What do you think?
Rate this book
The Night of January 16
On one level, Night of January 16th is a totally gripping drama about the rise and destruction of a brilliant and ruthless man. On a deeper level, it is a superb dramatic objectification of Ayn Rand's vision of human strength and weakness. Since its original Broadway success, it has achieved vast worldwide popularity and acclaim. Now at last this important work is available for the first time in a trade paperback edition.
Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1936
35 people are currently reading
1477 people want to read
About the author
Ayn Rand
596 books10.4k 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 178 reviews
February 17, 2014
Read nothing, absolutely NOTHING like this before.
March 30, 2016
Part VII of a multi-part review series.
Fairly pedestrian courtroom melodrama, complete with improbable reversals. Displays the normal problems of non-attorney writing legal thriller: procedure and decorum are dicked up, objections are made by lawyers not on the basis of the rules of evidence, but rather on whether the facts are deleterious to one’s case. In fact, numerous bona fide evidentiary objections are not made in the narrative because writer does not know law--lotsa hearsay running around, for instance, though a charitable reading would impute these defects to the characters, i.e., as bad trial attorneys. (I feel no need to be charitable to this author.) Murder victim is an unsavory capitalist; main state witness is his widow, who is heir to some kind of fortune. Defendant is victim’s mistress, also his employee. So, yeah, Rand thought she stacked the deck one way, but it kinda is stacked the opposite. Gimmick is that jury is drawn from audience, who then render a verdict on the facts, and the play proceeds with alternative endings based on same--so, dinner mystery theatre at its low ebb.
None of those are especially egregious defaults. It’s just kinda dull and unrealistic, rather than affirmatively offensive (even the ruling class protagonist cliché is simply part of the background radiation of bad amateurish writing).
What drops this text into the lower echelon of suckitude is, as usual, author’s appendage of ideological bullshit in the prefatory remarks. The text is “romantic symbolism” (1), “not a philosophical, but a sense-of-life play” (id.), which is a term of art that she lays down in The Romantic Manifesto, and summarizes here as “sense of life is a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man’s relationship to existence” (id.). (I know, right?)
Every text “is the product and expression of its author’s sense of life translated into conceptual, i.e., philosophical terms, or it may express only an abstract emotional sum.” This one happens to be “pure, untranslated abstraction” (id.), whatever the hell that means.
Before going further, a brief comparison: here, we have a “preconceptual” “untranslated abstraction”; we know from her other essays, repeated many times with much arrogance and vitriol, that the principle attribute of humanity is allegedly reason, which is allegedly what differentiates us from mere animals, and that reason allegedly works with sense perceptions and allegedly integrates them as concepts, allegedly the sole source of ideas, as humans allegedly have no innate ideas, by contrast with mere animals. If the latter series of dogmatic allegations is true, what human person thinks in preconceptual abstractions? It is a nasty diremption, and makes aporetic nonsense of one set or the other of her propositions.
But, whatever. We are instructed that the text’s “events are not to be taken literally; they dramatize certain fundamental psychological characteristics, deliberately isolated and emphasized to convey a single abstraction: the characters’ attitude toward life” (id.). I humbly attest that this does not occur in this text, which probably requires an elaborate series of glosses, cross-referenced with Atlas Shrugged for the fullness of the preconceptual abstraction to be translated.
The text presents “the confrontation of two extremes, two opposite ways of facing existence: passionate self-assertiveness, self-confidence, ambition, audacity, independence--versus conventionality, servility, envy, hatred, power-lust” (2). No express indication of which side of the case is which, but she implies the answer when she states that murdered capitalist is based on one Ivan Kreuger, a historically unsavory capitalist who committed crimes, but was purportedly denounced not because he was an unsavory criminal, but for “his ambition” as a capitalist (3). (Yes, it’s that kind of stupid.) It hits the nadir when unsavory historical capitalist is brought low for “his venture into politics--mixed-economy politics” (4). Socialism is the reason for capitalist unsavoriness, of course! So, decedent in the text is Kreuger as he “might have been, or, perhaps, ought to have been” (4-5). I suppose this means that the “two extremes” are good capitalist vs. evil employee, or so.
Despite all that, preface declares that defendant is not guilty (6). How can anyone care?
Fairly pedestrian courtroom melodrama, complete with improbable reversals. Displays the normal problems of non-attorney writing legal thriller: procedure and decorum are dicked up, objections are made by lawyers not on the basis of the rules of evidence, but rather on whether the facts are deleterious to one’s case. In fact, numerous bona fide evidentiary objections are not made in the narrative because writer does not know law--lotsa hearsay running around, for instance, though a charitable reading would impute these defects to the characters, i.e., as bad trial attorneys. (I feel no need to be charitable to this author.) Murder victim is an unsavory capitalist; main state witness is his widow, who is heir to some kind of fortune. Defendant is victim’s mistress, also his employee. So, yeah, Rand thought she stacked the deck one way, but it kinda is stacked the opposite. Gimmick is that jury is drawn from audience, who then render a verdict on the facts, and the play proceeds with alternative endings based on same--so, dinner mystery theatre at its low ebb.
None of those are especially egregious defaults. It’s just kinda dull and unrealistic, rather than affirmatively offensive (even the ruling class protagonist cliché is simply part of the background radiation of bad amateurish writing).
What drops this text into the lower echelon of suckitude is, as usual, author’s appendage of ideological bullshit in the prefatory remarks. The text is “romantic symbolism” (1), “not a philosophical, but a sense-of-life play” (id.), which is a term of art that she lays down in The Romantic Manifesto, and summarizes here as “sense of life is a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man’s relationship to existence” (id.). (I know, right?)
Every text “is the product and expression of its author’s sense of life translated into conceptual, i.e., philosophical terms, or it may express only an abstract emotional sum.” This one happens to be “pure, untranslated abstraction” (id.), whatever the hell that means.
Before going further, a brief comparison: here, we have a “preconceptual” “untranslated abstraction”; we know from her other essays, repeated many times with much arrogance and vitriol, that the principle attribute of humanity is allegedly reason, which is allegedly what differentiates us from mere animals, and that reason allegedly works with sense perceptions and allegedly integrates them as concepts, allegedly the sole source of ideas, as humans allegedly have no innate ideas, by contrast with mere animals. If the latter series of dogmatic allegations is true, what human person thinks in preconceptual abstractions? It is a nasty diremption, and makes aporetic nonsense of one set or the other of her propositions.
