To summarize, the reviewer likes Ayn Rand and her work but thinks the author's life showed a huge capacity for self-deception because: a) as a kid in Russia, sh

To summarize, the reviewer likes Ayn Rand and her work but thinks the author's life showed a huge capacity for self-deception because: a) as a kid in Russia, she was really into novels b) she had a higher opinion of the man she loved than others did c) she moved from a ranch in California to NYC, and was convinced this was best for her actor-husband d) she took amphetamines (under doctor's prescription) e) was publicly bitter about a perceived betrayal by another lover f) claimed no philosophical debt except to Aristotle (she has received no scholarly attention by the students/disciples of subsequent philosophy anyway) Frankly this is phenomenally small beer compared to the sins of other philosophers or influential intellectuals. And I find the obsession with Rand gossip amongst her detractors pretty stupid. The reviewer also dismisses 'Objectivism' and says the novels are the important thing. But actually the novels contain most of the philosophical meat of Objectivism - the subsequent non-fiction is more like footnotes/endnotes, collections of essays that relate ideas from AS to real-world history and economic theory. An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology does contain many new ideas though, but it's only 50 pages or so and is fairly a-political. I suppose the start of The Virtue of Selfishness contains a couple of essential ideas one might not pick up from the novels (ie. why you can get ought from is), although that could be seen as overly intellectual 'who cares' territory (as most people perceive the whole field of philosophy)