I’ve never read a fictional book (I have no use for them) other than Atlas Shrugged. I didn’t enjoy the book that much but it did provide some insight, and it also reinforced what I already believed about free market capitalism and the flawed logic of collectivism.

A producer (I will not dignify her by using writer) of utter tripe.

I reserve comments on her opinions, save to say that they are simplistic moral lessons that appeal to the pseudo-intellectual, but boldly state that her writing is roughly at the level of your average Marvel comic book. In fact, somewhat below that. Next to Ayn, Stan Lee is William Faulkner.

Totally Bitch

Anti-religion, but way too capitalistic.

There's a process to discovering Rand's thought. It usually starts with one of the novels. For me, it was 'Atlas'. If you understand the greater portion of 'Atlas' you then feel "Ah hah! The truth at last!". Then perhaps you read the other novels or some of her non-fiction. At some point your interest dwindles- Rand seems to be saying the same thing over and over- you want to say "I get it already"- you start thinking you're smarter than she is. Eventually, though, maybe after a hiatus, you reread one of her works with some distance. Wait a second, you discover she isn't repeating herself at all. You've been reading her sloppily and with half-focus. When you realize how exact she is with her concepts, how nuanced her arguments, then you're a fan for good. Personally, I've read everything she ever wrote and would have been proud to have known her in her lifetime. Is she perfect? No. Is she one of the finest minds in American culture? Perhaps the finest and the most maligned (shame on most of you posters)

An okay author, although she was a nut who expressed her "libertarianism" by aiding the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, about the most unlibertarian entity this country has ever seen. The Fountainhead is her best work. Don't bother with Atlas Shrugged.

The one star comments prove Rand right. She always said that losers will hate winners.

Rand is known more for her political philosophy, which seems tailor-made for the neo-cons, these days than for her writing. Since to me her political philosophy is nothing more than fatuous sophistry (are you listening, EO?), I'll focus instead on her writing, since that's presumably what's being evaluated on this list. In truth and in the interests of fairness, I only read Anthem but it was as boring and trite a narrative as I've ever read. Maybe someday I'll give her writing more of a chance and read something else she's written, but I doubt it. After all, as I've said before, there are only a certain, finite number of hours in any lifetime and so many good, worthwhile books to read. Why waste your time reading something that's not worthwhile, or educational, or even entertaining?

Ayn Rands two great novels The Fountainhed and Atlas Shrugged are literary masterpieces. Nicely constructed and interesting characters, original storylines and a good style of writing. Possibly a bit too long, but... It seems to me, that a lot of the bad reviews she's getting in this forum are actually reviews of her ideology, not of her writings as such. Which is, of course, a pity.

Like a few other reviewers here, I found the most pleasurable experience to be garnered from Ayn Rands work is casting her books across the room (preferably with the trajectory being plotted to transverse the distance between my hand and a nearby fireplace). Not only are her characters flat and annoying but seem to exist simply for the purpose of proving her ridiculous personal beliefs. Not to mention her books are hideously over-written, dragged out and rather then stories, simply prolific justifications of greed. Perversely, I do believe that society exists, hopefully as one that would help the disadvantaged. I do not believe that the greatest moral duty man can undertake (as Rand would have it) is the pursual of his own happiness at the expense of the suffering of others. Making self-interest the centerpiece of ones moral code erodes the compassion and desire for togetherness that forms the very strongest fiber of human association. It's sad to think trees were cut down to form the material on which this womans books were printed, because something that could've provided books for schoolchildren or formed the foundations of a house has instead been used to preach ideologues that undermine the very core of civilization.

Rand, in my opinion, was the most intelligent person who ever lived. I fail to understand the negative attitude toward her. I find it interesting that Rand is vilified so thoroughly by people who claim to have studied philosophy, while ANY other philosopher gets a free ride and their works are never dismissed to the extent that Rand's are. I suspect this is due to the disinformation and purposeful misunderstanding of her ideas that gets propagated by the Leftist professors out there. Why the hate for Rand? The reason is simple; people dislike those who would ask a question and then provide a clear, concise ANSWER to it. Liberals and other philosophers ask plenty of questions, but their answers invariably degenerate into one form of mysticism or another. “You must share.” Why? No answer. Rand’s answer is clear: sharing requires an EXCHANGE of values. She does not say to hoard everything you own from anyone and everyone. She promotes the simple idea of sharing value for value. My friend can be down on his luck, and I could give him some cash under Objectivist theory without being contradictory; I gain the value of my friend being able to sustain himself through a hard time. Sharing or giving to those whom you gain NO value in return is the crime. Donating to a charity if it makes you feel good is fine; donating because you think it is your DUTY is self-betrayal. Note the difference. All people have the right to earn and keep the products of their labor, and to spend the product of their labor (money) in whatever way they choose. Yet people call this evil? By what standard? To dismiss this concept is to advocate slavery, i.e. the product of my sweat belongs to someone else, like the Negroes in their master’s cotton fields. However, those dismissing Rand’s clear ideas in this sense ignore their own contradictions and call me “selfish” because I refuse to sacrifice myself for the sake of others. Refusing to sacrifice myself to anyone or anything is indeed a selfish act – my personal happiness IS more important to me than yours, as your personal happiness should be more important than making me happy. This concept has been polluted time and again over the millennia. Example: which occupation is the more selfish: a fireman or a gas station owner? Answer: neither provided each person is living their life the way they choose. A fireman is not a selfless occupation; any fireman acting consistently is as selfish as you or me. He gains value from the idea of protecting other people and their property from harm. He doesn’t do it because it’s his duty; he does it because he SELFISHLY gains respect for himself and feels like he is making a difference, plus gets paid for something he enjoys doing. Here’s a question: would you prefer to have a surgeon operate on you who is concerned in doing the operation correctly for his own self-satisfaction, or from a surgeon who entered medicine to please his mother but would rather be a radio DJ? Think carefully before you answer that one. I’m sure that most of us in the working world know people from both camps, and those who work for the love of the job (and the rewards gained from it – be it money or self-satisfaction) invariably outperform those who work out of a sense of “duty”. This is another concept detailed in depth by Rand during the course of her writings for those interested enough to study what they read instead of dismissing the ideas out-of-hand. Now this has been a long rant, and I haven’t touched on Rand as a literature author yet. The most common complaint (from the intelligent reviewers here, dismissing the hateful comments of course) is that her characters are flat and unrealistic. This, my friends, was done purposefully in her novels. Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem and We the Living were all written to be novels of ideas. The characters are meant to represent concepts, not breathing human beings. The ideas are the important thing in her novels; she was of the opinion that ideas can be best expressed in a romantic (fictional) form in order to reach people in the most natural way. Telling tales and stories has traditionally been the best way to teach an idea to people; from Aesop’s fables, to Mayan creation stories, and even in the moral lessons described in the Bible (whether or not you take the Bible literally, it is a fact that the moral lessons are told in the form of stories and tales of Biblical figures). Anyway, THAT’S the idea behind her “wooden” characters and the “unbelievable” situations. I find it interesting, though, that other writers such as Orwell, Kafka, Dostoevsky and Hugo can write novels of ideas and take far less criticism for doing so than Rand does. In fact, I wonder why it is common knowledge that “1984” is a novel of ideas and is accepted that way, but “The Fountainhead” is very often NOT portrayed as a novel of ideas, and is criticized for its “weak” characters and such. Methinks it is yet another misrepresentation of a person’s ideas simply because it is not popular to enjoy anything non-Leftist. I found Atlas, Fountainhead, and Anthem to be masterpieces in their own right, and each are written with a different approach. We the Living was not as good, but part of that could be her weaker writing skills at the early point in her career. Still, Rand as a novelist captivated me. Review over; my fingers hurt.

Her characters are exquisitely drawn two-dimensional beings, and the philosophy that drives them is a glorification of absolute power, egotism, and greed. I enjoyed reading The Fountainhead myself--for a while--and then I enjoyed throwing it across the room. Rand is a shallow thinker, not exactly "the most intelligent person who ever lived"--though this type of absolutism of thought is rampant among her admirers.

Her two best known novels were very crappy and overrated books. We the Living was junk, too. She's the darling of the rightwingers, for obvious odious reasons, and she gives atheists a bad name. A ham-fisted stylist and a pretentious, minor league thinker best suited for those who can't fathom Melville, Joyce or Faulkner.

Ayn Rand was the single greatest thinker of the 20th century. Nothing else really needs to be said, except that to those who say they admire her philosophy yet think her writing is second-rate, I couldn't disagree more. As an author, her plot, characterization, symbolism, and theme are expertly woven toward a single purpose. Her characters are heroic, and her writing style is the nearly-dead genre of romanticism. Those who "don't get" her have been reading too many naturalistic, socialistic swan songs from the Oprah book club. And, to sum it up and show you liberal socialists what you are, let me just point out that those who hate Ayn Rand's work hate it for the same reason that a cockroach runs from the light: it reveals you as the vermin that you are.

Yes, Rand is controversial, and she give a strong moralistic message in her writing. Whether you agree with her morality it up to you, but you should experience it before chastising. I still laugh at all the "objectivists" that her writing has spawned. Careful reading will show that she would have been completely abhorred at a following of people agreeing with her opinions. Her basic philosphy is simple: "To Thine Own Self Be True," now where have I heard that before???

I'm a stickler for good writing and that's where Ayn Rand goes so wrong. I reached page 110 and threw the book across the room. It was AWFUL. Yes, I understand her philosophy, but it just doesn't do anything for me and her characters were so annoying that reading her became torture. Sorry to all of you who live by her philosophy, but your leader needs some some help in the plot development department.

Grait reasons for her Athism, not expressed by any other philosopher before (see 'The Ayn Rand Lexicon' p 4, 42, 187, etc.) although she is totally ignorant to the evidence in favor of God. She is also ignorant to political views which are not liberal-democratic and although against socialism to some degree she is especilly against nationalism. I like her attack on the New-Left. She should be in the 'Philosophers List.'

Gready athistic bitch. I also hate her reasons to favor the Democrats.

Au contraire, you who derided the Ayn Rand "phase" referenced here. Those who have had the good fortune to go through the Rand phase are generally free-thinking individualists with a fondness for the idea of achievement in life. Those who upon reading Rand despise the material tend to self-loath, embrace mythology and sloth, and require the acceptance and approval of others to feed fragile egos. No, I'm not f'n Freud, but think about it. I agree that her personal life, as well as the and "cultism" of Rand's more fervent dregs, is disturbing, unappealing; hence the 4 not 5. That having been said... Long Live Capitalism; Die, God.

I find it rather interesting that there appears to be an inverse correlation between those who appreciate Ms Rand, and grammatical abilities. To wit: those who express themselves in a clear and cogent manner tend to like Ayn. However, those who dislike her tend to appear grammatically and verbally challenged. (Not all, but most.) Another indicator would be political temprament- conservatives and libertarians tend fo admire her while commies and natzis and liberal-socialists find her views'disturbing'.

Did you notice all of these Rand freaks mention a "phase?" How scary is that? and what is that all about? This chick was weird and remains dangerous. Her gluttony epitomizes much of the overweight Amercian public's ideas that consumption is good. All crimes are paid missy. I hope I'm there to see yours. That's true karma.

Why Ayn Rand is taken seriously boggles my imagination. What could be said in disparagment of her is legion. But the fatal flaw in her thinking is that it leaves no room for human weakness. Beneath the veneer of reason, freedom, and individualism lies a cruel message. The "great" persons are those who stomp on others with an "enlightened" ruthlessness. Those who admire her are yet to see the crypto-totalitarianism of her thoughts. Thumbs way down to Ayn Rand.

Most of her books were much too long, but "Anthem" was so short and so interesting that I must have read it at least 5 times. Ayn Rand was a gutsy woman with a mind of her own, which you have to admire. My main problem with her is that she considers man (the individual) to be more important than anything else. She seems to leave God out entirely. If I'm mistaken about this, I would welcome a correction from anyone out there who has read more of her works than I have.

2 1/2 stars at best. . .I just don't get it. She has some level of skill at creating atmosphere but that's it. I read "Fountainhead" and found it highly overrated. Rand fans simply see something I don't see. But I don't hate her.

I agree with both HarrytheBunnyMaster and Wiggum. There was a time in my life when I thought that "Atlas Shrugged" was the most profound writing I'd ever read. Now I realize that it was more a case of encountering a totally different, powerfully expressed, point of view. Is she a good writer? I don't claim to know. I do know, however, that she has written several books that have made a strong impression on a great many people over the years, and surely that is one of the aims of writing.

Atlas Shrugged was without a doubt the best book ever written. Not one out of the 1,067 pages was wasted. Anthem and The Fountainhead were also marvelous books. Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman with the courage to stand up to the dozens of idiots who thought making money was a crime. Everyone should be required to read Atlas Shrugged. #1 author of 20th century.

Loved Fountainhead and went through my little phase. Read some more of her stuff, and realized she had a one-track mind. Entered that little contest, and lost. I thank her for what she gave me at one point.

It's not so much her philosophical and political beliefs I have a problem with. I read her when I was about 19 (like everyone else), and was a true believer for about 3 years (again, like everyone else). I'm no longer very interested in her philosophy, but my problem with her books is (and always has been) that she just isn't a very good writer. I don't need 1100 pages of horrible plot, characters and story developement to tell me "greed is good". Her influence on our times is undeniable, but surely she could have found a better way to push her ideas than writing bad novels.

Whether or not I agree with her viewpoints "Atlas Shrugged" made me a much better person because every page made me truly think and refine my own views.

I'm starting to think that everyone who reads a lot goes through an Ayn Rand phase. I hit mine in college, when I thought "Fountainhead" was a revelation. It gave a voice to ideas I had long believed at a very basic level but couldn't seem to articulate. As soon as I put down "Fountainhead" I tore through "Atlas Shrugged" and "We the Living." But, like all phases, my infatuation with Rand passed. While I believe she is an important thinker with an original voice and a lot of great arguments, I also think she's missing a very fundamental part of the picture. If you're going through an Ayn Rand phase yourself, I'd recommend that you balance things out by reading something less rigid - something that acknowledges the larger mysteries in life - maybe an introduction to Eastern religion or something by Carl Jung or Jospeh Campbell. Rand is on to something, but she's not on to everything.

Nearly as frightening as George Orwell

Pompous windbag.

The Fountainhead is easily the best book I've ever read. Words to live by.

It's easy to find flaws in Rand's books, but those hardly detract from her accomplishments. Simply put, Atlas Shrugged profoundly changed the direction of my life for the better. How many other authors on this list have given courage, clarified values, and inspired the passion the way that Rand has? In my estimation: none.