But, whatever. We are instructed that the text’s “events are not to be taken literally; they dramatize certain fundamental psychological characteristics, deliberately isolated and emphasized to convey a single abstraction: the characters’ attitude toward life” (id.). I humbly attest that this does not occur in this text, which probably requires an elaborate series of glosses, cross-referenced with Atlas Shrugged for the fullness of the preconceptual abstraction to be translated.
The text presents “the confrontation of two extremes, two opposite ways of facing existence: passionate self-assertiveness, self-confidence, ambition, audacity, independence--versus conventionality, servility, envy, hatred, power-lust” (2). No express indication of which side of the case is which, but she implies the answer when she states that murdered capitalist is based on one Ivan Kreuger, a historically unsavory capitalist who committed crimes, but was purportedly denounced not because he was an unsavory criminal, but for “his ambition” as a capitalist (3). (Yes, it’s that kind of stupid.) It hits the nadir when unsavory historical capitalist is brought low for “his venture into politics--mixed-economy politics” (4). Socialism is the reason for capitalist unsavoriness, of course! So, decedent in the text is Kreuger as he “might have been, or, perhaps, ought to have been” (4-5). I suppose this means that the “two extremes” are good capitalist vs. evil employee, or so.
Despite all that, preface declares that defendant is not guilty (6). How can anyone care?
July 7, 2025
Completely hysterical. I suppose the most notable part about the play is that there is a dilemma at the end where the audience is meant to pick the ending between two and the author tried to frame it as a moral question. That part falls flat partly because the setup for the choice and the development for the trial are both very contrived and partly because it's very obvious what the author wants us to pick. Well gee golly Miss Rand it's your play I guess I might as well pick the ending that you would like. It seems almost impolite to pick the other one.
Regardless this was a very fun piece of melodrama. Ayn Rand fills a very specific niche of YA type fiction with very passionate philosophical elements and honestly I am all for it.
Fuck it, you can call me an Objectivist.
Regardless this was a very fun piece of melodrama. Ayn Rand fills a very specific niche of YA type fiction with very passionate philosophical elements and honestly I am all for it.
Fuck it, you can call me an Objectivist.
February 10, 2015
The Night of January 16th is a play written by Ayn Rand. This is the only play I have ever read in my life. It is entertaining, fast paced and demanding at the same time.
The play takes place in the courtroom, where Karen Andre is on trial for the murder of Bjorn Faulkner. The plot is inspired by the suicide of Iver Kreuger (played by Bjorn Faulkner) followed by the crash of his financial empire built upon swindling millions from investors by investing money which he did not actually possess. Karen Andre is known as the ‘lady love’ (for Faulkner) and a mistress (by society) of the mysterious, audacious and shady business tycoon. The play has been appreciated for the thoughtful Ms Rand probes the director, to randomly select the members of the audience to become the impromptu jury. For me, the reader becomes a jury member upon choosing to read the play.
This work is symbolic, where the true nature of a person is called forth. The reader is on trial. So Ms Rand asks you, “What is your relationship to your existence?” One’s state of being is embedded in his philosophy which manifests in the way he gives purpose to his being. Often, the internalizations of the social constructions through parental teaching are misunderstood as the man’s philosophy of life. The will and wit to transgress rather than to stand as a part of the herd is what determines your relationship to the existence. One can choose to be as hollow as a non risk taking, conforming respectable civilian or be an ambitious, free willed and self assertive deviant. One out of the diverse ways to display your true nature is the stand that you take while reading this script. Do you read it like as a suspenseful dramatic play or as a person who reads to take a position? The justification of the side one takes is the reflection of the substance of his being. The author provides two different climaxes based on the decision of the jury.
In this play, I positioned myself as Karen Andre and not as Faulkner. I wanted to explore what would I do, as a lady to a man acclaimed as a crook after his death? How do I perceive this man when people are making accusations, weaving false stories, or calling me as his mistress and his partner in crime? Do I give up my loyalty to the part of me that favored, loved, accepted and worshipped him? Do I join the flock to escape the disrespect that is inevitable? So I (the reader) plead ‘not guilty’ yet, accept ‘to be hanged till death’. I urge the readers not to judge the trial from the angle of the ‘fraud Faulkner’ supported by Karen. The reader must view Karen as the lady who wore the mantle consistently before and after Faulkner. Choose a side!
Reading the play was special to me, because Ayn Rand directly speaks with you. I have not read her non fiction work, so the introduction written in first person was a delightful treat. And she speaks to you about dismantling virtues, forgotten selves, oppressed identities and buried voices in the tout structure of this play. The main character (Faulkner) never appears in the play but one gets to know him thoroughly also because it is Rand’s signature style character. Similarly, Karen Andre is hardly described but you easily know her as you know other female characters from Ms Rand’s works. I liked how, she chose specific adjectives to describe each character who testified in the trial for example the description of Magda Svenson, “…drawn lips, suspicious eyes, an air of offended righteousness wearing plain, old fashioned and meticulously neat clothes…”. This suggests how conventional, typical and predictable people become out of conformity.
In the introduction, the author chronicles the journey of this manuscript from being a play script as a product of her ideas; to acquiring multiple versions, each molded and sculpted for the purpose of entertainment dissociated from its essence. Ayn Rand recorded her agony and disappointment as a writer and finally found solace after the release of this book. This part of the introduction was an interesting read.
I would be biased if I say there were no points of disappointment in this script. The trial is ‘the State of New York against Karen Andre where the latter is charged for a murder of Bjorn Faulkner’. As the suspense unfolds, the trial seems futile and two verdicts proposed by the author are no longer required. The trial will seem justified only upon reading the introduction which I usually avoid reading unless I find one addressed by my favorite author.
Finally, an interesting read even for those who prefer a light, short, crisp and thriller. I highly recommend this book.
The play takes place in the courtroom, where Karen Andre is on trial for the murder of Bjorn Faulkner. The plot is inspired by the suicide of Iver Kreuger (played by Bjorn Faulkner) followed by the crash of his financial empire built upon swindling millions from investors by investing money which he did not actually possess. Karen Andre is known as the ‘lady love’ (for Faulkner) and a mistress (by society) of the mysterious, audacious and shady business tycoon. The play has been appreciated for the thoughtful Ms Rand probes the director, to randomly select the members of the audience to become the impromptu jury. For me, the reader becomes a jury member upon choosing to read the play.
