The Most Overrated Books Showing 5,201-5,250 of 5,680

[Michael]

I realize that many readers adore her, but I cannot tolerate Virginia Woolf. While I enjoyed Mrs. Dolloway, I couldn't finish To the Lighthouse or The Waves, and was sorry I read Orlando to the bitter, pointless end.

[Gary]

I have to start by apologizing because there've been some very bright comments made recently and I'm just not going to properly reference you all appropriately. Kudos all around, and with that said:

Harold Bloom. Bloom is the guy who made me realize I didn't want to go to grad school. See, in order to be successful as an academic (by successful here we might as well mean "famous") in literature one has to be three things:

1. Well read.
2. Erudite.
3. Wrong.

Wrong might, in fact, be the most important of those three things. The only way to stand out from the crowd is to say "Shakespeare is a Freudian father figure!" or some completely clueless equivalent and that'll get you on a bunch of panels, maybe even Charlie Rose. The problem is that you then have to dedicate your career to making an ass of yourself, denying the obvious and spinning out elaborate UFO-conspiracy level garbage about art that you had, hitherto, cherished. Maybe one actually even believes that stuff... but what a way to live.

Or you can be a relatively good academic, teach literature by day, and sleep the sleep of the righteous and obscure.

Ulysses by Joyce. OK, here's the thing. I can see why someone would say this book shouldn't be part of the canon. It is... wrought, shall we say. As a novel, it's a great work of prosety; as poetry, it's a great philosophical tract; as a moral study, it's a great novelization. It's not a pleasure to read.

So, should it be the canon? No, probably not. At least, not in the sense that anyone other than Eng. Lit majors need read it during a senior seminar. Yeah, it should be there--really needs to be, in fact, but I wouldn't inflict it on anyone who didn't seek it out.

Virginia Woolf. Ugh. I get why she's on the list but ugh.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'm working on it, 34 years and counting...last month I finished the lengthy surrealistic play section (Circe?). Boyoboy that part's a head scratcher. And it goes on for over 100 pages!"

I skipped part of that- I cheated and I will admitt it proudly! But Poldy and Molly have a love story that kept me going.

[E.D.]

I remember being compelled to throw my poop when reading "Altered States"....but I'm not discounting drugs being a factor. :}

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But Ayn Rand has never been and never will be in the canon...that's just horseshit and it's always been horseshit."

Dangerous toxic horseshit.

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "I remember being compelled to throw my poop when reading "Altered States"....but I'm not discounting drugs being a factor. :}"

Hahahahaha!!! Funny drug stories, that could be a thread.

[Michael]

Karen wrote: "Michael, can you explain why you can't tolerate her?"

Karen, I find Woolf's stream-of-consciousness style in novels such as The Wave and To the Lighthouse to be confusing and ultimately unengaging, as I feel lost and do not connect emotionally with the characters.

Orlando is written in a different style, one that I found distant and uninteresting, and I felt that she wasted a potentially fascinating premise.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Karen wrote: "Michael, can you explain why you can't tolerate her?"

Karen, I find Woolf's stream-of-consciousness style in novels such as The Wave and To the Lighthouse to be confusing and ultimat..."

Yes! The Waves was just like that for me, the characters voices seemed so muffled and nonsensical, that's why I described it as feeling as if I was under water. It's interesting how readers either love an authors writing style or hate it.

[Mochaspresso]

Ok, pitchforkers...hear me out.

Obviously, canon worthy literature should consist of timeless and universal themes. Moby Dick has that. Vengeful obsessions that drive someone to the brink of madness, man vs. nature, internal conflict and man vs. himself, the bonds that form among men in close quarters are certainly timeless and universal themes, however I feel that these themes are not necessarily rooted in a profound historical context that is relevant to today or to modern readers. At least, not one that I consider profound. His writing was inspired by his time at sea as a sailor. Cool, but why should that be important to me today?

The Red Badge of Courage was about The Civil War. The Great Gatsby was about the Jazz Age and the Roaring 20's. Austen and Dicken's writing reflect specific periods in British history. Even "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" has historical context. Moby Dick has some historical context also, but I don't think Moby Dicks it is as profound or is relevant anymore. Growing up in the northeast, I know that whaling was once very important to the overall economy of that region, but it's not quite the same as reading Anne Frank's "Diary of a Young Girl" and studying the Holocaust at the same time. For whatever reason, the whaling just does not resonate with me. If anyone wants to advocate for the book and chime in on why I should care more, feel free.

