We The Living

Aesthetics Ayn Rand Book Club
1

I am reading We the Living for the first time and am enjoying it greatly; much more than I liked reading The Fountainhead which I found to be sluggish in pace. While AS is still my all time favorite, I can already tell WtL is going to rank up there for me in novels that I love. Not to sound Naturalistic but I love the way Miss Rand made these characters so realistic, like people you may encounter in daily life, albeit the best of those people, while showing what a man must do to survive living in a slave state.

I haven’t ever noticed WtL discussed much here, so I am interested in hearing others comments on the book.

2

I really loved We the Living (as I do all of Ayn Rand’s books). I think the reason it gets so little attention is because of the comparitively low amount of explicit philosophy in the book.

It’s a great intro-to-Rand book, which I will generally recommend to people who don’t enjoy didactic reading. I’ve found that those who tend to look more for an entertaining story than a deep philosophical message also tend to like We the Living more than Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

I’ve always especially admired Andrei and the courage it took for him to recognize his error toward the end of the book.

3

It’s a good one! Kira, especially has always been one of my favorite characters in Ayn Rand’s novels. What a picture of dedication to the pursuit of values, of feminine strength, of a love of life! (And what a contrast she is to people I hear whining about today’s culture and politics in the United States.)

And be sure not to miss the collection Essays on Ayn Rand’s We the Living, edited by Robert Mayhew and published in 2004. It’s a set of essays (most if not all of the authors are Objectivists) about the novel, covering topics such as: Rand’s early drafts, contemporary conditions in Russia, Rand’s family members as possible models for some of the characters, and many others. After you’ve finished WtL, this book of well-written essays will give you lots more to think about.

And then there’s the We the Living movie, made in Italy during WWII. Have you seen it? It’s remarkably true to the book. And the actress who played Kira, Alida Valli, did such a good job that the director remarked to her: “I won’t tell you how to interpret Kira because you are Kira. What you’ll do will be fine.” [From the above-mentioned book of essays.]

4

And then there’s the We the Living movie, made in Italy during WWII. Have you seen it?

I didn’t know that there was a WtL movie, but now I will definitely check it out. By the way, I love The Fountainhead movie, I think it is much better paced and explicit compared to the book.

And I just finished reading the novel and my earlier prediction of WtL ranking as one of my all time fav’s was definitely not misplaced. The characters are excellent and the story moves quick. I think I fell in love a little with Kira, too. :wub:

I’ve found that those who tend to look more for an entertaining story than a deep philosophical message also tend to like We the Living more than Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

Or those who started with the deep philosophical message’s first and are now going back and reading an excellent author for the pure love of her entertaining stories.

5

Or those who started with the deep philosophical message’s first and are now going back and reading an excellent author for the pure love of her entertaining stories.

That’s definitely true, too! Although, WTL certainly does have a great philosophical message!

6

Concerning the WtL movie;

It’s steep price deterred me from viewing it up until now; but I Interlibrary Loan(ed) [it] through a local library and look for to watching it!

7

Anthem’s it was the first book I read from Ayn Rand,

I think that this book should be the premise Eq72521 of all of Ayn Rand’s work.

It reads like a looking Glass of things to come, and also reminder of things in the past.

The freedom of man’s spirit being crushed by the collectivist, state. The book calls out

to me to never surrendered to collectivism, kind of like the Borg in Star Trek trying to asimulate

those of free minds to the collective. Its been three years since I’ve read the book which started a chain reaction causing me to read all most every book that Ayn Rand wrote.

This is a list of the books I read or heard on tape in the approximate order over last three years

Anthem’s ,We the Living,Opar, philosophy who needs it, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Fountainhead, Atlas shrugged,I have not read a sense of life yet. The Virtue of Selfishness,

and cap it all off with The Anti-Industrial Revolution" in Return of the Primitive:The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

It was very hard to accept where the world has been, and where is going. But the truth had to be known

it is good to know that there is others out there working around the globe to spread the ideas of Ayn Rand

that started over 50 years ago, we are in a world being dominated by irrational collective ideas over reason everywhere I go in all actions in my life I share the ideas, and principles. With others I believe I will continue to do this into the day I die, or become assimilated into the Borg collective statism through force.

