What do you think?
Rate this book
袦褘 卸懈胁褘械
协褌芯 锌械褉胁褘泄 褉芯屑邪薪 懈蟹胁械褋褌薪芯泄 邪屑械褉懈泻邪薪褋泻芯泄 锌懈褋邪褌械谢褜薪懈褑褘 褉褍褋褋泻芯谐芯 锌褉芯懈褋褏芯卸写械薪懈褟. 袚谢邪胁薪邪褟 械谐芯 褌械屑邪 - 褔械谢芯胁械泻 锌褉芯褌懈胁 谐芯褋褍写邪褉褋褌胁邪, 谢懈褔薪芯械 褋褔邪褋褌褜械 锌褉芯褌懈胁 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪薪芯谐芯 斜谢邪谐邪 - 屑邪褋褌械褉褋泻懈 锌褉芯胁械写械薪邪 褔械褉械蟹 褎芯薪 写褉邪屑邪褌懈褔械褋泻懈褏 褋芯斜褘褌懈泄 胁 卸懈蟹薪懈 袩械褌褉芯谐褉邪写邪-袥械薪懈薪谐褉邪写邪 薪邪褔邪谢邪 20-褏 谐芯写芯胁. 袗胁褌芯褉 斜械蟹 泻邪泻芯谐芯 谢懈斜芯 褋薪懈褋褏芯卸写械薪懈褟 泻 褋胁芯懈屑 谐械褉芯褟屑 褉邪褋褋泻邪蟹褘胁邪械褌 薪邪屑 芯 褌芯屑 褋屑褍褌薪芯屑 锌械褉懈芯写械 薪邪褕械泄 懈褋褌芯褉懈懈. 袘褘胁褕懈泄 邪褉懈褋褌芯泻褉邪褌 胁 褋谢褍卸械斜薪芯屑 褉胁械薪懈懈 锌械褉械写 薪芯胁褘屑 褉械卸懈屑芯屑 锌褉械写邪械褌 写褉褍蟹械泄 懈 斜谢懈蟹泻懈褏. 袚械褉芯泄 袚褉邪卸写邪薪褋泻芯泄 胁芯泄薪褘 锌芯褋谢械 胁褋械褏 褋胁芯懈褏 锌芯斜械写 懈蟹屑械薪褟械褌 写械谢褍 锌邪褉褌懈懈. 袥褞斜芯胁褜 谐谢邪胁薪芯泄 谐械褉芯懈薪懈 泻 褋褘薪褍 褉邪褋褋褌褉械谢褟薪薪芯谐芯 邪写屑懈褉邪谢邪 锌褉懈胁芯写懈褌 泻 谢褞斜芯胁薪芯泄 褋胁褟蟹懈 褋 褋芯褌褉褍写薪懈泻芯屑 袚袩校.
472 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1936
1,203 people are currently reading
20k people want to read
About the author
Ayn Rand
547听books10.1k听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 1,693 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
"韦慰 "螘渭蔚委蟼 慰喂 味蠅谓蟿伪谓慰委" 未蔚谓 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪 纬喂伪 蟿畏 危慰尾喂蔚蟿喂魏萎 巍蠅蟽委伪. 螘委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰 蔚谓维谓蟿喂伪 蟽蟿慰 魏蟻维蟿慰蟼. 螝蔚谓蟿蟻喂魏蠈 胃苇渭伪 蟿慰蠀 蔚委谓伪喂 畏 喂蔚蟻蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 - 蠂蟻畏蟽喂渭慰蟺慰喂蠋 蟿畏 位苇尉畏 喂蔚蟻蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蠈蠂喂 渭蔚 蟿畏 渭蠀蟽蟿喂魏喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 蟿畏蟼 苇谓谓慰喂伪, 伪位位维 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 苇谓谓慰喂伪 蟿畏蟼 蠀蟺苇蟻蟿伪蟿畏蟼 伪尉委伪蟼".
危蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 蟺位伪委蟽喂慰, 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 蟿慰 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏蠈 蟿蟻委纬蠅谓慰 蟿蠅谓 Kira, Leo 魏伪喂 Andrei.
螚 Kira, 畏 蟿蟻伪纬喂魏萎 蟺蟻蠅蟿伪纬蠅谓委蟽蟿蟻喂伪 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼, 蔚蟻蠅蟿蔚蠉蔚蟿伪喂 蟿慰谓 Leo, 纬喂慰 蔚谓蠈蟼 魏蠀尾蔚蟻谓畏蟿喂魏维 蟿伪蟺蔚喂谓蠅渭苇谓慰蠀 谓伪蠉伪蟻蠂慰蠀 慰 慰蟺慰委慰蟼 伪谓蟿喂蟿维蠂胃畏魏蔚 蟽蟿畏谓 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏.
螘蟺蔚喂未萎 尾位苇蟺蔚喂 蟿慰谓 蔚伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰蠀 蠅蟼 蟺慰位蠉 伪谓蠋蟿蔚蟻慰 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏维 纬喂伪 谓伪 尾蠀胃喂蟽蟿蔚委 蟽蟿伪 蔚蟺委蟺蔚未伪 魏慰蠀蟺蠈谓喂伪
蟿蠅谓 蟺蔚喂谓伪蟽渭苇谓蠅谓 魏伪喂 伪蟺蔚纬谓蠅蟽渭苇谓蠅谓 螝慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿蠋谓, 伪蟻谓蔚委蟿伪喂 蟿畏谓 魏慰渭渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蟺委蟽蟿畏 蟽蟿慰 蟽蠁蠀蟻慰未蟻苇蟺伪谓慰 蟿畏蟼 蔚位蔚蠉胃蔚蟻畏蟼 魏伪蟿伪谓伪纬魏伪蟽蟿喂魏萎蟼 胃蠀蟽委伪蟼 魏伪喂 蟺伪纬蠋谓蔚喂 魏维胃蔚 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 蟿蠅谓 蔚蟺伪谓伪蟽蟿伪蟿蠋谓 谓伪 蟿慰谓 蔚谓蟿维尉慰蠀谓 蟽蟿畏谓 魏慰渭渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蟿慰蠀蟼 渭维蟽蟿喂纬伪.
螚 螝委蟻伪 蟿慰谓 胃蔚蠅蟻蔚委 蟿慰谓 喂未伪谓喂魏蠈 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰. 韦慰谓 伪纬伪蟺维蔚喂 尾伪胃喂维, 伪位畏胃喂谓维, 伪尾委伪蟽蟿伪 魏伪喂 伪蠁蠈蟻畏蟿伪. 螤蟻慰蟽蟺维胃畏蟽伪谓 谓伪 蠁蠉纬慰蠀谓 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏 蠂蠋蟻伪 渭伪味委, 伪位位维 蟺喂维蟽蟿畏魏伪谓 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻慰蠁喂魏慰蠉蟼 蟽蟺喂慰蠉谓慰蠀蟼 蟺慰蠀 蔚渭蟺慰蟻蔚蠉慰谓蟿伪谓 蟽蠀谓伪位位伪纬苇蟼 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻苇伪 蟿蠅谓 未慰蠀位苇渭蟺慰蟻蠅谓 位伪胃蟻慰渭蔚蟿伪谓伪蟽蟿蠋谓, 魏伪喂 蟽蟿苇位谓慰谓蟿伪喂 蟺委蟽蠅, 蟺蟻喂谓 蠁蟿维蟽慰蠀谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏维 慰蟺慰蠀未萎蟺慰蟿蔚.
螣 Andrei 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 蟽慰尾伪蟻蠈蟼 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿萎蟼 - 渭苇位慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 GPU-
螚 Kira 蟿慰谓 蟽蠀谓伪谓蟿维 蟽蟿慰 蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏蠈 喂谓蟽蟿喂蟿慰蠉蟿慰 伪蟻蠂喂蟿蔚魏蟿慰谓喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 蟽蟿伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 渭畏蠂伪谓喂魏萎蟼, 蟺慰蠀 蠁慰喂蟿维 伪蟻蠂喂魏维, 渭苇蠂蟻喂 蟿喂蟼 蟺蟻蠋蟿蔚蟼 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻慰蠁喂魏苇蟼 蔚魏伪胃伪蟻蟻委蟽蔚喂蟼 蟿蠅谓 蟺维位伪喂 蟺慰蟿苇 伪蟽蟿喂魏蠋谓 伪蟺慰纬蠈谓蠅谓, 伪蠀蟿蠋谓 蟺慰蠀 蟿蠋蟻伪 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 蔚魏未喂蠅蠂胃慰蠉谓 伪蟺慰 蟺伪谓蟿慰蠉 蟽蟿慰 蠈谓慰渭伪 蟿畏蟼 蟽慰尾喂蔚蟿喂魏萎蟼 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 未喂魏蟿伪蟿慰蟻委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟺蟻慰位蔚蟿伪蟻喂维蟿慰蠀.
螠蔚 尾维蟽畏 蟿伪 蠈谓蔚喂蟻伪 蟿畏蟼, 蟺慰胃慰蠉蟽蔚 谓伪 蠂蟿委蟽蔚喂 魏维蟺慰蟿蔚 慰蠀蟻伪谓慰尉蠉蟽蟿蔚蟼 伪蟺慰 渭苇蟿伪位位慰 魏伪喂 纬蠀伪位委 魏伪喂 纬苇蠁蠀蟻蔚蟼 伪蟺慰 蠂维位蠀尾伪, 蟿蔚蟻维蟽蟿喂蔚蟼 魏伪喂 慰喂魏慰蠀渭蔚谓喂魏苇蟼.
螜蟽蠂蠀蟻维 慰蠂蠀蟻维 魏蟿委蟽渭伪蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 胃伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蟿维蟿蔚蠀伪谓 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏 伪谓维纬魏畏 纬喂伪 伪尉喂慰蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂伪 魏伪喂 魏蟿畏蟿喂魏萎 喂未喂慰蟿苇位蔚喂伪 尾慰位喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 未喂伪魏蟻喂蟿喂魏维 畏未慰谓喂魏萎蟼, 蟽蠀谓伪喂蟽胃畏渭伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 伪蟺蠈位伪蠀蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 蟽伪蟻魏喂魏萎蟼 位伪纬谓蔚委伪蟼. 螠蠈蟻蠁蠅蟽畏. 螆蟻蠅蟿伪蟼. 螘位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪.
螌位伪 伪蠀蟿维 蔚魏蟺慰蟻蔚蠀蠈渭蔚谓伪 伪蟺慰 苇谓伪 蔚位蔚蠉胃蔚蟻慰 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪 魏伪喂 渭喂伪 蠄蠀蠂萎 伪蟺慰位蠀蟿蟻蠅渭苇谓畏 伪蟺慰 蠂蟻蠋渭伪蟿伪 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰魏畏蟻蠉尉蔚喂蟼 蟺位畏蟻蠅渭苇谓畏蟼 伪蠀蟿慰胃蠀蟽委伪蟼.
危蟺慰谓未苇蟼 蟽蟿慰谓 尾蠅渭蠈 蟿慰蠀 渭蟺慰位蟽蔚尾喂魏喂魏慰蠉 蔚位苇纬蠂慰蠀 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 渭伪蟻蟿蠀蟻维蔚喂 蟺蠈蟽慰 胃伪 未喂伪蟻魏苇蟽蔚喂, 畏 Kira 蔚委谓伪喂 伪未喂维蠁慰蟻畏 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎 魏伪喂 伪纬谓慰蔚委 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻喂蟽渭慰蠉蟼 蟿蠈蟽慰 蟿慰蠀 蟺伪位伪喂慰蠉 魏伪胃蔚蟽蟿蠋蟿慰蟼 蠈蟽慰 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 谓苇伪蟼 魏慰渭渭伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 喂未蔚慰位慰纬委伪蟼. 螘委谓伪喂 谓蔚伪蟻萎, 蔚位魏蠀蟽蟿喂魏萎 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 蟺慰位位萎 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 魏伪位位蠅蟺喂蟽渭慰蠉, 魏伪喂 蠁慰尾喂蟽渭苇谓畏.
危蔚 伪谓蟿委胃蔚蟽畏 渭蔚 蟺慰位位苇蟼 纬蠀谓伪委魏蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪喂蟽胃维谓慰谓蟿伪谓 纬喂伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 维位位慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 蠁伪喂谓慰渭蔚谓喂魏维 萎胃蔚位伪谓 谓伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚蠀蠂伪蟻喂蟽蟿萎蟽慰蠀谓 蠈位慰蠀蟼, 畏 Kira 苇蠂蔚喂 渭喂伪 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻萎 伪委蟽胃畏蟽畏 慰蟻委蠅谓 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂未喂蠋魏蔚喂 谓伪 蔚蠀蠂伪蟻喂蟽蟿萎蟽蔚喂 渭蠈谓慰 蟿慰谓 蔚伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿畏蟼.
螤蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蔚委 渭维蟿伪喂伪 谓伪 蟺蔚委蟽蔚喂 蟿慰谓 Andrei - 蟺慰蠀 蟿畏谓 伪纬伪蟺维蔚喂 蟽伪谓 蟿畏谓 伪谓伪蟺谓慰萎 蟿慰蠀- 蟺蠅蟼 慰喂 位慰尾慰蟿慰渭畏渭苇谓蔚蟼 喂未苇蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻委 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀 魏伪喂 蔚尉维蟻蟿畏蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 伪蟺慰 蟿畏谓 伪蠁慰蟽委蠅蟽畏 蟽蟿慰 魏蟻维蟿慰蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿慰尉喂魏萎, 蠄蠀蠂喂魏维 蟺蔚胃伪渭苇谓畏.
螠蠈谓慰 蟺慰位蠉 伪蟻纬蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 魏伪喂 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟺维谓蟿伪 蟺慰位蠉 伪蟻纬维 ...蟿慰谓 蟺蔚委胃蔚喂.
螘谓维谓蟿喂伪 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 味蠅谓蟿伪谓蠈 蟿蟻伪纬喂魏蠈 魏伪喂 纬魏蟻慰蟿苇蟽魏慰 蟺伪谓蠈蟻伪渭伪 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎蟼 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏萎蟼 蔚尉苇纬蔚蟻蟽畏蟼, 畏 Ayn Rand 未蔚委蠂谓蔚喂 蟿喂 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻维尉畏 畏 胃蔚蠅蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 蟽慰蟽喂伪位喂蟽渭慰蠉, 蟿慰蠀 魏伪蟺喂蟿伪位喂蟽渭慰蠉, 蟿慰蠀 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅蟿喂蟽渭慰蠉, 蟿慰蠀 蠁伪蟽喂蟽渭慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭慰蠉. 螘位维蠂喂蟽蟿蔚蟼 慰喂 未喂伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟺位畏胃蠋蟻伪 伪蟺慰 伪渭慰喂蠈蟿畏蟿蔚蟼 渭蔚蟿伪尉蠉 蟿慰蠀蟼. 危蔚 魏维胃蔚 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻畏蟿萎蟻喂慰 蟿畏蟼 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿喂魏萎蟼 蟺蟻慰位蔚蟿伪蟻喂伪魏萎蟼 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 尾蟻委胃蔚喂 蔚蟺慰 未蠀谓维蟽蟿蔚蟼 蟽蔚 魏维胃蔚 蟺蠈蟽蟿慰 .
螤蠈蟽慰 蟺慰位蠉 胃蠀渭委味蔚喂 蟿慰 魏位伪蟽喂魏蠈 蟿慰蠀 螌蟻纬慰蠀蔚位,
"Animal Farm". 螘魏蔚委谓慰喂 蟺慰蠀 蟺喂蟽蟿蔚蠉慰蠀谓 蔚喂位喂魏蟻喂谓维 蟽蟿伪 喂未伪谓喂魏维 魏伪喂 伪蟻纬慰蟺蔚胃伪委谓慰蠀谓 蟽蟿慰 蠈谓慰渭伪 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽慰蟿喂渭委伪蟼
魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 伪纬蠅谓喂蟽蟿喂魏萎蟼 蟺维位畏蟼 蠀蟺苇蟻 蟿蠅谓 伪尾慰萎胃畏蟿蠅谓
蠄蠀蠂蠋谓 / 渭伪味蠋谓, 伪蟺慰 胃蔚慰蠉蟼 魏伪喂 未伪委渭慰谓蔚蟼,
喂蔚蟻慰蠉蟼 萎 魏慰位伪蟽渭苇谓慰蠀蟼, 蟽慰蠁慰蠉蟼 萎 蟺伪蟻伪谓慰蠆魏慰蠉蟼,
畏纬苇蟿蔚蟼 萎 蟺伪蟻伪蟽喂蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 畏纬蔚渭蠈谓蔚蟼 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 渭喂蟽伪位位慰未慰尉委伪蟼, 伪尉喂蠅渭伪蟿慰蠉蠂慰蠀蟼 萎 蔚渭渭慰谓喂魏慰蠉蟼 蟺伪蟿蟻喂魏委慰蠀蟼, 蠁喂位慰蟽蠈蠁慰蠀蟼 萎 蔚纬魏位畏渭伪蟿委蔚蟼 蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼, 魏伪喂 未喂维蠁慰蟻蔚蟼 维位位蔚蟼 魏伪蟿伪蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 魏位委渭伪魏伪 蟿畏蟼 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏萎蟼 纬蟻伪蠁蔚喂慰魏蟻伪蟿蔚委伪蟼, 魏伪蟿伪位萎纬慰蠀谓 谓伪 伪尉喂慰蟺慰喂畏胃慰蠉谓 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 魏蠀谓喂魏慰蠉蟼 蠂蔚喂蟻喂蟽蟿苇蟼 蟿畏蟼 蔚尉慰蠀蟽委伪蟼.
螚 渭伪蟻尉喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 蔚蟻渭畏谓蔚委伪 蟿畏蟼 胃蟻畏蟽魏蔚委伪蟼 蔚蠁伪蟻渭蠈味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿畏 未喂魏萎 蟿慰蠀 喂未蔚慰位慰纬委伪 - 苇谓伪 慰蟺喂慰蠉蠂慰 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟺蔚委蟽蔚喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚魏渭蔚蟿伪位位蔚蠀蠈渭蔚谓慰蠀蟼 谓伪 伪谓蔚蠂胃慰蠉谓 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏维 未蔚谓 胃伪 伪谓苇蠂慰谓蟿伪谓, 畏 巍伪谓蟿 蠁伪委谓蔚蟿伪喂 谓伪 位苇蔚喂 蠈蟿喂 蔚委谓伪喂 魏伪位蠉蟿蔚蟻慰 谓伪 伪纬魏伪位喂维蟽慰蠀渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚纬蠅喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 伪蟺位畏蟽蟿委伪 蟿慰蠀 魏伪蟺喂蟿伪位喂蟽渭慰蠉 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 蠀蟺慰魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺慰委畏蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭慰蠉, 魏伪喂 渭苇蟽伪 伪蟺慰 伪蠀蟿维 蟿伪 魏伪胃蔚蟽蟿蠋蟿伪 蠈蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 蟽蠉蟽蟿畏渭伪 位蔚喂蟿慰蠀蟻纬蔚委 蟺维谓蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟼 蠈蠁蔚位慰蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼.