[Karen]

Mochaspresso wrote;
"For whatever reason, the whaling just does not resonate with me. If anyone wants to advocate for the book and chime in on why I should care more, feel free."

Only because it's a classic and should stay one, and others care. You don't have to though!

[Kallie]

Moby Dick is also about obsession and revenge, which are as much a part of the human psyche as ever although seldom so beautifully rendered. And that's just part of the story.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'd also suggest, although I don't know if professors would agree with this or not, that in Moby Dick what Woolf and Joyce and other modernists are doing in their works to such an extreme that turns off many readers, Melville has begun doing here a generation and more earlier. There is the opening note from the sub-librarian (or whatever he's called), the list of whale quotations, the unreliable narrator, the chapters on blubber and other obscure cetological minutia...this isn't really "historical context" at all. It's a (pre-)modernist attempt to capture and depict the messy chaos that is life itself.

And I echo Kallie's opinion that Melville's language and story is beautifully rendered, which is not so much the case with much of Woolf's writing and only true in places in Joyce.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Moby Dick is also about obsession and revenge, which are as much a part of the human psyche as ever although seldom so beautifully rendered. And that's just part of the story."

Good one! Lots of people complain about the boring whaling part of the book, should that put one off reading it? I am curious about the book, I've heard so much about it from my husband and he and I sometimes have very different tastes in literature.

[S.W.]

I suspect Mocha's disinterest in whaling is much the same as my complete boredom with Victorian Society. I struggled through Austin and the Bronte Sisters' elegant books and was often overheard exclaiming, "Oh Christ, not another friggin' ball!"

[Kallie]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'd also suggest, although I don't know if professors would agree with this or not, that in Moby Dick what Woolf and Joyce and other modernists are doing in their works to such an extreme that turn...It's a (pre-)modernist attempt to capture and depict the messy chaos that is life itself."

Yes! Melville's later work bears this out. I want to read Moby Dick again. My first reading of a novel this poetic and layered seldom does the work justice. Karen, I think you might like it.

War and Peace: I'm glad I read it but doubt that I'll read it a second time.

[E.D.]

Thank the L'ard for Dickens, Wells, and historical proof. :}

[Karen]

Kallie wrote;
"Yes! Melville's later work bears this out. I want to read Moby Dick again. My first reading of a novel this poetic and layered seldom does the work justice. Karen, I think you might like it."

Thanks Kallie

[Rosalyn]

Totally agree with the list with the exception of the da vinci code.
One other I would add to the list is the poison wood bible. The book club I go to raved over it with me being the one lone dissenter.

[Michael]

Geoffrey wrote: "Da DeVinci Cold by far is at the bottom of that list. Piece of crap, pandering to Anti Catholic Catholics.
And no, I am not Christian.

Atlas Shrugged was boring. Ayn Rand is boring. Her political ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/boo...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10...

[Michael]

deleted user wrote: "Which books do you think are overrated?

Here's a quick sampling from various internet sites that recommend skipping these:
The Catcher in the Rye
Moby Dick
The Great Gatsby
Waiting for Godot
The ..."

Geoffrey wrote: "Da DeVinci Cold by far is at the bottom of that list. Piece of crap, pandering to Anti Catholic Catholics.
And no, I am not Christian.

Atlas Shrugged was boring. Ayn Rand is boring. Her political ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/boo...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10...

[[deleted user]]

Yes. I didn't think Poison wood bible was that great. But I also thought DaVinci code was not really literature

[Rosalyn]

Lucie wrote: "Yes. I didn't think Poison wood bible was that great. But I also thought DaVinci code was not really literature"

Our book club read the poisonwood bible. I was a lone dissenter in saying that I really didn't get it or like it in any way. The rest chose it as the best book the club had read that year. Just goes to show the quality of the books our library is able to get in enough quantity for the club.

[[deleted user]]

Rosalyn wrote: "Lucie wrote: "Yes. I didn't think Poison wood bible was that great. But I also thought DaVinci code was not really literature"

Our book club read the poisonwood bible. I was a lone dissenter in sa..."

