A lot of people seem to review Ayn Rand just to have a chance to display their lack of wit in acerbic rants--the woman inspires a lot of invective. I'm actually a fan and admirer of her writing and ideas by and large, yet even I give this pretty low marks. Only I think for those who feel they must read everything by her. Mind you, maybe this would play better on the stage than on the page. The play calls for audience participation, and I can imagine that could be a lot of fun. Members of the audience are empaneled as the jury and in the end vote on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
I think it's obvious knowing Rand she'd vote for acquittal. Rand says in the introduction she tried to weigh the evidence in such a way that you could go either way on guilt or innocence so what would come into play are your own values and prejudices. I have to admit, the lawyer in me rather winces at that very concept. Because under the American system, surely if there's a reasonable doubt as to guilt, surely that calls for a non-guilty verdict whatever your beliefs? So I can't really get behind the premise and the concept seems rather gimmicky to me--even if I admit overall I enjoyed the read, those flaws bug me too much to rate this higher. Incidentally, though this is the title in the production of the play, I greatly prefer Rand's original title: Penthouse Legend.
