http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/misc/read.html
I found this list and I figured it would be of interest to everyone here. I noticed “The Driver” is notable absent. Also, I wonder how many of these books contributed to her thought process’ that would eventually become Objectivism? I might make is a life-goal to sit down and read all the books’ shes read. Along with reading all her works, Mises’s works, Friedmans’ works, Hazlitt’s works, Mill’s works, all the comics I want to read and…
Ah, I got a long road ahead of me. 
What’s intereting about this list is that I recently had a disagreement with my friend about Objectivism and how an Objectivist would really not have any interest for books like Harry Potter because they are not a reflection of reality. And from what I see, Ayn Rand likely would agree. The closest thing I see to it would be 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea but even that wouldn’t count because what Jules verne wrote about eventually came to be, more or less.
What’s intereting about this list is that I recently had a disagreement with my friend about Objectivism and how an Objectivist would really not have any interest for books like Harry Potter because they are not a reflection of reality. And from what I see, Ayn Rand likely would agree.
In regards to the Harry Potter series, I can certainly apply the following to it, and won’t reach anywhere near the same conclusion that you had. This is what Rand had written in The Art of Fiction about fantasy as such:
[On fantasy:] there is science fiction, which projects future inventions. There are magic stories, which project supernatural powers (fairy tales would be an example). There are ghost and horror stories. And there are stories about the hereafter—about heaven and hell.
All of these forms are rational when they serve some abstract purpose applicable to reality.
What kinds of fantasies are not justified? Those with no intellectual or moral application to human life[…]
There are several threads on the board that bring up the issue of the use of magic in fantasy, discussions about the HP series and so forth.
There are several threads on the board that bring up the issue of the use of magic in fantasy, discussions about the HP series and so forth.
Certainly Terry Goodkind doesn’t seem to see any conflict between Objectivism and fantasy, being that he’s both an Objectivist and a best-selling fantasy author.
One might also consider this ARI op-ed from late 2001: Thank You, Harry Potter!
More generally, the whole idea that there are kinds of books and movies that Objectivists “shouldn’t” like is pernicious and wrong. It’s often a sign of rationalism, and can easily lead to people repressing their love for some kind of art in the name of being ‘good Objectivists’. The end of that road is rejecting Objectivism in the name of self-expression. If there is some kind of art that you like, but feel uncomfortable about, the proper response is to introspect and ask yourself “what is it that I like about this?” and then judge the answer based on its impact on your life and happiness. (If you find that you like horror movies because you enjoy the spectacle of people being brutally murdered, that should probably disturb you. But if you find that you like them, as Leonard Peikoff does, because they bring back fond childhood memories, well, what’s wrong with that?)
I am sure that she read many more books than this, but it is an interesting comparision to literary critic Harold Bloom’s Western Canon, most of which are missing on Rand’s list. Yes, I know Bloom’s opinion of Rand; nevertheless, I am confident that he is the most well-read person on earth in the 20th century, and in my estimation, his list of literary works is for the most part crucial (with a few notable exceptions of course, namely Rand).