螆谓伪 渭蔚纬维位慰 蟽蠋渭伪 伪蟺蠈 位喂纬蠈蟿蔚蟻慰蠀蟼 伪尉喂蠅渭伪蟿慰蠉蠂慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 伪蟺位慰蠉蟼 魏伪胃畏渭蔚蟻喂谓慰蠉蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀蟼, 苇蠂慰谓蟿伪蟼 萎未畏 魏蠀谓喂魏维 蟺伪蟻伪喂蟿畏胃蔚委 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 蠀蟺慰蟿喂胃苇渭蔚谓伪 喂未伪谓喂魏维 蟿慰蠀 蟽蠀蟽蟿萎渭伪蟿慰蟼, 苇蠂慰蠀谓 魏伪蟿伪位维尾蔚喂 蟺蠋蟼 谓伪 蠂蔚喂蟻委味慰谓蟿伪喂 蟿伪 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟼 蠈蠁蔚位蠈蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蔚谓蠋 蟿伪蠀蟿蠈蠂蟻慰谓伪 伪蟺慰蠁蔚蠉纬慰蠀谓 蔚蠀蟽蔚尾蠋蟼 蟿喂蟼 蔚蟺喂未喂蠋尉蔚喂蟼 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 位伪慰魏蟻伪蟿喂魏萎 胃蠀蟽委伪 魏伪喂 慰蠉蟿蠅 魏伪胃蔚尉萎蟼, 渭伪胃伪委谓慰蠀谓 谓伪 蔚蟺喂尾维位位慰蠀谓 蔚蟺委蟽畏渭畏 纬谓蠋渭畏, 苇纬魏蟻喂蟿畏 魏伪喂 魏蟻伪蟿喂魏萎 魏伪喂 魏蟻伪蟿伪喂维.
螒蠀蟿慰委 慰喂 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰喂, 蟺慰蠀 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻委味慰谓蟿伪喂 蠈蟿喂 苇蠂慰蠀谓 蟿畏谓 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻畏 蟺委蟽蟿畏 - 蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿萎谓 蟿畏谓 蟺蔚蟻委蟺蟿蠅蟽畏, 蟽蟿畏谓 喂蔚蟻萎 伪尉委伪 蟿慰蠀 位伪慰蠉 - 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 未蔚谓 蟺伪蟻伪喂蟿慰蠉谓蟿伪喂 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蟽蠀渭蠁苇蟻慰谓 蟿慰蠀蟼 蠀蟺苇蟻 蟿畏蟼 伪蠀蟿慰胃蠀蟽委伪蟼.
螒蠀蟿萎 蔚委谓伪喂 畏 蠀蟺蠈胃蔚蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼. 韦喂 魏维谓蔚喂 慰 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭蠈蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 蠄蠀蠂萎 蟽伪蟼; 韦喂 胃伪 魏维谓蔚喂 蟽蔚 慰蟺慰喂伪未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 蠂蠋蟻伪 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀蟼 蟿畏蟼.
危蠀谓胃位委尾蔚喂 蟿慰 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪 蟿慰蠀蟼. 螝伪蟿伪蟽蟿蟻苇蠁蔚喂 蟿慰 维蟿慰渭慰 渭蔚 蟿喂蟼 蔚位蟺委未蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀, 魏维胃蔚 蠈谓蔚喂蟻慰 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂胃蠀渭委伪.
螠伪 谓伪喂, 蠁伪蟽喂蟽渭蠈蟼 蔚委谓伪喂, 苇谓蟿慰谓伪 魏蠈魏魏喂谓慰蟼,
渭蔚 蟺苇蟿蟻喂谓蔚蟼 蟽魏喂苇蟼 尾蟻维蠂蠅谓 尾慰蠀位喂伪纬渭苇谓蠅谓 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 尾维位蟿慰蠀蟼 伪蟺慰 伪委渭伪, 伪蟿蟽维位喂, 位维蟽蟺畏 魏伪喂 蔚渭尾伪蟿萎蟻喂伪.
螒蟺慰 蟿伪 魏蠈魏伪位伪 蟿蠅谓 谓蔚魏蟻蠋谓 蟽蟿伪 苇位畏 蟿畏蟼 螤蔚蟿蟻慰蠉蟺慰位畏蟼, 胃伪蠀渭维蟽蟿蔚 蟿畏 蠂蠋蟻伪 蟺慰蠀 蠂蟿委蟽蟿畏魏蔚 伪蟺慰 谓蔚魏蟻慰蠉蟼.
韦苇位蔚喂伪. 韦蠋蟻伪 苇蠂蔚蟿蔚 渭蠈谓慰 蟿蟻蔚喂蟼 蔚蟺喂位慰纬苇蟼 蠈蟿伪谓 味蔚委蟿蔚 蟽蔚 苇谓伪谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟺慰蠀 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻委尾蔚喂 蟿慰 螘纬蠋 蟽伪蟼.
螌蟿伪谓 未蔚谓 渭苇谓蔚喂 蟿委蟺慰蟿伪.
1) 螒蠀蟿慰魏蟿慰谓委伪 - 蟿蔚位喂魏维 苇蟽蟺伪蟽蔚蟼, 未蔚谓 蟽蔚 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻蠋.
2. 桅蟻伪纬萎 蔚纬魏蔚蠁伪位喂魏萎蟼 位蔚喂蟿慰蠀蟻纬蔚委伪蟼 蟽蔚 谓蔚魏蟻蠋蟽喂渭畏 魏伪蟿维蟽蟿伪蟽畏. . 韦慰 渭蠈谓慰 蟺蟻维纬渭伪 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂蔚蟿蔚, 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀
未蔚谓 渭蟺慰蟻慰蠉谓 谓伪 蟺维蟻慰蠀谓 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿慰 渭蠀伪位蠈 蟽伪蟼.
螆蟿蟽喂, 蟺谓委纬蔚蟿蔚 蟽蔚 蠅魏蔚维谓喂伪 尾维胃畏 魏伪喂 蠀蟺蔚蟻尾伪蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿蔚蟼, 魏维谓蔚蟿蔚 慰蟿喂未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 纬喂伪 谓伪 尉蔚蠂维蟽蔚蟿蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 胃伪 苇蠂蔚蟿蔚 蟺慰蟿苇. 螖蔚谓 蟽蠀渭尾喂尾维味蔚蟽蟿蔚, 未蔚谓 位蠀纬委味蔚蟿蔚,
伪位位维 蟽蟺维蟿蔚. 螝慰渭渭维蟿喂伪.
螌蟺慰喂慰蟼 魏喂 伪谓 萎蟽慰蠀谓 蠂维胃畏魏蔚, 蔚尉伪蠁伪谓委蟽蟿畏魏蔚 渭蔚蟿伪渭慰蟻蠁蠋胃畏魏蔚 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 维未蔚喂慰 魏苇位蠀蠁慰蟼 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏慰蠉 蠂维慰蠀蟼.
螘委谓伪喂 蟽伪谓 渭喂伪 维位位畏 渭慰蟻蠁萎 伪蠀蟿慰魏蟿慰谓委伪蟼.
3)桅蔚蠉纬蔚蟿蔚, 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃萎蟽蟿蔚 谓伪 未蟻伪蟺蔚蟿蔚蠉蟽蔚蟿蔚. 螖蔚谓 蟽蠀渭尾喂尾维味慰谓蟿伪喂 伪蠀蟿维, 蔚魏蔚委谓伪 魏伪喂 蟿伪 维位位伪.
螣蠉蟿蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蟺喂蟽蟿蔚蠉蔚蟿蔚, 位蠀纬委味蔚蟿蔚 萎 蟽蟺维蟿蔚.
螖蔚谓 蠂维谓蔚蟿蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚位蟺委未伪 蠈渭蠅蟼 慰蠉蟿蔚 蟺伪蟻伪未委未蔚蟿蔚 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟺慰蠀 纬谓蠅蟻委味蔚蟿蔚, 蔚委谓伪喂 蔚魏蔚委 苇尉蠅,位委纬慰 渭伪魏蟻喂维, 渭伪 未蔚谓 蟺蔚喂蟻维味蔚喂, 蔚委谓伪喂 纬喂伪 蔚蟽维蟼. 韦蟻苇蠂蔚蟿蔚 渭苇蠂蟻喂 谓伪 渭畏谓 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委蟿蔚 谓伪 蟿蟻苇尉蔚蟿蔚 蟺喂伪 魏伪喂 谓伪 尉蔚蠁蠉纬蔚蟿蔚 萎 谓伪 蟺蔚胃维谓蔚蟿蔚 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蠋谓蟿伪蟼. 螘委蟿蔚 苇蟿蟽喂 蔚委蟿蔚 伪位位喂蠋蟼 蟺伪蟻伪渭苇谓蔚蟿蔚 伪谓蔚尉苇位蔚纬魏蟿慰喂.
螝伪谓苇谓伪 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿维 蟿伪 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿伪 未蔚谓 蔚蟺喂蟿蟻苇蟺蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟽蠀位位慰纬喂魏萎 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪. 螝维胃蔚 喂未苇伪, 蟽魏苇蠄畏, 伪谓维纬魏畏, 慰蟿喂未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 蟽蔚 魏维谓蔚喂 维蟿慰渭慰, 伪蟺慰魏位蔚委蔚蟿伪喂 伪蟺蠈 蔚蟽苇谓伪.
螝维胃蔚 伪谓伪蟺谓慰萎 蟺慰蠀 蟺伪委蟻谓蔚喂蟼 未蔚谓 蔚委谓伪喂 未喂魏萎 蟽慰蠀.
螒谓萎魏蔚喂 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻蠈蠁慰蠀蟼 蟽慰蠀 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪未蔚位蠁慰蠉蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 伪未蔚位蠁苇蟼 蟽慰蠀. 螖蔚谓 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 芦蔚纬蠋禄 蟽蟿慰谓 蟽慰蟽喂伪位喂蟽渭蠈, 蟿慰谓 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭蠈, 蟿慰谓 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅蟿喂蟽渭蠈, 伪谓蔚尉维蟻蟿畏蟿伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 蔚蟿喂魏苇蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 未委谓蔚蟿蔚.
违蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 渭蠈谓慰 蔚渭蔚委蟼.
螔伪蟽喂魏维 蠈渭蠅蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 伪纬维蟺畏蟼.
螖蠉慰 蔚谓蟿蔚位蠋蟼 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏慰委 维谓蟿蟻蔚蟼 渭蔚 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏苇蟼 味蠅苇蟼 魏伪喂 蠁伪喂谓慰渭蔚谓喂魏维 未蠉慰 蟺慰位蠉 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏苇蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委蔚蟼 纬喂伪 蟿畏 味蠅萎.
韦慰 渭蠈谓慰 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂慰蠀谓 魏慰喂谓蠈 蔚委谓伪喂 畏 芦蠄蠀蠂萎禄 蟿慰蠀蟼
(蠈蠂喂 渭喂伪 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蠄蠀蠂萎 禄). 螒蠀蟿慰委 慰喂 未蠉慰 维谓蟿蟻蔚蟼, 蠄蠀蠂慰纬蟻伪蠁慰蠉谓 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟺慰蠀 蠂维谓蔚蟿伪喂, 慰 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰蟼 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 慰蟺慰委慰 畏 蟺蟻维尉畏 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬委谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蠀谓萎胃蔚喂伪 , 伪谓蟿喂未蟻慰蠉谓 魏伪喂 伪纬蠅谓委味慰谓蟿伪喂, 渭伪 尾位苇蟺慰蠀谓 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿蔚位蔚委蠅蟼 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏维 魏伪喂 委蟽蠅蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚位魏蠉蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 委未喂伪 渭伪蟿伪喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪.
螌蟿伪谓 畏 蠂蠋蟻伪 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟿伪 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏维 渭苇蟿蟻伪,
蟿伪 伪谓蟿喂蟽蠀蟽蟿畏渭喂魏维 蟽蠀蟽蟿萎渭伪蟿伪 伪蠁伪喂蟻慰蠉谓
蟿伪 蟺维谓蟿伪, 蠈,蟿喂 萎蟿伪谓 未喂魏蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 ,蟿慰蠀蟼 蠂蟻畏蟽喂渭慰蟺慰喂蔚委 蠅蟼 蟺伪蟻维未蔚喂纬渭伪 蟿畏蟼 蠂蔚喂蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼,
伪蠁伪喂蟻蔚委 蟿畏谓 蔚位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟿畏谓 伪蟿慰渭喂魏萎 尾慰蠉位畏蟽畏 谓伪 蔚委蟽蟿蔚, 伪位位维 蟺慰喂慰喂 谓伪 蔚委蟽蟿蔚, 蟺蔚委蟿蔚 蟿喂 蟽魏苇蠁蟿蔚蟽蟿蔚, 伪位位维 蠄喂胃蠀蟻喂蟽蟿维 魏伪喂 魏蟻蠀蠁维, 蟽蠀渭渭慰蟻蠁蠅胃蔚委蟿蔚 蟽蟿喂蟼 蠀蟺慰未蔚委尉蔚喂蟼 蟿慰蠀 危慰尾喂苇蟿 伪位位维 蟽蟿畏谓 螘危危螖 魏维谓蔚蟿蔚 蠈, 蟿喂 胃苇位蔚蟿蔚, 味萎蟽蟿蔚 蠈蟺蠅蟼 胃苇位蔚蟿蔚 谓伪 味萎蟽蔚蟿蔚 ... 蟿喂 魏维谓蔚蟿蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委 伪未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚委蟿蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委 蟺伪纬蠋谓蔚蟿蔚 蟿喂蟼 蟽魏苇蠄蔚喂蟼 蟺蟻喂谓 纬委谓慰蠀谓 位蠈纬喂伪, 纬喂伪蟿委 蟽魏蠉尾蔚蟿蔚 蟿慰 魏蔚蠁维位喂, 纬喂伪蟿委 蔚委谓伪喂 渭伪魏蟻喂维 魏伪喂 渭伪魏维蟻喂伪 畏 危喂尾畏蟻委伪, 纬喂伪蟿委 伪蟻蟻蠅蟽蟿伪委谓蔚蟿蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委, 渭伪 纬喂伪蟿委 蟺蔚胃伪委谓蔚蟿蔚, 蟺蟻喂谓 蟿慰 蔚纬魏蟻委谓蔚喂 蟿慰 螝蠈渭渭伪 ;
螘委谓伪喂 蔚喂位喂魏蟻喂谓维 位蠀蟺畏蟻蠈 蟿慰 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟼 蠈蟿喂 蟺伪蟻蠈位慰 蟺慰蠀 慰 魏慰位蔚魏蟿喂尾喂蟽渭蠈蟼 蔚委蠂蔚 伪蟺慰蟿蠉蠂蔚喂 魏伪胃 '蠈位畏 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼, 蠅蟽蟿蠈蟽慰 蔚尉伪魏慰位慰蠀胃慰蠉渭蔚 谓伪 尾位苇蟺慰蠀渭蔚 蠂蠋蟻蔚蟼 谓伪 蔚蟺伪喂谓慰蠉谓 蟿苇蟿慰喂伪 蟽蟿苇蟻畏蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼, 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟺伪蟻苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 伪蟺慰 蟿畏 渭喂伪 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪 蟽蟿畏谓 维位位畏. 巍蠅蟽委伪 萎 螔蔚谓蔚味慰蠀苇位伪 蟺慰喂伪 未喂伪蠁慰蟻维 谓伪 尾蟻蠅.
螠蔚纬维位畏 蟺位慰蠉蟽喂蔚蟼 蠂蠋蟻蔚蟼, 苇纬喂谓伪谓 魏维蟺慰蟿蔚 蟿委蟺慰蟿伪, 魏伪喂蟻慰蟽魏慰蟺喂魏慰委 慰蟻伪纬伪谓喂蟽渭慰委, 魏维蟿喂 位喂纬蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪蟺蠈 渭喂伪 伪蠀蟿伪蟻蠂喂魏萎 伪谓伪蟻蠂委伪.
螝伪谓蔚委蟼 未蔚谓 蔚委蠂蔚喂 蟽蠂蔚未蠈谓 魏伪渭委伪 蟺喂胃伪谓蠈蟿畏蟿伪 谓伪 纬委谓蔚喂 伪蠀蟿蠈谓慰渭慰, 蟺伪蟻伪纬蠅纬喂魏蠈 维蟿慰渭慰, 蔚魏蟿蠈蟼 蔚维谓 蠀蟺慰魏位喂胃蔚委
蟽蟿喂蟼 魏蠀尾蔚蟻谓畏蟿喂魏苇蟼 伪蟻蠂苇蟼.
韦伪 蟺维谓蟿伪, 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 魏慰喂谓维 伪纬伪胃维 苇蠅蟼 蟿喂蟼 渭蔚蟻委未蔚蟼 蟿蟻慰蠁委渭蠅谓, 纬委谓慰谓蟿伪谓 蟺喂慰 蟽蟺维谓喂伪 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蟺维蟻慰未慰 蟿慰蠀 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蠀. 螝伪喂 伪谓 蔚谓伪谓蟿喂蠅胃蔚委蟼 蟽蟿慰 蟽蠉蟽蟿畏渭伪, 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 畏 蔚魏蟿苇位蔚蟽畏 魏伪胃畏魏蠈谓蟿蠅谓 伪蟺慰 蟿畏谓 蔚胃谓喂魏萎 蠁蟻慰蠀蟻维.
