I actually do not agree with much of what Ayn Rand wrote. I am a "left-leaning" fellow, but this article is just plain garbage. It shows no respect for beliefs that it does not agree with at all and I find it actually anti-intellectual in nature. I have read quite a bit of Ayn Rand's works and found many of the arguments, in both the fiction and nonfiction writings, interesting philosophical challenges that were obvious reactions to some of the other more socially-minded arguments being made at the times. Sure, she took some arguments too far and also had a troubled personal life, but show me an important writer or philosopher that did not! Drug use does not dequalify one's ideas... if that were true, we would have not philosophy at all. Way to make those of us arguing for social-sided solutions out to be bigoted morons... Slate deleted from GoogleReader... cheers.

What are "social-sided solutions"?

It's a review of two biographies. Unless you can provide evidence that those biographies dealt heavily in Rand's philosophy, you're looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. You wouldn't subject a film review to cinematic criticism, would you? Same thing here.

Read things: <link>

The reviewer spends more time reviewing Ayn Rand's work and personality than it does the biographies... therefore altering nature of the critique.

Your link is nonsensical. Do you have a definition or not?

Social-sided: The government or non-profit organization (static) portion of a two sided economic solution. Market-sided: The market or private (dynamic / competitive) portion of a two sided economic solution. I should be paid for taking the time to educate message board flamers.

Yes. Your are great intellect in your own mind making up words only you know the meaning of. I wouldn't pay you to pick up litter. LOL.

I have to say mark14 that the above is one of the funniest post's I've read in quite a while. Well said.

Alethus - take off your preachy ideological blinders and go back to the article. See how it's in the "books" section? That's because it's a book review. It's not a reviewer's job to espouse your ethos. It's the reviewer's job to convey what is in each book. Don't like it? Don't buy the books. And don't act pretentious when all you're doing is grinding some ideological ax that will never matter in more than an abstract sense. The article isn't bad. Your understanding of what a book review is simply lacking. And trust me, Slate has plenty of bad articles. This wasn't one of them. You just feel like screaming into the wind.