One day during my junior year of high school, in a classroom
that always smelled like coffee and pencils on paper, each student was given a
sheet of white paper upon which various passages were printed for us to analyze.
The first two were simple, sensical, but the third caught my attention.
The
head of the Golden One bowed slowly, and they stood still before us, their arms
at their sides, the palms of their hands turned to us, as if their body were
delivered in submission to our eyes. And we could not speak.
Then
they raised their head, and they spoke simply and gently, as if they wished us
to forget some anxiety of their own.
"The
day is hot," they said, "and you have worked for many hours and you
must be weary."
"No,"
we answered.
"It
is cooler in the fields," they said, "and there is water to drink.
Are you thirsty?"
"Yes,"
we answered, "but we cannot cross the hedge."
"We
shall bring the water to you," they said.
Then
they knelt by the moat, they gathered water in their two hands, they rose and
they held the water out to our lips.
We
do not know if we drank that water. We only knew suddenly that their hands were
empty, but we were still holding our lips to their hands, and that they knew
it, but did not move.
My brow furrowed in confusion. Their two hands? Our lips? I
struggled to make sense of the passage before me, trying unsuccessfully to
determine how many characters were present in this scene.
Then my teacher explained to the class that the passage was from a book called Anthem by Ayn Rand. He held up a copy—a small paperback book with a big yellow light bulb on the cover. All he said about it was that it was not part of our required reading, but it was a quick read and worth our time, and if we like dystopias, we’d like this one. There were several copies in the back of the classroom that we could take home if we so desired. Intrigued, I stood and retrieved a copy, and that night, I opened to the first page.
It
is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in
this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It
is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever
and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil.
But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body,
and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall
before us the shadow of our one head.
So this was the great mystery of the plural personal
pronouns. One body, two legs, one head. The speaker is one man, alone, but in
he speaks in plural form because it is considered a sin to be alone. I was
fascinated by the idea—it was a new twist on the idea of the dystopia that I had never considered. I read
on.
The speaker, Equality 7-2521, spoke of times that had passed
hundreds of years previously, when men erupted in war and flames covered the
earth, and a new civilization was born from the ashes. In this new
civilization, everyone was equal, all spoke and thought and acted as one. Yet
this new civilization was archaic in technology—candles and glass had been
invented “only a hundred years ago.” Rather than a futuristic setting, this
civilization was primitive, set in the Dark Ages of the future.
One day, Equality 7-2521 discovered an underground subway
tunnel, left over from the times before the “Great Rebirth”—left over from our
time.
Subway Tunnel by David Galvan |
I think I connected with Equality 7-2521 on a personal level here;
although he knows he could be immensely punished for exploring the tunnel, he
does it anyway. In some cases, I am the same way. I prefer not to leave any
stones unturned, no options unexplored. Beyond connecting to the character,
though, I was enraptured by the figurative language. The personification of his hand and
the imagery of the metal when he says, “as if the skin of our hand were thirsty
and begging of the metal some secret fluid beating in its coldness,” struck a
chord with me. The description was so evocative; it brought the time of ancient
men to life again through the cold metal, as if the lifeblood of the Times of
old flowed just beneath the surface of the railroad tracks. Rand’s profound use
of imagery is one of the things that held my attention most about this book.
More than the imagery, though, the actual use of language
itself was what really struck me.
The
words of the Evil Ones . . . The words of the Unmentionable Times . . . What
are the words which we have lost?
May
the Council have mercy upon us! We had no wish to write such a question, and we
knew not what we were doing till we had written it. We shall not ask this
question and we shall not think it. We shall not call death upon our head.
And
yet . . . And yet . . . There is some word, one single word which is not in the
language of men, but which had been. And this is the Unspeakable Word, which no
men may speak nor hear. But sometimes, and it is rare, sometimes, somewhere,
one among men find that word. They find it upon scraps of old manuscripts or
cut into the fragments of ancient stones. But when they speak it they are put
to death. There is no crime punished by death in this world, save this one
crime of speaking the Unspeakable Word.
It would be another year before I finally read George
Orwell’s 1984 and read about his
theory that language controls thought, but even then, I understood this idea. For the first time,
I had an awareness of the way that
language manipulates thought—Equality 7-2521 could not conceptualize the idea
of the individual because the individual
did not exist within the language. And it then made me aware of the limitations of our own language; even
if I learned every word in the English dictionary, surely there would still be
concepts that I would struggle to describe, and never quite understand because
of the lack of a word to solidify the concept. What are the words which we have lost, or never found? For the
first time, I finally understood that language
is power.
And Equality 7-2521 finally discovers that power himself
when he stumbles across the Unspeakable Word: I.
I am. I think. I will.
My
hands . . . My spirit . . . My sky . . . My forest . . . This earth of mine. .
. . What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer….
I
am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and
mine to use, and mine to kneel before!
At last, he finds the power that his language has been
lacking—the power of the individual. The repetition of the words “I” (“I am. I
think. I will”) and “My” (“My hands… My spirit… My sky… My forest”) creates the
sense of completion that comes with the discovery of oneself. Personally, I
don’t agree with the sort of agnostic-humanist sentiment that Rand professes here, but
at the same time, it’s true that man is a miracle, and the individual soul is
of great worth.
Equality 7-2521 gives himself a new name: Prometheus. He
finds himself, creates his own identity. And there, in that classroom, over the
course of the year, I figured out part of who I am, too. I discovered a love
for the subtle layers and formal elements of literature that I had previously never
known existed. That was the year I began to read with depth and write with passion.
Anthem wasn’t the
whole reason for this discovery, or even the main contributing factor. But it
was a step in a year-long journey that has led me to my deep appreciation of
English—both of literature and the language itself. And without that discovery, I
probably wouldn’t be majoring in English here at BYU, pursuing an education
that is centered on the power of words.
So I think your writing style is beautiful. The only thing of Rand's that I've read is the Fountainhead, and I completely despised it. But reading your narrative, I want to open my heart to her again and try Anthem. So we talked yesterday about how you want to focus on the language aspect of Anthem and Alice, and after reading your narrative, I think you can totally do so. The language in Alice and Anthem seems to be used different, but I think one way you can totally connect them is through talking about identity.
ReplyDeleteThe premise for this story is so cool. I love stories that are set in the future. The idea of a primitive future is fascinating. I really want to read this book. Your analysis is very creative and helpful. I feel like now I could read the book with a better understanding of what is going on. good job.
ReplyDeleteJuxtaposing the figurative language techniques used by Rand and Carroll would be very interesting. They are two entirely different genres and styles but investigating the way they manipulate language to create meaning and feeling in the text could pose to be an interesting investigation. You have a good way of expressing yourself by weaving your story of discovering this book together with an insight into figurative language and its effects.
ReplyDelete