I really enjoyed this book. However, if someone is new to Rand's writings, I would recommend some of her other works as this book tends to go a little deeper on her philosophy.

Good intro to philosophy from the perspective of what philosophical questions, issues, and misconceptions are relevant to her philosophy. Though, there are lots of claims that are hard to buy on an initial read, without having read that which she opposes.

This book is about a 3 star one for me. I liked it some of it and didn't like other parts of it. It seemed a bit disjointed. However, this book's essays were put together after Rand's death so the fault is not entirely her own. Some of her essays went on and on. I skipped the Skinner essay and those where she ripped apart one philosopher or another. Rand's argument was most effective when talking about government and politics. Rand for professing being reasonable is actually quite emotional, but that is understandable. She is human.
I can see her frustration in things and I understand the points she was trying to make.
Rand, herself, was outspoken on many things that I don't agree with. However, her main point above all else is that in our free society dissention, disagreement, and debate is encouraged. We should never want to live in a country where what we can say, read, or do is selected for us by the state. This is overall her strongest message.
Rand's second to last chapter is the best. She urges one to select one issue that you care about, fight for it with all you believe in, and do not remain silent. This can apply to so much.
Rand's overall message is to believe in yourself always, take responsibility for your own actions, do not take on undeserved guilt, and that you deserve to have a good and productive life.

When we allow the government to form believing they do good for us. Sometimes the whole scenario will be confusing and difficult to understand, these are the times we need scholars to step in to write for the common man in common language.

Ayn Rand is one such scholar and philosopher who takes events, and boldly interprets and more like giving lashes.
The beginning itself was enlightening, the common language of rulers that they say, they never believe in philosophy (coz Science slowly destroyed philosophy). But Author points out the whole communication of the ruler is nothing but the borrowed language from philosophers.
The best chapter you carry till your death is "an open letter to Boris Spassky" She uses his chess skill to understand his country's politics and must 'reread chapter' of the whole book and diplomatically explain how present socialism/communism exploits and stabs the common man.
She interprets the book written by B. F. Skinner's "Beyond freedom and Dignity". This was praised as awesome by newspapers and by Government bureaucrats, the author tarnishes the hypocrisy adopted by the government for granting huge sums for writing the book and how the book lacks the quality of the explained concept.
I can challenge out of 18 chapters at least 15 of them compete with each other to enlighten us. 
You need an author like Ayn Rand because she even challenges the government and the Court on enforcing some rules, especially the Prohibition of  Pornography. She interprets how the government interferes in day to day behaviour of humans without knowing what it is.

The most interesting phrase about our economy is "We are passengers on a plane flying at tremendous speed. One of these days, we will discover that its cockpit is empty".

The best thing about this book is not that you will agree with every conclusion but you will be motivated to draw your own conclusions on sound basis of reason.

I enjoyed this book, as I do most Ayn Rand books, but I found this one to be a little bit repetitive at times. (That's maybe to be expected from a collection of articles she wrote for various audiences over the years.)
That said, I did finally get some explanations to some questions I'd had about her philosophy for a while. For example she delves into theoretical economics and academic philosophy more than in her novels, which are riveting but leave some things unanswered.
I'd say this is good overall for those who've read her novels and have more questions, but certainly not for someone new to Rand.

While this book is a great reference to understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, its true value is in explaining what philosophy is and why it's important.

An extremely important lesson in today's world, especially when so many discussions are fruitless exchanges of opinion, without knowing - let alone questioning - basic philosophical assumptions.

The essays in this book target several audiences.

If you're new to Philosophy
Chapter 1: "Philosophy: Who Needs It"
Which is now also available in the form of a video here: Philosophy: Who Needs It

Chapter 6: An Open Letter to Boris Spassky

If you're new to Ayn Rand's philosophy

Chapter 7: "Faith and Force - The Destroyers of the Modern World."

For practical tips on how to study Philosophy critically
Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection

Most of the other chapters are better read after reading Rand's novels (particularly The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), and 3 of her non-fiction books: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

This title is the first I've read of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. The first several chapters were quite difficult to read. Not because the subject matter was particularly onerous to understand, rather Ms. Rand's continued blunt frontal assault of opposing philosophies had an effect I'm sure she didn't intend - it made me feel as if I wanted to reject all that she stood for. In these early chapters Ms. Rand came across with such a strong rationalistic argument I was wondering whether she had an ounce of emotion or feeling, whether she was just a rationalistic being devoid of any human element. Taking her objective philosophy to its extreme end one would be left with a world of unfeeling humans exploiting every available resource (to include each other) to get ahead. Moving on in the book - especially chapters 15 & 16 express what her true vision is and better expresses her concerns with were the United States is headed long term. I still don't know whether I believe everything Ms. Rand espouses in this collection of letters, essays and speeches. I'll have to do some additional reading to fully comprehend her Objectivist philosophy and make a value judgment from my perspective.

I was given this book by a friend who is a student of objectivism, who claimed it had profoundly influenced him.

I'll start with some quotes from the book:

"I am confident enough to think that if you accept the importance of philosophy and the task of examining it critically, it is my philosophy that you will come to accept."

Later on:

"If his professed beliefs—i.e., the rules and slogans of his group—are challenged, he feels his consciousness dissolving in fog. Hence, his fear of outsiders. The word “outsiders,” to him, means the whole wide world beyond the confines of his village or town or gang—the world of all those people who do not live by his “rules.” He does not know why he feels that outsiders are a deadly threat to him and why they fill him with helpless terror. The threat is not existential, but psycho-epistemological: to deal with them requires that he rise above his “rules” to the level of abstract principles. He would die rather than attempt it."