This work is symbolic, where the true nature of a person is called forth. The reader is on trial. So Ms Rand asks you, “What is your relationship to your existence?” One’s state of being is embedded in his philosophy which manifests in the way he gives purpose to his being. Often, the internalizations of the social constructions through parental teaching are misunderstood as the man’s philosophy of life. The will and wit to transgress rather than to stand as a part of the herd is what determines your relationship to the existence. One can choose to be as hollow as a non risk taking, conforming respectable civilian or be an ambitious, free willed and self assertive deviant. One out of the diverse ways to display your true nature is the stand that you take while reading this script. Do you read it like as a suspenseful dramatic play or as a person who reads to take a position? The justification of the side one takes is the reflection of the substance of his being. The author provides two different climaxes based on the decision of the jury.
In this play, I positioned myself as Karen Andre and not as Faulkner. I wanted to explore what would I do, as a lady to a man acclaimed as a crook after his death? How do I perceive this man when people are making accusations, weaving false stories, or calling me as his mistress and his partner in crime? Do I give up my loyalty to the part of me that favored, loved, accepted and worshipped him? Do I join the flock to escape the disrespect that is inevitable? So I (the reader) plead ‘not guilty’ yet, accept ‘to be hanged till death’. I urge the readers not to judge the trial from the angle of the ‘fraud Faulkner’ supported by Karen. The reader must view Karen as the lady who wore the mantle consistently before and after Faulkner. Choose a side!
Reading the play was special to me, because Ayn Rand directly speaks with you. I have not read her non fiction work, so the introduction written in first person was a delightful treat. And she speaks to you about dismantling virtues, forgotten selves, oppressed identities and buried voices in the tout structure of this play. The main character (Faulkner) never appears in the play but one gets to know him thoroughly also because it is Rand’s signature style character. Similarly, Karen Andre is hardly described but you easily know her as you know other female characters from Ms Rand’s works. I liked how, she chose specific adjectives to describe each character who testified in the trial for example the description of Magda Svenson, “…drawn lips, suspicious eyes, an air of offended righteousness wearing plain, old fashioned and meticulously neat clothes…”. This suggests how conventional, typical and predictable people become out of conformity.
In the introduction, the author chronicles the journey of this manuscript from being a play script as a product of her ideas; to acquiring multiple versions, each molded and sculpted for the purpose of entertainment dissociated from its essence. Ayn Rand recorded her agony and disappointment as a writer and finally found solace after the release of this book. This part of the introduction was an interesting read.
I would be biased if I say there were no points of disappointment in this script. The trial is ‘the State of New York against Karen Andre where the latter is charged for a murder of Bjorn Faulkner’. As the suspense unfolds, the trial seems futile and two verdicts proposed by the author are no longer required. The trial will seem justified only upon reading the introduction which I usually avoid reading unless I find one addressed by my favorite author.
Finally, an interesting read even for those who prefer a light, short, crisp and thriller. I highly recommend this book.
January 7, 2009
Yes, I read Ayn Rand. No, I do not necessarily agree with her philosophies. Yes, she was obsessed with rape. No, I am not. Moving on.
This play was actually rather interesting to read right now what with talk of Bernard Madoff and Ponzi schemes in the news over the past couple months. The entire drama takes place in the courtroom, trying to determine who killed Bjorn Faulkner who had swindled millions from investors by investing money he did not actually possess. Upon bankruptcy and on the night of January 16th (hence the title), Faulkner is seen falling from the top of his building. His mistress, Karen Andre, is on trial for the possible murder of Faulkner.
What sets the play apart is that 12 members of the audience is to be called from the audience to be jury members for the play unfolding. There are two slightly different endings which are performed based on the decision given by the audience-jury. I am curious to see it performed. It seems a lot of high schools have performed this over the years which makes me yet again wonder what was wrong with my own high school. But hey, I got to see productions of Grease enough. I'm sure that makes up for it.
This play was actually rather interesting to read right now what with talk of Bernard Madoff and Ponzi schemes in the news over the past couple months. The entire drama takes place in the courtroom, trying to determine who killed Bjorn Faulkner who had swindled millions from investors by investing money he did not actually possess. Upon bankruptcy and on the night of January 16th (hence the title), Faulkner is seen falling from the top of his building. His mistress, Karen Andre, is on trial for the possible murder of Faulkner.
What sets the play apart is that 12 members of the audience is to be called from the audience to be jury members for the play unfolding. There are two slightly different endings which are performed based on the decision given by the audience-jury. I am curious to see it performed. It seems a lot of high schools have performed this over the years which makes me yet again wonder what was wrong with my own high school. But hey, I got to see productions of Grease enough. I'm sure that makes up for it.
May 19, 2025
Wow, this is shlock. I suppose it's reasonably exciting, because it's full of twists and turns and there's all manner of revelations and so forth - but it's really cheap thrills. The jury gimmick is quite cool (a few members of the audience choose whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent), but I can't help but feel that it's under-utilised. Would it not be better in a case which is more contentious than this?
Anyway, I doubt anyone would be reading this at all in 2025 had it not been Ayn Rand that wrote it. As it is, it's a reasonably interesting window into a different period of her professional life, but this text is pretty light on philosophy, regardless of what Rand writes in her introduction.
Anyway, I doubt anyone would be reading this at all in 2025 had it not been Ayn Rand that wrote it. As it is, it's a reasonably interesting window into a different period of her professional life, but this text is pretty light on philosophy, regardless of what Rand writes in her introduction.
May 28, 2022
Yet another take on Rand's 'grand-man' thesis, the poorly named Night of January 16th is an adept play that encourages its reader to reflect on their biases and judge each of the play's characters in turn. For a female writer, Rand seems to have no qualms with painting her lead as a 'vessel'; I for one am not sure how to feel about this—the play is ahead of its time in a theatrical sense, but still comes across as relatively dated in retrospect. The way that it incorporates its audience is still its most endearing aspect, as I have no doubt it was way back in 1933.
