I came across Atlas Shrugged here on Amazon while looking for something else entirely. I read some of the reviews. Many people loved this book, and some people absolutely hated it. There was a real conflict going on. The one star reviews sighted an overly lengthy tomb that was preachy and highly opinionated with poorly drawn and poorly developed characters, unrealistic dialogue and confusing descriptions. The 5 star reviews touted amazing characters, poetic descriptions and ground breaking philosophy. But, it was the comments to the 5 star and 1 star reviews that got me interested. I read a comment on a one star review that the commenter thought the one star review was unwarranted and the reviewer needed to read some in-depth analytical books addressing this book and its author's philosophies - then re-read and try the review again (and that the second time around couldn't possibly be a low rating). Well, any book that needs other books to explain it and make it understandable and worthwhile does not sound like a good book at all in my opinion. Other commenter on the 1 star reviews basically said that the reviewers (and anyone who would rate this book low) were a bunch of closed minded sheep that COULD not or WOULD not understand the monumental, brand new philosophy in this book. Well, when anyone says that the reason a book is not liked is because of stupidity, ignorance or willful disregard, it makes me wonder - about both the book and the commenter. On the other side, the comments on some of the 5 star reviews accused those reviewers of being brainwashed cult followers. Overall, I was interested enough to read the sample on my Kindle. I wanted to know what all the controversy was about. I was pretty underwhelmed, and I have to say, I agree more with the 1 star reviewers than the 5 star. It was not well written, it was unrealistic in many ways, not believable at all, and was way too long. I was not fired up in either way. I do not vehemently hate it, nor did I absolutely despise it. I was pretty unimpressed, both with the writing itself and the concepts therein.As I said, the book is not well written. Many of the reviewers did comment on this, and the response from those who loved the book were often that English was author's second language so cut her some slack. I do not agree that that is an acceptable reason nor is it even a good excuse. A good editor or even a proof reader, even a few willing friends, could have cleaned it up. There is no reason why a book should be published like this. A few examples follow. Verb tense. Often the verb tense was inappropriate, especially when switching between past memory to current time. At one point, a character was thinking about an oak tree from his child hood (in past tense) and then this sentence "He stood there for a while, making no sound, then he walked back to the house." Now, of course, after a moment of thought and a quick re-read, I figured out that he was still remembering a memory and not actually looking for a moment and walking back to the house NOW, but when there are multiple instances of verb tense mix ups throughout, it makes for a very confusing, jarring read. There are also many places were the wrong form of a verb or adjective is used, such as singular versus plural. An example: "It was as if normal existence were (should be was rather than were) a photograph." And "-not more than every fourth one of the stores was (should be were) out of business; its (should be their) windows dark." A proof reader or editor would have easily corrected this. Also, there were sudden point of view changes without indication or warning, one moment we are in one character's head, with their thoughts and feelings, and then we are suddenly in the head of another, then back again. Then, there is Rearden's name. He's referred to both as Hank and as Henry. Again, I figured it out, but there were a few pages where people were talking to "Henry" and I was thinking, did someone else walk in? I read back and forth, trying to find where it was explained that Hank was Henry, and couldn't find it. Earlier in the book, people would suddenly speak up that hadn't been initially described as being in the scene, so it wasn't unprecedented to have new characters show up without introduction.In addition, the sentence structure was rather cumbersome and confusing at times. Sentences are very long, repetitive and strung together with commas and semicolons.  Example: "The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were rising itself, they were the essence and form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive." Or "But from the sunset far at the end of the street, yellow glints caught his eyes, and the eyes looked straight at Eddie . . ." So, were the yellow glints at the end of the street and did the glints catch his attention? Because, if they did, how can he look at Eddie at the same time he's looking at the glints? Were they supposed to be caught IN his eyes? I think so. Or ". . . not an active fire, but a dying one which it is too late to stop." This sentence indicates that it's too late to stop the fire, which doesn't make sense because the fire is dying. But I think what it is actually trying to say is that it is the dying of the fire that is too late to stop. There were instances of this thoughout the book, and it made reading it difficult because I found myself re-reading and re-reading, before I got it. You can't just read through this book non-stop with images and experiences running through your head, because the words keep getting in the way.I don't know about all readers, but I would guess many of them would be thrown off balance and just plain confused by the writing of this book. I was. I had a writing teacher once who gave some of the best advice I've ever gotten, "You want readers to read your story not the words of your story. You want them to read without seeing the words. If they are seeing the words or worse, being confused and tripped up by them, then you have failed." That was certainly true for me reading this book. It was only a string of words without imagery that envoked no feeling.Onto the characters. I too found them to be unrealistic, contradictory, and poorly drawn. There were only a few types of people in this book, those portrayed