危蔚 维位位伪 谓苇伪, 魏伪喂 伪蠁慰蠉 苇尾纬伪位伪 蟿伪 蔚蟽蠋蠄蠀蠂伪 渭慰蠀, 魏伪喂 渭蟺蟻维尾慰 蟽伪蟼 伪谓 蠁蟿维蟽伪蟿蔚 谓伪 未喂伪尾维蟽蔚蟿蔚 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪位萎蟻畏渭伪 渭慰蠀 蠅蟼 蔚未蠋, ( 蟽伪蟼 伪纬伪蟺蠋)
蟽魏慰蠉蟺喂蟽伪 魏维蟺慰喂伪 位委纬伪 未维魏蟻蠀伪, 魏伪喂 蔚委蟺伪
蠀蟺慰蟿委胃蔚蟿伪喂 蠈蟿喂 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿慰尾喂慰纬蟻伪蠁喂魏蠈 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 蠀蟺苇蟻慰蠂慰 尾喂尾位委慰, 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 伪纬维蟺畏蟼 蠅蟼 蔚蟺委 蟿慰 蟺位蔚委蟽蟿慰谓 魏伪喂 畏 蟺伪位伪喂蠈蟿蔚蟻畏 蔚魏未慰蠂萎 蟿畏蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪蟼 蟿畏蟼 蔚蠁伪蟻渭蠈蟽蟿畏魏蔚 蟽蟿畏 渭蠀胃慰蟺位伪蟽委伪, 尾伪蟽喂蟽渭苇谓畏 蟺慰位蠉 蠂伪位伪蟻维 蟽蟿喂蟼 蔚渭蟺蔚喂蟻委蔚蟼 蟿畏蟼 Ayn 蟺蟻慰蟿慰蠉 伪蟺慰渭伪魏蟻蠀谓胃蔚委 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 伪谓蟿喂蟽畏渭喂蟿喂魏萎 魏慰位蔚魏蟿喂尾喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 巍蠅蟽委伪, 魏伪蟿伪蟺喂蔚蟽渭苇谓畏 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿慰蠀 蟿蟽维蟻慰蠀 魏伪喂 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 渭蔚蟿维 蟿畏谓 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏.
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼.
危蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 蟺位伪委蟽喂慰, 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 蟿慰 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏蠈 蟿蟻委纬蠅谓慰 蟿蠅谓 Kira, Leo 魏伪喂 Andrei.
螚 Kira, 畏 蟿蟻伪纬喂魏萎 蟺蟻蠅蟿伪纬蠅谓委蟽蟿蟻喂伪 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼, 蔚蟻蠅蟿蔚蠉蔚蟿伪喂 蟿慰谓 Leo, 纬喂慰 蔚谓蠈蟼 魏蠀尾蔚蟻谓畏蟿喂魏维 蟿伪蟺蔚喂谓蠅渭苇谓慰蠀 谓伪蠉伪蟻蠂慰蠀 慰 慰蟺慰委慰蟼 伪谓蟿喂蟿维蠂胃畏魏蔚 蟽蟿畏谓 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏.
螘蟺蔚喂未萎 尾位苇蟺蔚喂 蟿慰谓 蔚伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰蠀 蠅蟼 蟺慰位蠉 伪谓蠋蟿蔚蟻慰 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏维 纬喂伪 谓伪 尾蠀胃喂蟽蟿蔚委 蟽蟿伪 蔚蟺委蟺蔚未伪 魏慰蠀蟺蠈谓喂伪
蟿蠅谓 蟺蔚喂谓伪蟽渭苇谓蠅谓 魏伪喂 伪蟺蔚纬谓蠅蟽渭苇谓蠅谓 螝慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿蠋谓, 伪蟻谓蔚委蟿伪喂 蟿畏谓 魏慰渭渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蟺委蟽蟿畏 蟽蟿慰 蟽蠁蠀蟻慰未蟻苇蟺伪谓慰 蟿畏蟼 蔚位蔚蠉胃蔚蟻畏蟼 魏伪蟿伪谓伪纬魏伪蟽蟿喂魏萎蟼 胃蠀蟽委伪蟼 魏伪喂 蟺伪纬蠋谓蔚喂 魏维胃蔚 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 蟿蠅谓 蔚蟺伪谓伪蟽蟿伪蟿蠋谓 谓伪 蟿慰谓 蔚谓蟿维尉慰蠀谓 蟽蟿畏谓 魏慰渭渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蟿慰蠀蟼 渭维蟽蟿喂纬伪.
螚 螝委蟻伪 蟿慰谓 胃蔚蠅蟻蔚委 蟿慰谓 喂未伪谓喂魏蠈 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰. 韦慰谓 伪纬伪蟺维蔚喂 尾伪胃喂维, 伪位畏胃喂谓维, 伪尾委伪蟽蟿伪 魏伪喂 伪蠁蠈蟻畏蟿伪. 螤蟻慰蟽蟺维胃畏蟽伪谓 谓伪 蠁蠉纬慰蠀谓 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏 蠂蠋蟻伪 渭伪味委, 伪位位维 蟺喂维蟽蟿畏魏伪谓 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻慰蠁喂魏慰蠉蟼 蟽蟺喂慰蠉谓慰蠀蟼 蟺慰蠀 蔚渭蟺慰蟻蔚蠉慰谓蟿伪谓 蟽蠀谓伪位位伪纬苇蟼 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻苇伪 蟿蠅谓 未慰蠀位苇渭蟺慰蟻蠅谓 位伪胃蟻慰渭蔚蟿伪谓伪蟽蟿蠋谓, 魏伪喂 蟽蟿苇位谓慰谓蟿伪喂 蟺委蟽蠅, 蟺蟻喂谓 蠁蟿维蟽慰蠀谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏维 慰蟺慰蠀未萎蟺慰蟿蔚.
螣 Andrei 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 蟽慰尾伪蟻蠈蟼 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿萎蟼 - 渭苇位慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 GPU-
螚 Kira 蟿慰谓 蟽蠀谓伪谓蟿维 蟽蟿慰 蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏蠈 喂谓蟽蟿喂蟿慰蠉蟿慰 伪蟻蠂喂蟿蔚魏蟿慰谓喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 蟽蟿伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 渭畏蠂伪谓喂魏萎蟼, 蟺慰蠀 蠁慰喂蟿维 伪蟻蠂喂魏维, 渭苇蠂蟻喂 蟿喂蟼 蟺蟻蠋蟿蔚蟼 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻慰蠁喂魏苇蟼 蔚魏伪胃伪蟻蟻委蟽蔚喂蟼 蟿蠅谓 蟺维位伪喂 蟺慰蟿苇 伪蟽蟿喂魏蠋谓 伪蟺慰纬蠈谓蠅谓, 伪蠀蟿蠋谓 蟺慰蠀 蟿蠋蟻伪 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 蔚魏未喂蠅蠂胃慰蠉谓 伪蟺慰 蟺伪谓蟿慰蠉 蟽蟿慰 蠈谓慰渭伪 蟿畏蟼 蟽慰尾喂蔚蟿喂魏萎蟼 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 未喂魏蟿伪蟿慰蟻委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟺蟻慰位蔚蟿伪蟻喂维蟿慰蠀.
螠蔚 尾维蟽畏 蟿伪 蠈谓蔚喂蟻伪 蟿畏蟼, 蟺慰胃慰蠉蟽蔚 谓伪 蠂蟿委蟽蔚喂 魏维蟺慰蟿蔚 慰蠀蟻伪谓慰尉蠉蟽蟿蔚蟼 伪蟺慰 渭苇蟿伪位位慰 魏伪喂 纬蠀伪位委 魏伪喂 纬苇蠁蠀蟻蔚蟼 伪蟺慰 蠂维位蠀尾伪, 蟿蔚蟻维蟽蟿喂蔚蟼 魏伪喂 慰喂魏慰蠀渭蔚谓喂魏苇蟼.
螜蟽蠂蠀蟻维 慰蠂蠀蟻维 魏蟿委蟽渭伪蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 胃伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蟿维蟿蔚蠀伪谓 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏 伪谓维纬魏畏 纬喂伪 伪尉喂慰蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂伪 魏伪喂 魏蟿畏蟿喂魏萎 喂未喂慰蟿苇位蔚喂伪 尾慰位喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 未喂伪魏蟻喂蟿喂魏维 畏未慰谓喂魏萎蟼, 蟽蠀谓伪喂蟽胃畏渭伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 伪蟺蠈位伪蠀蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 蟽伪蟻魏喂魏萎蟼 位伪纬谓蔚委伪蟼. 螠蠈蟻蠁蠅蟽畏. 螆蟻蠅蟿伪蟼. 螘位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪.
螌位伪 伪蠀蟿维 蔚魏蟺慰蟻蔚蠀蠈渭蔚谓伪 伪蟺慰 苇谓伪 蔚位蔚蠉胃蔚蟻慰 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪 魏伪喂 渭喂伪 蠄蠀蠂萎 伪蟺慰位蠀蟿蟻蠅渭苇谓畏 伪蟺慰 蠂蟻蠋渭伪蟿伪 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰魏畏蟻蠉尉蔚喂蟼 蟺位畏蟻蠅渭苇谓畏蟼 伪蠀蟿慰胃蠀蟽委伪蟼.
危蟺慰谓未苇蟼 蟽蟿慰谓 尾蠅渭蠈 蟿慰蠀 渭蟺慰位蟽蔚尾喂魏喂魏慰蠉 蔚位苇纬蠂慰蠀 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 渭伪蟻蟿蠀蟻维蔚喂 蟺蠈蟽慰 胃伪 未喂伪蟻魏苇蟽蔚喂, 畏 Kira 蔚委谓伪喂 伪未喂维蠁慰蟻畏 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎 魏伪喂 伪纬谓慰蔚委 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻喂蟽渭慰蠉蟼 蟿蠈蟽慰 蟿慰蠀 蟺伪位伪喂慰蠉 魏伪胃蔚蟽蟿蠋蟿慰蟼 蠈蟽慰 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 谓苇伪蟼 魏慰渭渭伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 喂未蔚慰位慰纬委伪蟼. 螘委谓伪喂 谓蔚伪蟻萎, 蔚位魏蠀蟽蟿喂魏萎 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 蟺慰位位萎 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 魏伪位位蠅蟺喂蟽渭慰蠉, 魏伪喂 蠁慰尾喂蟽渭苇谓畏.
危蔚 伪谓蟿委胃蔚蟽畏 渭蔚 蟺慰位位苇蟼 纬蠀谓伪委魏蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪喂蟽胃维谓慰谓蟿伪谓 纬喂伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 维位位慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 蠁伪喂谓慰渭蔚谓喂魏维 萎胃蔚位伪谓 谓伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚蠀蠂伪蟻喂蟽蟿萎蟽慰蠀谓 蠈位慰蠀蟼, 畏 Kira 苇蠂蔚喂 渭喂伪 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻萎 伪委蟽胃畏蟽畏 慰蟻委蠅谓 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂未喂蠋魏蔚喂 谓伪 蔚蠀蠂伪蟻喂蟽蟿萎蟽蔚喂 渭蠈谓慰 蟿慰谓 蔚伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿畏蟼.
螤蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蔚委 渭维蟿伪喂伪 谓伪 蟺蔚委蟽蔚喂 蟿慰谓 Andrei - 蟺慰蠀 蟿畏谓 伪纬伪蟺维蔚喂 蟽伪谓 蟿畏谓 伪谓伪蟺谓慰萎 蟿慰蠀- 蟺蠅蟼 慰喂 位慰尾慰蟿慰渭畏渭苇谓蔚蟼 喂未苇蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻委 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀 魏伪喂 蔚尉维蟻蟿畏蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 伪蟺慰 蟿畏谓 伪蠁慰蟽委蠅蟽畏 蟽蟿慰 魏蟻维蟿慰蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿慰尉喂魏萎, 蠄蠀蠂喂魏维 蟺蔚胃伪渭苇谓畏.
螠蠈谓慰 蟺慰位蠉 伪蟻纬蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 魏伪喂 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟺维谓蟿伪 蟺慰位蠉 伪蟻纬维 ...蟿慰谓 蟺蔚委胃蔚喂.
螘谓维谓蟿喂伪 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 味蠅谓蟿伪谓蠈 蟿蟻伪纬喂魏蠈 魏伪喂 纬魏蟻慰蟿苇蟽魏慰 蟺伪谓蠈蟻伪渭伪 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎蟼 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏萎蟼 蔚尉苇纬蔚蟻蟽畏蟼, 畏 Ayn Rand 未蔚委蠂谓蔚喂 蟿喂 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻维尉畏 畏 胃蔚蠅蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 蟽慰蟽喂伪位喂蟽渭慰蠉, 蟿慰蠀 魏伪蟺喂蟿伪位喂蟽渭慰蠉, 蟿慰蠀 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅蟿喂蟽渭慰蠉, 蟿慰蠀 蠁伪蟽喂蟽渭慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭慰蠉. 螘位维蠂喂蟽蟿蔚蟼 慰喂 未喂伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟺位畏胃蠋蟻伪 伪蟺慰 伪渭慰喂蠈蟿畏蟿蔚蟼 渭蔚蟿伪尉蠉 蟿慰蠀蟼. 危蔚 魏维胃蔚 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻畏蟿萎蟻喂慰 蟿畏蟼 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿喂魏萎蟼 蟺蟻慰位蔚蟿伪蟻喂伪魏萎蟼 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 尾蟻委胃蔚喂 蔚蟺慰 未蠀谓维蟽蟿蔚蟼 蟽蔚 魏维胃蔚 蟺蠈蟽蟿慰 .
螤蠈蟽慰 蟺慰位蠉 胃蠀渭委味蔚喂 蟿慰 魏位伪蟽喂魏蠈 蟿慰蠀 螌蟻纬慰蠀蔚位,
"Animal Farm". 螘魏蔚委谓慰喂 蟺慰蠀 蟺喂蟽蟿蔚蠉慰蠀谓 蔚喂位喂魏蟻喂谓维 蟽蟿伪 喂未伪谓喂魏维 魏伪喂 伪蟻纬慰蟺蔚胃伪委谓慰蠀谓 蟽蟿慰 蠈谓慰渭伪 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽慰蟿喂渭委伪蟼
魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 伪纬蠅谓喂蟽蟿喂魏萎蟼 蟺维位畏蟼 蠀蟺苇蟻 蟿蠅谓 伪尾慰萎胃畏蟿蠅谓
蠄蠀蠂蠋谓 / 渭伪味蠋谓, 伪蟺慰 胃蔚慰蠉蟼 魏伪喂 未伪委渭慰谓蔚蟼,
喂蔚蟻慰蠉蟼 萎 魏慰位伪蟽渭苇谓慰蠀蟼, 蟽慰蠁慰蠉蟼 萎 蟺伪蟻伪谓慰蠆魏慰蠉蟼,
畏纬苇蟿蔚蟼 萎 蟺伪蟻伪蟽喂蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 畏纬蔚渭蠈谓蔚蟼 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎蟼 渭喂蟽伪位位慰未慰尉委伪蟼, 伪尉喂蠅渭伪蟿慰蠉蠂慰蠀蟼 萎 蔚渭渭慰谓喂魏慰蠉蟼 蟺伪蟿蟻喂魏委慰蠀蟼, 蠁喂位慰蟽蠈蠁慰蠀蟼 萎 蔚纬魏位畏渭伪蟿委蔚蟼 蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼, 魏伪喂 未喂维蠁慰蟻蔚蟼 维位位蔚蟼 魏伪蟿伪蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 魏位委渭伪魏伪 蟿畏蟼 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏萎蟼 纬蟻伪蠁蔚喂慰魏蟻伪蟿蔚委伪蟼, 魏伪蟿伪位萎纬慰蠀谓 谓伪 伪尉喂慰蟺慰喂畏胃慰蠉谓 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 魏蠀谓喂魏慰蠉蟼 蠂蔚喂蟻喂蟽蟿苇蟼 蟿畏蟼 蔚尉慰蠀蟽委伪蟼.
螚 渭伪蟻尉喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 蔚蟻渭畏谓蔚委伪 蟿畏蟼 胃蟻畏蟽魏蔚委伪蟼 蔚蠁伪蟻渭蠈味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿畏 未喂魏萎 蟿慰蠀 喂未蔚慰位慰纬委伪 - 苇谓伪 慰蟺喂慰蠉蠂慰 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟺蔚委蟽蔚喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚魏渭蔚蟿伪位位蔚蠀蠈渭蔚谓慰蠀蟼 谓伪 伪谓蔚蠂胃慰蠉谓 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏维 未蔚谓 胃伪 伪谓苇蠂慰谓蟿伪谓, 畏 巍伪谓蟿 蠁伪委谓蔚蟿伪喂 谓伪 位苇蔚喂 蠈蟿喂 蔚委谓伪喂 魏伪位蠉蟿蔚蟻慰 谓伪 伪纬魏伪位喂维蟽慰蠀渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚纬蠅喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 伪蟺位畏蟽蟿委伪 蟿慰蠀 魏伪蟺喂蟿伪位喂蟽渭慰蠉 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 蠀蟺慰魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺慰委畏蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭慰蠉, 魏伪喂 渭苇蟽伪 伪蟺慰 伪蠀蟿维 蟿伪 魏伪胃蔚蟽蟿蠋蟿伪 蠈蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 蟽蠉蟽蟿畏渭伪 位蔚喂蟿慰蠀蟻纬蔚委 蟺维谓蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟼 蠈蠁蔚位慰蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼.
螆谓伪 渭蔚纬维位慰 蟽蠋渭伪 伪蟺蠈 位喂纬蠈蟿蔚蟻慰蠀蟼 伪尉喂蠅渭伪蟿慰蠉蠂慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 伪蟺位慰蠉蟼 魏伪胃畏渭蔚蟻喂谓慰蠉蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀蟼, 苇蠂慰谓蟿伪蟼 萎未畏 魏蠀谓喂魏维 蟺伪蟻伪喂蟿畏胃蔚委 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 蠀蟺慰蟿喂胃苇渭蔚谓伪 喂未伪谓喂魏维 蟿慰蠀 蟽蠀蟽蟿萎渭伪蟿慰蟼, 苇蠂慰蠀谓 魏伪蟿伪位维尾蔚喂 蟺蠋蟼 谓伪 蠂蔚喂蟻委味慰谓蟿伪喂 蟿伪 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟼 蠈蠁蔚位蠈蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蔚谓蠋 蟿伪蠀蟿蠈蠂蟻慰谓伪 伪蟺慰蠁蔚蠉纬慰蠀谓 蔚蠀蟽蔚尾蠋蟼 蟿喂蟼 蔚蟺喂未喂蠋尉蔚喂蟼 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 位伪慰魏蟻伪蟿喂魏萎 胃蠀蟽委伪 魏伪喂 慰蠉蟿蠅 魏伪胃蔚尉萎蟼, 渭伪胃伪委谓慰蠀谓 谓伪 蔚蟺喂尾维位位慰蠀谓 蔚蟺委蟽畏渭畏 纬谓蠋渭畏, 苇纬魏蟻喂蟿畏 魏伪喂 魏蟻伪蟿喂魏萎 魏伪喂 魏蟻伪蟿伪喂维.