April 4, 2010
I have both read this play and seen it performed. This is an exciting play to see performed because the drama incorporates the audience in the trial scene. Reading it is enjoyable because of the effective use of suspense and the taut structure. While this was an early work of Ayn Rand, it still exhibits some of her signature style characteristics with clearly delineated characters and a romantic sense of life.
It was inspired by the death of the "Match King", Ivar Kreuger. First produced under a different name in 1934, it takes place entirely in a court room and is centered on a murder trial. It was a success on Broadway and a movie loosely based on the play was released in 1941. Ayn Rand disagreed with a number of changes made by the Broadway producer and in amateur versions of the play, so in 1968 she re-edited the script for publication as the "definitive" version.
The play deals with issues of a man's ability to regard oneself as important and exist in a society where moral decay is ever prevalent. It also deals with issues of love, loyalty and betrayal. One unusual feature of the play is that members of the audience are picked to take on the role of jury members each night. The play does not directly portray the events; instead the "jury" must rely on character testimony and vote on whether the "defendant" is guilty or not guilty. The play has different endings depending on the verdict. The effective dramatic presentation of these issues makes the play a success.
It was inspired by the death of the "Match King", Ivar Kreuger. First produced under a different name in 1934, it takes place entirely in a court room and is centered on a murder trial. It was a success on Broadway and a movie loosely based on the play was released in 1941. Ayn Rand disagreed with a number of changes made by the Broadway producer and in amateur versions of the play, so in 1968 she re-edited the script for publication as the "definitive" version.
The play deals with issues of a man's ability to regard oneself as important and exist in a society where moral decay is ever prevalent. It also deals with issues of love, loyalty and betrayal. One unusual feature of the play is that members of the audience are picked to take on the role of jury members each night. The play does not directly portray the events; instead the "jury" must rely on character testimony and vote on whether the "defendant" is guilty or not guilty. The play has different endings depending on the verdict. The effective dramatic presentation of these issues makes the play a success.
January 17, 2011
I really enjoyed this play. I came across it a few weeks ago in the used book store and decided to pick it up because I've been wanting to incorporate more plays into my reading. I decided to save reading it for January 16th cause I happen to be extremely lame. The only other Rand I've read is Anthem, which I enjoyed. People have given me such skewed feedback on her longer and more well known pieces, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but that's neither here nor there. This is an entertaining play to read, and I'd love to be able to find and attend it. Rand's potent technique here to capture the audience is by integrating them into the plot - the play is a "murder mystery," for which the jurors are 12 audience members. They will be deciding if Mr. Faulkner committed suicide or was thrown from the balcony by his mistress. The case gets much more complex as witnesses speak. In all reality the play isn't very believable as it goes on... instead of any real crime investigation the jurors have to take the word of one known criminal or another, so it's a little absurd in that aspect. Also the closing statements are a little corny, highlighting the point of calling the jurors real-life morality into question.. and the alternate endings are bland, to say the least..but it's still entertaining and a quick read, I'd suggest it.
January 22, 2018
I can’t get past Rand’s stunted development: a woman who so worships power in a man that she not only condones the criminal disregard of laws and the feelings of others—including rape!—she endorses these actions, pointing them out as indications that this kind of person excels above others. In serving his own needs above any others, no matter who gets hurt, he exemplifies the best humanity can be. He is a lion among men, and the proof is in the legions of crushed bodies in his wake. He is a God. He IS John Galt.
It’s no wonder that her writings are revered by the far right, for her philosophy justifies the heartless treatment of those with less power. Despite her firsthand experience of Stalinist Russia and her hatred of Communism, none of her writings point out the obvious fact that power corrupts.
It’s no wonder that her writings are revered by the far right, for her philosophy justifies the heartless treatment of those with less power. Despite her firsthand experience of Stalinist Russia and her hatred of Communism, none of her writings point out the obvious fact that power corrupts.
February 17, 2017
This play is definitely improved by seeing it performed live. Reading it: 3 stars. Watching it on stage: 4 stars!
August 17, 2022
Back in my university days I tried the books of Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged was an impressive work. 'Who is John Galt?' I underlined passages, thought the whole concept was kind of neat. I read some of her other works; Anthem... I believe The Virtues of Selfishness. I tried Fountainhead but by that time I was finding her writing quite ponderous and never finished. I also subscribed to a newsletter by the Ayn Rand society. At any rate, since the '70s I've stopped checking out her work. I recently found a copy of her first work, a play published in 1936, The Night of January 16th.
Basically, interesting concept, normal courtroom drama. The idea behind the play was to present a courtroom murder case to the audience. From the audience 12 members would be selected to act as the jury. Depending on how the outcome of the case was decided by the jury, Rand had two alternative endings; one for guilty, of course, or one for not guilty. See, interesting concept. I don't know how many plays at that time would have considered such an audience participation.
The murder case involves rich Swedish billionaire, Bjorn Faulkner, and his suicide or murder. On trial is secretary / 'former' lover, Karen Andre, who the DA has determined, murdered Faulkner by throwing him off the balcony of their NY penthouse suite. Faulkner had married rich Nancy Lee Whitfield, either to persuade her father to forgive a loan, or out of love. The case hinges on this loan and these relationships.
Both the Defense and DA present their cases, a court room drama that has a few twists and turns, neatly surprising. I won't describe them as it's a relatively short play and I don't want to ruin the drama itself. But it's an overall interesting case with interesting characters. Like most of Rand's later work, it can be somewhat stilted but is still an interesting play. (3.5 stars)
Basically, interesting concept, normal courtroom drama. The idea behind the play was to present a courtroom murder case to the audience. From the audience 12 members would be selected to act as the jury. Depending on how the outcome of the case was decided by the jury, Rand had two alternative endings; one for guilty, of course, or one for not guilty. See, interesting concept. I don't know how many plays at that time would have considered such an audience participation.
The murder case involves rich Swedish billionaire, Bjorn Faulkner, and his suicide or murder. On trial is secretary / 'former' lover, Karen Andre, who the DA has determined, murdered Faulkner by throwing him off the balcony of their NY penthouse suite. Faulkner had married rich Nancy Lee Whitfield, either to persuade her father to forgive a loan, or out of love. The case hinges on this loan and these relationships.
