Alright, I am new here, so bear with me on this... I just looked up authors and books that I had an interest in first, so forgive me for dredging up this tired old thread as a starting point... I read all of the posts with interest... I was frankly surprised that so many people have such of negative view of Rand's books... I have read The Fountainhead a couple times and read Atlas Shrugged about once a year on average for the last 5 years or so... I list it as my favorite book, and I guess I will unless someone could suggest one that may displace it...
... It appears to me that many who don't like Rand's writing dislike her political views moreso than her writing style or story-telling ability... Now, I personally think she creates an impossibly black and white society... That would be mildly annoying except that I had never heard of objectivism when I began reading the book so I was reading it as what it is -- merely a fictional story... As such, it is no more difficult to accept than any other fictional society (Douglas Adam's galaxy, for instance)... In fact, no one has mentioned this yet, but what I found more difficult to believe than the perfect adherence to the two opposing philosophies of her characters, was that they matched their respective philosophies perfectly in PHYSICAL appearance... Every one of the Galt advocates were perfect human specimens -- chiseled features, naturally sincere smiles, perfect hair, wide eyes, grace of movement, etc., etc... On the other hand, every Jim Taggart wannabe was overweight, slow of speech, slow of foot, slovenly, pouty-lipped, red-eyelidded, pasty-white, etc., etc... She tried to give the impression that she could pick out a moocher at 100 yards by mere appearance... As much as she preached against the stereotypes of women, she doomed all of humanity to one type of sterotype or another...
As for the speeches, I do think some consolidation would have been in order, buy hey, artistic license I guess... I think the larger mistake is that Galt's speech became anti-climactic given that Rearden's speech was far more shocking to those present in the room with him, and was more poignant, in general... I thought his speech was well-timed in the overall scope of the plot... Galt's speech at that point became unnecessary... Nonetheless, every time through the book, I still read all 50+ pages of it...
On the audience of the book, many have suggested that young readers would find it more appealing... Possibly true if the motive in reading is to gather political ideas from the writing... I was past the point of having formed any political ideas I may have when I read it, so the political philosophies were not so important to me... Rather what I gained from it was a new way of viewing the motives and ideas of those around me... I find myself always trying to read between the lines now, whether it is in conversation with a kid behind the counter at Taco Bell, or watching Obama give a speech... I constantly find myself asking, what is he really saying here?... Is he really in favor of trying to help out the poor, or is there some other motive at play?... Is he against the war, or does he gain something by claiming to want to bring U.S. troops home?... I do see a trend toward more and more restrictive laws being passed, even to the point of absurdity and I believe she hit this particular nail on the head... Anyway, politically, I tweaked my own belief system with thoughts and ideas that she expounded, but in no way agree with everything she writes...
About it for my two cents...
B
Welcome
to BookAndReader! 
