It’s almost understandable (but certainly not acceptable), given the philosophical undercurrent, that her characters are, for the most part, very black and white; it makes her points clear quickly. It’s a shame she couldn’t have used that same "clear quickly" aspect throughout her book.
For those who might say that the dragging of the plot was perhaps deliberate, as a metaphor for how everything good must be worked for, I would have to reply that bad writing is no way to make a point.
In the world Rand’s lead character wishes to create in "Atlas Shrugged" individuals of intelligence, reason, logic and responsibility would live in a civilization run by the most reasonable and logical individuals, and of course people who are lead by intelligence and responsibility would never have strong differences of opinion (written with sarcasm) and ultimately the answer to the opening of the book "Who is John Galt?" would become "We are" in a society of clones (the "titans of business") and drones (workers).
This is the major flaw in the philosophy of "Atlas Shrugged": in the end all of Rand’s "Responsible Individuals", with their personal determination, vision, passion, refusal to be coddled or to coddle, would become Galt knock offs.
Yes, there were moments of "ah" and "oh" in this book, and there were moments when I found myself looking forward to reading. There’s certainly nothing wrong with being responsible and individualistic. If not for Rand’s beautiful but horrifically tedious style, there may have been more of those moments.
2.5 out of 5 stars.