螒蠀蟿慰委 慰喂 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰喂, 蟺慰蠀 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻委味慰谓蟿伪喂 蠈蟿喂 苇蠂慰蠀谓 蟿畏谓 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻畏 蟺委蟽蟿畏 - 蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿萎谓 蟿畏谓 蟺蔚蟻委蟺蟿蠅蟽畏, 蟽蟿畏谓 喂蔚蟻萎 伪尉委伪 蟿慰蠀 位伪慰蠉 - 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 未蔚谓 蟺伪蟻伪喂蟿慰蠉谓蟿伪喂 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蟽蠀渭蠁苇蟻慰谓 蟿慰蠀蟼 蠀蟺苇蟻 蟿畏蟼 伪蠀蟿慰胃蠀蟽委伪蟼.
螒蠀蟿萎 蔚委谓伪喂 畏 蠀蟺蠈胃蔚蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼. 韦喂 魏维谓蔚喂 慰 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭蠈蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 蠄蠀蠂萎 蟽伪蟼; 韦喂 胃伪 魏维谓蔚喂 蟽蔚 慰蟺慰喂伪未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 蠂蠋蟻伪 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀蟼 蟿畏蟼.
危蠀谓胃位委尾蔚喂 蟿慰 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪 蟿慰蠀蟼. 螝伪蟿伪蟽蟿蟻苇蠁蔚喂 蟿慰 维蟿慰渭慰 渭蔚 蟿喂蟼 蔚位蟺委未蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀, 魏维胃蔚 蠈谓蔚喂蟻慰 魏伪喂 蔚蟺喂胃蠀渭委伪.
螠伪 谓伪喂, 蠁伪蟽喂蟽渭蠈蟼 蔚委谓伪喂, 苇谓蟿慰谓伪 魏蠈魏魏喂谓慰蟼,
渭蔚 蟺苇蟿蟻喂谓蔚蟼 蟽魏喂苇蟼 尾蟻维蠂蠅谓 尾慰蠀位喂伪纬渭苇谓蠅谓 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 尾维位蟿慰蠀蟼 伪蟺慰 伪委渭伪, 伪蟿蟽维位喂, 位维蟽蟺畏 魏伪喂 蔚渭尾伪蟿萎蟻喂伪.
螒蟺慰 蟿伪 魏蠈魏伪位伪 蟿蠅谓 谓蔚魏蟻蠋谓 蟽蟿伪 苇位畏 蟿畏蟼 螤蔚蟿蟻慰蠉蟺慰位畏蟼, 胃伪蠀渭维蟽蟿蔚 蟿畏 蠂蠋蟻伪 蟺慰蠀 蠂蟿委蟽蟿畏魏蔚 伪蟺慰 谓蔚魏蟻慰蠉蟼.
韦苇位蔚喂伪. 韦蠋蟻伪 苇蠂蔚蟿蔚 渭蠈谓慰 蟿蟻蔚喂蟼 蔚蟺喂位慰纬苇蟼 蠈蟿伪谓 味蔚委蟿蔚 蟽蔚 苇谓伪谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟺慰蠀 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻委尾蔚喂 蟿慰 螘纬蠋 蟽伪蟼.
螌蟿伪谓 未蔚谓 渭苇谓蔚喂 蟿委蟺慰蟿伪.
1) 螒蠀蟿慰魏蟿慰谓委伪 - 蟿蔚位喂魏维 苇蟽蟺伪蟽蔚蟼, 未蔚谓 蟽蔚 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻蠋.
2. 桅蟻伪纬萎 蔚纬魏蔚蠁伪位喂魏萎蟼 位蔚喂蟿慰蠀蟻纬蔚委伪蟼 蟽蔚 谓蔚魏蟻蠋蟽喂渭畏 魏伪蟿维蟽蟿伪蟽畏. . 韦慰 渭蠈谓慰 蟺蟻维纬渭伪 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂蔚蟿蔚, 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀
未蔚谓 渭蟺慰蟻慰蠉谓 谓伪 蟺维蟻慰蠀谓 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿慰 渭蠀伪位蠈 蟽伪蟼.
螆蟿蟽喂, 蟺谓委纬蔚蟿蔚 蟽蔚 蠅魏蔚维谓喂伪 尾维胃畏 魏伪喂 蠀蟺蔚蟻尾伪蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿蔚蟼, 魏维谓蔚蟿蔚 慰蟿喂未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 纬喂伪 谓伪 尉蔚蠂维蟽蔚蟿蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 胃伪 苇蠂蔚蟿蔚 蟺慰蟿苇. 螖蔚谓 蟽蠀渭尾喂尾维味蔚蟽蟿蔚, 未蔚谓 位蠀纬委味蔚蟿蔚,
伪位位维 蟽蟺维蟿蔚. 螝慰渭渭维蟿喂伪.
螌蟺慰喂慰蟼 魏喂 伪谓 萎蟽慰蠀谓 蠂维胃畏魏蔚, 蔚尉伪蠁伪谓委蟽蟿畏魏蔚 渭蔚蟿伪渭慰蟻蠁蠋胃畏魏蔚 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 维未蔚喂慰 魏苇位蠀蠁慰蟼 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏慰蠉 蠂维慰蠀蟼.
螘委谓伪喂 蟽伪谓 渭喂伪 维位位畏 渭慰蟻蠁萎 伪蠀蟿慰魏蟿慰谓委伪蟼.
3)桅蔚蠉纬蔚蟿蔚, 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃萎蟽蟿蔚 谓伪 未蟻伪蟺蔚蟿蔚蠉蟽蔚蟿蔚. 螖蔚谓 蟽蠀渭尾喂尾维味慰谓蟿伪喂 伪蠀蟿维, 蔚魏蔚委谓伪 魏伪喂 蟿伪 维位位伪.
螣蠉蟿蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蟺喂蟽蟿蔚蠉蔚蟿蔚, 位蠀纬委味蔚蟿蔚 萎 蟽蟺维蟿蔚.
螖蔚谓 蠂维谓蔚蟿蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚位蟺委未伪 蠈渭蠅蟼 慰蠉蟿蔚 蟺伪蟻伪未委未蔚蟿蔚 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟺慰蠀 纬谓蠅蟻委味蔚蟿蔚, 蔚委谓伪喂 蔚魏蔚委 苇尉蠅,位委纬慰 渭伪魏蟻喂维, 渭伪 未蔚谓 蟺蔚喂蟻维味蔚喂, 蔚委谓伪喂 纬喂伪 蔚蟽维蟼. 韦蟻苇蠂蔚蟿蔚 渭苇蠂蟻喂 谓伪 渭畏谓 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委蟿蔚 谓伪 蟿蟻苇尉蔚蟿蔚 蟺喂伪 魏伪喂 谓伪 尉蔚蠁蠉纬蔚蟿蔚 萎 谓伪 蟺蔚胃维谓蔚蟿蔚 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蠋谓蟿伪蟼. 螘委蟿蔚 苇蟿蟽喂 蔚委蟿蔚 伪位位喂蠋蟼 蟺伪蟻伪渭苇谓蔚蟿蔚 伪谓蔚尉苇位蔚纬魏蟿慰喂.
螝伪谓苇谓伪 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿维 蟿伪 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿伪 未蔚谓 蔚蟺喂蟿蟻苇蟺蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟽蠀位位慰纬喂魏萎 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪. 螝维胃蔚 喂未苇伪, 蟽魏苇蠄畏, 伪谓维纬魏畏, 慰蟿喂未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 蟽蔚 魏维谓蔚喂 维蟿慰渭慰, 伪蟺慰魏位蔚委蔚蟿伪喂 伪蟺蠈 蔚蟽苇谓伪.
螝维胃蔚 伪谓伪蟺谓慰萎 蟺慰蠀 蟺伪委蟻谓蔚喂蟼 未蔚谓 蔚委谓伪喂 未喂魏萎 蟽慰蠀.
螒谓萎魏蔚喂 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 蟽蠀谓蟿蟻蠈蠁慰蠀蟼 蟽慰蠀 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪未蔚位蠁慰蠉蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 伪未蔚位蠁苇蟼 蟽慰蠀. 螖蔚谓 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 芦蔚纬蠋禄 蟽蟿慰谓 蟽慰蟽喂伪位喂蟽渭蠈, 蟿慰谓 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽渭蠈, 蟿慰谓 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅蟿喂蟽渭蠈, 伪谓蔚尉维蟻蟿畏蟿伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 蔚蟿喂魏苇蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰蠀 未委谓蔚蟿蔚.
违蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 渭蠈谓慰 蔚渭蔚委蟼.
螔伪蟽喂魏维 蠈渭蠅蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 伪纬维蟺畏蟼.
螖蠉慰 蔚谓蟿蔚位蠋蟼 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏慰委 维谓蟿蟻蔚蟼 渭蔚 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏苇蟼 味蠅苇蟼 魏伪喂 蠁伪喂谓慰渭蔚谓喂魏维 未蠉慰 蟺慰位蠉 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏苇蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委蔚蟼 纬喂伪 蟿畏 味蠅萎.
韦慰 渭蠈谓慰 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂慰蠀谓 魏慰喂谓蠈 蔚委谓伪喂 畏 芦蠄蠀蠂萎禄 蟿慰蠀蟼
(蠈蠂喂 渭喂伪 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蠄蠀蠂萎 禄). 螒蠀蟿慰委 慰喂 未蠉慰 维谓蟿蟻蔚蟼, 蠄蠀蠂慰纬蟻伪蠁慰蠉谓 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟺慰蠀 蠂维谓蔚蟿伪喂, 慰 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰蟼 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 慰蟺慰委慰 畏 蟺蟻维尉畏 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬委谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蠀谓萎胃蔚喂伪 , 伪谓蟿喂未蟻慰蠉谓 魏伪喂 伪纬蠅谓委味慰谓蟿伪喂, 渭伪 尾位苇蟺慰蠀谓 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿蔚位蔚委蠅蟼 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏维 魏伪喂 委蟽蠅蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚位魏蠉蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 委未喂伪 渭伪蟿伪喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪.
螌蟿伪谓 畏 蠂蠋蟻伪 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟿伪 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏维 渭苇蟿蟻伪,
蟿伪 伪谓蟿喂蟽蠀蟽蟿畏渭喂魏维 蟽蠀蟽蟿萎渭伪蟿伪 伪蠁伪喂蟻慰蠉谓
蟿伪 蟺维谓蟿伪, 蠈,蟿喂 萎蟿伪谓 未喂魏蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 ,蟿慰蠀蟼 蠂蟻畏蟽喂渭慰蟺慰喂蔚委 蠅蟼 蟺伪蟻维未蔚喂纬渭伪 蟿畏蟼 蠂蔚喂蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼,
伪蠁伪喂蟻蔚委 蟿畏谓 蔚位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟿畏谓 伪蟿慰渭喂魏萎 尾慰蠉位畏蟽畏 谓伪 蔚委蟽蟿蔚, 伪位位维 蟺慰喂慰喂 谓伪 蔚委蟽蟿蔚, 蟺蔚委蟿蔚 蟿喂 蟽魏苇蠁蟿蔚蟽蟿蔚, 伪位位维 蠄喂胃蠀蟻喂蟽蟿维 魏伪喂 魏蟻蠀蠁维, 蟽蠀渭渭慰蟻蠁蠅胃蔚委蟿蔚 蟽蟿喂蟼 蠀蟺慰未蔚委尉蔚喂蟼 蟿慰蠀 危慰尾喂苇蟿 伪位位维 蟽蟿畏谓 螘危危螖 魏维谓蔚蟿蔚 蠈, 蟿喂 胃苇位蔚蟿蔚, 味萎蟽蟿蔚 蠈蟺蠅蟼 胃苇位蔚蟿蔚 谓伪 味萎蟽蔚蟿蔚 ... 蟿喂 魏维谓蔚蟿蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委 伪未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚委蟿蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委 蟺伪纬蠋谓蔚蟿蔚 蟿喂蟼 蟽魏苇蠄蔚喂蟼 蟺蟻喂谓 纬委谓慰蠀谓 位蠈纬喂伪, 纬喂伪蟿委 蟽魏蠉尾蔚蟿蔚 蟿慰 魏蔚蠁维位喂, 纬喂伪蟿委 蔚委谓伪喂 渭伪魏蟻喂维 魏伪喂 渭伪魏维蟻喂伪 畏 危喂尾畏蟻委伪, 纬喂伪蟿委 伪蟻蟻蠅蟽蟿伪委谓蔚蟿蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委, 渭伪 纬喂伪蟿委 蟺蔚胃伪委谓蔚蟿蔚, 蟺蟻喂谓 蟿慰 蔚纬魏蟻委谓蔚喂 蟿慰 螝蠈渭渭伪 ;
螘委谓伪喂 蔚喂位喂魏蟻喂谓维 位蠀蟺畏蟻蠈 蟿慰 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟼 蠈蟿喂 蟺伪蟻蠈位慰 蟺慰蠀 慰 魏慰位蔚魏蟿喂尾喂蟽渭蠈蟼 蔚委蠂蔚 伪蟺慰蟿蠉蠂蔚喂 魏伪胃 '蠈位畏 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼, 蠅蟽蟿蠈蟽慰 蔚尉伪魏慰位慰蠀胃慰蠉渭蔚 谓伪 尾位苇蟺慰蠀渭蔚 蠂蠋蟻蔚蟼 谓伪 蔚蟺伪喂谓慰蠉谓 蟿苇蟿慰喂伪 蟽蟿苇蟻畏蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼, 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟺伪蟻苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 伪蟺慰 蟿畏 渭喂伪 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪 蟽蟿畏谓 维位位畏. 巍蠅蟽委伪 萎 螔蔚谓蔚味慰蠀苇位伪 蟺慰喂伪 未喂伪蠁慰蟻维 谓伪 尾蟻蠅.
螠蔚纬维位畏 蟺位慰蠉蟽喂蔚蟼 蠂蠋蟻蔚蟼, 苇纬喂谓伪谓 魏维蟺慰蟿蔚 蟿委蟺慰蟿伪, 魏伪喂蟻慰蟽魏慰蟺喂魏慰委 慰蟻伪纬伪谓喂蟽渭慰委, 魏维蟿喂 位喂纬蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪蟺蠈 渭喂伪 伪蠀蟿伪蟻蠂喂魏萎 伪谓伪蟻蠂委伪.
螝伪谓蔚委蟼 未蔚谓 蔚委蠂蔚喂 蟽蠂蔚未蠈谓 魏伪渭委伪 蟺喂胃伪谓蠈蟿畏蟿伪 谓伪 纬委谓蔚喂 伪蠀蟿蠈谓慰渭慰, 蟺伪蟻伪纬蠅纬喂魏蠈 维蟿慰渭慰, 蔚魏蟿蠈蟼 蔚维谓 蠀蟺慰魏位喂胃蔚委
蟽蟿喂蟼 魏蠀尾蔚蟻谓畏蟿喂魏苇蟼 伪蟻蠂苇蟼.
韦伪 蟺维谓蟿伪, 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 魏慰喂谓维 伪纬伪胃维 苇蠅蟼 蟿喂蟼 渭蔚蟻委未蔚蟼 蟿蟻慰蠁委渭蠅谓, 纬委谓慰谓蟿伪谓 蟺喂慰 蟽蟺维谓喂伪 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蟺维蟻慰未慰 蟿慰蠀 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蠀. 螝伪喂 伪谓 蔚谓伪谓蟿喂蠅胃蔚委蟼 蟽蟿慰 蟽蠉蟽蟿畏渭伪, 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 畏 蔚魏蟿苇位蔚蟽畏 魏伪胃畏魏蠈谓蟿蠅谓 伪蟺慰 蟿畏谓 蔚胃谓喂魏萎 蠁蟻慰蠀蟻维.
危蔚 维位位伪 谓苇伪, 魏伪喂 伪蠁慰蠉 苇尾纬伪位伪 蟿伪 蔚蟽蠋蠄蠀蠂伪 渭慰蠀, 魏伪喂 渭蟺蟻维尾慰 蟽伪蟼 伪谓 蠁蟿维蟽伪蟿蔚 谓伪 未喂伪尾维蟽蔚蟿蔚 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪位萎蟻畏渭伪 渭慰蠀 蠅蟼 蔚未蠋, ( 蟽伪蟼 伪纬伪蟺蠋)
蟽魏慰蠉蟺喂蟽伪 魏维蟺慰喂伪 位委纬伪 未维魏蟻蠀伪, 魏伪喂 蔚委蟺伪
蠀蟺慰蟿委胃蔚蟿伪喂 蠈蟿喂 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿慰尾喂慰纬蟻伪蠁喂魏蠈 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 蠀蟺苇蟻慰蠂慰 尾喂尾位委慰, 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 伪纬维蟺畏蟼 蠅蟼 蔚蟺委 蟿慰 蟺位蔚委蟽蟿慰谓 魏伪喂 畏 蟺伪位伪喂蠈蟿蔚蟻畏 蔚魏未慰蠂萎 蟿畏蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪蟼 蟿畏蟼 蔚蠁伪蟻渭蠈蟽蟿畏魏蔚 蟽蟿畏 渭蠀胃慰蟺位伪蟽委伪, 尾伪蟽喂蟽渭苇谓畏 蟺慰位蠉 蠂伪位伪蟻维 蟽蟿喂蟼 蔚渭蟺蔚喂蟻委蔚蟼 蟿畏蟼 Ayn 蟺蟻慰蟿慰蠉 伪蟺慰渭伪魏蟻蠀谓胃蔚委 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 伪谓蟿喂蟽畏渭喂蟿喂魏萎 魏慰位蔚魏蟿喂尾喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 巍蠅蟽委伪, 魏伪蟿伪蟺喂蔚蟽渭苇谓畏 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿慰蠀 蟿蟽维蟻慰蠀 魏伪喂 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 渭蔚蟿维 蟿畏谓 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏.
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼.
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.
December 20, 2024
Dec 19, 2024: EDIT 鈥�
Still my most favorite book 鈥� ever. Still tell everyone I love about this book. Still utterly and unexplainably in love with this book.
Surprisingly, I DNFR 鈥淎tlas Shrugged鈥�, though I have no complaints on it and was simply too caught up with life and school to finish it, it didn鈥檛 鈥渨ow鈥� me nearly as much as this book has.
No one knows about this book, really. It鈥檚 like a special little golden nugget I can gate keep.
鈥淩eally Dani? Ayn Rand wrote your all time favorite book ever? Of all writers?鈥�
鈥淚 mean, she鈥檚 cool and all, but to say she鈥檚 the author of a book you don鈥檛 shut up about?鈥�
Yes, precisely. Surprising to some; maybe. And that only makes it more special. You don鈥檛 expect it.
My only complaint in this 鈥� the lack of love this book gets 鈥� is due to it, not many print versions of it exists. I actually despise the 75th version of this book, and it鈥檚 the one I read and have. There鈥檚 only like 2 other prints (that are easily obtainable online and affordable) and the prints are 鈥渕eh鈥�. Small, hate the 鈥渃ompact size鈥� of it. Whatever. The story was worth it.
