Changes

Not all the reviews were savage, but most of them were. Even some [[conservative]] reviewers spoke scathingly of it. The most infamous of these reviews came from [[Whittaker Chambers]], who said of the novel in ''[[National Review]]'' that every page screams, "To a gas chamber&mdash;go!"<ref name=chambers>Chambers W, "Big Sister Is Watching You," ''National Review'', December 28, 1957. Hosted at National Review Online, published January 5, 2005. Accessed May 1, 2009. <http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp></ref> [[Nathaniel Branden]] said of it, among other things, that it taught emotional repression as a virtue.<ref name=branden>Branden N, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," audio presentation, 1984. Transcript hosted at <http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html>.</ref>

Not all the reviews were savage, but most of them were. Even some [[conservative]] reviewers spoke scathingly of it. The most infamous of these reviews came from [[Whittaker Chambers]], who said of the novel in ''[[National Review]]'' that every page screams, "To a gas chamber&mdash;go!"<ref name=chambers>Chambers W, "Big Sister Is Watching You," ''National Review'', December 28, 1957. Hosted at National Review Online, published January 5, 2005. Accessed May 1, 2009. <http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp></ref> [[Nathaniel Branden]] said of it, among other things, that it taught emotional repression as a virtue.<ref name=branden>Branden N, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," audio presentation, 1984. Transcript hosted at <http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html>.</ref>

Leiendecker, however, reminds us that many of the nefarious laws and "directives" that the novel mentions have in fact come to pass. His chief criticism was that the dialog (and in, [[John Galt]]'s memorable case, monolog) of the heroes and anti-villains of the work often sounds "stilted," while the words of the villains ring true to their respective real-life anti-types.<ref name=Leiendecker/>

Leiendecker, however, reminds us that many of the nefarious laws and "directives" that the novel mentions have in fact come to pass. His chief criticism was that the dialog (and in [[John Galt]]'s memorable case, monolog) of the heroes and anti-villains of the work often sounds "stilted," while the words of the villains ring true to their respective real-life anti-types.<ref name=Leiendecker/>

As might be expected, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] and its various organs found fault with the explicit [[atheism]] of the novel, and especially John Galt's specific rejection of the notion of original sin, and Francisco d'Anconia's statement that a rational man does not "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," because "he permits no Caesars."<ref name=history/>

As might be expected, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] and its various organs found fault with the explicit [[atheism]] of the novel, and especially John Galt's specific rejection of the notion of original sin, and Francisco d'Anconia's statement that a rational man does not "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," because "he permits no Caesars."<ref name=history/>