I believe a person has the right to their work their skills and should not be forced to have to contribute to a collectivist state.

8

I am reading We the Living for the first time and am enjoying it greatly; much more than I liked reading The Fountainhead which I found to be sluggish in pace. While AS is still my all time favorite, I can already tell WtL is going to rank up there for me in novels that I love. Not to sound Naturalistic but I love the way Miss Rand made these characters so realistic, like people you may encounter in daily life, albeit the best of those people, while showing what a man must do to survive living in a slave state.

I haven’t ever noticed WtL discussed much here, so I am interested in hearing others comments on the book.

Right after you finish WTL I suggest you read AR short story called Red Pawn. It is perhaps my all time favorite thing she’s ever written (besides Atlas Shrugged). Just in terms of literary construction it is amazing.

9

I don’t remember where I read this information, but some publication said that the Italian We The Living movie was made without Ayn Rand’s consent at the behest of Mussollini’s regime. It was seen by the fascists simply as an anti-communist movie. Then it was banned when they realized that it was anti-statist.

10

"Do you believe in God, Andrei? No. Neither do I. But that’s a

favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know. What do

you mean? 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. Why? Because, you see, God – whatever anyone chooses to call

God – is one’s highest conception of the highest possible. And

whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks

very little of himself and his life. It’s a rare gift, you know, to

feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest,

the highest possible, here, now, for your very own." (Kira, We The Living)

I have to say that this is one of my favorite books. I fell in love with Leo and Andrei, and the way that Leo and Kira met is something that I hope to experience one day.

This is probably the saddest of all of Rand’s novels, however, as there is no great victory over the evils of the world in the end. This also brings our war in Iraq to a new light - if THIS is what it means to be oppressed, if THIS is the result and sum of a corrupt goverment, if there is ONE Kira for the hundred thousand other brainwashed looters there- isn’t she worth saving? Wouldn’t you do anything in your power to keep her from that end?

11

I don’t remember where I read this information, but some publication said that the Italian We The Living movie was made without Ayn Rand’s consent at the behest of Mussollini’s regime. It was seen by the fascists simply as an anti-communist movie. Then it was banned when they realized that it was anti-statist.

That’s right. It was made in 1942, when Italy and the United States were at war, and the Italians didn’t bother to get permission from Ayn Rand to make the movie. The book of essays on WtL that I recommended a few posts back in this thread has a chapter which tells the story of the making of the movie. Evidently, it was very popular in Italy.

12

I am reading We the Living for the first time and am enjoying it greatly; much more than I liked reading The Fountainhead which I found to be sluggish in pace. While AS is still my all time favorite, I can already tell WtL is going to rank up there for me in novels that I love. Not to sound Naturalistic but I love the way Miss Rand made these characters so realistic, like people you may encounter in daily life, albeit the best of those people, while showing what a man must do to survive living in a slave state.

I haven’t ever noticed WtL discussed much here, so I am interested in hearing others comments on the book.

I read this book not long after reading Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. I enjoyed We the Living the most after AS and Fountainhead, as they were more sweeping statements of her philosophy. However, WTL was also a rather good statement of it too, giving a clear example of the evil brought about by the failure to act on rational philosophy taken to its eventual course, including some brillant speeches, like Kiras to Andrei.

Dondigitalia is right, it is a good book for those whom wish to learn more about the philosophy while not reading some of the more ‘heavy’ works such as AS. I have reccommended it to a friend, and I hope that he will read it and then some other of Ayn Rands books at some stage…

13

I have only read WTL from the beginning to the end once. Though I keep reading bits of it from the middle from time to time, the ending is so depressing I have never felt the desire to read it (the ending) again.

14

I have to say that this is one of my favorite books. I fell in love with Leo and Andrei, and the way that Leo and Kira met is something that I hope to experience one day.

This is probably the saddest of all of Rand’s novels, however, as there is no great victory over the evils of the world in the end. This also brings our war in Iraq to a new light - if THIS is what it means to be oppressed, if THIS is the result and sum of a corrupt goverment, if there is ONE Kira for the hundred thousand other brainwashed looters there- isn’t she worth saving? Wouldn’t you do anything in your power to keep her from that end?

