>>4
>> And she was a good writer. She was trying to teach the reader
Precisely why she was NOT a good writer. Ever try to read Heinlein? If you're going to enlighten someone with FICTION, you must do it subtly, so the reader draws the same conclusions himself by the time you come out and state anything. Rand just makes leaps of logic and starts shouting random faggotry like this (my favorite Rand quote):
"The black dress seemed excessively revealing--because it was astonishing to discover that the lines of her shoulder were fragile and beautiful, and that the diamond band on the wrist of her naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained."
>>And frankly, an indepth study of american history supports many if not all of her ideals.
Lol. Nothing supports her ideals. LOGIC even negates half of them. Morality? She knows nothing of morality. She does not understand that her innate feeling towards thing were born out of her experiences in Russia before coming to America. She does not know that most human beings do not feel the same way. She doesn't understand that her image of objectivism is merely a fallacy based upon what she feels to be a perfect man. She doesn't understand how the human mind works (not to say I or anyone else fully does, but what we know now is nothing like what she seemed to believe). She doesn't understand the power of monopolies, and why they should NOT exist. She doesn't understand why Herbert-fucking-Hoover's outlook on politics was WRONG. This is coming from me, and I'm not even a liberal.
Present tense, because I'm pretty sure she never had a chance to change her mind.
Is that enough to convince everyone, or are you going to take the Rand route and ignore what's right in front of you?