Nov 9, 2022: EDIT 鈥�
I really love this book. A lot. LOL
Aug 26, 2022: EDIT 鈥�
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 鈥�
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.
Still my most favorite book 鈥� ever. Still tell everyone I love about this book. Still utterly and unexplainably in love with this book.
Surprisingly, I DNFR 鈥淎tlas Shrugged鈥�, though I have no complaints on it and was simply too caught up with life and school to finish it, it didn鈥檛 鈥渨ow鈥� me nearly as much as this book has.
No one knows about this book, really. It鈥檚 like a special little golden nugget I can gate keep.
鈥淩eally Dani? Ayn Rand wrote your all time favorite book ever? Of all writers?鈥�
鈥淚 mean, she鈥檚 cool and all, but to say she鈥檚 the author of a book you don鈥檛 shut up about?鈥�
Yes, precisely. Surprising to some; maybe. And that only makes it more special. You don鈥檛 expect it.
My only complaint in this 鈥� the lack of love this book gets 鈥� is due to it, not many print versions of it exists. I actually despise the 75th version of this book, and it鈥檚 the one I read and have. There鈥檚 only like 2 other prints (that are easily obtainable online and affordable) and the prints are 鈥渕eh鈥�. Small, hate the 鈥渃ompact size鈥� of it. Whatever. The story was worth it.
Nov 9, 2022: EDIT 鈥�
I really love this book. A lot. LOL
Aug 26, 2022: EDIT 鈥�
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 鈥�
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
芦袦懈, 卸懈胁褨禄
鉅赌
袗泄薪 袪械薪写
鉅赌
袧邪褕 肖芯褉屑邪褌, 2021
鉅赌
芦We the Living禄
鉅赌
Ayn Rand, 1936
鉅赌
袟斜械褉褨谐邪褞褔懈 谐褨写薪褨褋褌褜 胁芯薪懈 胁褌褉邪褔邪谢懈 谢褞写褋褜泻褍 锌芯写芯斜褍!
鉅赌
孝褉械锌邪薪邪褑褨褟 谢褞写褋褜泻芯褩 褋褍褌薪芯褋褌褨!
鉅赌
效懈 屑芯卸薪邪 胁褉褟褌褍胁邪褌懈 谐芯谢芯写薪褍 泻褉邪褩薪褍 胁褌芯锌懈胁褕懈 褩褩 胁 褉械胁芯谢褞褑褨泄薪褨泄 泻褉芯胁褨?
鉅赌
效懈 屑芯卸薪邪 胁褉褟褌褍胁邪褌懈 泻芯褏邪薪薪褟 蟹褉邪写芯褞?
鉅赌
效懈 屑芯卸薪邪 薪邪褋懈褌懈褌懈 褕谢褍薪芯泻 褌芯褉谐褍褞褔懈 褋芯胁褨褋褌褞?
鉅赌
袙懈胁械褉薪褍褌褨 写褍褕褨, 褟泻懈屑懈 褋懈褋褌械屑邪 谐褉邪褦褌褜褋褟, 褟泻 锌邪蟹谢邪屑懈.
鉅赌
袧械屑邪褦 褑褨谢褜薪芯谐芯 写芯斜褉邪.
鉅赌
袧械屑邪褦 谐褨写薪芯褋褌褨.
鉅赌
袧械屑邪褦 褉褨胁薪芯褋褌褨.
鉅赌
袙褋褨 褉褨胁薪褨, 谢懈褕械 褍 褋屑械褉褌褨!
鉅赌
笑械泄 褉芯屑邪薪 锌褉芯 袥挟袛袠袧校.
鉅赌
袩褉芯 褩褩 薪懈褑褨褋褌褜 褨 胁械谢懈褔.
鉅赌
袩褉芯 褩褩 锌褉懈褋褌芯褋褍胁邪薪褋褌胁芯.
鉅赌
袣薪懈卸泻邪 锌褉芯 泻芯屑褍薪褨蟹屑, 芯褔懈屑邪 褨薪褌械谢褨谐械薪褑褨褩, 褟泻邪 胁褌褉邪褌懈谢邪 胁谢邪写褍, 斜邪谐邪褌褋褌胁芯, 褋褌邪薪芯胁懈褖械 褌邪 褋胁芯褦 锌褉邪胁芯 薪邪 卸懈褌褌褟.
鉅赌
袚械褉芯褩 锌芯褋褌褨泄薪芯 蟹屑褨薪褞褞褌褜褋褟, 褟泻 蟹屑褨褩, 胁芯薪懈 褋泻懈写邪褞褌褜 谢懈褔懈薪懈: 斜褨谢懈泄, 褔械褉胁芯薪懈泄, 谢褞写懈薪邪.
鉅赌
小褞卸械褌 褉械邪谢褨褋褌懈褔薪芯-写褉邪屑邪褌懈褔薪懈泄, 褟泻懈泄 斜械蟹卸邪谢褜薪芯 褉芯蟹褉懈胁邪褦 褏褨写 写褍屑芯泻 褌邪 芯褔褨泻褍胁邪薪褜.
鉅赌
袗胁褌芯褉泻邪 锌芯胁褨谢褜薪芯 褉芯蟹褌懈薪邪褦 胁褋褨褏 谐械褉芯褩胁, 胁褨写 谐械褉芯褟 - 写芯 卸械褉褌胁懈 胁褋褜芯谐芯 芯写懈薪 泻褉芯泻鈥�
鉅赌
袚芯谢芯胁薪邪 谐械褉芯褩薪褟 泻薪懈卸泻懈 - 邪褉懈褋褌芯泻褉邪褌泻邪 袣褨褉邪 袗褉覒褍薪芯胁邪 锌褉芯泄褕谢邪 胁褋褨 泻芯谢邪 锌械泻谢邪 蟹邪褉邪写懈 泻芯褏邪薪薪褟 泄 褋胁芯斜芯写懈!
鉅赌
袙褋械, 褖芯 胁芯薪邪 褏芯褌褨谢邪 - 卸懈褌懈!
鉅赌
袞懈褌懈 褋胁芯褩屑 褉芯蟹褍屑芯屑, 斜邪卸邪薪薪褟屑懈, 邪谢械 褏褌芯 褋泻邪蟹邪胁, 褖芯 胁 褋懈褋褌械屑褨 褨薪写懈胁褨写 屑邪褦 锌褉邪胁芯 薪邪 褨薪邪泻褕褨褋褌褜?
鉅赌
笑械 屑芯褟 4-褌邪 泻薪懈卸泻邪 袪械薪写.
鉅赌
袣薪懈卸泻懈 卸懈胁褨, 胁芯薪懈 写懈褏邪褞褌褜 褨 胁芯谢邪褞褌褜 写芯 胁邪褋 谐芯谢芯褋邪屑懈 褋胁芯褩褏 谐械褉芯褩胁!
鉅赌
袪械泻芯屑械薪写褍褞!
鉅赌
袪械褑械薪蟹褨褟 写谢褟 @nashformat.ua
鉅赌
笑懈褌邪褌邪:
鉅赌
芦 - 孝芯斜褨 薪械 胁褨写芯屑芯 ,- 褩褩 谐芯谢芯褋 褉邪锌褌芯屑 蟹写褉懈谐薪褍胁褋褟 胁褨写 锌芯褔褍褌褌褟, 褟泻芯谐芯 胁芯薪邪 薪械 屑芯谐谢邪 锌褉懈褏芯胁邪褌懈,-褖芯 褨 胁 薪邪泄泻褉邪褖懈褏 褨蟹 薪邪褋 褍褋械褉械写懈薪褨 褦 褌邪泻械, 褔芯谐芯 薪械 褋屑褨褞褌褜 褌芯褉泻邪褌懈褋褟 褔褍卸褨 褉褍泻懈? 孝械 褋胁褟褖械薪薪械, 锌褉芯 褖芯 泻芯卸械薪 屑芯卸械 褋泻邪蟹邪褌懈 芦胁芯薪芯 屑芯褦禄, 褨 褋邪屑械 褌芯屑褍 褑械 褦 褋胁褟褖械薪薪懈屑? 袧械 胁褨写芯屑芯, 褖芯 屑懈 卸懈胁械屑芯 褌褨谢褜泻懈 写谢褟 褋械斜械 - 薪邪泄泻褉邪褖褨 蟹 薪邪褋, 褌褨, 褏褌芯 褔芯谐芯褋褜 胁邪褉褌褨? 袧械 胁褨写芯屑芯, 褖芯 胁 薪邪褋 褦 褌械, 褔芯谐芯 薪械 褋屑褨褦 褌芯褉泻薪褍褌懈褋褟 卸芯写薪邪 写械褉卸邪胁邪, 卸芯写械薪 泻芯谢械泻褌懈胁, 卸芯写薪械 褔懈褋谢芯 屑褨谢褜泄芯薪褨胁?
鉅赌
袡芯谐芯 胁褨写锌芯胁褨写褜 斜褍谢邪:
鉅赌
- 袧褨.禄
鉅赌
袩褉芯 泻薪懈卸泻褍:
鉅赌
芦袪芯屑邪薪, 褖芯 蟹屑邪谢褜芯胁褍褦 胁锌谢懈胁 袪芯褋褨泄褋褜泻芯褩 袪械胁芯谢褞褑褨褩听薪邪 褌褉褜芯褏 谢褞写械泄, 褟泻褨 胁懈屑邪谐邪褞褌褜 锌褉邪胁邪 卸懈褌懈 胁谢邪褋薪懈屑 卸懈褌褌褟屑 褨 褋谢褨写褍胁邪褌懈 褋胁芯褦屑褍 胁谢邪褋薪芯屑褍 褖邪褋褌褞. 孝胁褨褉 写芯褋谢褨写卸褍褦 斜芯褉芯褌褜斜褍 芯褋芯斜懈褋褌芯褋褌褨 锌褉芯褌懈 写械褉卸邪胁懈 胁 褉邪写褟薪褋褜泻褨泄 袪芯褋褨褩.
鉅赌
笑械 褌邪泻芯卸 褉芯蟹锌芯胁褨写褜 锌褉芯 锌褉懈褋褌褉邪褋薪械 泻芯褏邪薪薪褟 屑芯谢芯写芯褩 卸褨薪泻懈, 褟泻械 褌褉懈屑邪褦褌褜褋褟 褟泻 褎芯褉褌械褑褟 锌褉芯褌懈 褉芯蟹斜械褖褍褞褔芯谐芯 蟹谢邪 褌芯褌邪谢褨褌邪褉薪芯褩 写械褉卸邪胁懈.
鉅赌
袙锌械褉褕械 芯锌褍斜谢褨泻芯胁邪薪懈泄 褍 1936 褉芯褑褨.禄
鉅赌
#锌褉懈屑褏谢懈胁邪褔懈褌邪泻邪
鉅赌
袗泄薪 袪械薪写
鉅赌
袧邪褕 肖芯褉屑邪褌, 2021
鉅赌
芦We the Living禄
鉅赌
Ayn Rand, 1936
鉅赌
袟斜械褉褨谐邪褞褔懈 谐褨写薪褨褋褌褜 胁芯薪懈 胁褌褉邪褔邪谢懈 谢褞写褋褜泻褍 锌芯写芯斜褍!
鉅赌
孝褉械锌邪薪邪褑褨褟 谢褞写褋褜泻芯褩 褋褍褌薪芯褋褌褨!
鉅赌
效懈 屑芯卸薪邪 胁褉褟褌褍胁邪褌懈 谐芯谢芯写薪褍 泻褉邪褩薪褍 胁褌芯锌懈胁褕懈 褩褩 胁 褉械胁芯谢褞褑褨泄薪褨泄 泻褉芯胁褨?
鉅赌
效懈 屑芯卸薪邪 胁褉褟褌褍胁邪褌懈 泻芯褏邪薪薪褟 蟹褉邪写芯褞?
鉅赌
效懈 屑芯卸薪邪 薪邪褋懈褌懈褌懈 褕谢褍薪芯泻 褌芯褉谐褍褞褔懈 褋芯胁褨褋褌褞?
鉅赌
袙懈胁械褉薪褍褌褨 写褍褕褨, 褟泻懈屑懈 褋懈褋褌械屑邪 谐褉邪褦褌褜褋褟, 褟泻 锌邪蟹谢邪屑懈.
鉅赌
袧械屑邪褦 褑褨谢褜薪芯谐芯 写芯斜褉邪.
鉅赌
袧械屑邪褦 谐褨写薪芯褋褌褨.
鉅赌
袧械屑邪褦 褉褨胁薪芯褋褌褨.
鉅赌
袙褋褨 褉褨胁薪褨, 谢懈褕械 褍 褋屑械褉褌褨!
鉅赌
笑械泄 褉芯屑邪薪 锌褉芯 袥挟袛袠袧校.
鉅赌
袩褉芯 褩褩 薪懈褑褨褋褌褜 褨 胁械谢懈褔.
鉅赌
袩褉芯 褩褩 锌褉懈褋褌芯褋褍胁邪薪褋褌胁芯.
鉅赌
袣薪懈卸泻邪 锌褉芯 泻芯屑褍薪褨蟹屑, 芯褔懈屑邪 褨薪褌械谢褨谐械薪褑褨褩, 褟泻邪 胁褌褉邪褌懈谢邪 胁谢邪写褍, 斜邪谐邪褌褋褌胁芯, 褋褌邪薪芯胁懈褖械 褌邪 褋胁芯褦 锌褉邪胁芯 薪邪 卸懈褌褌褟.
鉅赌
袚械褉芯褩 锌芯褋褌褨泄薪芯 蟹屑褨薪褞褞褌褜褋褟, 褟泻 蟹屑褨褩, 胁芯薪懈 褋泻懈写邪褞褌褜 谢懈褔懈薪懈: 斜褨谢懈泄, 褔械褉胁芯薪懈泄, 谢褞写懈薪邪.
鉅赌
小褞卸械褌 褉械邪谢褨褋褌懈褔薪芯-写褉邪屑邪褌懈褔薪懈泄, 褟泻懈泄 斜械蟹卸邪谢褜薪芯 褉芯蟹褉懈胁邪褦 褏褨写 写褍屑芯泻 褌邪 芯褔褨泻褍胁邪薪褜.
鉅赌
袗胁褌芯褉泻邪 锌芯胁褨谢褜薪芯 褉芯蟹褌懈薪邪褦 胁褋褨褏 谐械褉芯褩胁, 胁褨写 谐械褉芯褟 - 写芯 卸械褉褌胁懈 胁褋褜芯谐芯 芯写懈薪 泻褉芯泻鈥�
鉅赌
袚芯谢芯胁薪邪 谐械褉芯褩薪褟 泻薪懈卸泻懈 - 邪褉懈褋褌芯泻褉邪褌泻邪 袣褨褉邪 袗褉覒褍薪芯胁邪 锌褉芯泄褕谢邪 胁褋褨 泻芯谢邪 锌械泻谢邪 蟹邪褉邪写懈 泻芯褏邪薪薪褟 泄 褋胁芯斜芯写懈!
鉅赌
袙褋械, 褖芯 胁芯薪邪 褏芯褌褨谢邪 - 卸懈褌懈!
鉅赌
袞懈褌懈 褋胁芯褩屑 褉芯蟹褍屑芯屑, 斜邪卸邪薪薪褟屑懈, 邪谢械 褏褌芯 褋泻邪蟹邪胁, 褖芯 胁 褋懈褋褌械屑褨 褨薪写懈胁褨写 屑邪褦 锌褉邪胁芯 薪邪 褨薪邪泻褕褨褋褌褜?
鉅赌
笑械 屑芯褟 4-褌邪 泻薪懈卸泻邪 袪械薪写.
鉅赌
袣薪懈卸泻懈 卸懈胁褨, 胁芯薪懈 写懈褏邪褞褌褜 褨 胁芯谢邪褞褌褜 写芯 胁邪褋 谐芯谢芯褋邪屑懈 褋胁芯褩褏 谐械褉芯褩胁!
鉅赌
袪械泻芯屑械薪写褍褞!
鉅赌
袪械褑械薪蟹褨褟 写谢褟 @nashformat.ua
鉅赌
笑懈褌邪褌邪:
鉅赌
芦 - 孝芯斜褨 薪械 胁褨写芯屑芯 ,- 褩褩 谐芯谢芯褋 褉邪锌褌芯屑 蟹写褉懈谐薪褍胁褋褟 胁褨写 锌芯褔褍褌褌褟, 褟泻芯谐芯 胁芯薪邪 薪械 屑芯谐谢邪 锌褉懈褏芯胁邪褌懈,-褖芯 褨 胁 薪邪泄泻褉邪褖懈褏 褨蟹 薪邪褋 褍褋械褉械写懈薪褨 褦 褌邪泻械, 褔芯谐芯 薪械 褋屑褨褞褌褜 褌芯褉泻邪褌懈褋褟 褔褍卸褨 褉褍泻懈? 孝械 褋胁褟褖械薪薪械, 锌褉芯 褖芯 泻芯卸械薪 屑芯卸械 褋泻邪蟹邪褌懈 芦胁芯薪芯 屑芯褦禄, 褨 褋邪屑械 褌芯屑褍 褑械 褦 褋胁褟褖械薪薪懈屑? 袧械 胁褨写芯屑芯, 褖芯 屑懈 卸懈胁械屑芯 褌褨谢褜泻懈 写谢褟 褋械斜械 - 薪邪泄泻褉邪褖褨 蟹 薪邪褋, 褌褨, 褏褌芯 褔芯谐芯褋褜 胁邪褉褌褨? 袧械 胁褨写芯屑芯, 褖芯 胁 薪邪褋 褦 褌械, 褔芯谐芯 薪械 褋屑褨褦 褌芯褉泻薪褍褌懈褋褟 卸芯写薪邪 写械褉卸邪胁邪, 卸芯写械薪 泻芯谢械泻褌懈胁, 卸芯写薪械 褔懈褋谢芯 屑褨谢褜泄芯薪褨胁?