Most definitely an interesting quote, but for me personally I was most interested in the psychological problems and internal struggles that Communism forced rather than looking for precursors to her later books. The book was incredibly sad and emotional. My own escape from Communism (and the emotions that comes with those risks) was my reference point and probably why I was so moved by the book. However, this book is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It has plot flaws (early on at least) that aren’t plastered over by memorable quotes and theory, like some of Rand’s later books. I often felt frustrated with Leo’s character and as much as I despised Andrei and his position, his personality (which really showed in the second half of the book) and attitude towards the woman he loves was far more similar to me than anything Leo showed. If you remember Leo and Kira met in a street, while he was looking for a tramp. He ends the book calling her just that and rarely realizes the sacrifices she has made for him. Too often Leo is willing to accept himself as a victim.

Another instance that really annoyed me was the purchase of the royal porcelain. Interesting metaphor, but in general his lack of care for money made me hate him more than any other character in the book outside of Victor. As the traitor, Victor is the psychological extreme, he has accepted rule by hunger and will do anything to succeed in the life he is given. He is perfectly malleable while the individualists are far more stiff (and to further the metaphor) with Leo being brittle. As a side note, Victor is not unique. One of the greatest psychological pressures people faced under Communism was paranoia about what is thought of you and who is looking over your shoulder. This manifests in hate for neighbors relatives and distances people from their community. I would love if there was someone that lived in Poland pre 1990 could touch on this subject.

This mental metallurgical spectrum of mine, really leads the question to Rand’s own mind. She says that the book is essentially an autobiography of her inner emotions and personality in the form of Kira. From this I see Dagny as the epitome of Rand’s beliefs but as the final evolution of Rand from a flawed Kira in 1936.

These are of course my reactions to the characters. I should mention that their imperfections are what I really enjoyed about the novel. Without their unique personalities the reader would miss the chance to glimpse into the mind of individualists in a Soviet state and see how their minds are affected by the state.

Of all her books I’ve read, this one I think would make the best movie.

15

Of all her books I’ve read, this one I think would make the best movie.

There is a movie, with English subtitles. It is well-made.

16

There is a movie, with English subtitles. It is well-made.

This movie is brilliant. I’m surprised it’s not mentioned very often by Objectivists. As with the movie the Fountainhead, what shines about this movie is the dialog, and we can all guess why that’s the case.

The reason that the dialog is so good is that the producers remained true to Ayn Rand’s novel, and the reason for that was that they had limited production time, so instead of rewriting the script, they culled whole passages from the book for the characters to read. Or, so, I remember reading that.

In addition to the dialog, unlike the Fountainhead, the acting is also well done.

17

There is a movie, with English subtitles. It is well-made.

given, but i was thinking of a more modern remake. Something maybe that wasn’t four hours long and in enlgish.

18

I haven’t ever noticed WtL discussed much here, so I am interested in hearing others comments on the book.

The last two chapters in We The Living are the saddest chapters I have read thus far. It makes me get a lump in my throat, tears in my eyes, each time I go back and read them, very emotional scenes indeed for me. Kira, just saying or typing that name, what that name means to me…ahhh…I’ve fallen for her character so hard. I often think of what I would have done in her place, or if I was Leo in the novel. This paragraph is one of the most important paragraphs in the entirety of the novel:

She repeated, louder and louder, without despair, as if the sound, that one sound in the world, were giving her life: “Leo! … Leo! … Leo!..”

She was calling him, the Leo that could have been, that would have been had he lived there, where she was going, across the border. He was awaiting her there, and she had to go on. She had to walk. There, in that world, across the border, a life was awaiting her to which she had been faithful her every living hour, her only banner that had never been lowered, that she had held high and straight, a life she could not betray, she would not betray now by stopping while she was still living, a life she could still serve, by walking, by walking forward a little longer, just a little longer.

Kira is my favorite female Rand character right now. I enjoy rereading specific scenes from the novel, like her conversation with Andrei, when she tells him of how she was proud of using him to pay for Leo’s betterment. I have a very strong attachment to Kira. Her actions in the novel, like her consistency for one, I admire greatly.