I was told by a friend it was the best novel ever. I did not dislike it. But it seemed aged, like other books written at that time did not. I suppose it is like people, some age better than others.

[Petergiaquinta]

If you were the lone dissenter, why doesn't that say something about you and not the book?

[Petergiaquinta]

Sounds like maybe you were missing something...

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "If you were the lone dissenter, why doesn't that say something about you and not the book?"

Well, yes, that is entirely possible, what I presented was my opinion, not a fact.
Like with food,the fact that I like fish does not mean somebody else should. But I do not believe that an opinion is more correct if more people believe in it. That is a slippery slope in my opinion.

[Rosalyn]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "If you were the lone dissenter, why doesn't that say something about you and not the book?"

It probably does but isnt it a good thing that we are not all th same

[Raymond]

(and one less... maybe) controversial nominations for the "Ixnay from the Annoncay" game:

I agree with many of the comments on this page (Ayn Rand for one) but not Moby Dick surely. This is one of my favourite novels of all time, granted it is rather large and Melville did like the sound of his own voice but it is one of the greatest stories ever told, with memorable characters It even added to the language we use today. Sure it is not particularly relevant anymore (except that Camilla Lackberg just produced a modern detective story set on a whaling ship and how many times ((current sales over 19million)) did peter Hoek referance MD in Miss Smillas sense for snow) but then neither is The Illiad or Beowulf.
Ah surely MD cannot be cast into the abyss.




::gasps::

"But man versus nature!" you say. "And it's all Moby and Dicky with ..."

[Amanda]

I loved Atlas Shrugged though it was a "bit" heavy handed! Twilight, never read and I've no plans to. The 50 Shades books are smut. Pure and simple. Not good writing but they have a place.
I found The Catcher in the Rye to be irritating too. I was waiting for it to be life changing, It was not. I like The Great Gatsby.
Personally, I can't stand Ernest Hemingway books, but people adore them! I also doing it funny that people rave over certain books that I just can't get into. Tropic of Cancer and Slaughterhouse 5 being two stand out. Just really disliked them from the start and could not finish them. Oh and I need to add To Kill a Mockingbird. Just not for me.

[S.W.]

Put Gardner's Grendel on the list of over-rated books. I heard he tried to burn it at one point but his wife saved the manuscript. This may be apocryphal. In any event, it was a slog.

[Karen]

Rosalyn wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "If you were the lone dissenter, why doesn't that say something about you and not the book?"

It probably does but isnt it a good thing that we are not all th same"
It may be a good thing- everyone has different tastes. But when you say you didn't get it, I have a feeling you may have given up on it. And ofcourse it may not be for everyone; but it is a beautifully written book and a profound one. I read it years ago.

[Raymond]

The catcher in the rye, is pretty good in it's own dull way and the same applies to "To kill", lol and for me the GG, I found contrived and dull (sorry). Great to add you as a friend Amanda. Pissed you off already I think but just my thoughts rather than gospel. Tis' nice to meet you.

[[deleted user]]

I read all this stuff in Czech.
I loved Catcher in the Rye, I think MOby Dick is interesting, and I loe Hemingway and To kill a mocking bird.
ALl in Czech. Maybe it is better in Czech. LOL

[Amanda]

Eh, Raymond, it happens. The best thing is there are so many different books out there we have many choices!

[Vickie]

Thank goodness we all are different!

I love the Oryx and Crake trilogy from Margaret Atwood and a good friend hated the first so much, she never read them all. We used to belong to the same book club until I moved, and I would always "threaten" to recommend them for us all to read!

And other books people loved, I absolutely HATED! ( The Shack, Lev Grossman's The Magician, The Goldfinch, The Alchemist by Coelho, The Great Gatsby, The Twilight series (interestingly concept poorly executed!)

I have one friend who's recommendations I take with a grain of salt. She loves EVERYTHING,, even real schlock (in my opinion,).

Fortunately for all of us, there are so many books out there, that if you like to read, you will find something that catches you!

[Vickie]

Karen: I loved the Poisonwood Bible! A friend offered it to me to read in 1999 and I declined when she told me what it was about. I finally reD it and LOVED it! goes to show we are not identical! Thankfully, if we were, WHO would we be ?

[Carrie]

The alchemist, pillars of the earth. Hated it.

