Talk:Anthem (novella)

"Genus" note in 2112

Call me picky, but the bit on the misprint of Ayn Rand's "genus" doesn't seem very notable. It is an unremarkable reprint error, and unless it somehow has significance (of which a google search does not turn up any evidence) its only function is to interrupt the flow of the section. I don't like making anonymous edits, so if someone reads this and agrees with me that it should simply read 'The "liner notes" of the album acknowledge "the genius of Ayn Rand."' please make the change and feel free to remove this request. 67.190.5.79 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)anonymous coward 27 Apr 2007

Agreed, and edited. 4AK

At the time I'm writing (Oct 2008), the article says "the genus [sic]"; Maybe I'm missing something, but genus could be correct, i.e. the origin of the idea... 92.236.112.88 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Communist society

Deleted some stupid editorializing about how Ayn Rand couldn't "bear" the idea of a communist society progressing and that's why Anthem takes place in a regressive state. Kade 04:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good. One may want to replace it with 'wouldn't expect a communist society to progress...' or some thing along those lines. D prime 05:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I believe she indeed couldn't bear the idea of a Communist society progressing. I don't know how she dealt with the Soviet space successes in the 50s and 60s. It certainly fits with what I know of Ayn Rand.

I heavily edited the intro for POV. It was pretty much a back cover blurb, melodramatic, and blatantly POV.

"He is the only individual left, as everyone else in his society has surrendered their life to the state"

Sounds like the caption on a movie poster.

Anthem and "We"

I took out a line that said "some have claimed"... that Rand may have plagarized because, like the rest of the article, it is written in passive voice (WHO is making this claim?) and is not attributed to any source. capitalist

It seems to be back...so I took it out again. Get a source! Besides, readers can conclude, if they wish, that Anthem was plagarized thanks to the list of similarities and differences. --zenohockey 17:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a source that seems to show that there is a relation between Anthem and We (novel). I don't have access to it. Could someone take a look at it?

• Gimpelevich, Zina (1997). "'We' and 'I' in Zamyatin's We and Rand's Anthem". Germano-Slavica. 10 (1): 13–23. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes=, |coauthors=, and |month= (help)

--Jtir 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I have access to it, and have been meaning to read it anyway sometime in the next couple of days. Cssprain (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I lied. Our access to Germano-Slavica at the UW extends only from 2000 on, and most of the list mentioned in this section is pretty clearly derived from that article. However, there is what looks to be a somewhat decent treating of the subject available in this article (which is handily free of all copyrights!):

• Saint-Andre, Peter (2003). "Zamyatin and Rand". Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. 4 (2): 285–304. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes=, |coauthors=, and |month= (help)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Zamyatin scholar (Gimpelevich) came to the conclusion that "'there are too many coincidences in the philosophical approaches to literature' of Zamyatin and Rand to 'consider them as merely accidental'", while the Rand scholar (Saint-Andre) comes to the conclusion that "other explanations may be equally plausible," due to the notable differences between We and Anthem. I find Gimpelevich's argument more compelling, but I'm not sure that matters terribly, as Saint-Andre essentially leaves the question of influence unanswered in the end. Either way, I certainly wouldn't call Rand a plagiarist. I'll be going back to rework this section sometime in the near future with his article as the primary citation, unless someone objects.

--Cssprain (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also under the section comparing "Anthem" and "We", before the list of similarities, it says, "Below is a list of the similarities and differences between the two stories:". However, there are not any differences listed, only similarities. So I removed "and differences". Even if differences were listed, I don't see why they should be, as they would basically be infinite and very subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbmodern (talk • contribs) 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

2112

I changed the trivia section to '2112', because that was the only fact in it. I also expanded it a lot. I remember hearing some where that she said that she didn't like rock music. However, I can only directly reference a record of her saying that she doesn't like Elvis. Does any one think that it would be neccessary to take the reference to Rock Music in general out? I thought that it was neccessary comment.D prime 05:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Equality 7-2521

I renamed Prometheus to his given name, Equality 7-2521, for most of the synopsis, since he only takes the name Prometheus at the very end. I also added the names of his colleagues: International 4-8818 and Union 5-3992. --Kitch 17:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of names, I changed the chosen name of Liberty 5-3000 to 'Gaea' from 'Gaia' to more accurately reflect the book.

