Though it was a long slog —a year of doing a couple of sections every week– the further I went the more I grasped how brilliant and meaningful it all was. I can safely say that my first reading gave me barely any understanding at all (and I can so read: I have three University degrees!).

I think the reason it takes time, effort and re-reading to properly appreciate OPAR, is the reader’s need for unhurried intellectual growth. One can only absorb so much at a time, after which new material presented in textbook format will always get boring. It’s boring because it ceases to be real, just words heaped on words. The same thing happens to many people (academics too) who read Atlas Shrugged, because their minds are not even remotely in the habit of reading, let alone thinking in, properly structured, hierarchically correct principles.

Reading OPAR, and the equally indispensable Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology only shows us that such thinking methods exist. Actually using them can be difficult when the methods require us to check are most deeply held, faulty premises. This is a reason why so many people react to Rand with hatred and scorn.

Rand’s detractors resent having to re-think their pet beliefs, and hate her for setting them up so they must. As the saying goes, “Woe unto he who brings the truth too soon.” Of course, some are just not thinking at all, or are echoing pseudo-arguments they have heard, never having examined their veracity. Perhaps the worst ones are those who promote Rand, but do so on entirely wrong premises. The last way to learn Rand and Objectivism is by listening to or reading what others say about her and her ideas. Read Her, and what she has approved, until you understand it quite deeply. Then branch out with care.

For example, if you examine arguments against Rand and Objectivism (at least one website is trying to systematically debunk both Rand and Leonard Peikoff) you will find that they routinely take non-essentials, or essentials out of context, to make their case. And, their arguments are routinely peppered with scorn, and ad hominem smears ather than actual argument. But, one has to be able to recognize the difference between good and bad arguments, and the proper use of context and conceptual hierarchy if one is to be immune to their errors and cheap attitude.

Reading Atlas again is a great way to advance the process of developing one’s understanding. It can help to set a couple of goals with each reading, for example:
1. focus on her imagery: what does the light on the bum in the opening chapter represent? the light of cigarettes? The Oak Tree? etc. OR,
2. how, exactly, does John Galt know so much about Dagny’s actions, OR,
3. when a central character makes a puzzling statement, or action, how does Rand esplain it to us (e.g. why would Galt *order* Dagny not to look down as the lights of New York go out?), OR,
4. choose an important principle, such as one or more of top seven virtues discussed in Galt’s speech –independence, productivity, pride, honesty, justice, rationality, integrity– and track how they play out in certain characters, OR,
5. examine the progression of a certain idea that Rand is gradually expanding upon as one reads further and further. How is she bringing us along, until we can grasp its full meaning and importance? What key phrases show us that it is being carefull crafted in a way that recognizes our need to grasp broad ideas bit by bit, until suddenly they become, not just completely logical, but as real to us as the nose on our face.

There are lots of other things to trail.