鉅赌
袡芯谐芯 胁褨写锌芯胁褨写褜 斜褍谢邪:
鉅赌
- 袧褨.禄
鉅赌
袩褉芯 泻薪懈卸泻褍:
鉅赌
芦袪芯屑邪薪, 褖芯 蟹屑邪谢褜芯胁褍褦 胁锌谢懈胁 袪芯褋褨泄褋褜泻芯褩 袪械胁芯谢褞褑褨褩听薪邪 褌褉褜芯褏 谢褞写械泄, 褟泻褨 胁懈屑邪谐邪褞褌褜 锌褉邪胁邪 卸懈褌懈 胁谢邪褋薪懈屑 卸懈褌褌褟屑 褨 褋谢褨写褍胁邪褌懈 褋胁芯褦屑褍 胁谢邪褋薪芯屑褍 褖邪褋褌褞. 孝胁褨褉 写芯褋谢褨写卸褍褦 斜芯褉芯褌褜斜褍 芯褋芯斜懈褋褌芯褋褌褨 锌褉芯褌懈 写械褉卸邪胁懈 胁 褉邪写褟薪褋褜泻褨泄 袪芯褋褨褩.
鉅赌
笑械 褌邪泻芯卸 褉芯蟹锌芯胁褨写褜 锌褉芯 锌褉懈褋褌褉邪褋薪械 泻芯褏邪薪薪褟 屑芯谢芯写芯褩 卸褨薪泻懈, 褟泻械 褌褉懈屑邪褦褌褜褋褟 褟泻 褎芯褉褌械褑褟 锌褉芯褌懈 褉芯蟹斜械褖褍褞褔芯谐芯 蟹谢邪 褌芯褌邪谢褨褌邪褉薪芯褩 写械褉卸邪胁懈.
鉅赌
袙锌械褉褕械 芯锌褍斜谢褨泻芯胁邪薪懈泄 褍 1936 褉芯褑褨.禄
鉅赌
#锌褉懈屑褏谢懈胁邪褔懈褌邪泻邪
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鈥檚 first novel was, instead of this one, almost 鈥渟et in an airship orbiting the earth鈥� (v) which would鈥檝e been kinda cool, except now we have , which likely would鈥檝e embarrassed Rand鈥檚 hypothetical effort as much as Solzhenitsyn humiliates this one.
Rand鈥檚 own forward contains the normal cacogogic posturing. For instance:
鈥淲riters are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made鈥� (xiii);
Neo-spenglerianism: 鈥淭he rapid epistemological degeneration of our present age鈥� (xiv);
鈥淭he Naturalist school of writing consists of substituting statistics for one鈥檚 standard of value鈥� (id.);
A nice admission regarding the maturity of her ideas: 鈥淚 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鈥� (xv);
To support her juvenile contention that the soviet system is unable to produce anything, she answers Sputnik and the Soviet nuclear program with 鈥淩ead the story of 鈥楶roject X鈥� in Atlas Shrugged鈥� (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 鈥淭he specific events of [protagonist鈥檚] life were not mine; her ideas, her convictions, her values were and are鈥� (xvii). This statement is stunning in two respects: the first discredits any and all 鈥渆vents鈥� 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 鈥渆vents鈥� 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鈥檚 ideology. Protagonist goes on to record the following observations, which should be considered as incorporated by reference in extenso to author鈥檚 ideology:
Defining the relevant class position: protagonist鈥檚 family once owned a textile factory, which was nationalized (21), and protagonist once lived in a 鈥渧ast mansion鈥� and 鈥渉ad an English governess鈥� (45);
鈥淔rom somewhere in the aristocratic Middle Ages, [protagonist] had inherited the conviction that labor and effort were ignoble鈥� (49);
Regarding the Russian Revolution: protagonist did depose and state that 鈥淚t 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鈥� (58) (my only question is how the Evil Bolsheviks held off on shooting her until page 460?);
Affirmed that protagonist believes in 鈥渕iracles鈥� (61);
Regarding the 鈥淚nternationale鈥�: 鈥淪he 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鈥� (73);
Protagonist adopts Rand鈥檚 comment from the preface regarding the distinction between methods and ideals: 鈥淚 loathe your ideals鈥� (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: 鈥淐an 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鈥檛 treat them as if they were. And because I loathe most of them鈥� (90)--we should compare Mussolini鈥檚 comments from a 1922 article (anthologized in ): 鈥淭he 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.鈥� Coupled with Mussolini鈥檚 concept that fascism is managed inequality, with rule by the elite, the triumph of the few over quantity, it is readily apparent that Rand鈥檚 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 鈥渉er new dress鈥� (98), obsesses over 鈥渓ipstick and silk stockings鈥� (119), and files a civil case over some converted home furnishings (180), which case is lost;
She resents 鈥渘ovels 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鈥檚 limousine with sparkling fenders and a chauffeur in uniform鈥� (136-37) (does that book actually exist?);
She is very proud of herself 鈥渢hat she was actually corrupting a stern Communist. She regretted that the corruption could go no further鈥� (157);
And on and on. There鈥檙e egregiously annoying bits on protagonist throughout, but do I need to report any more? Safe to conclude, rather , that she鈥檚 horrible (and that conclusion has nothing to do with maintaining two separate sexual relationships simultaneously), and that her ideas and convictions are author鈥檚 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 鈥渢emporary compromise,鈥� 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: 鈥淒o you think Europe is blind? Watch Europe. She hasn鈥檛 said her last word yet. The day will come--soon--when these bloody assassins, these foul scoundrels, that Communist scum鈥� (38);
It is asserted that 鈥淐zar Alexander II had magnanimously freed鈥� the Russian serfs (48);
And so on. There鈥檚 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 鈥渂reach of party discipline鈥� (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 鈥渉as lost [its future] in materialistic pursuits. Russia鈥檚 destiny has ever been of the spirit. Holy Russia has lost her God and her Soul鈥� (154);
Protagonist鈥檚 boyfriend tells her other boyfriend that 鈥淚鈥檓 studying philosophy [鈥 because it鈥檚 a science that the proletariat of the RSFSR does not need at the moment鈥� (155);
A fairly dismissive attitude toward human suffering: 鈥淧etrograd had known sweeping epidemics of cholera; it had known epidemics of typhus, which were worse; the worst of its epidemics was that of 鈥楯ohn Gray,鈥欌€� which is apparently some form of popular dance (id.)鈥擨鈥檇鈥檝e thought that the human suffering should be the point of an anti-communist writing;
One of protagonist鈥檚 boyfriends alleges 鈥渢he essential immutability of human nature,鈥� a comical conceit (302);
Has communists expressing their 鈥渋dealism鈥� (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鈥攂ut 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 鈥渨hy do you think you are entitled to your own thoughts? Against those of the majority of your collective?鈥� (311)鈥攍eninist centralism is not necessarily something that I鈥檇 endorse, but this is a bogus caricature;
Protagonist鈥檚 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鈥檚 rant: 鈥淲e were to raise men to our own level. But they don鈥檛 rise, the men we鈥檙e ruling, they don鈥檛 grow [this, merely in 1925!], they鈥檙e shrinking. They鈥檙e shrinking to a level no human creatures ever reached before [!!!]. And we鈥檙e sliding slowly down into their ranks. We鈥檙e crumbling, like a wall, one by one. Kira, I鈥檝e never been afraid. I鈥檓 afraid, now. It鈥檚 a strange feeling. I鈥檓 afraid to think. Because鈥ecause I think, at times, that perhaps our ideals have had no other result鈥� (334), which is a line of revelation not earned by any preparatory work in the novel whatsoever. Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 marginal contributions. Full of laments from dispossessed Russian aristocrats, which we are apparently to take seriously--protagonist鈥檚 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鈥檚 propaganda, which normally ranges from boringly true (鈥淛ust Say No to Drugs!鈥�) to blatantly self-serving and thus readily identifiable and disregardable (鈥淭he Leader is Good!鈥�). 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鈥檚 first novel was, instead of this one, almost 鈥渟et in an airship orbiting the earth鈥� (v) which would鈥檝e been kinda cool, except now we have , which likely would鈥檝e embarrassed Rand鈥檚 hypothetical effort as much as Solzhenitsyn humiliates this one.
Rand鈥檚 own forward contains the normal cacogogic posturing. For instance:
鈥淲riters are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made鈥� (xiii);
Neo-spenglerianism: 鈥淭he rapid epistemological degeneration of our present age鈥� (xiv);
鈥淭he Naturalist school of writing consists of substituting statistics for one鈥檚 standard of value鈥� (id.);
A nice admission regarding the maturity of her ideas: 鈥淚 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鈥� (xv);
To support her juvenile contention that the soviet system is unable to produce anything, she answers Sputnik and the Soviet nuclear program with 鈥淩ead the story of 鈥楶roject X鈥� in Atlas Shrugged鈥� (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 鈥淭he specific events of [protagonist鈥檚] life were not mine; her ideas, her convictions, her values were and are鈥� (xvii). This statement is stunning in two respects: the first discredits any and all 鈥渆vents鈥� 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 鈥渆vents鈥� 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鈥檚 ideology. Protagonist goes on to record the following observations, which should be considered as incorporated by reference in extenso to author鈥檚 ideology:
Defining the relevant class position: protagonist鈥檚 family once owned a textile factory, which was nationalized (21), and protagonist once lived in a 鈥渧ast mansion鈥� and 鈥渉ad an English governess鈥� (45);
鈥淔rom somewhere in the aristocratic Middle Ages, [protagonist] had inherited the conviction that labor and effort were ignoble鈥� (49);
Regarding the Russian Revolution: protagonist did depose and state that 鈥淚t 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鈥� (58) (my only question is how the Evil Bolsheviks held off on shooting her until page 460?);
Affirmed that protagonist believes in 鈥渕iracles鈥� (61);
Regarding the 鈥淚nternationale鈥�: 鈥淪he 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鈥� (73);
Protagonist adopts Rand鈥檚 comment from the preface regarding the distinction between methods and ideals: 鈥淚 loathe your ideals鈥� (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: 鈥淐an 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鈥檛 treat them as if they were. And because I loathe most of them鈥� (90)--we should compare Mussolini鈥檚 comments from a 1922 article (anthologized in ): 鈥淭he 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.鈥� Coupled with Mussolini鈥檚 concept that fascism is managed inequality, with rule by the elite, the triumph of the few over quantity, it is readily apparent that Rand鈥檚 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 鈥渉er new dress鈥� (98), obsesses over 鈥渓ipstick and silk stockings鈥� (119), and files a civil case over some converted home furnishings (180), which case is lost;
She resents 鈥渘ovels 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鈥檚 limousine with sparkling fenders and a chauffeur in uniform鈥� (136-37) (does that book actually exist?);
She is very proud of herself 鈥渢hat she was actually corrupting a stern Communist. She regretted that the corruption could go no further鈥� (157);
And on and on. There鈥檙e egregiously annoying bits on protagonist throughout, but do I need to report any more? Safe to conclude, rather , that she鈥檚 horrible (and that conclusion has nothing to do with maintaining two separate sexual relationships simultaneously), and that her ideas and convictions are author鈥檚 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 鈥渢emporary compromise,鈥� 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: 鈥淒o you think Europe is blind? Watch Europe. She hasn鈥檛 said her last word yet. The day will come--soon--when these bloody assassins, these foul scoundrels, that Communist scum鈥� (38);
It is asserted that 鈥淐zar Alexander II had magnanimously freed鈥� the Russian serfs (48);
And so on. There鈥檚 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 鈥渂reach of party discipline鈥� (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 鈥渉as lost [its future] in materialistic pursuits. Russia鈥檚 destiny has ever been of the spirit. Holy Russia has lost her God and her Soul鈥� (154);
Protagonist鈥檚 boyfriend tells her other boyfriend that 鈥淚鈥檓 studying philosophy [鈥 because it鈥檚 a science that the proletariat of the RSFSR does not need at the moment鈥� (155);
A fairly dismissive attitude toward human suffering: 鈥淧etrograd had known sweeping epidemics of cholera; it had known epidemics of typhus, which were worse; the worst of its epidemics was that of 鈥楯ohn Gray,鈥欌€� which is apparently some form of popular dance (id.)鈥擨鈥檇鈥檝e thought that the human suffering should be the point of an anti-communist writing;
One of protagonist鈥檚 boyfriends alleges 鈥渢he essential immutability of human nature,鈥� a comical conceit (302);
Has communists expressing their 鈥渋dealism鈥� (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鈥攂ut 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 鈥渨hy do you think you are entitled to your own thoughts? Against those of the majority of your collective?鈥� (311)鈥攍eninist centralism is not necessarily something that I鈥檇 endorse, but this is a bogus caricature;
Protagonist鈥檚 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鈥檚 rant: 鈥淲e were to raise men to our own level. But they don鈥檛 rise, the men we鈥檙e ruling, they don鈥檛 grow [this, merely in 1925!], they鈥檙e shrinking. They鈥檙e shrinking to a level no human creatures ever reached before [!!!]. And we鈥檙e sliding slowly down into their ranks. We鈥檙e crumbling, like a wall, one by one. Kira, I鈥檝e never been afraid. I鈥檓 afraid, now. It鈥檚 a strange feeling. I鈥檓 afraid to think. Because鈥ecause I think, at times, that perhaps our ideals have had no other result鈥� (334), which is a line of revelation not earned by any preparatory work in the novel whatsoever. Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 marginal contributions. Full of laments from dispossessed Russian aristocrats, which we are apparently to take seriously--protagonist鈥檚 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鈥檚 propaganda, which normally ranges from boringly true (鈥淛ust Say No to Drugs!鈥�) to blatantly self-serving and thus readily identifiable and disregardable (鈥淭he Leader is Good!鈥�). 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.
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鈥檚 other books, you鈥檇 like this one too.
If you like her politics and enjoy her writing, then this is a must-read because it鈥檚 practically an autobiography.
If none of the above applies, then this would be an unpleasant experience.
Moved to
If you like her politics and enjoy her writing, then this is a must-read because it鈥檚 practically an autobiography.
If none of the above applies, then this would be an unpleasant experience.
Moved to
April 13, 2020
Una buena novela sobre la vida cotidiana durante la fase NEP del desarrollo del totalitarismo en la URSS, a帽os 1923 a 1925. Lo que me atrajo de la obra fue que estuviera escrita por Ayn Rand, una de las personas m谩s 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 Espa帽a, Jes煤s Huerta de Soto o 煤ltimamente, Juan Ram贸n Rallo.
Gran parte de lo que cuenta sobre la URSS en su primeros a帽os es autobiogr谩fico, as铆 que saber la experiencia vital que padeci贸 la pobre Rand en sus primeros a帽os, hasta que logr贸 escapar de aquel infierno, tiene su punto para los que nos gust贸 "La rebeli贸n del Atlas". La novela relata un tri谩ngulo amoroso convencional y funciona m谩s 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 d茅jadlo en 3 estrellas...
Gran parte de lo que cuenta sobre la URSS en su primeros a帽os es autobiogr谩fico, as铆 que saber la experiencia vital que padeci贸 la pobre Rand en sus primeros a帽os, hasta que logr贸 escapar de aquel infierno, tiene su punto para los que nos gust贸 "La rebeli贸n del Atlas". La novela relata un tri谩ngulo amoroso convencional y funciona m谩s 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 d茅jadlo en 3 estrellas...
April 11, 2020
Socialism is always bad.
November 7, 2020
螘委谓伪喂 蟽伪蠁蠋蟼 page-turner, 伪蟽蠂苇蟿蠅蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟿蔚位蔚蠀蟿伪委伪 纬蠀蟻谓维蠅 蟿喂蟼 蟽蔚位委未蔚蟼 蟺慰位蠉 伪蟻纬维 (it's not you, Ayn Rand, it's me). 螝伪蟿维 蟿伪 位慰喂蟺维, 未蔚谓 渭蟺慰蟻蠋 谓伪 蟺蠅 蠈蟿喂 蔚谓蟿蠀蟺蠅蟽喂维蟽蟿畏魏伪. 危蠀渭蟺伪胃畏蟿喂魏萎 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪, 蟺慰位蠉 渭苇蟿蟻喂伪 畏 伪蟺蠈未慰蟽畏. 螛伪 蟿慰蠀 苇尾伪味伪 苇谓伪 蟿委渭喂慰 6/10 谓慰渭委味蠅.
October 28, 2013
袘懈 褌萤胁褌 爷蟹褝谢 斜褍褞褍 褝谐芯懈蟹屑, 谢懈斜械褉邪谢 爷蟹谢懈泄薪 褌芯屑芯芯褏芯薪 褌萤谢萤萤谢萤谐褔 谐褝谐写写褝谐 褕懈褉爷爷薪 写芯褉懈褍薪 褏邪褉褑褌邪泄 袝胁褉褝泄 褝屑褝谐褌褝泄谐 写芯褌褉芯芯 懈泄屑 褉芯屑邪薪褌懈泻 褏爷薪 斜邪泄褏 褞屑 褔懈薪褝褝 褌萤褋萤萤谢褋萤薪谐爷泄. 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写懈泄薪 邪薪褏薪褘 褍写邪邪 褏褝胁谢爷爷谢褋褝薪 "袘懈写 邪屑褜写 褏爷屑爷爷褋" 谐褝褏 褝薪褝褏爷爷 褉芯屑邪薪褘 爷泄谢 褟胁写邪谢 1922-25 芯薪写 褌褍褏邪泄薪 爷械懈泄薪 袟啸校-褘薪 袩械褌褉芯谐褉邪写 芯写芯芯谐懈泄薪 小邪薪泻褌-袩械褌械褉斜褍褉谐 褏芯褌芯写 褝褝写褉褝褝褌 褏褍胁褜 褌邪胁懈谢邪薪谐邪邪褉 褏芯谢斜芯谐写褋芯薪 谐褍褉胁邪薪 蟹邪谢褍褍谐懈泄薪 褌爷爷褏褝褝褉 萤褉薪萤薪萤.
袣懈褉邪 斜芯谢 蟹芯褏懈芯谢褘薪 谐芯谢 斜邪邪褌邪褉. 校褉褜写 萤屑薪萤 薪褜 斜懈褕谐爷泄 谢 褉芯屑邪薪 褍薪褕懈卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褔 蟹芯褏懈芯谢褘薪 谐芯谢 写爷褉写 懈薪谐褝褌谢褝褝 褌邪褌邪谐写邪卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褍写邪邪谐爷泄 斜懈谢褝褝. 协屑褝谐褌褝泄 褏爷薪 褏褝写懈泄 蟹萤萤谢萤薪, 褝屑蟹褝谐 屑褝褌 斜芯谢芯胁褔 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄 褏爷薪懈泄褏褝褝 褌萤谢萤萤 褌褝褉褏褝薪 卸懈卸懈谐褏褝薪 斜懈械薪褝褝褋 褟屑邪褉 懈褏 褏爷褔 褔邪写邪谢, 萤褉 蟹萤萤谢萤薪 褋褝褌谐褝谢 薪褜 褏褝褉褏褝薪 谐邪薪 斜芯谢写 屑褝褌 褏褍胁懈褉褔, 写邪谢 屑萤褉萤萤褉 薪褜 褌邪褋 褏懈泄褋褝薪 萤胁谢懈泄薪 褕萤薪爷爷写懈泄谐 褕爷写 蟹褍褍薪 褌褝胁褔懈卸 谐邪褉褔 褔邪写写邪谐 褟屑邪褉 懈褏 褋褝褌谐褝谢懈泄薪 褌褝薪褏褝褝褌褝泄 谐褝写谐懈泄谐 袣懈褉邪谐褘薪 写爷褉褝褝褋 褏邪褉卸 斜芯谢薪芯.