(Added quote block - sNerd)

19

This mental metallurgical spectrum of mine, really leads the question to Rand’s own mind. She says that the book is essentially an autobiography of her inner emotions and personality in the form of Kira. From this I see Dagny as the epitome of Rand’s beliefs but as the final evolution of Rand from a flawed Kira in 1936.

Granted if we are discussing strictly main female Rand characters here, and not all, I would disagree with you that Dagny is the epitome of Rand’s beliefs, or the final evolution of Rand. Hypothetically speaking, from what I gather from WTL, Kira would have gone on strike faster than Dagny did in AS, and she would never have acted as Dominique did in The Fountainhead. Dominique, out of the main female characters of Rand’s, I liked the very least. Dominique has the consistency on the wrong side, like an Andrei, but also is in alignment with the “give up and join them” attitude of a Leo. Dagny had flaws as well, best said by Rand herself in the introduction to AS by Peikoff. But before I take it any further, I should have just asked this first:

What I would like to know, Kantardjiev, is what do you hold as a flaw(s) in the character of Kira?

20

First off:

A song that perfectly describes a lot of stuff in We The Living: “Three Evils Embodied in Love and Shadow” by Coheed and Cambria.

Check it out here:

The sound quality is nowhere near the actual CD. Claudio’s vocals sound WAY better on the actual CD and on my iPod. You will get the idea though. You might actually have to click on the song in the Myspace player as it might not be the first song that is qued.

Click Here for Lyrics if you need 'em

EC:

“Not to sound Naturalistic but I love the way Miss Rand made these characters so realistic, like people you may encounter in daily life, albeit the best of those people, while showing what a man must do to survive living in a slave state.”

Lol. You don’t sound Naturalistic at all. Yes, Ayn Rand DID show a very detailed picture that illustrated what life in the Soviet state was like. The key thing separating a good author who uses detail and a Naturalistic author that is using a great deal of detail is the motivation and the purpose of the details.

Ayn Rand comments in The Romantic Manifesto that a good author only writes what is metaphysically significant and NOTHING should be accidental. The crummy details of Communist life were such that giving us the gruesome “full picture” really IS metaphysically significant and done for a philosophical (aesthetic) purpose. Naturalists on the other hand don’t have any philosophical purpose. They just write “slice of life” pieces just so they can say, “This is what X time period looked like.” With a good author, you generally don’t have to really dig to figure out *why* the author used a high level of detail in certain areas. If it isn’t clear at the time, it should easily be clear in retrospect (with the full context of the novel).

Given those facts, I would seriously hope that no Objectivist (including yourself) would ever equate enjoying Miss Rand’s great literary talents (even in the realm of descriptive writing full of details) with Naturalism.

Ravayne:

“I fell in love with Leo and Andrei, and the way that Leo and Kira met is something that I hope to experience one day.”

Funny. That is not the first time I have heard an Objectivist woman say that…lol.

“This also brings our war in Iraq to a new light - if THIS is what it means to be oppressed, if THIS is the result and sum of a corrupt government, if there is ONE Kira for the hundred thousand other brainwashed looters there- isn’t she worth saving? Wouldn’t you do anything in your power to keep her from that end?”

Eh. I think the escaping Cuban refugees that we keep turning away is more akin to WTL’s real life implications than Iraq.

Yes, I would definitely do everything in my position to save a Kira. The only problem is, how do you distinguish Kira from the looters in Iraq (or any other enslaved country)? If you haven’t noticed…there are a LOT of philosophically f-ed up (read = hardcore Muslims) in Iraq just like there were *sincere* Communists (like Victor’s wench in WTL) in the USSR. Is the answer simply liberating all oppressed countries? That is a hydra that I think would exhaust our resources and moreover, detract us (the United States) from productive purposes in the long run. If you just start liberating countries, you often make them “free” enough to start killing each other. We did that in Guatemala with Operation PBSUCCESS (we overthrew the government) and sparked a civil war that killed 100-200 thousand indigenous Mayans.

