Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.72 AVERAGE
3.72 AVERAGE
I thought this was an excellent novel, regardless of where you sit politically. I certainly don't share Rand's philosophies.Don't prejudge the novel and decide not to read it because you dislike Rand/Objectivism.
The story is genuinely moving and the characters, particularly the main character, are well drawn. I understood why she felt the way she did, and why she made the choices she did. Rand created some very evocative images in the novel -- I felt like I was there. I got totally pulled into the story. I can't say that the picture of Communist Russia at that time is particularly accurate or not, as I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to comment on that. I read the book because, aside from the fact that it was a gift, I was quickly found myself genuinely interested in the story.
On a political level, the book does raise some good, thought provoking questions about the dangers of totalitarianism. Thus, I can reccommend the book on two levels -- it will satisfy readers who just love a good story, and those who are interested in politcal systems and political ideology. The book might be hard to track down, but it will be worth the effort.
The story is genuinely moving and the characters, particularly the main character, are well drawn. I understood why she felt the way she did, and why she made the choices she did. Rand created some very evocative images in the novel -- I felt like I was there. I got totally pulled into the story. I can't say that the picture of Communist Russia at that time is particularly accurate or not, as I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to comment on that. I read the book because, aside from the fact that it was a gift, I was quickly found myself genuinely interested in the story.
On a political level, the book does raise some good, thought provoking questions about the dangers of totalitarianism. Thus, I can reccommend the book on two levels -- it will satisfy readers who just love a good story, and those who are interested in politcal systems and political ideology. The book might be hard to track down, but it will be worth the effort.
High School AP English BABY! I'll bet I'd like this one a lot better if I read it today. I think 17 year olds might be a bit young to really "get" this on all it's levels. I just remember having to write a paper on utopian socieites and that this book wasn't as compelling as 1984.
СССР след великата съветска социалистическа революция - глад, абсолютна мизерия, хората се редят на километрични опашки за хляб и сапун (друго няма), разстрели на улицата…
Това е положението след като комунистите вземат властта. Да произвеждаш и продаваш каквото и да е – това е забранено, защото държавата щяла да се грижи за всичко. Но ако не си член на партията – просто забрави за всякаква грижа – медицина, училище, работа, даже храна.
Това е първата книга на Айн Ранд и за разлика от другите не е философска – а е исторически роман. „Ние, живите“ разказва за Русия, но съвсем спокойно можеше да бъде написана и за Германия по времето на Хитлер или за която и да е друга античовешка, идеологическа тирания в новата световна история.
Разказ за това как поставен в условията на диктатура, принуждаван да мрази това, което е, човек, бил той аристократ, селянин, бивш богаташ или чистосърдечен комунист – се превръща в животно и прави всичко, за да оцелее… или просто умира.
Това е положението след като комунистите вземат властта. Да произвеждаш и продаваш каквото и да е – това е забранено, защото държавата щяла да се грижи за всичко. Но ако не си член на партията – просто забрави за всякаква грижа – медицина, училище, работа, даже храна.
Това е първата книга на Айн Ранд и за разлика от другите не е философска – а е исторически роман. „Ние, живите“ разказва за Русия, но съвсем спокойно можеше да бъде написана и за Германия по времето на Хитлер или за която и да е друга античовешка, идеологическа тирания в новата световна история.
Разказ за това как поставен в условията на диктатура, принуждаван да мрази това, което е, човек, бил той аристократ, селянин, бивш богаташ или чистосърдечен комунист – се превръща в животно и прави всичко, за да оцелее… или просто умира.
I enjoy Ayn Rand books, and appreciate her philosophy of Objectivism. But good grief this story was boring. I think it's semi-autobiographical.
The book tells the story of 3 individuals trying to live a life in the early 20th Century USSR under the Communist regime. It was grey, stinky, poverty stricken and hopeless.
The book tells the story of 3 individuals trying to live a life in the early 20th Century USSR under the Communist regime. It was grey, stinky, poverty stricken and hopeless.