Both the Defense and DA present their cases, a court room drama that has a few twists and turns, neatly surprising. I won't describe them as it's a relatively short play and I don't want to ruin the drama itself. But it's an overall interesting case with interesting characters. Like most of Rand's later work, it can be somewhat stilted but is still an interesting play. (3.5 stars)
August 7, 2022
A play written to question/test one's sense of belonging. Here, Ayn Rand has written a play which happens to be a courtroom drama and the final decision of the trial will be declared by the juri members selected on the spot from the audience.
The book propose the question to the reader and the reader has to answer before he turns the last page of the book.
I accidentally read the verdict given by author in the preface. Which made me biased towards the final decision and even after trying, I couldn't enjoy the true sense of it.I guess it would surely had turned out a very intresting script if I haven't had read the author's verdict at first.
The real drama starts after the 2nd section. And it's a small yet a thought provoking act.
Kindly read the preface later. You'll get to know too many things about the play, which might kill the fun.
The book propose the question to the reader and the reader has to answer before he turns the last page of the book.
I accidentally read the verdict given by author in the preface. Which made me biased towards the final decision and even after trying, I couldn't enjoy the true sense of it.I guess it would surely had turned out a very intresting script if I haven't had read the author's verdict at first.
The real drama starts after the 2nd section. And it's a small yet a thought provoking act.
Kindly read the preface later. You'll get to know too many things about the play, which might kill the fun.
February 26, 2024
An ingenious idea for a play where the basis of the plot is a murder trial and the jury is picked out from the audience during the performance. The participants on the jury then decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent based on what Rand intended to be equal evidence to support either verdict.
May 29, 2025
What a scummy bitch!
I can appreciate its ergodic elements; the audience acts as a jury in the a murder trial. Certain members of the audience are selected to sit on the jury, and at the end of the play have to determine a guilty or not guilty verdict. What they decide in turn decides what ending the play has.
That structure is interesting, but in service of a play with the message being that the rich are the chosen few destined to rule over us is lame.
Burn the rich!
I can appreciate its ergodic elements; the audience acts as a jury in the a murder trial. Certain members of the audience are selected to sit on the jury, and at the end of the play have to determine a guilty or not guilty verdict. What they decide in turn decides what ending the play has.
That structure is interesting, but in service of a play with the message being that the rich are the chosen few destined to rule over us is lame.
Burn the rich!
November 13, 2017
I was so excited when I heard about this book because I had no idea Ayn Rand wrote any other fiction other than the most famous ones - We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. So, fair warning, I am a bit biased when it comes to her. Bear with me!
This book is in play format. I don't have that much exposure to literature of this kind, my only other one being The Curse Child. I felt like this book would have been better as a full length read than a play however if it was actually staged, it would be fun to see the reaction and the verdict given by the jury members. That brings me to my other complaint. I am not sure the audience would see Faulkner as Rand wanted us to see him. This is especially so for naive audience who have never had exposure to her novels before. This would in turn lead them to judge the case purely in terms of the evidence presented in the text pertaining to the case and not in terms of who the characters are as human beings. But I don't think Rand wanted it to be that way. I think she wanted us to judge the characters and their way of life and living. Their outlook towards what life is supposed to be is what is on trial here. But I am not completely convinced that she brought this out well.
My final advice is, don't pick this up if you haven't read her other works. But once you read her other works, your opinion about those will reveal your opinion about this one. So maybe it wouldn't make you curious or leave you thoughtful. But if you are a fan of her work, it will make you feel happy to know there is one more piece of her work you can read and enjoy.
This book is in play format. I don't have that much exposure to literature of this kind, my only other one being The Curse Child. I felt like this book would have been better as a full length read than a play however if it was actually staged, it would be fun to see the reaction and the verdict given by the jury members. That brings me to my other complaint. I am not sure the audience would see Faulkner as Rand wanted us to see him. This is especially so for naive audience who have never had exposure to her novels before. This would in turn lead them to judge the case purely in terms of the evidence presented in the text pertaining to the case and not in terms of who the characters are as human beings. But I don't think Rand wanted it to be that way. I think she wanted us to judge the characters and their way of life and living. Their outlook towards what life is supposed to be is what is on trial here. But I am not completely convinced that she brought this out well.
My final advice is, don't pick this up if you haven't read her other works. But once you read her other works, your opinion about those will reveal your opinion about this one. So maybe it wouldn't make you curious or leave you thoughtful. But if you are a fan of her work, it will make you feel happy to know there is one more piece of her work you can read and enjoy.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 11, 2010
"[...]you're a district attorney and I... well, you know what I am. We both have a lot of dirty work to do. Such happens to be life or most of it. But do you think we're both so low that if something passes us to which one kneels, we no longer have eyes to see it? I loved her; she loved [him]. That's our only proof."
Great play - the ideology is not as well developed as in Anthem or the Fountainhead, but I'm pretty sure that this is Ayn Rand's first published book/play. This play serves to ask many great questions - who makes the law and to whom does it apply? Are people who make certain self-serving choices absolutely untrustworthy? What responsibility (if any) do the successful have to those who profit from his/her wealth (employees, stockholders, etc)? The point is not to answer these questions, but to let the reader decide who is and isn't guilty.
This play presents testimonies, and it is up to the reader to determine who is and who isn't credible - thus the two endings, neither necessarily "more correct" than the other. This is a quick read, and I highly recommend it.
Great play - the ideology is not as well developed as in Anthem or the Fountainhead, but I'm pretty sure that this is Ayn Rand's first published book/play. This play serves to ask many great questions - who makes the law and to whom does it apply? Are people who make certain self-serving choices absolutely untrustworthy? What responsibility (if any) do the successful have to those who profit from his/her wealth (employees, stockholders, etc)? The point is not to answer these questions, but to let the reader decide who is and isn't guilty.
This play presents testimonies, and it is up to the reader to determine who is and who isn't credible - thus the two endings, neither necessarily "more correct" than the other. This is a quick read, and I highly recommend it.
July 17, 2013
THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 16TH is an entertaining enough play, but I only connected with it on the most superficial of levels. I like Ayn Rand a lot, and I've read most of her work, but this is the first time I've been repulsed by the philosophical overtones of one of her stories. THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 16TH is very gimmicky (in a good way), with members of the audience being randomly selected to come up on stage and form an impromptu jury. The play ends differently depending on whether or not they find the main character guilty of murder. I find this a really neat idea, but I don't think Rand executes it properly. Murder seems to me the wrong crime for the main character to have been charged with, and therefore neither verdict strikes me as being particularly satisfying. Definitely one of Rand's weakest efforts.