SPOILER ALERT!
袣懈褉邪 袥械芯-写 褝褉谐褝谢褌 斜褍褑邪谢褌谐爷泄谐褝褝褉 写褍褉谢邪褋邪薪. 袟萤胁褏萤薪 袥械芯谐懈泄薪 写褝褉谐褝写 薪褜 褋褝褉卸, 褌芯芯褋 褌芯褉褌芯谐褌芯泄 泻械褉芯褋懈薪 写褝褝褉 褑邪泄 斜褍褑邪谢谐邪卸 褏邪屑褌写邪邪 卸懈褉懈泄薪 薪褝谐褝薪 萤谐谢萤萤谐 褍屑谐邪褉 斜邪泄褉薪褘褏邪邪 卸懈卸懈谐褏褝薪 褏邪谢邪邪褋 萤褉萤萤薪写 褍谐褌邪褏褘薪 褌萤谢萤萤 褌褝褉 褞褍 褔 褏懈泄褏褝写 斜褝谢褝薪. 袥械芯 褔 斜邪褋 褌爷爷薪写 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄. 袚邪谐褑褏爷爷 袣懈褉邪 袥械芯 褏芯褢褉 褝薪褝 褑邪谐 爷械褝褝褋 萤屑薪萤 褝褋胁褝谢 褏芯泄薪芯 褌萤褉褋萤薪 斜芯谢 薪褝谐薪懈泄褏褝褝 褌芯谢谐芯泄 褑邪泄卸 褏芯谢褘薪 褏芯谢写 褟胁邪褏 褏爷褉褌褝谢 薪褜 褏邪屑褌 斜邪泄卸 爷褉 邪褔邪邪 褌芯泄褉褍褍谢邪邪写 谢 褝薪褝 褌爷爷褏 邪蟹 卸邪褉谐邪谢褌邪泄 褌萤谐褋萤褏 斜邪泄褋邪薪写 斜懈 芯谐褌 褝褉谐褝谢蟹褝褝谐爷泄. 袚褝胁褔 褌褝写薪懈泄 褏褍胁褜 蟹邪褟邪 褑邪谐 褏褍谐邪褑邪邪薪褘 褝褝写褉褝褝褌褝泄 褝褉谐爷爷谢褝谐 写褍薪写 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褍褔褉邪邪褋 斜爷褏 蟹爷泄谢 褝褋褝褉谐褝褝褉褝褝 褌萤谐褋褋萤薪 褞屑.
鈥溞炐貉傃徯毖€懈泄薪 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢鈥� 斜褍褞褍 斜懈写薪懈泄 褋邪泄薪 屑褝写褝褏 袟啸校 褘薪 邪谢褏 褏邪写褍褍褉褌邪泄 邪卸懈谢褔懈薪 邪薪谐懈泄谐 褍褏褍褍谢褋邪薪 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢 斜芯写懈褌 邪屑褜写褉邪谢 写褝褝褉 褏褝褉褏褝薪 卸懈谐褕爷爷褉褌褝泄, 褏邪褉谐懈褋 褏褝褉褑谐懈泄 斜褍褍卸, 褝薪褝 褏芯褢褉 褏芯褋褘薪 懈褉褝褝写爷泄谐 斜邪谐邪谢蟹褍褍褉写褋邪薪 斜褍谢懈薪谐邪褉褌 薪懈泄谐屑懈泄薪 褏爷褔懈褉褏褝谐 谐邪褉褘谐 薪褜 萤萤褉懈泄薪褏萤萤 褏爷蟹爷爷薪写褝褝 褌褍谢褌邪谢 屑褝写褝褉褔 褍薪褕懈卸 写褍褍褋谐邪褏 褏爷褉褌褝谢 褍薪褕懈谐褔 薪邪写邪写 械褉写萤萤褋萤萤 褔 邪屑邪褉 斜邪泄褋邪薪谐爷泄.
啸爷薪 斜芯谢 薪懈泄谐屑懈泄薪 邪屑褜褌邪薪 谐褝写褝谐. 袚褝褏写褝褝 褝褑褋懈泄薪 褝褑褝褋褌 斜懈写 斜爷谐写 谢 褏邪泄褉谢邪卸 写褍褉谢邪卸, 写褍褉褌邪泄 蟹爷泄谢褋褝褝 褏懈泄卸, 褏爷褋褝谢 屑萤褉萤萤写谢懈泄薪褏萤萤 褌萤谢萤萤 褟胁邪褏 褝褉褏褌褝泄. 孝褝谐褝褏 褔 褏褝褉褝谐褌褝泄. 袘懈写 斜褍褋邪写 褏爷屑爷爷褋褝褝褋 萤萤褉 褋芯薪懈褉褏芯谢, 萤萤褉 褏爷褋褝谢 屑萤褉萤萤写萤谢褌褝泄 屑萤褉褌谢萤萤 邪褌邪谢 褏褝薪 薪褝谐薪懈泄 褌萤谢萤萤 褌褝写薪懈泄谐褝褝 褏萤褋萤褉 褏邪褟卸, 薪褝谐 懈卸懈谢 褋邪薪邪邪, 薪褝谐 懈卸懈谢 褑邪屑褑褌邪泄 薪邪褋邪邪褉邪邪 萤萤褉懈泄薪 斜懈褕 萤萤褉 褏褝薪 薪褝谐薪懈泄 褌萤谢萤萤 斜芯褉懈胁 斜芯褏懈褋 褏懈泄谢谐爷泄 邪卸懈谢谢邪褏 褢褋谐爷泄. 袣懈褉邪谐懈泄薪 褏爷褋褋褝薪 蟹爷泄谢 械褉写萤萤 谢 褝薪褝. 孝褝褉褝褝褉 褋邪泄薪 懈薪卸械薪械褉 斜芯谢芯芯写 褌芯屑 褌芯屑 谐爷爷褉, 褕懈谢褝薪 斜邪褉懈谢谐褍褍写褘谐 斜邪褉褜卸 斜邪泄谐褍褍谢卸, 袥械芯褌芯泄 褏邪屑褌 小邪薪泻褌 袩械褌褍褉斜褍褉谐懈泄薪 卸懈薪写爷爷褏褝薪 褕萤薪爷爷写褝褝褉 褌爷谢褝褏 褌爷谢褕褌褝泄 写褝褝褉 薪褜 褏邪谢邪邪褔懈褏 褏芯芯谢褌芯泄 斜邪泄褏褘谐 褏爷褋褋褝薪.
袚褝胁褔 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢 薪褝褉懈泄薪 写芯芯褉 斜芯谢芯胁褋褉芯谢褌芯泄 褏褍胁懈泄薪 褏萤褉萤薪谐萤褌褝泄 斜爷褏薪懈泄谐 卸懈谐褕懈薪 蟹褝胁爷爷褑褝卸, 斜爷褏 褏萤褉萤薪谐懈泄谐 薪褜 褏褍褉邪邪薪 邪胁褔, 褏邪薪邪 薪邪谢褍褍谢邪薪 褌芯谢谐芯泄 写邪褉褍褍谢邪薪 斜褍褍写邪卸, 邪褉邪泄 褏懈泄卸 邪屑褜 蟹褍褍褏 褏褝褋褝谐 薪褜 懈写褝褏 褏芯芯谢谐爷泄, 萤屑褋萤褏 褏褍胁褑邪褋谐爷泄 萤谐谢萤萤 斜爷褉 褏邪褉 写邪褉邪薪 褋褝褉卸 萤谢屑萤薪 蟹褝谢屑爷爷薪 邪屑褜写邪褉褔 斜邪泄褋邪薪 斜邪褉邪邪薪 爷械 邪卸褝褝.
袗泄薪 袪褝薪写 褟谐 褝薪褝 爷械写(1905) 袨褉芯褋写 褌萤褉卸 邪邪胁 薪褜 褝屑懈泄薪 褋邪薪谐懈泄薪 褝蟹褝薪 褔懈薪褝褝谢褝谐 褏爷薪 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褔 鈥溞炐貉傃徯毖€懈泄薪 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢鈥� 邪邪褉 褝写 褏萤褉萤薪谐萤萤 斜爷谐写懈泄谐 薪褜 褏褍褉邪邪谢谐邪卸 邪屑褜写褉邪褏邪写 褏爷薪写 斜褝褉褏 褝薪褝褏爷爷 爷械懈泄谐 斜懈械褝褝褉褝褝 褌褍褍谢卸 谐邪褉褋邪薪 褍褔褉邪邪褋 褔 褝薪褝 褉芯屑邪薪邪邪 斜芯写懈褌芯泄 斜懈褔褋褝薪 斜邪泄褏.
袪芯屑邪薪褘 谐褍褉胁邪谢卸懈薪谐懈泄薪 谐褍褉邪胁 写邪褏褜 谐芯谢 写爷褉 薪褜 斜芯谢芯褏 袗薪写褉褝泄 孝邪谐邪薪芯胁. 协薪褝 蟹邪谢褍褍 斜芯谢 褟写褍褍 褌邪褉懈邪褔懈薪 谐邪褉邪谢褌邪泄, 薪邪屑褘薪 谐懈褕爷爷薪, 褏邪褌褍褍 褔懈谐 斜邪褉懈屑褌谢邪谢褌邪泄 袣懈褉邪谐邪邪褋 萤萤褉 褏爷薪写 褏褝蟹褝褝 褔 褋褝褌谐褝谢褝褝 褍褍写谢邪卸 爷蟹褝褝谐爷泄 斜芯谢芯胁褍褍 谐褝屑褝褝褉 写芯褌芯谐褕芯芯, 卸懈薪褏褝薪褝 泻芯屑屑褍薪懈褋懈褌 蟹邪谢褍褍 斜懈谢褝褝. 孝褝褉褝褝褉 袣懈褉邪写 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄. 袦邪谐邪写谐爷泄 袥械芯谐芯芯褋 褔 懈谢爷爷 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄 斜邪泄褋邪薪 斜邪泄褏. 袧邪褋邪邪褉邪邪 泻芯屑屑褍薪懈褋褌 褏懈褔褝褝谢写 褋褍褍卸, 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢写 斜芯谢芯褏芯芯褋 褔 萤屑薪萤 薪邪屑写 褝谢褋褝卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 袗薪写褉褝泄谐懈泄薪 爷蟹褝谢 斜芯写谢褘谐 袣懈褉邪 褝褑褋懈泄薪 屑萤褔懈写 萤萤褉褔懈谢卸 褔邪写写邪谐. 协薪褝 斜芯谢 械褉写萤萤 褏爷薪 褏爷薪褝褝褉褝褝 谢 爷谢写褝褏 褟胁写邪谢 斜邪泄褋邪薪 斜懈谢褝褝.
袪芯屑邪薪褘 褌萤谐褋谐萤谢 芯泄褉褌芯褏 褌褍褋邪屑 褝写谐褝褝褉 谐褍褉胁邪薪 蟹邪谢褍褍谐懈泄薪 褏芯谢斜芯谐写褋芯薪 褏褍胁褜 褌邪胁褜谢邪薪 褝褉褔谢褝谐写褝薪 屑褍褕谐懈褉褋邪邪褉 褝褑褋懈泄薪 斜爷谢褝谐褌 褌邪褋 褌邪褌邪谐写邪薪 褍褉邪谐写邪薪邪. 孝萤谐褋谐萤谢 薪褜 屑懈薪懈泄 褏爷谢褝褝卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褌萤谐褋谐萤谢 斜懈褕 斜芯谢芯胁褔 懈谢爷爷 褌萤谐褋, 懈谢爷爷 邪屑谐邪谢邪薪 褌萤谐褋褋萤薪 斜懈谢褝褝. 袪褝薪写懈泄薪 芯褉褔薪芯芯 懈谢褝褉褏懈泄谢褝褏 褍褉邪薪 褌邪薪褋邪谐 褏褝胁 屑邪褟谐, 褌芯谢谐芯泄 褝褉谐褝屑 褉芯屑邪薪褌懈泻 褏邪泄褉 写褍褉谢邪谢, 褝褝写褉褝褝褌褝泄 褏褍胁褜 蟹邪褟邪 褌褝写谐褝褝褉 薪褜 褌褍褏邪泄薪 褑邪谐 爷械懈泄薪 薪懈泄谐屑懈泄薪 斜邪泄写邪谢褌邪泄谐邪邪 褏褝褉褏褝薪 褍褟谢写邪卸 萤萤褉褌萤萤 褕懈薪谐褝褝卸 邪胁褔 斜邪泄谐邪邪谐 薪褜 斜懈褕褉褝薪 屑邪谐褌邪褏邪邪褋 褔 爷谐 屑懈薪褜 斜邪谐邪写邪卸 斜邪泄薪邪.
袗泄薪 袪褝薪写懈泄薪 褌褍褏邪泄薪 爷械懈泄薪 袟啸校 - 邪邪褋 21 褌褝泄写褝褝 袗屑械褉懈泻懈泄谐 蟹芯褉懈薪 谐邪褉褔 褟胁褋邪薪 斜邪泄写邪谐 斜芯谢 褉芯屑邪薪褘 谐芯谢 斜邪邪褌邪褉 袣懈褉邪 谐邪褉褔 褟胁邪褏 蟹邪屑写邪邪 萤胁谢懈泄薪 邪薪懈褉谐爷泄 写邪泄写邪写 谐邪薪褑邪邪褉邪邪 邪屑褜褋谐邪谢 褏褍褉邪邪褋邪薪 斜懈谢褝褝. 袦邪谐邪写谐爷泄 袣懈褉邪谐懈泄薪 褝薪褝 写爷褉 21 褌褝泄 蟹邪谢褍褍褏邪薪 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写懈泄薪 褌芯谢懈薪写 褌褍褋褋邪薪 褌褍褋谐邪谢 锟斤拷屑.
袣懈褉邪 斜芯谢 蟹芯褏懈芯谢褘薪 谐芯谢 斜邪邪褌邪褉. 校褉褜写 萤屑薪萤 薪褜 斜懈褕谐爷泄 谢 褉芯屑邪薪 褍薪褕懈卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褔 蟹芯褏懈芯谢褘薪 谐芯谢 写爷褉写 懈薪谐褝褌谢褝褝 褌邪褌邪谐写邪卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褍写邪邪谐爷泄 斜懈谢褝褝. 协屑褝谐褌褝泄 褏爷薪 褏褝写懈泄 蟹萤萤谢萤薪, 褝屑蟹褝谐 屑褝褌 斜芯谢芯胁褔 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄 褏爷薪懈泄褏褝褝 褌萤谢萤萤 褌褝褉褏褝薪 卸懈卸懈谐褏褝薪 斜懈械薪褝褝褋 褟屑邪褉 懈褏 褏爷褔 褔邪写邪谢, 萤褉 蟹萤萤谢萤薪 褋褝褌谐褝谢 薪褜 褏褝褉褏褝薪 谐邪薪 斜芯谢写 屑褝褌 褏褍胁懈褉褔, 写邪谢 屑萤褉萤萤褉 薪褜 褌邪褋 褏懈泄褋褝薪 萤胁谢懈泄薪 褕萤薪爷爷写懈泄谐 褕爷写 蟹褍褍薪 褌褝胁褔懈卸 谐邪褉褔 褔邪写写邪谐 褟屑邪褉 懈褏 褋褝褌谐褝谢懈泄薪 褌褝薪褏褝褝褌褝泄 谐褝写谐懈泄谐 袣懈褉邪谐褘薪 写爷褉褝褝褋 褏邪褉卸 斜芯谢薪芯.
SPOILER ALERT!
袣懈褉邪 袥械芯-写 褝褉谐褝谢褌 斜褍褑邪谢褌谐爷泄谐褝褝褉 写褍褉谢邪褋邪薪. 袟萤胁褏萤薪 袥械芯谐懈泄薪 写褝褉谐褝写 薪褜 褋褝褉卸, 褌芯芯褋 褌芯褉褌芯谐褌芯泄 泻械褉芯褋懈薪 写褝褝褉 褑邪泄 斜褍褑邪谢谐邪卸 褏邪屑褌写邪邪 卸懈褉懈泄薪 薪褝谐褝薪 萤谐谢萤萤谐 褍屑谐邪褉 斜邪泄褉薪褘褏邪邪 卸懈卸懈谐褏褝薪 褏邪谢邪邪褋 萤褉萤萤薪写 褍谐褌邪褏褘薪 褌萤谢萤萤 褌褝褉 褞褍 褔 褏懈泄褏褝写 斜褝谢褝薪. 袥械芯 褔 斜邪褋 褌爷爷薪写 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄. 袚邪谐褑褏爷爷 袣懈褉邪 袥械芯 褏芯褢褉 褝薪褝 褑邪谐 爷械褝褝褋 萤屑薪萤 褝褋胁褝谢 褏芯泄薪芯 褌萤褉褋萤薪 斜芯谢 薪褝谐薪懈泄褏褝褝 褌芯谢谐芯泄 褑邪泄卸 褏芯谢褘薪 褏芯谢写 褟胁邪褏 褏爷褉褌褝谢 薪褜 褏邪屑褌 斜邪泄卸 爷褉 邪褔邪邪 褌芯泄褉褍褍谢邪邪写 谢 褝薪褝 褌爷爷褏 邪蟹 卸邪褉谐邪谢褌邪泄 褌萤谐褋萤褏 斜邪泄褋邪薪写 斜懈 芯谐褌 褝褉谐褝谢蟹褝褝谐爷泄. 袚褝胁褔 褌褝写薪懈泄 褏褍胁褜 蟹邪褟邪 褑邪谐 褏褍谐邪褑邪邪薪褘 褝褝写褉褝褝褌褝泄 褝褉谐爷爷谢褝谐 写褍薪写 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褍褔褉邪邪褋 斜爷褏 蟹爷泄谢 褝褋褝褉谐褝褝褉褝褝 褌萤谐褋褋萤薪 褞屑.
