic personal attacks. Of course, calling someone slow and proceeding to fill your post with grammatical and spelling errors also weakens your case by quite a bit. Would your english teacher find anything of merit in your post? Not if they are a good one, and if you think they would, you may want to reconsider the quality of education that you are receiving.

Jonica wrote: "Zora, i think you are slow in more than one way, i'm a freshman in high school, and i finished that book in less than three days and not in total hours, but i started on monday and finished on wed...."

Bravo, Jonica, for pointing out that I am less intelligent than others and thereby discrediting me without actually addressing any of my points. You have proven yourself a true genius a la Rand. Personally I find it less easy to read than political books, which is part of the problem. If I read 'The Promise of Disharmony', 'The Trail of Broken Treaties' or 'Women, Race and Class', I find engrossing writing that stands on a structure of sound political reasoning based on situational evidence, historical precedent and critical analysis. Rand's attempts at merging politics and fiction into a eugenicist's wet dream hardly qualifies as entertainment and makes only a juvenile attempt at political theory.
Also, I am not ruining the book by not appreciating it. Fortunately, people are free to chose their own literature and are not compelled by my opinions. Nor did I complain that the book was confusing but thanks for the heads up- communism=bad. I will be sure to remember that. Perhaps there's a jingle or something? I'd just hate to forget that the actual circumstances of any given society are irrelevant and must be summed up in simple terms so that we may polarize our perspectives appropriately.
And good luck with that school and sports. It must be dreadful having to keep up with such a harrying schedule.

Being a MENSA member does not make a person self-indulgent. It means that said person wishes to associate with people in an intellectually stimulating environment, something that is hard to do with normal people if you have an IQ that is two or three standard deviations above average.

Furthermore, this book's author espouses many of the same ideas held by other dystopian authors, such as Orwell. I have a feeling that you wouldn't hate it so much if the exact same book were written by another author.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but I think that you are being unfair to Ayn Rand by trashing her work. The fact that some people do not feel like cleaning up the messes of others does not mean that those people are selfish and self-indulgent, at least in the conventional sense.

"....this book's author espouses many of the same ideas held by other dystopian authors, such as Orwell."

That is an insult to Orwell. Orwell may have been a dystopian author, but he was firmly against that sort of society. Ayn (rhymes with whine) Rand, was LOOKING for that society. She wanted that sort of world to come about, and thought that serial killers were the epitome and height of society, to which every person should strive to be.

Michael wrote: "Being a MENSA member does not make a person self-indulgent..."
Please re-read your statement about MENSA, analyze the logical fallacies, and re-present your findings.
Orwell presented a strong case against allowing the privileged few to use their combined resources to achieve oligarchical domination of the masses. As Michelle has pointed out, Ayn Rand argued for the opposite.
Speaking of cleaning up messes, who cleans up your sewage? Who processes your garbage? Who builds and repairs your roads and facilities? Oh, that's right, us dummies who are unfit for the worthwhile jobs of sitting on our tuffets being intellectually stimulated. I suppose you are right- it is unfair to Ayn Rand to expect her to think of all us useless average folks when she is struggling so much just do deal with our exhaustingly boring presence.

I'm not sure why I (and others) want you to love, if not at least like, this book. I guess what made me respond was the latter part of your post. Personally, I've read both this and GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire series and loved them both for different reasons. I did not put Anthem to the torch however :)

Kimberly wrote: "I'm not sure why I (and others) want you to love, if not at least like, this book. I guess what made me respond was the latter part of your post. Personally, I've read both this and GRRM's A Song o..."

I'm not sure why, either.

Haha I wish I could do that but I have to read it for school.):

Michelle wrote: "Jonica, your review loses all the possible reason it may have in discussing literature due to your pathetic personal attacks. Of course, calling someone slow and proceeding to fill your post with ..."

Michelle - you took the4 words right out of my mouth....Elizabeth

Truthfully - I can't stand Ayn Rand. Her point of view is not so much anti-communist as it is an homage to selfishness. No wonder she is embraced by the Libertarians.

The only book of hers that I ever liked was Anthem - but I read it so many years ago that I don't know if I could even tolerate it now. I might read it again just to see.

I have little tolerance for selfishness.

Book burning is always a good progressive way to deal with contrary ideas.

It's more effective than posting whiny comments on book reviews.

There are certainly a few books I've purchased that have been such crap that I've wanted to burn my personal copy. That isn't at all the same thing as a state sponsored censorship attempt in which all known copies of a work are publicly incinerated. I would hazard to assume that the second is NOT what Zora was advocating.

I've never even read this book, but good grief, it's like some of you just realized that others have different opinions! I mean, "Holy shit! Not everyone loves this? That's crazy! I loved it, therefore nobody else is allowed to think differently, right?" I love the drama of a good online "I'm more intelligent than you are" fight, but it's silly to take these seriously. People are reviewing books so others can read them and decide whether they want to read the book or not, not to start fights. So chill out and write your own damn review if you want others to know your opinion. I say good day.

Sarah wrote: "So chill out and write your own damn review if you want others to know your opinion."

Thank you.

Nick wrote: "Actually, only 2.5 million copies have been put into print, but I digress."