June 25, 2019
Piyes okumayı gerçekten seviyorum. Özellikle bu piyes Ayn Rand'ın kaleminden çıktıysa ve konumuz bir cinayet davasıysa tadından yenmiyor açıkçası.
Ayn Radn'ı, 'Hayatın Kaynağı' veya 'Atlas Silkindi' kitaplarından mutlaka biliyorsunuzdur. Bu kitapta ise Björn Faulkner'i kim veya kimler öldürdü bunun peşine düşüyoruz. Kitabın en güzel tarafı sizin jüri olmanız. Dava iki taraflı biçimde anlatılıyor. İki tarafta en ince ayrıntılarıyla sunuluyor ve sonunda kimin suçlu olduğuna siz karar veriyorsunuz ancak söz konusu ahlakla değil Ayn Radn'ın değimi 'Yaşam Duyusuyla'.
Bu kitabı okumadan önce Ayn Rand'ın en az bir kitabını okuyup sonra bu kitabını okumanızı öneririm çünkü o zaman taşlar daha güzel yerine otuyor. Ayn Rand kimdir? Felsefesi neyi savunur? Bu konular hakkında biraz da olsun fikir sahibi olmak gerek bu kitabı anlamlandırabilmek için.
Ayn Radn'ı, 'Hayatın Kaynağı' veya 'Atlas Silkindi' kitaplarından mutlaka biliyorsunuzdur. Bu kitapta ise Björn Faulkner'i kim veya kimler öldürdü bunun peşine düşüyoruz. Kitabın en güzel tarafı sizin jüri olmanız. Dava iki taraflı biçimde anlatılıyor. İki tarafta en ince ayrıntılarıyla sunuluyor ve sonunda kimin suçlu olduğuna siz karar veriyorsunuz ancak söz konusu ahlakla değil Ayn Radn'ın değimi 'Yaşam Duyusuyla'.
Bu kitabı okumadan önce Ayn Rand'ın en az bir kitabını okuyup sonra bu kitabını okumanızı öneririm çünkü o zaman taşlar daha güzel yerine otuyor. Ayn Rand kimdir? Felsefesi neyi savunur? Bu konular hakkında biraz da olsun fikir sahibi olmak gerek bu kitabı anlamlandırabilmek için.
July 14, 2019
In this gripping courtroom drama two attorneys wield a set of singularly, selfishly flawed witnesses in their battle to determine who was the true villain in the life of the deceased business magnate, Bjorn Faulkner. The case initially seems straightforward - simplistic even - but as the witnesses take the stand, this simplicity is belied and two separate, wildly complex plots emerge. Only one of these explanations can be true - but which is it? As the cross-examination builds to its pitch, it is not merely the soul of Bjorn Faulkner over whom the lawyers tussle - it is the nature of humanity itself.
Fabulously drawn. A+++. Wish Ayn Rand had written more plays, as this one is top notch.
April 26, 2020
A well structured courtroom drama with enough twists and turns to keep the reader turning pages. The gimmick of the audience being the jury and deciding the outcome of the play is fun but ultimately kind of disappointing because neither ending is much different given that the possible endings are about 3 lines long. An Ayn Rand read would usually invite some philosophical discussion but this early work seems to be rather surface compared to some of her more well known pieces of literature.
June 27, 2009
old school. this was of interest because of it's ending (a choose your own adventure involving having 12 audience members get up on stage to participate and render a verdict in a trial. this verdict sets in motion one of two possible endings).
May 4, 2025
The ending of the book is unexpectedly shocking and impactful. Ayn Rand ties together the themes of crime and justice in a perfect way, leading the reader to a deadlock. The conclusion is both thought-provoking and dramatic.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 3, 2009
Excellent play! Would love to perform/direct this. Interesting - even 60+ years after it was first produced.
July 30, 2017
The only interesting thing about this play is the fact that the audience plays the role of the jury in the end and that, of course, cannot save the whole work from being dull and poorly written.
March 7, 2019
Ayn Rand is so over rated. This was a waste of my time.
December 28, 2025
Ayn Rand’s play, “The Night of January 16” was something quite different than I had thought. This was a play about a murder trial where members of the audience participated and a verdict of guilty verses not guilty. It is clever but with regards to almost all the characters, I really could not like, though I give my verdict below. Ayn Rand’s style shows up in this play and reminds me of her other stories.
Play in short- Did a man commit suicide or was he murdered?
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 6
Bjorn Faulkner, the hero who never appears in the play, is not Ivar Kreuger; he is what Ivar Kreuger
might have been or, perhaps, ought to have been. The two sides in the play are represented, on the one
hand, by Bjorn Faulkner and Karen Andre, his secretary-mistress who is on trial for his murder—
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 6
and, on the other, by John Graham Whitfield and his daughter. The factual evidence for and against the
accused is (approximately) balanced. The issue rests on the credibility of the witnesses. The jury has to
choose which side to believe, and this depends on every juror’s own sense of life.
Page 18
JUDGE HEATH DISTRICT ATTORNEY FLINT
DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEVENS
KAREN ANDRE
DR. KIRKLAND
JOHN HUTCHINS
HOMER VAN FLEET
ELMER SWEENEY
MAGDA SVENSON
NANCY LEE FAULKNER
JOHN GRAHAM WHITFIELD
JAMES CHANDLER
SIEGURD JUNGQUIST
“GUTS” REGAN
COURT ATTENDANTS
Place New
York Courtroom
❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌spoiler alert
I would say not guilty to Karen, though I did not like her character in the least, this play in my opinion sums up what Ayn Rand felt about doing all for oneself and not thinking of others. Morality and God were not her ways as having read her other novels, which sums it up. Karen told that she threw over a dead man’s body not Bjorn’s body. She was smug until she found out from Regan that Bjorn had been killed. The evidence seems to be too flimsy after hearing Regan’s story that transfers the murder onto Whitfield. I am afraid he will not stand trial for their are too many unreliable witnesses. I loved her books in my younger years but I don’t think I could read them again in the same light. While I was reading this play, it was a depressing look at a worldly look of some people.