People like Kira are most likely in the overwhelming minority in countries outside of the U.S. The United States in a lot of ways is unique due to the unique philosophical influence of the Enlightenment. A lot of places never had a Renaissance or Enlightenment. For people like Kira that are an extreme minority among millions of philosophically brainwashed or mix-principled people…it is probably a safer bet to try to escape the country than try to escape the fascists AND American bombs, the ensuing chaos from such a liberation, etc.

Moreover, what obligation (if any) do we have to nation build and fix global problems? If it is in our best interests, sure. However, if the U.S spreads it too thin (like Rome did) on too many fronts with global policing, we start neglecting our *own* security. We start living for the rest of the world and NOT ourself. That is something I philosophically dispute. I don’t disagree with your sentiments, Ravyane. Nobody likes the idea of a real life Kira living in Iraq pre-invasion. However, the potential that such a person exists cannot be a justification for a whole lot of death of American troops with no assurances that the people worth saving even have a remote chance of surviving (if nothing else because they are in such a small minority that they probably aren’t identified - after all…Bagdhad DOES have 5 million people…how is that for a needle in a haystack proposition?).

If we were talking a society of philosophically ideal people (like Galt’s Gulch) under attack from an oppressor (like Hitler) I can see coming to their defense as being in our best interest. I don’t think we have an unconditional obligation to fix the problems that arise from petty and impotent dictators (on the global level) based on an a hypothetical possibility that there might be a very small minority of people worth saving. If such a group exists, we should attempt to extricate them from the country or offer them asylum when they seek it (like the Cuban refugees or the Jews that fled Hitler’s regime that we turned away).

Kantardjiev:

"It has plot flaws (early on at least) that aren’t plastered over by memorable quotes and theory, like some of Rand’s later books. I often felt frustrated with Leo’s character and as much as I despised Andrei and his position, his personality (which really showed in the second half of the book) and attitude towards the woman he loves was far more similar to me than anything Leo showed. If you remember Leo and Kira met in a street, while he was looking for a tramp. He ends the book calling her just that and rarely realizes the sacrifices she has made for him. Too often Leo is willing to accept himself as a victim.

Another instance that really annoyed me was the purchase of the royal porcelain. Interesting metaphor, but in general his lack of care for money made me hate him more than any other character in the book outside of Victor. As the traitor, Victor is the psychological extreme, he has accepted rule by hunger and will do anything to succeed in the life he is given. He is perfectly malleable while the individualists are far more stiff (and to further the metaphor) with Leo being brittle."

au contraire, mon ami. I think that is the point Rand was aiming for. Leo is NOT a Rand hero in the idealized sense of John Galt of Howard Roark. Leo is symbolic of WASTED potential that is wasted due to being crushed by the burden of living in a Communist dictatorship. It is also wasted by Leo’s choices that set him apart from a REAL Rand hero (the only one in We The Living) : Kira. Leo gives up. He IS hugely flawed. That is the point. You are SUPPOSED to feel frustrated with Leo and grow to hate what he becomes. You are supposed to hate the USSR more because you know that Leo would have probably ended up more like John Galt than Victor had he lived in a free country like America. That isn’t a plot flaw or a flaw in Miss Rand’s writing. In fact, it is EXACTLY what she intended and it is conveyed perfectly…because you felt exactly what you were supposed to feel at Leo’s bad choices and philosophical demise.

intellectualammo =

First off, I agree with your assessment of Kira as the ideal Rand hero.

Second…

“Kira is my favorite female Rand character right now. I enjoy rereading specific scenes from the novel, like her conversation with Andrei, when she tells him of how she was proud of using him to pay for Leo’s betterment.”

Ah. I HATE reading that part because to me it is emotionally painful. I see Kira as the ideal woman…a lot like my girlfriend. I imagine us living in a statist country and me needing medical care. It seriously makes me queasy to my stomach to imagine her in the arms of another man so she could pay for my health. Honestly, it would take so much away from our relationship and from my emotional health that ANY physical health benefits incurred from the prostitution would be immediately mitigated. I value romantic love so much that the corruption of romantic relationships in WTL is one of the hardest parts for me too take when reading that novel. It doesn’t make me *sad* in the sense that Kira’s death makes me sad. It makes me nauseous.

-Evan

[edited to add the song stuff at the beginning of the post]