I was 18 or 19. And it was pretty much like a rope swing to the other side of the river for me, rather than a convincing argument to go for a swim (i.e. I turned out to have anarcho-capitalist tendencies, rather than Objectivist ones--and I was already an atheist before reading Rand, so there wasn't much room for her to have an impact on that front). But, mostly, I'd be happy if everybody would just agree that the founding fathers of the US got things mostly right (excepting the obvious bugs: slavery, male-only voting) and leave well enough alone. I don't much care for the strident tone of Rand's books (excepting Anthem which was short enough that it avoids all of the mind-numbing angry repetition of all of her other works).

17. Being fourth generation progeny of critical thinking literary snobs, I was unable to make it through Atlas Shrugged.

Unfortunately, as it is difficult for Hollywood newcomers to avoid Scientology recruiters, a college freshman finds it difficult to avoid the Objectivist Club recruiters.

Thus, later in the same year I had a brush with Rand again. I tried reading "The Romantic Manifesto" and found it unintentionally hilarious, in the same way Sarah Palin's press conferences are hilarious.

You have too much taste for Atlas Shrugged because of your illustrious bloodline?

If reading Atlas Shrugged is too much work for your taste, then I think the actual ideas contained in it would surely be quite distasteful to you, but I guess the world will never know.

Yes, I do have too much taste to work through Atlas Shrugged, and I attribute this at least partially to good parenting. It always saddens me to read about good minds softened by the writings of Ayn Rand, and I shudder to think about the sorts of childhoods they must have had.

Were you forced by your parents to donate your allowance to the homeless amid tears that eventually turned into self-congratulation?

What sort of "good parenting" created such a visceral aversion to Rand's philosophy? Or is it her prose style that you object to?

I suppose I'd fall under the category of "baleful Eye." I still haven't heard a good argument as to why the ideals of her philosophy is flawed, and her ideas still make logical sense to me, so I'd identify myself as objectivist faster than I'd identify myself most other things.