Definitely cooled me on my enthusiasm for the philosophy of objectivism as espoused in "Atlas Shrugged" (which I loved). ( )

I concur with the other two reviewers here. Anyone who thinks there is anything wonderful or special about Ayn Rand and her philosophy she labeled "objectivism" really needs to read this book. You will find out that she was a narcissist and her 'philosophy' will only ultimately appeal to someone who has similar if not worse psychological problems. Her black and white view of the world is as simplistic and ultimately mind-destroying as the most insane religious cult to which one could compare it. Reason as god and Ayn Rand as the definer of Reason? - Really? - that is so very wrong - and insanely absurd. ( )

This fascinating book reinforces an observation I have made over the years: that the ideas of individuals once institutionalized, become perverted and reinvented by those who claim to be the authentic followers of the guru who invented them. Certainly this is true of most religious leaders from Christ to Joseph Smith. It is happening to Robert Greenleaf, and it certainly happened to Ayn Rand, although in the case of the latter she may have had a hand in encouraging the transformation and idolatry.

Heresy and orthodoxy become important concepts once ideas have been codified and institutionalized: anyone with the temerity to suggest revisions or alternatives becomes a heretic and traitor. (Interestingly, the word traitor has religious roots. It comes from a Latin word meaning "handers-over," those Christians who obeyed the Diocletian order to hand over the Scriptures so they could be destroyed. Whether these traditores could receive communion again caused a major schism in the church. Over course one has to belong to an organization and to believe its basic tenets in order to be heretical or a traitor. Hence the difference between heretic and infidel.) Walker is no fan, but I think he makes the same error Philip Johnson did in his attack on intellectuals, condemning their philosophies because they were unable to personally live a blameless life. Walker denounces Rand because the did not often live the life she expounded in her books and he blames her for the iconographic adoration of her adolescent followers. Walker insists that only adolescents looking for a philosophical underpinning were susceptible to her beliefs, perhaps a questionable assumption, but one difficult to challenge given a paucity of data. More to the point he criticizes her for being essentially a derivative thinker (haven't most philosophers derived or based their thinking on the work of others?) and he says her books have little literary value. Ayn Rand, according to virtually everyone who knew her, was charismatic and unconflicted in her beliefs and that alone attracted many, often the young, to her. If she had a major flaw, it was her adoption of an orthodox position that considered views other than hers to be "unreasonable" and "unobjective," and to prevent the movement from developing its own orthodoxy.

There is an apparently inherent contradiction between her celebration of individualism and self-reliance and the Objectivist movement itself, but that is in the nature of all movements and perhaps a great reason to avoid them, be they religious or philosophical. Ayn Rand's heroes were the antithesis of followers, but I suspect that humans are biologically programmed to want to adhere to groups and to define themselves by that group, and to identify too closely with the set of beliefs, the orthodoxy of the group, and to want to exclude and brand as heretics those who refuse to adhere to the group's principles. It's true of the religious right and the radical left. The irony is that most movements eventually become so enamored of the trappings of their orthodoxy that they lose sight of the original beliefs of the founder, in fact, they often become irrelevant. But that's why we have libraries, to help everyone challenge their assumptions.

Clearly, the book is a vindictive, personal attack that will be ignored by Objectivists (who should read it, if only for the discussions of orthodoxy and heresy) and lauded by those who can't stand Rand. I found it a lively, if shrill, examination of the history of a movement founded by a passionate, if personally flawed, individual who, rightly or wrongly, has influenced a large number of people through a body of interesting novels; an examination of a movement to came to practice the opposite of the principles its leader espoused. **I know "their" is incorrect here, but it seems a nice gender-neutral compromise, surely much better than his/her or just "her" or "his", so I think it's time for the English orthodox police to admit this use of "their."

minor corrections 1/15/10 ( )

In the very beginning of his book, Jeff Walker aptly points out that people either heavily get into Ayn Rand in their teens -- or not at all. I first read FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED at 31 and, while seriously impressed by her political and economic clairvoyance, was puzzled by her bizzarre view of humans and human nature and her desire, demonstrated in both novels, to steamroll over anybody who didn't fit her definition of a hero. Besides, I never understood how could a philosopher who preached individualism and self-reliance attract tens of thousands of adoring followers. Ayn Rand's ideal was not a follower, therefore, the followers could not, by definition, live up to her ideals or have her respect (which they didn't). Jeff Walker does a very thorough job of answering just that question. Yes, his theory may be considered debatable. It's an opinion, and he argues it convincingly and with style. He even preempts the insults, such as you may find below, by pointing out that when people identify too closely with their system of beliefs, they have no choice but defend them tooth and nail from any hint of cognitive dissonance. The politically correct, who wear their bleeding hearts on their sleeves, react just as hysterically to any fact they find uncomfortable. It's a fanatic's way. Walker's book is written with humor and decency, it's an easy and enjoyable read (and I don't read much nonfiction), and it has guts. The more you know about Ayn Rand from objective sources, the more sense Walker's book makes. ( )