  ... at least, what I read of it. You see, I can usually tell, within a paragraph if a book is worth reading or not (I say usually, because I am not an expert, and often miss books that are supposedly great because of it), and in the case of Atlas Shrugged , this is my finding. You see, when similies and metaphors are used as symbols, they should not blatantly hit you over the head, and yell "hey, do you see me? " But instead, should lead the reader on throughout -- subtly. In Atlas Shrugged, I felt like I was being flogged with the meaning of obvious symbols -- just in the first three pages.
There was the symbol of the tree, and the bum, and the 'calendar in the sky' and the sky-scrapers covered in ivy and rotting, just to name a few.Then we come to the moralistic phrasology of the young Mr. Willers. When asked what he would want to do, he answered at once, "Whatever is right," and added, "You ought to do something great... I mean, the two of us together. " "What? " she asked. He said, "I don't know. That's what we ought to find out. Not just what you said. Not just business and earning a living. Things like winning battles, or saving people out of fires, or climbing mountains. " "What for? " she asked. He said, "The minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us.
What do you suppose is the best within us? " "I don't know. " "We'll have to find out. " She did not answer; she was looking away, up the railroad track. (Rand, 13&14) Immediately there is a suspension of belief in my mind because children don't talk that way. There is also the problem of introducing a character without introducing them, then places them both (young Willers and the unknown female) on a railroad track... another obvious symbol for the journey of life.
It was after that paragraph I stopped reading -- the begining of the fourth page -- because I could see where this was leading: moralistic expiation of philosophy. I have read it in other stories/poems as well -- the ones I had to read for class. In each case, you can tell the author is trying to make a point, and you know what the point is, but they continue to lead up to the conclusion anyhow... just in case you are a dullard and can't see past the end of your nose. Herman Melville was an exception to this case. While his works were filled with blatant symbolism, he treated his works as stories, first and foremost. When you read Melville's Benito Cerino , for instance, you can take it as a story, or as an allegory, but the choice is left up to the reader as to how far they delve into the issue. The same with Poe. Both of these were masters of the sub-text, and also masters of the story as well. Nathaniel Hawthorn was a bit more concerned that his message come across, and so wove into the story the point he was trying to make, but you were still able to see the story if that was all you looked for.
Rand, on the other hand, shoves the sub-text through the story in such a way that the reality of the story is skewed and the philosophy shows through. This may be what Rand had in mind with her book, but, in my opinion, this is not good novel-writing or story-telling. The fact that her book has reached millions of people with her ideas of utopian society says something for her books: it says there are many people looking for the answers to life's questions, and will turn to anyone who is convincing of their convictions. It does not, however, say that Atlas Shrugged , is a good book. You see, in a good novel, you must (so say many authors) grab the attention of your readers in such a way that they desire to continue reading your story. The opening is what has your readers continue reading, or put the book back on the shelf. It is the opening paragraph which determines if people will read on, and, in many cases, the opening sentence determines whether the book is sold. I don't say the book is no good, I only say that it is not, in my opinion, a good novel. Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. Yew York:Signet. 1957. 