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 22
Karen Andre, Faulkner’s efficient secretary and notorious mistress. But six months ago Faulkner came
to America to get a loan and save his fortune. Fate sent him a means to save his own heart—in the
person of the lovely girl who is now his widow, Nancy Lee Faulkner, only daughter of John Graham
Whitfield, our great philanthropist. Faulkner
1
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 22
thought he had found salvation and a new life in the virtuous innocence of his young bride. And the
best proof of it is that two weeks after his wedding he dismissed his secretary—Karen Andre. He was
through with her. But, ladies and gentlemen, one is not easily through with a woman like Karen Andre.
We can only guess what hatred and revenge smouldered in her heart; but they leaped into flame on the
night of January sixteenth. Bjorn Faulkner did not kill himself. He was murdered.
Page 70
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 70
FLINT: I must confess, Miss Andre, that there is not much left for me to do: you’ve done all my work
yourself . . . Now, tell us, didn’t Mr. Faulkner have a clear conception of the difference between right and
wrong? KAREN: Bjorn never thought of things as right or wrong. To him, it was only: you can or you can’
t. He always could.
Page 71
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 71
FLINT: And yourself? Didn’t you object to helping him in all those crimes? KAREN: To me, it was only: he
wants or he doesn’t. FLINT: You said that Bjorn Faulkner loved you? KAREN: Yes. FLINT: Did he ever ask
you to marry him? KAREN: No. What for? FLINT: Don’t you know that there are laws made for
situations such as these?
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 71
KAREN: Laws made by whom, Mr. Flint? And for whom? FLINT: Miss Andre, did your attorney warn you
that anything you say here may be held against you? KAREN: I am here to tell the truth. FLINT: You
loved Bjorn Faulkner? KAREN: Yes. FLINT: Such as he was? KAREN: Because he was such as he was.
FLINT: Exactly, Miss Andre. Now what would you do if a woman were to take away from you the man
you worshipped so insanely? If she appealed to his soul, not to his animal desires as you seem to have
done so successfully? If she changed the ruthless scoundrel you loved into her own ideal of an upright
man? Would you still love him? STEVENS: Your Honor! We object!
Play in short- Did a man commit suicide or was he murdered?
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 6
Bjorn Faulkner, the hero who never appears in the play, is not Ivar Kreuger; he is what Ivar Kreuger
might have been or, perhaps, ought to have been. The two sides in the play are represented, on the one
hand, by Bjorn Faulkner and Karen Andre, his secretary-mistress who is on trial for his murder—
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 6
and, on the other, by John Graham Whitfield and his daughter. The factual evidence for and against the
accused is (approximately) balanced. The issue rests on the credibility of the witnesses. The jury has to
choose which side to believe, and this depends on every juror’s own sense of life.
Page 18
JUDGE HEATH DISTRICT ATTORNEY FLINT
DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEVENS
KAREN ANDRE
DR. KIRKLAND
JOHN HUTCHINS
HOMER VAN FLEET
ELMER SWEENEY
MAGDA SVENSON
NANCY LEE FAULKNER
JOHN GRAHAM WHITFIELD
JAMES CHANDLER
SIEGURD JUNGQUIST
“GUTS” REGAN
COURT ATTENDANTS
Place New
York Courtroom
❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌spoiler alert
I would say not guilty to Karen, though I did not like her character in the least, this play in my opinion sums up what Ayn Rand felt about doing all for oneself and not thinking of others. Morality and God were not her ways as having read her other novels, which sums it up. Karen told that she threw over a dead man’s body not Bjorn’s body. She was smug until she found out from Regan that Bjorn had been killed. The evidence seems to be too flimsy after hearing Regan’s story that transfers the murder onto Whitfield. I am afraid he will not stand trial for their are too many unreliable witnesses. I loved her books in my younger years but I don’t think I could read them again in the same light. While I was reading this play, it was a depressing look at a worldly look of some people.
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 22
Karen Andre, Faulkner’s efficient secretary and notorious mistress. But six months ago Faulkner came
to America to get a loan and save his fortune. Fate sent him a means to save his own heart—in the
person of the lovely girl who is now his widow, Nancy Lee Faulkner, only daughter of John Graham
Whitfield, our great philanthropist. Faulkner
1
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 22
thought he had found salvation and a new life in the virtuous innocence of his young bride. And the
best proof of it is that two weeks after his wedding he dismissed his secretary—Karen Andre. He was
through with her. But, ladies and gentlemen, one is not easily through with a woman like Karen Andre.
We can only guess what hatred and revenge smouldered in her heart; but they leaped into flame on the
night of January sixteenth. Bjorn Faulkner did not kill himself. He was murdered.
Page 70
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 70
FLINT: I must confess, Miss Andre, that there is not much left for me to do: you’ve done all my work
yourself . . . Now, tell us, didn’t Mr. Faulkner have a clear conception of the difference between right and
wrong? KAREN: Bjorn never thought of things as right or wrong. To him, it was only: you can or you can’
t. He always could.
Page 71
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 71
FLINT: And yourself? Didn’t you object to helping him in all those crimes? KAREN: To me, it was only: he
wants or he doesn’t. FLINT: You said that Bjorn Faulkner loved you? KAREN: Yes. FLINT: Did he ever ask
you to marry him? KAREN: No. What for? FLINT: Don’t you know that there are laws made for
situations such as these?
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 71
KAREN: Laws made by whom, Mr. Flint? And for whom? FLINT: Miss Andre, did your attorney warn you
that anything you say here may be held against you? KAREN: I am here to tell the truth. FLINT: You
loved Bjorn Faulkner? KAREN: Yes. FLINT: Such as he was? KAREN: Because he was such as he was.
FLINT: Exactly, Miss Andre. Now what would you do if a woman were to take away from you the man
you worshipped so insanely? If she appealed to his soul, not to his animal desires as you seem to have
done so successfully? If she changed the ruthless scoundrel you loved into her own ideal of an upright
man? Would you still love him? STEVENS: Your Honor! We object!
January 17, 2023
Strange and unexpected.. I didn't picture myself reading Ayn Rand. It happened due to synchronicity. I was reading Ionesco at work and a colleague started a conversation about plays. "Have you read on the 18th of January by Ayn Rand? No? It's a court room play called where the audience is the jury," and then he googled it and corrected himself, "Oh it's called, Night of January 16th... and it's the 16th today.. crazy?" I knew I had to read it.
