George; Don't mistake the intent of my post. A novel does not have to be a literary masterpiece in order to have impact. I'll give you an example from the left since my comments are not grounded in any political philosophy; at least this time. The Jungle, written by one of the leaders in the socialist movement in the USA during the first half of the 20th century, Upton Sinclair, is an abysmal piece of writing. But because Sinclair had done his "muckraking" homework, the expose of the conditions in the meatpacking industry made it popular and influential while its greater purpose, to attack capitalism, was largely ignored. Sinclair proved that his literary ineptitude was not a fluke with a series of moderately popular spy novels, the Lanny Budd series, where he continued to espouse socialism and a belief in paranormal phenomena with writing that,with luck, might have garnered a "C" for a sophomore in high school.
Of course the difference is that Sinclair's influence arose out of factual revelations which transcended his stylistic failings. My problem with Rand, putting aside any philosophical differences, is that she presents very little that is new, either factually or philosophically, so that there is little reason to overlook what I consider to be a writing style that is less than pedestrian. If I want to read a novel that seeks to espouse a unified theory for viewing one's life and work, I would hope that it presents something new or at least a unique approach to these timeless questions. If not, it should stand on its own as a literary work. For me, Rand's books fail in creating that interest just as they failed the first time I read them over 40 years ago. In a different forum, we could discuss the underlying philosophy which I believe oversimplifies problems in the real world. It is easy to knock down straw men of one's own creation but at least, if that is one's intention, one should do so with style.