as stupid, selfish (wanting things only for their own gratification) and charitable beyond any rational reason and those portrayed as cold, emotionless and selfish (wanting things only to feed their vision). I would agree with the other reviewers who said the dialogue was preachy, contrived and unrealistic. Example: "Of what importance is an individual in the titanic collective achievement of our industrial age?" or "little slum children", "it's purely non-commercial", and "selfish greed for profit is a thing of the past.", or this great big long, incongruous statement, "I'm not going to requisition a new typewriter. The new ones are made of tin. When the old ones go, that will be the end of typewriting. There was an accident in the subway this morning, their brakes wouldn't work. You ought to go home, Eddie, turn on the radio and listen to a good dance band. Forget it, boy. Trouble with you is you never had a hobby. Somebody stole the electric light bulbs from off the staircase, down where I live. I've got a pain in my chest. Couldn't get any cough drops this morning, the drugstore on our corner went bankrupt last week. The Texas-Western Railroad went bankrupt last month. They closed the Queensborough Bridge yesterday for temporary repairs. Oh well, what's the use? Who is John Galt?" Who says things like this? Nobody! People don't talk like that. They give speeches with that kind of language, maybe, but not talk to each other like that in everyday conversations.I found no new concepts in this book. The individual versus the whole, society versus industry, ect . . . Rand did not discover something new and reveal it in this book. Nor was her restated concepts portrayed in any realistic setting. The man who runs the train company is whining in response to urging to use a big, established, good quality supplier because the small company (low quality and long lead times that cost them months of time and money) should be given a chance. Or defending a failing venture in an undeveloped country because - shouldn't those countries have help and have modern facilities too? And he's telling his more efficient, hardworking and profit minded hardnosed co-owner sister that she doesn't understand or care about the human element . . . well, as far as business is concerned, of course she doesn't! And to portray any leader of a business as this man is silly. I work in a manufacturing field, and I can tell you, a vendor that provides high cost, low quality parts and is constantly blowing delivery dates is dropped. Same with business ventures, if something isn't making a profit, it goes. And what's this whole resistance to using the new type of metal? "but - but no ones used this new type of metal before . . ." Once again, businesses are always looking for the newest tech, the newest discoveries and inventions to make themselves bigger and better and give them an edge and make them money. This whole business set up in this book just seriously annoyed me. No business runs like that, it couldn't, and rendering one as such, even to make a point, just rang false for me. In the book, sentiment, affection, charity were portrayed as weak, negative emotions that none of the obviously strong, truly successful, hero characters had, even towards their families. The strong heros were condescending, arrogant and bitter.I did read the forward, which had some comments on Rand, as well as some explanations of her characters and the parts they played. Again, if I have to have things spelled out before hand and be TOLD (because it's apparently not clear enough in the book itself) what something ACTUALLY means (because my own ability to drawn my own conclusions must be faulty or my willful ignorance might make me ignore logic and reason) then I suspect there is something lacking in the book itself, either in the nuts and bolts of the writing or in the characters or plot. I found all that to be true in this instance. The actual structure of the writing was confusing and repetitive as well as contradictory, and both the characters and the plot were unrealistic, unrelatable, inhuman and also contradictory. Clarity, concise and realistic dialogue, sympathetic characters, believable plot/people/motivations/actions were all lacking. As a story, it is not something I want to read. As a philosophy, it was nothing new or groundbreaking, that I need to read, and certainly don't want to if its not well written.Quote from Rand: "I seem to be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer. But it is the last that interests me most; the first is only a means to the last . . ." Well, this book is not evidence that supports this statement. It is the exact opposite, in my opinion. This fiction book was not a vehicle for her philosophy. Her philosophy was a vehicle for this book. That was evident to me in the preachy speeches of the characters and the unrealistic mold every scene was shoved into. She did not use her fiction to tell about a philosophy but rather used her philosophy to tell a story. Everything was drawn and built to fit that philosophy.Quote from Rand: ". . . creating a new, original abstraction and translating it through new, original means. This, as far as I know, is only ME - my kind of fiction writing . . . May God forgive me if this is mistaken as conceit. As near as I can now see it, it isn't . . ." Well, I saw nothing new or original in the philosophy and certainly nothing new in this book, and to think it is, to judge one's own work as such, sounds conceited to me. And, in reading Rand's other statements in the forward, she certainly left me with an impression she is an elitist, arrogant, condescending and bitter woman, just like the heroes she created. I will definitely not be paying the high Kindle price to read the rest of this book.This all makes me sad, in a way. There were moments and certain descriptions that were like breathtaking snatches of sunlight and left me thinking - wow, this woman could have been a great novelist. With a little editing, a little less soap box preaching, a grounding in realistic, believable settings and characters, she could have written a tremendous book. There is talent here, but its warped and lost in the extrusion through her narrow and bent mold. 

Question: How good is the story?
Answer: point