Ranting about Rand

I just finished reading a play of Ayn Rand's called "Night of January 16th". Now I think Rand and her philosophies are absolutely ridiculous - for the most part - to begin with, and this play only heightened my dislike for her writing.

The play is set as a murder trial but it essentially pits two diametrically opposite attitudes and philosophies against each other, with the twist that the jury (who is effectively picking one or the other depending on whether they find the defendant guilty or not) is selected from members of the audience.

I think this was her attempt at finding out whether or not the average person believes in her ideas. She says she tried to make the facts of the case fairly balanced, but I'm sure you would agree that facts are not the only things that influence the jury at a trial or indeed an audience at a play.

Throughout the play I got the distinct impression that she was loading the dice in favour of her own philosophy altogether too conveniently; not in any obvious way but, for example, in her descriptions of the main characters' appearances and behaviour etc. What a hypocritical attempt to be "fair"!

Reading the introduction only made it worse. Here is a woman who claims that mankind's only goal should be personal ambition and excellence, regardless of, and if necessary, in opposition to all social norms and laws - it's about what you can and cannot do, not what you should or should not do - and then talks about how she repeatedly allowed theatre companies and Hollywood studios to massacre her play. So much for personal excellence and not bowing to popular tastes.

Which brings up an interesting point: should one practise what one preaches? Or can Rand follow her own philosophy and choose not to, simply because she can? What do you think?