In the second quote, she is literally describing herself. She categorizes anyone who doesn't think like her as evil, and someone who fails to critically examine philosophy. According to her, the evidence that you arrived at the truth is that you accepted her philosophy, because her philosophy is the truth.

Despite her attempts to promote 'rationality' and 'objectivity,' I experience Ayn Rand through her writing as a highly emotional person. Her writing is paved with emotional outbursts, expressing her disdain for those who hold opposing opinions, and labeling and associating anything "evil" with being a "kantian" or "mystic". In her opinion, the source of all evil is kant.

She even labels communists as "neo mystics."
That one actually made me laugh. I do like her roasts.

One of the central ideas in her book is the dichotomy of being either connected to reality or not. By doing so, she indirectly acknowledges the existence of a reality beyond her perception. This recognition that individuals can be disconnected from her version of reality, implies the existence of a tangible reality beyond her perception, because if someone is not connected to reality, well, then were he is connected to? To nothingness?

I also found myself questioning the basis on which she deduces that the prevailing spirit of the world is altruism. Where, in reality, are these altruistic people she speaks of?

She has a tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on a few examples without explaining the connections to the poor outcomes. She attributes these outcomes to "altruism" and claims that "mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality." However, it's unclear how she backs up this argument. She seems to cherry-pick instances from history where mysticism was present and then concludes that mysticism is the sole cause of these historical periods' problems. This approach oversimplifies complex historical contexts, reducing them to singular causes. This reductionist approach ignores the intricate interplay of various factors in shaping historical eras, and by doing so, she's ironically taking an anti-conceptual stance.

As I progressed through the book, it became increasingly repetitive, with Rand continually condemning Kant, attributing him and anyone who remotely agrees with him, to the world's all evil.

She perpetuates the notion that the rich are virtuous while imposing taxes on them is a punishment for the talented, and helping the poor is rewarding the unskilled.

She has a whole chapter dedicated to a rant against chess where she explains why russians are lame because they are good at chess. Yup. Ayn Rand? More like Ayn Rant. This was the epitom of the ridiculousness of her philosophy, in my opinion.

Objectivism offers a perspective that suggests we are living in a world populated by individuals detached and disconnected from reality. Rand and her disciples, in this view, stand as the sole bastions of reality in a world filled with kantian-mystics loonatics.

While she claims to condemn ideologies that hate people, she herself labels entire groups as "parasites" if they don't subscribe to her ideology. The irony!

In essence, this book represents a classic case of "the pot calling the kettle black."
Projection, is a recurring theme in her philosophy, wherein she often assigns to others the very characteristics she criticizes, while she presents the exact same characteristics herself.

In conclusion, I find her philosophy to be very shallow. I did enjoy reading it, she is funny, and it lead to some interesting discussions with my friend.

I think this book is worth reading for people who are interested in psychology, rather than in philosophy. It's a good look to how a mind of a low self-awareness person works.

I was once an ardent supporter of Ayn Rand during my college years. However, my worldview has matured over time. I simply cannot live Ayn Rand's philosophy. Her philosophical positions do not seem natural to me. I would argue that Rand is a powerful writer and philosopher. Her arguments are rational. She writes clearly and persuasively. But her values do not match mine. I disagree entirely with her metaphysical views, which has a domino effect on the other branches of my philosophical worldview- including epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. A major criticism that I have of her philosophy is that she tends to deride other thinkers who do not agree with her. She also, as I once read, confuses reason with the reasonable. She seems to coin a person as either a irrational left wing altruist, or Kantian, who lives for others, or as an individualist who lives for rational self interest. Her philosophy is very black and white. In fact, she wrote an article called "The Cult of Moral Grayness." Life is full of paradoxes and mysteries. Objectivism overlooks and represses the spiritual element. There are sharper analytical minds, like Aquinas, who have constructed arguments which put Rand's ideas into check. A human being is ultimately a rational being, a feeling being, and a spiritual being who longs for infinite love and wisdom. I am still in the process of making sense out of the vast political ideologies.

Someone with whom I was not getting along with once said "Who you are speaks so loud that I can't hear what you say." That would be an accurate summary of my feelings about this book. Rand's furious rhetoric speaks so loud that her message gets overshadowed; I get the impression that if Rand was alive today, her emails would be full of angry CAPITAL LETTERS to show how FURIOUS she is that people were too stupid to see the world the way she does.

Her treatment of 18th-c. philosopher Emanuel Kant is an example of her style. She quotes Kant for only a few paragraphs, but ceaselessly demonizes him, calling him (for example) "the man whose influence has almost succeeded in destroying the achievements of the Renaissance"(!). A better stylist would have spent much space explaining and rebutting Kant and less space blaming him for pretty much everything that has gone wrong for the last few centuries. (To her credit, she does do this occasionally- I just wish she had done so more often and less nastily).

In addition, she seems wedded to false dichotomies, whether in politics or in broader philosophical respects: she seems to believe that if reason is good, mysticism and religion must be completely worthless, if capitalism is good, anything other than pure laissez-faire is a suicidal compromise with communism, and if some rich people are deservingly so, everyone else (especially who might be in need of assistance to survive) must be incompetent, stupid or slothful. While she claims to follow Aristotle, Aristotle's support of the "golden mean" is not on her ideological radar screen.