鈥溞炐貉傃徯毖€懈泄薪 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢鈥� 斜褍褞褍 斜懈写薪懈泄 褋邪泄薪 屑褝写褝褏 袟啸校 褘薪 邪谢褏 褏邪写褍褍褉褌邪泄 邪卸懈谢褔懈薪 邪薪谐懈泄谐 褍褏褍褍谢褋邪薪 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢 斜芯写懈褌 邪屑褜写褉邪谢 写褝褝褉 褏褝褉褏褝薪 卸懈谐褕爷爷褉褌褝泄, 褏邪褉谐懈褋 褏褝褉褑谐懈泄 斜褍褍卸, 褝薪褝 褏芯褢褉 褏芯褋褘薪 懈褉褝褝写爷泄谐 斜邪谐邪谢蟹褍褍褉写褋邪薪 斜褍谢懈薪谐邪褉褌 薪懈泄谐屑懈泄薪 褏爷褔懈褉褏褝谐 谐邪褉褘谐 薪褜 萤萤褉懈泄薪褏萤萤 褏爷蟹爷爷薪写褝褝 褌褍谢褌邪谢 屑褝写褝褉褔 褍薪褕懈卸 写褍褍褋谐邪褏 褏爷褉褌褝谢 褍薪褕懈谐褔 薪邪写邪写 械褉写萤萤褋萤萤 褔 邪屑邪褉 斜邪泄褋邪薪谐爷泄.
啸爷薪 斜芯谢 薪懈泄谐屑懈泄薪 邪屑褜褌邪薪 谐褝写褝谐. 袚褝褏写褝褝 褝褑褋懈泄薪 褝褑褝褋褌 斜懈写 斜爷谐写 谢 褏邪泄褉谢邪卸 写褍褉谢邪卸, 写褍褉褌邪泄 蟹爷泄谢褋褝褝 褏懈泄卸, 褏爷褋褝谢 屑萤褉萤萤写谢懈泄薪褏萤萤 褌萤谢萤萤 褟胁邪褏 褝褉褏褌褝泄. 孝褝谐褝褏 褔 褏褝褉褝谐褌褝泄. 袘懈写 斜褍褋邪写 褏爷屑爷爷褋褝褝褋 萤萤褉 褋芯薪懈褉褏芯谢, 萤萤褉 褏爷褋褝谢 屑萤褉萤萤写萤谢褌褝泄 屑萤褉褌谢萤萤 邪褌邪谢 褏褝薪 薪褝谐薪懈泄 褌萤谢萤萤 褌褝写薪懈泄谐褝褝 褏萤褋萤褉 褏邪褟卸, 薪褝谐 懈卸懈谢 褋邪薪邪邪, 薪褝谐 懈卸懈谢 褑邪屑褑褌邪泄 薪邪褋邪邪褉邪邪 萤萤褉懈泄薪 斜懈褕 萤萤褉 褏褝薪 薪褝谐薪懈泄 褌萤谢萤萤 斜芯褉懈胁 斜芯褏懈褋 褏懈泄谢谐爷泄 邪卸懈谢谢邪褏 褢褋谐爷泄. 袣懈褉邪谐懈泄薪 褏爷褋褋褝薪 蟹爷泄谢 械褉写萤萤 谢 褝薪褝. 孝褝褉褝褝褉 褋邪泄薪 懈薪卸械薪械褉 斜芯谢芯芯写 褌芯屑 褌芯屑 谐爷爷褉, 褕懈谢褝薪 斜邪褉懈谢谐褍褍写褘谐 斜邪褉褜卸 斜邪泄谐褍褍谢卸, 袥械芯褌芯泄 褏邪屑褌 小邪薪泻褌 袩械褌褍褉斜褍褉谐懈泄薪 卸懈薪写爷爷褏褝薪 褕萤薪爷爷写褝褝褉 褌爷谢褝褏 褌爷谢褕褌褝泄 写褝褝褉 薪褜 褏邪谢邪邪褔懈褏 褏芯芯谢褌芯泄 斜邪泄褏褘谐 褏爷褋褋褝薪.
袚褝胁褔 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢 薪褝褉懈泄薪 写芯芯褉 斜芯谢芯胁褋褉芯谢褌芯泄 褏褍胁懈泄薪 褏萤褉萤薪谐萤褌褝泄 斜爷褏薪懈泄谐 卸懈谐褕懈薪 蟹褝胁爷爷褑褝卸, 斜爷褏 褏萤褉萤薪谐懈泄谐 薪褜 褏褍褉邪邪薪 邪胁褔, 褏邪薪邪 薪邪谢褍褍谢邪薪 褌芯谢谐芯泄 写邪褉褍褍谢邪薪 斜褍褍写邪卸, 邪褉邪泄 褏懈泄卸 邪屑褜 蟹褍褍褏 褏褝褋褝谐 薪褜 懈写褝褏 褏芯芯谢谐爷泄, 萤屑褋萤褏 褏褍胁褑邪褋谐爷泄 萤谐谢萤萤 斜爷褉 褏邪褉 写邪褉邪薪 褋褝褉卸 萤谢屑萤薪 蟹褝谢屑爷爷薪 邪屑褜写邪褉褔 斜邪泄褋邪薪 斜邪褉邪邪薪 爷械 邪卸褝褝.
袗泄薪 袪褝薪写 褟谐 褝薪褝 爷械写(1905) 袨褉芯褋写 褌萤褉卸 邪邪胁 薪褜 褝屑懈泄薪 褋邪薪谐懈泄薪 褝蟹褝薪 褔懈薪褝褝谢褝谐 褏爷薪 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褔 鈥溞炐貉傃徯毖€懈泄薪 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢鈥� 邪邪褉 褝写 褏萤褉萤薪谐萤萤 斜爷谐写懈泄谐 薪褜 褏褍褉邪邪谢谐邪卸 邪屑褜写褉邪褏邪写 褏爷薪写 斜褝褉褏 褝薪褝褏爷爷 爷械懈泄谐 斜懈械褝褝褉褝褝 褌褍褍谢卸 谐邪褉褋邪薪 褍褔褉邪邪褋 褔 褝薪褝 褉芯屑邪薪邪邪 斜芯写懈褌芯泄 斜懈褔褋褝薪 斜邪泄褏.
袪芯屑邪薪褘 谐褍褉胁邪谢卸懈薪谐懈泄薪 谐褍褉邪胁 写邪褏褜 谐芯谢 写爷褉 薪褜 斜芯谢芯褏 袗薪写褉褝泄 孝邪谐邪薪芯胁. 协薪褝 蟹邪谢褍褍 斜芯谢 褟写褍褍 褌邪褉懈邪褔懈薪 谐邪褉邪谢褌邪泄, 薪邪屑褘薪 谐懈褕爷爷薪, 褏邪褌褍褍 褔懈谐 斜邪褉懈屑褌谢邪谢褌邪泄 袣懈褉邪谐邪邪褋 萤萤褉 褏爷薪写 褏褝蟹褝褝 褔 褋褝褌谐褝谢褝褝 褍褍写谢邪卸 爷蟹褝褝谐爷泄 斜芯谢芯胁褍褍 谐褝屑褝褝褉 写芯褌芯谐褕芯芯, 卸懈薪褏褝薪褝 泻芯屑屑褍薪懈褋懈褌 蟹邪谢褍褍 斜懈谢褝褝. 孝褝褉褝褝褉 袣懈褉邪写 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄. 袦邪谐邪写谐爷泄 袥械芯谐芯芯褋 褔 懈谢爷爷 褏邪泄褉褌邪泄 斜邪泄褋邪薪 斜邪泄褏. 袧邪褋邪邪褉邪邪 泻芯屑屑褍薪懈褋褌 褏懈褔褝褝谢写 褋褍褍卸, 褏褍胁褜褋谐邪谢写 斜芯谢芯褏芯芯褋 褔 萤屑薪萤 薪邪屑写 褝谢褋褝卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 袗薪写褉褝泄谐懈泄薪 爷蟹褝谢 斜芯写谢褘谐 袣懈褉邪 褝褑褋懈泄薪 屑萤褔懈写 萤萤褉褔懈谢卸 褔邪写写邪谐. 协薪褝 斜芯谢 械褉写萤萤 褏爷薪 褏爷薪褝褝褉褝褝 谢 爷谢写褝褏 褟胁写邪谢 斜邪泄褋邪薪 斜懈谢褝褝.
袪芯屑邪薪褘 褌萤谐褋谐萤谢 芯泄褉褌芯褏 褌褍褋邪屑 褝写谐褝褝褉 谐褍褉胁邪薪 蟹邪谢褍褍谐懈泄薪 褏芯谢斜芯谐写褋芯薪 褏褍胁褜 褌邪胁褜谢邪薪 褝褉褔谢褝谐写褝薪 屑褍褕谐懈褉褋邪邪褉 褝褑褋懈泄薪 斜爷谢褝谐褌 褌邪褋 褌邪褌邪谐写邪薪 褍褉邪谐写邪薪邪. 孝萤谐褋谐萤谢 薪褜 屑懈薪懈泄 褏爷谢褝褝卸 斜邪泄褋邪薪 褌萤谐褋谐萤谢 斜懈褕 斜芯谢芯胁褔 懈谢爷爷 褌萤谐褋, 懈谢爷爷 邪屑谐邪谢邪薪 褌萤谐褋褋萤薪 斜懈谢褝褝. 袪褝薪写懈泄薪 芯褉褔薪芯芯 懈谢褝褉褏懈泄谢褝褏 褍褉邪薪 褌邪薪褋邪谐 褏褝胁 屑邪褟谐, 褌芯谢谐芯泄 褝褉谐褝屑 褉芯屑邪薪褌懈泻 褏邪泄褉 写褍褉谢邪谢, 褝褝写褉褝褝褌褝泄 褏褍胁褜 蟹邪褟邪 褌褝写谐褝褝褉 薪褜 褌褍褏邪泄薪 褑邪谐 爷械懈泄薪 薪懈泄谐屑懈泄薪 斜邪泄写邪谢褌邪泄谐邪邪 褏褝褉褏褝薪 褍褟谢写邪卸 萤萤褉褌萤萤 褕懈薪谐褝褝卸 邪胁褔 斜邪泄谐邪邪谐 薪褜 斜懈褕褉褝薪 屑邪谐褌邪褏邪邪褋 褔 爷谐 屑懈薪褜 斜邪谐邪写邪卸 斜邪泄薪邪.
袗泄薪 袪褝薪写懈泄薪 褌褍褏邪泄薪 爷械懈泄薪 袟啸校 - 邪邪褋 21 褌褝泄写褝褝 袗屑械褉懈泻懈泄谐 蟹芯褉懈薪 谐邪褉褔 褟胁褋邪薪 斜邪泄写邪谐 斜芯谢 褉芯屑邪薪褘 谐芯谢 斜邪邪褌邪褉 袣懈褉邪 谐邪褉褔 褟胁邪褏 蟹邪屑写邪邪 萤胁谢懈泄薪 邪薪懈褉谐爷泄 写邪泄写邪写 谐邪薪褑邪邪褉邪邪 邪屑褜褋谐邪谢 褏褍褉邪邪褋邪薪 斜懈谢褝褝. 袦邪谐邪写谐爷泄 袣懈褉邪谐懈泄薪 褝薪褝 写爷褉 21 褌褝泄 蟹邪谢褍褍褏邪薪 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写懈泄薪 褌芯谢懈薪写 褌褍褋褋邪薪 褌褍褋谐邪谢 锟斤拷屑.
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 鈥渟uper-life鈥� 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.
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!)
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 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.
June 26, 2016
韦慰 蟺蟻蠋蟿慰 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪 蟿畏蟼 Ayn Rand (魏伪喂 蟿慰 蟺蟻蠋蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蟿畏蟼 蟺慰蠀 未喂伪尾维味蠅, 蔚位蟺委味慰谓蟿伪蟼 魏维蟺慰蟿蔚 谓伪 蠁蟿维蟽蠅 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰 magnum opus 蟿畏蟼, 蟿慰 Atlas Shrugged) 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 蔚谓 渭苇蟻蔚喂 伪蠀蟿慰尾喂慰纬蟻伪蠁喂魏萎 魏伪蟿伪纬蟻伪蠁萎 蟿蠅谓 未蔚喂谓蠋谓 蟺慰蠀 蟺苇蟻伪蟽蔚 畏 蟿苇蠅蟼 伪蟽蟿喂魏萎 蟿维尉畏 蟽蟿伪 蟺蟻蠋蟿伪 蠂蟻蠈谓喂伪 渭蔚蟿维 蟿畏谓 螣魏蟿蠅尾蟻喂伪谓萎 螘蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏, 渭喂伪 蟺蟻蠋蟿畏 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏萎 伪蟺慰魏蟻蠀蟽蟿维位位蠅蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 畏胃喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎蟼 胃蔚蠅蟻委伪蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪-蠁喂位慰蟽蠈蠁慰蠀 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 维魏蟻伪 蔚谓伪谓蟿委蠅蟽畏 蟽蟿慰 魏蟻维蟿慰蟼 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 伪蟺蠈位蠀蟿畏 蟺蟻慰蟿蔚蟻伪喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 伪蟿慰渭喂魏萎蟼 尾慰蠉位畏蟽畏蟼, 蟿畏蟼 伪蠀蟿慰未喂维胃蔚蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 伪蠀蟿慰蟺蟻慰蟽未喂慰蟻喂蟽渭慰蠉 伪蟺苇谓伪谓蟿喂 蟽蔚 慰蟺慰喂伪未萎蟺慰蟿蔚 蟽蠀位位慰纬喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪, 伪位位维 魏蠀蟻委蠅蟼 (魏喂 蔚纬蠋 蔚魏蔚委 蟽蟿维胃畏魏伪) 苇谓伪 bigger than life 蔚蟺喂魏蠋谓 未喂伪蟽蟿维蟽蔚蠅谓 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏蠈 未蟻维渭伪 纬喂伪 蟿蟻蔚喂蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟿伪 苇尾伪位伪谓 魏伪喂 蟽蠀谓蔚蟿蟻委尾畏蟽伪谓 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 螜蟽蟿慰蟻委伪. 螣喂 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 位蔚喂蟿慰蠀蟻纬慰蠉谓 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 蠅蟼 蟽蠉渭尾慰位伪 魏伪喂 魏维蟺慰喂蔚蟼 魏伪蟿伪蟽蟿维蟽蔚喂蟼 委蟽蠅蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 (蟺蟻慰)蟽蠂畏渭伪蟿喂魏苇蟼 蟽' 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 未蟻喂渭蠉 伪谓蟿喂魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿喂魏蠈 蠂蟻慰谓喂魏蠈, 伪位位维 伪蠀蟿蠈 未蔚谓 魏维谓蔚喂 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 位喂纬蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 蟽蠀谓伪蟻蟺伪蟽蟿喂魏萎 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪, 伪蠁慰蠉 慰 蟺位慰蠉蟿慰蟼 蟿蠅谓 位蔚蟺蟿慰渭蔚蟻蔚喂蠋谓 纬喂伪 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻蠋喂渭畏 魏慰渭渭慰蠀谓喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 巍蠅蟽委伪 蔚委谓伪喂 蔚谓蟿蠀蟺蠅蟽喂伪魏蠈蟼 魏喂
慰喂 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻伪蠁苇蟼 蟿畏蟼 螤蔚蟿蟻慰蠉蟺慰位畏蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 渭蔚纬伪位蔚喂蠋未蔚喂蟼, 蠈蟽慰 魏伪喂 蟿伪 蟺维胃畏 蟿慰蠀 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏慰蠉 蟿蟻喂纬蠋谓慰蠀 魏伪喂 魏蠀蟻委蠅蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟺蟻蠅蟿伪纬蠅谓委蟽蟿蟻喂伪蟼 螝委蟻伪, 渭喂伪蟼 伪蟺蠈 蟿喂蟼 蟺喂慰 未蠀谓伪渭喂魏苇蟼 畏蟻蠅委未蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂蠅 蟽蠀谓伪谓蟿萎蟽蔚喂 蟽蔚 尾喂尾位委慰.
慰喂 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻伪蠁苇蟼 蟿畏蟼 螤蔚蟿蟻慰蠉蟺慰位畏蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 渭蔚纬伪位蔚喂蠋未蔚喂蟼, 蠈蟽慰 魏伪喂 蟿伪 蟺维胃畏 蟿慰蠀 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏慰蠉 蟿蟻喂纬蠋谓慰蠀 魏伪喂 魏蠀蟻委蠅蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟺蟻蠅蟿伪纬蠅谓委蟽蟿蟻喂伪蟼 螝委蟻伪, 渭喂伪蟼 伪蟺蠈 蟿喂蟼 蟺喂慰 未蠀谓伪渭喂魏苇蟼 畏蟻蠅委未蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂蠅 蟽蠀谓伪谓蟿萎蟽蔚喂 蟽蔚 尾喂尾位委慰.
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 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.
April 17, 2017
Duuschlaa gjuu dee, jaahan haramsal... muuhai tugsgul, eswel uuriiguu olson bardam, emzeg negnii jargaltai tugsgul geh uu yag onood heleh ug oldohgui bn, saihan hair bsn yumsn, 2 hair bsn yumsn, ali aliigni uzlee de gj bodogdjiin, daanch 2ulangni aldchihlaa neg talaas...
nuguu talaas hen negnii togtooson uzel surtaliin gai gamshgaar niigem, huvi humuus herhen uurchlugdj, amidral yamr aihtar programchlagdan hev zagwart ordg yumbe, leningrad hotiig uzehsen, bas kira teneg shd, emegtei hund heleh zunduu ug bhda yaj tiim anir chimeegui bolj haragdahiin nuutsiig bas il gargaj toochchihloo shuu dee, zolios, zorig gedeg ug hamtda hereglegdh niilmel ug bhda gsn 9n zuiliin zuils bodogdono, setgel huurul deed tsegte l bh shig bn, bichihgui ungursn olon zuil hedii bga ch bodood tungaagaad uldeh tarhind orson bgaasai gj husne... ene bichsn commento unshih buriidee medremje sanah gj tog tog hiilgew...
nuguu talaas hen negnii togtooson uzel surtaliin gai gamshgaar niigem, huvi humuus herhen uurchlugdj, amidral yamr aihtar programchlagdan hev zagwart ordg yumbe, leningrad hotiig uzehsen, bas kira teneg shd, emegtei hund heleh zunduu ug bhda yaj tiim anir chimeegui bolj haragdahiin nuutsiig bas il gargaj toochchihloo shuu dee, zolios, zorig gedeg ug hamtda hereglegdh niilmel ug bhda gsn 9n zuiliin zuils bodogdono, setgel huurul deed tsegte l bh shig bn, bichihgui ungursn olon zuil hedii bga ch bodood tungaagaad uldeh tarhind orson bgaasai gj husne... ene bichsn commento unshih buriidee medremje sanah gj tog tog hiilgew...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,693 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.