Great idea – the audience being the jury. And the way its written makes it work. The thoughts and feelings that arise while you’re reading reveal your own biases and the nature of your own psyche. The characters are revealed by others. Whitfield saying he never loses his temper and then losing his temper.
The assumptions based on moral judgement; Jungquist “He killed Faulkner! Because he lied!” Being a liar doesn’t mean he killed him. Karen Andre is pinned to look immoral just as Regan the gangster but that doesn’t make them guilty. I get that she means consenting to unconventional lifestyles or social outcasts as symbols (independence vs conformity) being acceptable and not to judge moralistically. Individual self is contingent on others... It's actually irrational (and ends up working against best-interest) in the long run to make decisions solely based on self-interest - and the play shows this. If you play out rational interest it just eats itself as does capitalism.
Side note but related to last sentence. Rand describing capitalism as "free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit" is just straight delusional or delusions based on not experiencing forced detrimental exchanges e.g. labour to survive. If Ayn Rand was alive now, she’d very much be one of those pick me’s who says, “he’s not an abuser, he was nice to me.” Sis could have benefited from therapy and Rawl's veil of ignorance (jkn)
Great idea – the audience being the jury. And the way its written makes it work. The thoughts and feelings that arise while you’re reading reveal your own biases and the nature of your own psyche. The characters are revealed by others. Whitfield saying he never loses his temper and then losing his temper.
The assumptions based on moral judgement; Jungquist “He killed Faulkner! Because he lied!” Being a liar doesn’t mean he killed him. Karen Andre is pinned to look immoral just as Regan the gangster but that doesn’t make them guilty. I get that she means consenting to unconventional lifestyles or social outcasts as symbols (independence vs conformity) being acceptable and not to judge moralistically. Individual self is contingent on others... It's actually irrational (and ends up working against best-interest) in the long run to make decisions solely based on self-interest - and the play shows this. If you play out rational interest it just eats itself as does capitalism.
Side note but related to last sentence. Rand describing capitalism as "free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit" is just straight delusional or delusions based on not experiencing forced detrimental exchanges e.g. labour to survive. If Ayn Rand was alive now, she’d very much be one of those pick me’s who says, “he’s not an abuser, he was nice to me.” Sis could have benefited from therapy and Rawl's veil of ignorance (jkn)
July 23, 2017
I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy this play. I wanted to see how it would end - which witnesses were called next and how the case would play out - so that I could come to a verdict on my own, as, according to the introduction, Rand intended. The sheer curiosity that the play sparked in me is why I chose to give it 3 stars as opposed to 1.
There are a couple of reasons as to why I docked stars. First of all, I don't think Rand did any research into Court proceedings, since the courtroom shown in the play was beyond unrealistic. At some points, it even seemed like child's play. But yes, I was able to put that aside and stay engaged.
What truly ruined this play for me was the introduction. I'm not going to lie: I really don't like Ayn Rand. I've only read Anthem, and it just was poorly written. This play was written better than that novella for sure, but wow, her introduction made me dislike her even more. Never have I read a more pretentious and insipid couple of pages. Her commentary on the play is something I have to describe as "fake deep." Other than her complete disdain for anything resembling socialism, the fact that her weird statement about how this play is "symbolic" did not line up with the play's style and presentation, which honestly read somewhat like a courtroom melodrama (something which Rand apparently believed she avoided entirely, according to the intro), was what made me decide that I could not take her seriously in any way, shape, or form.
Again, I did enjoy the play. I think it's a quick, fun read that anyone can enjoy. Just don't read the intro - trust me I'm doing you a favor.
There are a couple of reasons as to why I docked stars. First of all, I don't think Rand did any research into Court proceedings, since the courtroom shown in the play was beyond unrealistic. At some points, it even seemed like child's play. But yes, I was able to put that aside and stay engaged.
What truly ruined this play for me was the introduction. I'm not going to lie: I really don't like Ayn Rand. I've only read Anthem, and it just was poorly written. This play was written better than that novella for sure, but wow, her introduction made me dislike her even more. Never have I read a more pretentious and insipid couple of pages. Her commentary on the play is something I have to describe as "fake deep." Other than her complete disdain for anything resembling socialism, the fact that her weird statement about how this play is "symbolic" did not line up with the play's style and presentation, which honestly read somewhat like a courtroom melodrama (something which Rand apparently believed she avoided entirely, according to the intro), was what made me decide that I could not take her seriously in any way, shape, or form.
Again, I did enjoy the play. I think it's a quick, fun read that anyone can enjoy. Just don't read the intro - trust me I'm doing you a favor.
May 8, 2018
I must say, this is the best play I read in my life. Bjorn Faulkner, Karen Andre and Lawrence Regan took my breath away. It is a play that takes place in a courtroom. It is not a huge story with too many incidents but a small one that leaves the whole scenario to the reader's imagination. As always, I'm impressed with Faulkner and Regan. Ayn Rand as always knows exactly what kind of men are needed in today's world. They both were fearless, they get what they want, they rule the world and when it comes to love, they give everything. Karen's love and devotion for Faulkner is beyond words. Regan who is a gangster by profession but also knows how to respect love when he sees it. I'm always amazed at the kind of main male characters that Ayn Rand designs in her books. I wonder if such men do really exist in today's world. Men who fear nothing, who have sky-high goals, who work for what they want, who refuse bow to none, who crush the rules set by the so-called society and men who love beyond any kind of scale that is ever built in this world. Hats-off to Ayn Rand! She is the hero.
Read my review blog https://theclippednightingale.wordpre.... Feel free to share your views. I would be happy to hear from you.
#AynRand #NightofJanuary16th #TheNightofJanuary16th #play #CourtroomAct #TheClippedNightingale #BookReview #eBookReviewer #Blogger #BAM #booksAMillion #BarnesandNoble #LibraryThing #PlumReview #Indigo #Chapters #goodreads #kindle #amazonKindle
Read my review blog https://theclippednightingale.wordpre.... Feel free to share your views. I would be happy to hear from you.
#AynRand #NightofJanuary16th #TheNightofJanuary16th #play #CourtroomAct #TheClippedNightingale #BookReview #eBookReviewer #Blogger #BAM #booksAMillion #BarnesandNoble #LibraryThing #PlumReview #Indigo #Chapters #goodreads #kindle #amazonKindle
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews