[Rembrandt_fan]

Arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of Ayn Rand with a true believer is an exercise in futility. In its way, it's like arguing with a Scientologist about their resident literary 'genius', L. Ron Hubbard. As has been pointed out, Chambers was reviewing a specific book, and to his credit, his review was confined to the literary worth of that book. I don't recall a 'smear' against Fearless Leader anywhere.

She was a lousy writer and pernicious thinker. Objectivists be damned.

[jackbob]

She was a lousy writer and pernicious thinker. Objectivists be damned.

I do not have any disagreement with what you say about Randian true believers. As with most true believers, they see what they want to see.

I am however curious as to your calling her a "pernicious thinker." Could you be a little more specific, giving an example from her non-fiction writings? As far as Objectivists go, I've found that they turn me off far more than their philosophy does. As a matter of fact, I find myself mostly agreeing with their philosophy, but with enough disagreement to not consider myself an objectivist. I wonder however what is it about objectivism that causes you to say "be damned."