Technically, in order to digress you would have to had make a point, then digress from that point with a second point. What you have actually done is make a simple statement of fact which has no impact on my review. If you intend to undermine my criticism with this statement, then you should look up something called 'argument from fallacy' and reconsider your choice.

Nick wrote: "Zora: Calm. Down. I gave the book two stars; I don't like it either. I was making a like 'teaser'. No need to get spazzy. Let me revise my previous comment:

"Actually, only 2.5 million copies have..."

Spazzing over. Sorry, guy, I just didn't expect to get this ridiculous amount of heat over a damn book review. Every time I get an email from Goodreads I think to myself, 'great, another angry, linguistically impaired libertarian.'

Zora, if you're pissing them off, you're doing something right. ; )

Thanks, Michelle.
Nick- I'm always ready to make peace, as long as it's not at the cost of my integrity. Despite all of the hostility, I really only intended this review to be funny (although I stand behind every word of it.)

Allison wrote: "Perhaps the most fascinating "back-and-forth" on Goodreads. Puts presidential debates and campaigns to shame. <3"

It's less fascinating than surreal from this end, but I am thrilled that someone finds it worth reading. ;)

"The real tragedy of this book is that the billions of copies that have been printed could have been more appropriately used to build homes for people in third world countries." that was too funny!

kisha wrote: ""The real tragedy of this book is that the billions of copies that have been printed could have been more appropriately used to build homes for people in third world countries." that was too funny!"

Thank you. :)

A five year back and forth over a ninety page novella. I have to applaud this.

Charlie wrote: "A five year back and forth over a ninety page novella. I have to applaud this."

I also wrote a pretty vicious review of "The Secret Garden," to which I have had exactly one reply. I guess the Elite are just way more easily offended than third graders.

your last comment is hilarious Zora :)

April wrote: "your last comment is hilarious Zora :)"

Thanks.

I couldn't have said it better myself

The characters aren't supposed to be complex; first of all, they all live in a society where deviation is 'evil' and most of the members of this world are too brainwashed or too stupid to think any differently. And second of all, for your weeping charity, it is a cautionary tale of the human race and it's beginnings and ends and rebirth, of how there is man not men, how the self is more abundant than the group, and, yes, how love can't exist without selfishness. Do you love? Do you think? Then you have an ego and you are selfish. Go you!!! I! I! I!

My 'weeping charity'? I'm not sure if you are referring to something I am unfamiliar with or if you are just extremely bad at sarcasm. Moving along... The environment created by the novel doesn't justify poorly written characters. People are complex, ergo characters are complex, unless one is trying to make them so simple that the reader gains a false sense of superiority. "The self is more abundant than the group" - Yes, this is true. There are literally more individuals than there are groups. Your statement means absolutely nothing of significance. If you are trying to say that an individual is more complicated, emotional, thoughtful, etc. than a group, that is also true. The purpose of a group is to focus multiple individuals on a common goal, which I don't see as a problem because I am not antisocial and I enjoy the benefits of social organization, including things like refrigeration, electricity and health care. It is a gross oversimplification to indicate that if one has an ego, thinks and feels love that they are inherently selfish. There is a tremendous difference between acting on your own behalf and being selfish, though both are beneficial to the self. Selfishness is the pursuit of one's own goals with intentional ignorance to other people. When I love, I don't do so with the goal of pleasing myself at the expense of anyone. In fact, I believe the greatest act of love is often walking away from someone. I also expect, as a social creature, that if someone feels unrequited or unhealthy love for me, they will restrain their expression of that love because it is harmful to the group. There is no aspect of love that is inherently selfish. And lastly, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't need a cheerleader. I am content with myself and my accomplishments and don't exist competitively, so there is no need for someone to rally attention in support of my self-esteem or goals. But if it is of benefit to you, "Go Mythmalefactress! Actively pursue your life and interests instead of being swallowed by your sense of identity! Feel equal to others without the crippling need for praise! Enjoy your emotions without assigning responsibility for them! Two bits, four bits, 6 bits, etc."

I'd fully agree if you didn't mention ASOIAF, which although a nice try in fantasy, it's extremely overrated. Read the original instead: Tolkien :)

funny all those third world shit holes are collectivist shit holes with little to no human rights. I know cause I'm from one. Ayn Rand is spot on

You mean you disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy

"This book could not be more self indulgent if it came with a bottle of Absynthe and a membership to MENSA. " I've saved this - one of my fave quotes. Fraid I haven't read the book - Ayn Rand always puts me off

The real tragedy is that 84 people liked your comment.

Book burning? I'll always regret book burning.

Yeah, um, the one dimensional characters are like that on purpose. That's kind of the point of the plot. A lack of depth and individuality is exactly what the creators of this new, dystopian democracy were trying to accomplish. It doesn't take an English teacher to see that, just a brain.

This is the most spot on comment ever!

Lauren wrote: "Yeah, um, the one dimensional characters are like that on purpose. That's kind of the point of the plot. A lack of depth and individuality is exactly what the creators of this new, dystopian democr..."

If you have to create one dimensional characters to make a point, when you have to bend suspension of disbelief so far backwards that it breaks, that doesn't make you profound, it makes you a shitty writer.

This is wrong

I find ayn’s philosophy appalling, but this review is just beyond cringey.