[Raymond]

I have never read the fifty shades books and so cannot comment on them nor the twilight series but I did watch the films which I found a bit dull but OK (is that not a damning review) I am not Hemingway's biggest fan but rather enjoyed the old man and the sea. I was raised in a fishing village where success or failure at sea meant the difference between living and starving so you can imagine why I like that one. "To Kill" was a great book in my opinion but it has dated terribly. Anything that involves the spirit of the age is often lost quickly no matter how good at the time.
But I have another couple of classics that I wish dropped into the abyss of "never quite worked" the first is "White Fang" by Jack London. He hated writing this book even though it has become a classic, he disagreed with almost every word he wrote.
The second is Proust. A truly great and descriptive writer with nothing at all to say other than that he can write.

[Amanda]

Another "Classic" I hated...Wuthering Heights. I know...shoot me. I could not stand Heathcliff OR Cathy. Simpering fools. I was straight up angry that I had to read that in high school. So many great books out there, and they made us read that!?

[Matthew]

Interesting comment by Raymond:

"Anything that involves the spirit of the age is often lost quickly no matter how good at the time."

And yet there are certain genres that are ageless. They seem to trancend time and are just as relevant today as they were in their inception.

[Raymond]

Matthew I agree with you completely. Read Beowulf now or Njal's Saga. It makes no difference the century (other than from a language perspective) when the book was written but "sixties" literature exists in its own small vacuum of substantial change. I do not mean to demean it in any way ,nor make it less important but is simply, now, a moment viewed in time (and in only one place). That time has long passe and perceptions have changed (except perhaps in the locale of the book) and so there is little to say other than it existed. A product of it's time. I do not mean to run down the likes of Lee or Capote there as I thought them great but their time has passed and they should be remembered but their time has passed.

[Vickie]

Vickie wrote: "Karen: I loved the Poisonwood Bible! A friend offered it to me to read in 1999 and I declined when she told me what it was about. I finally reD it and LOVED it! goes to show we are not identical! T..."

I also HATED Pillars of the Earth. Tried reading it 3 times based on friends' recommendations, and just could not get into it!

[John]

Re: Gardner-Grendel. I liked it. Gardner wrote some fine prose on the subject of writing, and Grendel showed his mastery of both writing and translation, giving the old English a figurative twist that preserved the thrust of the original, I thought

[Carrie]

I loved Poisonwood. That said- I also loved Wuthering heights, Great Gatsby, Watership Down, 1984, A tree grows in Brooklyn, Lolita, TKAMB...Classics I could get in to. Classics I could NOT = War and Peace, Scarlet letter, the old man and the sea....

[[deleted user]]

Carrie wrote: "I loved Poisonwood. That said- I also loved Wuthering heights, Great Gatsby, Watership Down, 1984, A tree grows in Brooklyn, Lolita, TKAMB...Classics I could get in to. Classics I could NOT = War a..."

I think translations of Russian literature are poor in English. But try War and Peace again. I read it once as a teenager and once about 6 yeasr ago, it was a different book!
I loved most Hmeingway's books, but nt The Old man and the Sea.
I think on balance, we all have different tastes, and maybe dividing books into Classics and non classics is a mistake.

[Philip]

Raymond wrote: "(and one less... maybe) controversial nominations for the "Ixnay from the Annoncay" game:

I agree with many of the comments on this page (Ayn Rand for one) but not Moby Dick surely. This is one of..."

I agree completely, though the alternate chapters on the nature of whales is a bit distracting, especially the one where Melville argues that a whale is a fish!

[Carrie]

I plan on taking on Moby Dick. I have some other classics on my list I need to read like Anna Karenina for one! Maybe I will give War and Peace another go even if it is a huge undertaking. I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone bashing Steinbeck on this thread...

[Raymond]

John wrote: "Re: Gardner-Grendel. I liked it. Gardner wrote some fine prose on the subject of writing, and Grendel showed his mastery of both writing and translation, giving the old English a figurative twist t..."

I also loved this one. I read it many years ago but it still resides upon a bookshelf. I think that I shall revisit it. Great wee book.

[Joyce]

I really enjoyed Anna Karenina but had to check it out from the library 3 times.

[Carrie]

That was me with Pillars of the Earth. I just could not do it.smh. I tried, I honestly did.