We The Living by Ayn Rand ~ 509 pages

***

"It seemed that the words she said were ruled by the will of her body and that her sharp movements were the unconscious reflection of a dancing, laughing soul. So that her spirit seemed physical and her body spiritual."

"The first thing that Kira learned about life and the first thing that her elders learned, dismayed, about Kira, was the joy of being alone."

"There is no such thing as duty. If you know that a thing is right, you want to do it. If you don’t want to do it—it isn’t right. If it’s right and you don’t want to do it—you don’t know what right is and

you’re not a man."

"Because I have less in common with you than the enemies who fight you, have. I don’t want to fight for the people, I don’t want to fight against the people, I don’t want to hear of the people. I want to be left alone—to live.”"

"Because, you see, God—whatever anyone chooses to call God—is one’s highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It’s a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it."

"Well, I always know what I want. And when you know what you want—you go toward it.

Sometimes you go very fast, and sometimes only an inch a year. Perhaps you feel happier when you go fast. I don’t know. I’ve forgotten the difference long ago, because it really doesn’t matter, so long as you move."

"I don’t mind that we’re beaten. I don’t mind that we’ve taken the greatest of crimes on our shoulders and then let it slip through our fingers. I wouldn’t mind it if we had been beaten by a tall warrior in a steel helmet, a human dragon spitting fire. But we’re beaten by a louse. A big, fat, slow, blond louse. Ever seen lice? The blond ones are the fattest. . . . It was our own fault. Once, men were ruled with a god’s thunder. Then they were ruled with a sword. Now they’re ruled with a Primus. Once, they were held by reverence. Then they were held by fear. Now they’re held by their stomachs. Men have worn chains on their necks, and on their wrists, and on their ankles. Now they’re enchained by their rectums. Only you don’t hold heroes by their rectums. It was our own fault."

"“The survival,” said Leo, “of the fittest. However, not all philosophers are right. I’ve always

wanted to ask them one question: the fittest—for what?"

"So you loved me? So I was the highest of women, a woman like a temple, like a military march, like a god’s statue? Remember who told me that? Well, look at me! I’m only a whore and you’re the one who made the first payment! sold myself—for money—and you paid it. Down in the gutter, that’s where I belong, and your great love put me there."

"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"

"She had no thoughts left. She felt empty, clear and quiet, as if her body were only an image of her

will, and her will—only an arrow, tense and hard, pointing at a border that had to be crossed."

I am not sure what exactly I was expecting with this book, but it was a bit of a disappointment. I read The Fountainhead and Anthem by Rand and thought I would like this book, but it didn't live up to my expectations (maybe because she published We The Living before the other two I have read).

The story is one that of individual vs. state with our protagonist as Kira, the virtuous heroine who will sacrifice herself to a villain to save a hero only to find that the villain was the hero and the hero the villain. 

Before I go into problems I have with the story, the thing that bothers me about Rand is that her philosophy, objectivism, says that man is an end in himself and must live for his own happiness. And although, on her website and in her books, there is clarification about 'man' referring to humankind, Rand always uses males as the incarnations of her philosophy. As soon as the females fall in love or become fascinated with the unique male heroes ( Gods as she calls them) they lose all of their own integrity. Thus bringing me into why I just didn't understand Kira's characterization at all. 

Kira started out as a the ideal Randian character, I was hoping she would be the Howard Roarke of this book, but as soon as she met Leo, she went into the stereotypical housewife mode and beyond. The Kira that didn't care about people's opinions and gossip became a Kira that started giving importance to the most bland things. She started cooking, and cleaning and changed into a communal being overnight which would have been acceptable if she were continuing her previous characterization as an independent and free woman. As if the sudden change wasn't enough, she treated Leo as if he was the reason behind her existence and at multiple occasions, she pointed out her own inferior status in the relationship, once calling herself a 'slave' and Leo a 'slaveowner.' And all of her integrity, for me, disintegrated as soon as I realized that she was going to stay in that relationship. Leo was abusing her in a psychological way, which makes sense because although Kira mistakes him for the hero, he turns out to be the villain – but her staying with Leo made no sense to me whatsoever given that she was well-aware of her situation and her options to get out of it. Now, if you look into typical abusive relationships this might be expected behavior, that the victim stays to change the abuser. But Kira didn't think like the usual victim which is why I thought she would save herself and realize Leo's real persona before 400 pages had passed. 

What furthers the gender problem is that, in my edition (purchased form the Ayn Rand Foundation), in the back, there are some comments by Rand about the characters. Rand says that Kira was above both Leo and Andrei (the hero who was made to look like the villain), but to me she looked below both characters. She begun the book with a high sense of self, lost all her characteristics in the middle, regained her composure towards the end for a few pages, and lost it all again in the end.

Overall, I didn't dislike the book, as I like Ayn Rand's storytelling, and am fascinated by her ideas, but I am a religious person and after I read the following part in the book, I realized Rand might have been looking at stereotypical viewpoints on religion.

"Because, you see, God—whatever anyone chooses to call God—is one’s highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It’s a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it."

I do believe in a God and an after-life but I do respect and cherish my life here on earth as well. I don't see any need to go to extremes and ruin my time here, in the end, it's all about moderation. Of course, people might think and live differently, and they do, but just because I believe in a God doesn't mean I don't believe in life.

With a lot of Rand's writing you'll see that she puts a great deal of importance into existing for the sake of existing and cherishing what one knows she has. We don't know for sure what happens after life and we don't know what happened before, and since we are physically sure of this world and this existence (which is flawed because: solipsism) we should make the most of it. This of course definitely boosts a person's ever inflated ego exponentially. Here you have someone who not only doesn't believe in a superior being, and sees herself as the most superior being in existence, but also condemns those who don't. People have exalted themselves to the point of being Gods so that the idea of a creator offends them.

“I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”

Nietzsche here – with whom, I sometimes speculate, Rand would have had the time of her life, had she lived one generation earlier – is on the same boat. The idea of a supreme being, something bigger than himself offended him. We are talking about the creator of all that exists in our universe, of life, of humanity, of compassion, of trust, of galaxies, of oceans, of black holes, of dark matter and of motor proteins. And this man, he says he can't believe in a being who in theory not only has created him, but has also allowed him to exist on this realm. Without seeing her own littleness, the person starts thinking of herself as God. People love to believe they are powerful, but often times they fall victims to unstoppable microscopic cells in their own bodies.

So, yes "whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life." Because we are little. Physically, we are not above anything else on the planet. We are helpless and tiny and incompetent. But. We are human. Our humanity is the only thing that can set us aside and I think that makes for a better philosophy. Because men aren't gods. They will never be gods. But men can be the best representatives of humanity. Of what differentiates us from the rest of the living beings in existence. Men will never be immortal, invincible and eternal. But men may be able to leave ideological legacies, build iron relationships, and achieve a world where education gets more funding than military technology.

Lots of keys,
~Belle