A gorgeous little book! Nice pictures, nice admiring tone for an eminently admirable person. Made me want to see the movie.
Should it be criticized for its ignoring or giving only a mere mention of Rand's faults and/or the worst moments of her life? Well, read the introduction. Paxton says right out that his purpose is not to tell all but "to express the summation of who Ayn Rand was as a person," as demonstrated by benevolent, joyful, heroic sense of life. So he has selectively focused on certain aspects of Rand's life but not others. Is this nonobjective of him? No, because every biographer must include some facts and omit others. Which facts are included depends on the author's purpose. In Paxton's case, he's wrong only if his view of the essence of Rand's life is wrong. If certain facts of Rand's life don't contribute to an understanding and appreciation of her sense of life, then, in Paxton's case, they are justifiably omitted. (It goes without saying, of course, that Paxton rejects the unbacked-by-evidence claims of Rand's ghoulishness by the Brandens, et al.)
Some people probably find fault with Paxton's purpose, but I don't know what to say to them other than that the purpose of MY life is enjoyment. I don't and shouldn't want to focus on the sad and disgusting little details when I don't have to.