I liked the character development by Ayn Rand and how they all come together at just the right moment. Ayn made it easy to feel the pain and suffering that the characters and real people experienced after the "Revolution". This book made me want to learn more about the "Revolution".
Probably the most depressing book I have ever read, but in a positive way, if that's possible... Incredible.
Slow plot progression with sometimes endless descriptions of mundane scenes. Generally a boring book. Would not recommend.
I was surprised that this book ended the way it did, after having read (and then reread, because I love it so much) the Fountainhead. (That might be because this book actually came first, but I hadn't read it.)
That's all I can say without spoiling it. That, and it was incredibly depressing and sad. I love the way she writes so much; her diction and her particular rhythms are almost poetic to me, even if I don't always understand or agree with what they're expressing.
That's all I can say without spoiling it. That, and it was incredibly depressing and sad. I love the way she writes so much; her diction and her particular rhythms are almost poetic to me, even if I don't always understand or agree with what they're expressing.
Would it be strange to wish that this book had been written by [a:Irene Nemirovsky|5772020|Irene Nemirovsky|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]? I'm not saying that Nemirovsky should have written of life under the Soviets or that I wish this book had her more subtle touch. I wouldn't change a word of it, but swapping Nemirovsky's name for [a:Ayn Rand|432|Ayn Rand|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1168729178p2/432.jpg]'s would make this a better book. (Also, lose any introduction or afterword.)
I realize this sounds like a strange notion, but when you pick up a Nemirovsky book, you know that whatever it's flaws, the main goal is to tell a story about flawed human beings coping with the vicissitudes of life. "We the Living" begins in 1922 with the return of the Argounova family to Petrograd after the civil war that followed the Russian Revolution of 1917. The action principally follows Kira, the oldest daughter, who is eighteen at the beginning of the story, but as the novel proceeds it expands to include members of Kira's extended family, as well as her friends. So we get a view of the horrors of Soviet Russia from several views, including that of young party members. One of these, a man named Andrei, who is a member of the secret police and a hero of the revolution, falls madly in love with Kira. However, she herself has already fallen in love with Leo, the son of an aristocrat.
Rand is a powerful witness to the criminality of the Soviets: their corruption, their arbitrary use of power, their lack of principles. The powers-that-be talk about liberating the people, but instead they starve them, brutalize them and force them to volunteer hours to hold on to menial jobs, while corrupt party officials game the system for their own good and flaunt their ill-gotten riches. Though the dialog is sometimes clunky, Rand's writing is very evocative, conveying the destitution of the regime, the way it crushes some and corrupts others. Perhaps most heartbreaking is the plight of men such as Andrei and Stepan Timoshenko, men who fought against the injustice of the Czars only to be betrayed by the new regime.
If Nemirovsky's name were on the title page, this would be a tale of the way that a brutal system damages people, and in Kira, we would see the odd girl whose reaction to the Soviets is flawed and off-kilter because she is just a human being reacting to a terrible situation. In truth Kira, like Gutierrez' Juan Moreira, is a character whose thoughts and actions I did not always agree with, yet whose willingness to stick to her ideals, even if it means death, makes her admirable.
Yet, because this is a Rand novel, Kira is not just a flawed human being, but Rand's stand-in. Her off-kilter philosophy is meant to be the lesson of the book, and this is where the book's major flaw lies. "We the Living" presents us something peculiar, a novel in which the narrator is trustworthy but the author is not. Rand is a great witness of the life under the Soviets, but her interpretation of things (as reflected by Kira) leaves a lot to be desired.
For Kira/Rand's view is not that the Soviets are an elite using power only to serve themselves while millions toil for little, but is that they scorn men like Leo, whose lives are more meaningful than those of ordinary men. This is perplexing, since it's never clear what makes Leo so great, except that he's handsome, haughty and selfish.
If this were a "Brave New World"-style dystopia, where the contentment of the many bought at the cost of the creative or the different, this would be a reasonable objection. However, it's so clear that talk of the proletariat is just window dressing for a self-serving regime, that Kira's inability to see this makes her seem sort of clueless.
