Well, both. I don't completely disagree with her ideals (what's it called, objectivism or something?), but as usual with political ideologies, she takes it a little too far.
But yeah, the writing style is horrendous. I could handle the wooden prose in The Fountainhead, but Atlas Shrugged was more than wooden, it was titanium-encased reinforced steel. Plus, a general writing rule is that you never put a speech in a novel, and not only does she do so, but said speech is 200 pages long! I literally just skipped that entire section.
Not to mention the thing dragged a little, plotwise.
Not the worst thing I ever read, but it definitely huddles in the lower-middle of my book rankings. And I know plenty of people who love it, too. But, IMO, I think everything that was good about The Fountainhead wasn't present in Atlas Shrugged.
Oh structuraly I will very readily agree that Rand is a terrible writer. No question.
And the book would work much better if she weren't trying to force it as a vehicle for what clearly should have been a philisophical disertation and not a fictional monologue. Also, the heavy emphasis on sex detracts from major points of the storyline.
However, I'm in love with the idea of a top down destruction of society and I suppose for me that is enough to save the book.
But what do I know....I write books about people being mutilated. I doubt I'm any better.