If you understand what happened to [Rand] after “Atlas” was published, then the condition of her non-fiction work comes into perspective. In her non-fiction, she reads like no other philosopher that I’m aware of. It is not the most organized work you’ll ever see—and I think that this is a big part of why many people sneer her off as a “philosopher”: it’s because she simply doesn’t write like any of the rest of them, in terms of organization, and there is a good deal of assembly required. (In an almost perverse way, however, I think this is also why she really works in some peoples’ minds: they’re the ones who have little or no problem with abstraction and integration, and a presentation like Rand’s non-fiction is very exciting to them.)
Feel free to add your own glowing tributes in the comments.
[Hat tip: Joe Maurone]