Science

Did anyone else find Rand's concepts of science and technology a bit alien? I don't believe that Edison deserves as much credit as he usually gets for driving the sweatshop workers that developed the lightbulb for him, but it's a well-established fact that it took a very large operation to pick through all the possibilities and get it right. Not to mention all the publishing that had to happen before chemistry became more than just "mixing strange acids". Science is a way of communicating as much as it's a field of activity. I'm tempted to put some of this in the article, but I'd have to change the tone quite a bit to make it appropriate, if that's even possible.--Joel 00:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that the discovery of the lightbulb by Eqaulity is a little too accidental for it to be realistic? If so, that is fair enough. The real light bulb did take many years to develop. However, many discoveries were made completely accidentally. Take, Gelegnite, for example. So yes, her concept of science is a bit alien. However, it should be; the book is science. The point I'd like to make is that her concept of the discovery of the lightbulb is not so alien so as to be unrealistic. --86.158.133.181 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1. That comment is two and a half years old
2. It doesn't suggest anything that could add to the page, it's the use of a talk page as a discussion forum. Which is not what wikipedia is for.

That's why I removed the comment before and why it is still inappropriate for the page. How does this help the main page? How could it be used to improve the main page in a way that is not speculation or original research? How is this not hijacking the page into a talk forum? WLU (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

The following line in the article did not make sense to me:

The only wat that the book anthem actuly was reconised by teachers is because its ablity to be used in diffrent ways that the teacher can make up.

Perhaps someone who knows more about the article can delete it or edit it. Danras 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Publication Date?

In this article it says that Anthem was first published in 1938, but then later in the article it says: "Rand boasted that she had beaten both Orwell and Huxley into print with Anthem." After that it says it was first published in english in 1937. However, in the article for Brave New World it states that novel was first published in 1932, which seems to disagree with Anthem having beaten it into print. What's correct? --208.192.70.129 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

272 pages?

I have a small page, big text version of the book, and the book itself is only 87 pages.

I can clear this up, the novella itself is less than a hundred pages in most editions, however recently, a large two hundred some page edition has been published using the simple trick of adding Ayn Rand's "Real, original notes!" on the story. Since these notes take the form of a lightly editied copy of the text of the novella this effectively doubles the size of the work and allows them to sell it for actual paperback book prices. --Literary Fraud Artist

Citing Sparknotes?

Would it be okay to cite Sparknotes as a source for verification? Thanks. GreaterWikiholic 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This question doesn't seem to be directly addressed by a guideline (e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources), however this discussion suggests that 'Notes are not acceptable as sources.

The problem I see with Sparknotes and the like is that they do not consistently or fully cite their sources and no credentials are given for the authors. [1]

Although this page cites Leonard Peikoff, and Rand herself is cited here, these are exceptions and they don't cite specific sources. I can easily find unsourced generalizations that would be totally unacceptable at WP.

• Technology and nature, often in tension in literature, are means to the same end in Anthem. [2]
• Feminists are troubled by Rand’s view of women, ... [3]
• Critics of Rand are repulsed by the blatant selfishness she professes. [4]

--Jtir 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

i think equality is a good person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.222.42 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Evils

The use of the word "evils" in the intro seems to be slightly objective consider revising —Preceding unsigned comment added by The wood dwarf (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Liberty 5-2000

Liberty 5-2000 was written as Liberty 5-3000 in the wiki page, so I edited it. You're welcome! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.0.201 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

The Influences section contains an unsourced list of similarities between Anthem and We. I will attempt to find a credible source which supports it, but in the mean time I've flagged it as possible original research so others can help. It's been there a while, though, so I'm tempted to remove it soon if nothing can be found for the sake of article improvement.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages?

This may be insignificant but the copy of Anthem that I have is 123 pages long not 147. It is 1946 publication... Signet edition.