That's the one I haven't read. But I'm certainly not going to do so now!
As you shouldn't. I do find it weird, that her worst work is the one best known, and the one most loved by her fans, as it seems.
But yeah, I'm definitely grading on a curve here, when I call one better than the others.
Yeah, finished it and until the final few chapters it was a perfectly mediocre science fiction story, but even before seeing your post I was thinking about how I'd prefer to be reading 1984. Then it just becomes a wacky diatribe. Still, glad to have finally read something of hers and feel much better informed now.
It's years since I read both, but if my memory is correct, Anthem could be seen as an extremely condensed version of Atlas Shrugged - I remember the themes being similar, and the latter just goes way more in depth. Which might explain why I consider Atlas Shrugged as a very (very) poor mans version of 1984, too.
Started looking at this part, unfortunately it's shrunken down, her handwriting is tough to read in most spots and it's just not a very clear copy. It seems like most of the edits are very minor but large sections are blacked out and for most of it I can't discern the text underneath. This Twitter post I found has a few images to give you an idea:
One change I thought was interesting is that the main character talks about being interested in the "Science of Things" in the final story I've read but looks like in the 1938 edition it was "Science of the Earth"? Also the intro said 1961 was the first US edition, but apparently it first came out in 1948 as a pamphlet and that's what these edits are from.
Near the end after he discovers
the word "I" there's a lot of crossed out sections discussing Truth and what the root of it is but none of it seems particularly interesting.
It does look like a lot of the monologue about
the worship of the word "we" was added in for this edition, but again it's unfortunately hard to follow a poor and handwritten copy that's been compressed to fit in paperback.
Thanks, there are a few interesting things her (well, at least the change from "Science of the Earth" to "Science of Things". Her thought processes do interest me, for whatever reason. I might look further into this.
Finally, the afterword notes that one of her most admired authors was Victor Hugo. I can't even process that as Les Miserables is so much about downtrodden people and the need to stand up for others. Wild.
Uh, ok, well this seems to be a thing, that she admired him, I guess. Which is, like, mind is boggling right now. I found this here, about the topic:
In Ayn Rand's introduction to Victor Hugo's novel Ninety-Three (Rand 1962), she writes as follows about the author: His attitude toward the intellect was highly ambiguous. It is as if Hugo the artist has overwhelmed Hugo the thinker.... Toward the close of Ninety-Three, Hugo the artist sets up two superlatively dramatic opportunities for his characters to express their ideas, to declare the intellectual grounds of their stand.... Hugo the thinker was unable to do it: the characters' speeches are not expressions of ideas, but only rhetoric, metaphors and generalities. His fire, his eloquence, his emotional power seemed to desert him when he had to deal with theoretical subjects.
So, I guess she didn't really care about his ideas, and more about how he brings characters to life, that are so full OF life, and to express his ideas with such an intensity and strength. Which I can see, I guess.
When we are at the topic of authors being influenced by Victor Hugo, you would have never thought about in that way: Eichiro Oda, the author of the manga One Piece, is clearly inspired by Les Miserables. Sorry for mentioning it here, but I don't know anyone, Internet or not, who loves both. So telling someone who likes Les Mis that this manga author, who creates stories were people punch each other a lot (that's not all, the manga is actually really humanistic, and works with ideas not unfamiliar to readers of Hugo), seems like the only way of sharing my surprise and delight.