Even worse, when Andrei once asks her, "Don't you know that we can't sacrifice millions for the sake of the few?" her response is not that this is precisely what the Soviets are doing are that you cannot bring about justice through injustice, but the following rant:
So, this should be a brilliant and powerful novel, did it not stop so often to remind me that it was in service to Rand's agenda, her idea of the proper places of the aristocracy and the rabble, the warped views of her stand-in.
Rand meant this book as being not just about Russia or Communism, but about totalitarianism. However, the book falls short compared to Orwell's 1984, which sees to the true dark heart of dictatorship in which power is not a means but an end.
I realize this sounds like a strange notion, but when you pick up a Nemirovsky book, you know that whatever it's flaws, the main goal is to tell a story about flawed human beings coping with the vicissitudes of life. "We the Living" begins in 1922 with the return of the Argounova family to Petrograd after the civil war that followed the Russian Revolution of 1917. The action principally follows Kira, the oldest daughter, who is eighteen at the beginning of the story, but as the novel proceeds it expands to include members of Kira's extended family, as well as her friends. So we get a view of the horrors of Soviet Russia from several views, including that of young party members. One of these, a man named Andrei, who is a member of the secret police and a hero of the revolution, falls madly in love with Kira. However, she herself has already fallen in love with Leo, the son of an aristocrat.
Rand is a powerful witness to the criminality of the Soviets: their corruption, their arbitrary use of power, their lack of principles. The powers-that-be talk about liberating the people, but instead they starve them, brutalize them and force them to volunteer hours to hold on to menial jobs, while corrupt party officials game the system for their own good and flaunt their ill-gotten riches. Though the dialog is sometimes clunky, Rand's writing is very evocative, conveying the destitution of the regime, the way it crushes some and corrupts others. Perhaps most heartbreaking is the plight of men such as Andrei and Stepan Timoshenko, men who fought against the injustice of the Czars only to be betrayed by the new regime.
If Nemirovsky's name were on the title page, this would be a tale of the way that a brutal system damages people, and in Kira, we would see the odd girl whose reaction to the Soviets is flawed and off-kilter because she is just a human being reacting to a terrible situation. In truth Kira, like Gutierrez' Juan Moreira, is a character whose thoughts and actions I did not always agree with, yet whose willingness to stick to her ideals, even if it means death, makes her admirable.
Yet, because this is a Rand novel, Kira is not just a flawed human being, but Rand's stand-in. Her off-kilter philosophy is meant to be the lesson of the book, and this is where the book's major flaw lies. "We the Living" presents us something peculiar, a novel in which the narrator is trustworthy but the author is not. Rand is a great witness of the life under the Soviets, but her interpretation of things (as reflected by Kira) leaves a lot to be desired.
For Kira/Rand's view is not that the Soviets are an elite using power only to serve themselves while millions toil for little, but is that they scorn men like Leo, whose lives are more meaningful than those of ordinary men. This is perplexing, since it's never clear what makes Leo so great, except that he's handsome, haughty and selfish.
If this were a "Brave New World"-style dystopia, where the contentment of the many bought at the cost of the creative or the different, this would be a reasonable objection. However, it's so clear that talk of the proletariat is just window dressing for a self-serving regime, that Kira's inability to see this makes her seem sort of clueless.
Even worse, when Andrei once asks her, "Don't you know that we can't sacrifice millions for the sake of the few?" her response is not that this is precisely what the Soviets are doing are that you cannot bring about justice through injustice, but the following rant:
What are your masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnant souls that have no thoughts of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their brains?
So, this should be a brilliant and powerful novel, did it not stop so often to remind me that it was in service to Rand's agenda, her idea of the proper places of the aristocracy and the rabble, the warped views of her stand-in.
Rand meant this book as being not just about Russia or Communism, but about totalitarianism. However, the book falls short compared to Orwell's 1984, which sees to the true dark heart of dictatorship in which power is not a means but an end.
I enjoyed the events and setting more than I enjoyed the didactic themes of individualism.