The first time I read this book I liked it but didn't really understand it. On this reread, I feel I understood it much better and also liked it much less.

Stirner's style is... strange? He simultaneously fits perfectly into stereotypes of philosophical writing of Stirner's time and also satirises them - I was never quite sure which was the real one. His writing is unclear, playing on small similarities in words (I cannot imagine the book translating well out of german, to be honest), repetitive, and he never clearly states his argument. It is so on the nose that it almost feels like a parody, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating. This book could have easily been trimmed down to 1/3rd or 1/4th of its length.

The main point of the book, as I read it, felt very Hegelian (in that it introduces a dialectic and then massively overgeneralises everything to fit into that dialectic). Repeatedly and through different tools (patterns of human life, history) he outlines a dialectic of Realistic - Idealistic - Egoistic. In the first stage you are restricted by material conditions, in the second by mental ones (spooks). 
it is the last stage he is most interested in, and it is the one he is championing. Here, you realise your egoism and life freely according to your true desires, free from the societal "spooks" of laws, morality, gods, or rationality. This is not greedy, egotistical selfishness - it's simply realising that there are no real restrains keeping you from acting in accordance with your own.

There is definitely good stuff here, it's just very tedious to get to. I'm only giving it 2*s firstly because it should have been significantly shorter and second of all because I hate continental philosophy so much oh my god.

EDIT: For some reason I keep thinking about this book. Maybe it deserves +.5*.