Among the emerging biographies of Rand this work marks a distinction in that it draws from resources at the Ayn Rand Archives. Burns gives her readers some insight into Rand's appeal to the American Right (conservatives, libertarians, anarchists). Although not properly a part of the Right herself (Rand called herself a "radical for capitalism") she definitely held some sway in the development of the the ideas of the Right, for good or for ill. The Right's changing perspective on society would depend upon their correct or incorrect understanding and application of her philosophy, Objectivism.

Succinctly, I would say that Burns tells a good history story but her admitted ignorance to Objectivism hinders her interpretation of the story she wishes to tell and the story as a whole in its complete context. The times she does stray from the history in her attempt to explain to the reader, her characterizations of Rand's ethical and political theory come off superficial. This is where a more complete understanding of the philosophical implications would have been beneficial.

Rand's writings can at times be very subtle and pregnant with hidden implications that not everyone sees the first time around. Elsewhere, Burns does mention that it took her eight years to write this intellectual history on Rand and it would be easy to assume that she has a firm grasp on Rand's ideas. However, the passage of time cannot be substituted for a proper understanding of ideas. Rand made a point of the fact that her philosophy is a complete departure from the centuries dominant philosophies taught in academia today. An objective critique of Rand's theories and life history would make a cognizant effort to place them in the context of her theories on justice, benevolence, friendship, rights, and morality. This is no easy task but it would explain why Rand held that ideas matter and why she held her own with such a passion. Instead, Burns glosses over this fact and superficially attributes personal breaks to irrational emotionalism. As she states in the introduction, "I am less cocerned with judgment than with analysis, a choice Rand would certainly condemn." But how does one engage in analysis without a proper standard and its subsequent judgment? How does a person know the difference between right and wrong if not from the judgment of the facts before them?

How does Burns get by this dillemma? By "judging" ideas on surface-level perspectives, by dropping the context in which Rand places her concepts and theories. It is the anti-conceptual mentality rearing its ugly head once more. This non-judgmental attitude is present throughout the book and taints Burns take on Rand's views on individualism, calling them elitist, and allowing her to portray Rand as the tragic heroine, full of contradictions, who is destined to fail in her goals.

To return to Burns' thesis, that Rand held considerable influence upon the shaping of current political thought on the Right, I think she does her own work harm by not clearly defining her terms anywhere in her book. Nowhere does she explain the difference between Right, conservative, libertarian, or anarchist. And the only time she explains "Objectivist" is in a endnote to chapter nine where she incorrectly distorts its meaning. To the contrary, Rand went to great lenghts to differeniate herself from the Right and called herself a capitalist instead for its emphasis on individual rights something the Right was and still is against.I think her analysis would have greatly improved had she discussed Rand's views on her place in the political movement.

Because Burns' work is distinct in that it draws from material provided by the Ayn Rand Archives we should be careful not to use this fact as an argument from authority. Burns' missteps are her own and shouldn't be ignored simply because she had authoritative sources. You can have all the facts presented to you, but man's consciousness is volitional and it's up to him to use it properly. Crudely put, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Given all this, I reccommend readers to strickly stick to the historical events Burns recounts in Rand's life, i.e., her interactions with people in the movement, and avoid her interpretation and analysis of these events like the plague. Of course this leaves little value to take away from the book itself and is the real tradgey that Burns herself unwittingly creates. ( )