She’s relevant to the point of getting one thinking. However, her philosophy is both derivative and often irrational — and her writing style is just plain awful.
She does get a little carried away with her adverbs and adjectives.
She's topical right now, and the book contains some good ideas and arguments against totalitarianism and collectivism.
But a writer she is not! She reminds me in a vague way of Marion Zimmer Bradley, a dreadful sci-fi/fantasy writer who insisted on stopping the action for 10-15 pages in every chapter while she used her cardboard cutout characters as a soapbox. Same as with Rand, I read Bradley on a friend's recommendation. Friend is an electrical engineer/IT person which is probably why she didn't notice the awful style.
I happen to disagree with Bradley's ideas (she was a radical and probably lesbian feminist) and agree with (most of) Rand's, but that makes absolutely no difference on the separate fact that neither of them could write their way out of a paper bag.
You mean like using 1,000 pages to communicate an idea that could have easily been delivered in 200?
I have never had the time to attempt Rand's Magnum Opus. However, I have long been familiar with the ideas of the book. I think this is an example of a book that may be better in its Cliff's Notes version.
“She’s relevant to the point of getting one thinking. However, her philosophy is both derivative and often irrational — and her writing style is just plain awful.”
I’m with you on that, although I think she contributes so much in her depiction of left wing thoughts/arguments and was so prophetic about the slow creep of socialism that I’m willing to overlook her faults.
Heck - writing is tough and no matter how good a book is there will always be “writing snobs” somewhere who bash it.
I appreciate her work and I’m glad she left all of us this book.