Howdy, Proud!
Yours seems to be a common reaction to the book, and I really do appreciate the philosophy, so I can understand your excitement! But, I have to admit, having read the book twice now, I just... can't... connect to it...
I came at Objectivism from the "inside out", so to speak. I was originally a devotee of Mortimer Adler, and while researching some of the concepts in his Great Ideas series, I stumbled across "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Philosophy: Who Needs it". Before those two books, I was only dimly aware of Ayn Rand, from a chance encounter with Atlas Shrugged when I was a teen (one that did not go well at all).
After those two shorter works, I read Peikoff's tomb: "Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand". I *really* appreciate her Metaphysics and Epistemology, but her Ethics never quite sat right with me, for several reasons (which I won't detail here, since its sort of off topic).
Once I finished Peikoff's explanation of Objectivism, I figured I ought to read the novels, since that's what most everyone seemed to be really energized about - much like yourself, here.
I *much* preferred The Fountainhead to Atlas Shrugged, because I thought she did a better job at character development, and to me, the plot was FAR more believable. The whole book, to me, seemed like a gigantic thought experiment that relied on too many presumptions about human psychology, and behavior. Also, she set up all these tortured relationships that made no sense to me. Rearden and his family were the only ones that did: it was a clear case of de-foo. But: what the hell was up between Dagne and Eddie Willard? Why go through all the trouble to set up the history there, and then do nothing with it? What was the deal with Francisco Danconia stringing Dagne along - in my mind - utterly needlessly for TWELVE FRIKKIN YEARS? Why did Galt "hide" himself on the line for that same time period, if he so much loved this woman? Ridiculous. Nobody would wait that long. All so that Dagne would "get it" all by her lonesome? To me, that was borderline sociopathy.
Which gets me to the next point: INDIFFERENCE to your fellow man, is a necessity for "freeing" yourself from the tyranny of statist mythology? Please. I lived THAT life for 20 years - and got nowhere fast.
Then, there were the inconsistencies. Sigh. I ABSOLUTELY LOVED Rearden's court room speech, but then Rand has to go and dash it against the rocks of Ragnar Danneskjold's claim that military ships are the "necessary and proper activity of government"... WTF? Galt's speech was not bad, but went on and on and on and on, by comparison to Rearden's much simpler, much more precise, and much more consistent testament. Why? Because Galt tries to claim life itself is an objective value. Not so much.
Top it all off, with all the main characters tossing off their evening wear, doning ninja outfits, and going on a James-Bond style raid to rescue John Galt. It was actually so comical, I found myself laughing out loud, picturing Hank Rearden jumping into the doorway of that Guard's station, and declaring his name: "DUT-DAH-DAH!! I'M HANK REARDEN!" All the team needed was red capes, and the comic book fantasy would be complete! Then, they fly off into the sunset, in their private jets.... ppfft...
Anyway, apologies if I sort of rained on your picnic. I guess my hyper-critical motor got revved up a little too much. Funny - Rand isn't "Rand" enough for me...