The Most Overrated Books Showing 5,301-5,350 of 5,680

[Kallie]

Rodney wrote: ""The Catcher in the Rye" is a great American novel, but it's not going to appeal to people who enjoy punching in the face anyone they find weak or inferior. Salinger had fought against just those k..."

Good observations. I wish more people would offer substantive criticism of literary works instead of taking the opportunity to dump on novels and writers they don't understand and therefore resent.

[Raymond]

Apologies in advance to all those that did not like "Catcher in the Rye" as I loved it. I have read many better books since it was first sat in front of me but at the time I found it a revelation. Clever, interesting, compelling and most of all thought provoking. Often I would finish reading a section and think about what I had read for a far longer period than the reading involved.
Since this book was written the world has moved on, disassociation, dislocation and a feeling of not belonging were almost the byword of the eighties and nineties and so it does not have the intrinsic "Hit" that it had when I first read it but that does not remove it from the cannon of "Great Books" rather making it an originating novel that many others have enjoyed, followed and updated along the way.
Of course, I understand that everyone has their own tastes, ideals and loves in storytelling but this was once and in my opinion, still remains, a truly "Great" Novel.

[David]

Raymond wrote: "Apologies in advance to all those that did not like "Catcher in the Rye" as I loved it. I have read many better books since it was first sat in front of me but at the time I found it a revelation. ..."

Good point Raymond. I'm not a young man either and was a kid/teen of the 80's and felt many of the feelings you described above as a teen, (still do sometimes for that matter lol) but I still didn't feel this book, that said- no man's reality is universal right? I appreciate your thoughts on this and I'm glad to hear how much you enjoyed it.

[E.D.]

"I'd like to punch him in the face."

Let's put them in charge.

[Raymond]

David wrote: "Raymond wrote: "Apologies in advance to all those that did not like "Catcher in the Rye" as I loved it. I have read many better books since it was first sat in front of me but at the time I found i..."
David, Hi, I suspect that I am substantially older than you and that before you read "Catcher" you had possibly read many of the great books of the eighties and even if the music of the eighties could not shine a light on the that of the sixties and seventies (lol) there were many great writers plying their wares in the eighties and surpassing Salinger. Even when writing of similar thoughts and feelings and perhaps with "Catcher" as an inspiration, many wrote greater books with a similar ethos. But I was a child of an earlier age and like many felt dislocated from their own existence. (lol- still do at times) To me this book was the first time I saw it legitimized. Thoughtfully considered. An acceptance that no belief, amoral. does not equal bad nor does it good. It simply means; different.

[S.W.]

So in 2017, Holden Caulfield has been recast as the original Millennial snowflake? And the carousel is a "safe place?" And the phonies are people like me? CitR is holding up well...

[Petergiaquinta]

@Raymond

What books from the eighties do you think are on a similar topic as Catcher but surpass it? Or are you being ironic and I'm just sleepy?

The novel from the eighties I recall everybody wanted to compare to Catcher was Less than Zero, but it was just a thin, ugly book with little to offer.

And there was Bright Lights , Big City, but it was even worse...

Any titles you're thinking of?

[Gary]

Lewis wrote: "Nope."

You might want to give it another shot as an adult. Catcher is one of those books that gets inflicted on high school kids when their brains are too young, squishy and crackling with hormones to comprehend it, and it holds up a mirror to them in ways that they often find uncomfortable. I don't know that I "liked" it when I read it when I was 15 or so, and I certainly missed the nuances. I probably had the best possible reaction given my mental resources at the time: "heh, heh.... Cool, man." But at its core it's about a kid dealing with what we would now call (view spoiler)[PTSD after witnessing a gruesome suicide (hide spoiler)] and a lot of the character's behavior is based on that.

In fact, time for a re-read of my own, now I think on it.

[Janis]

Agree with all your comments.

i>Rodney wrote: ""The Catcher in the Rye" is a great American novel, but it's not going to appeal to people who enjoy punching in the face anyone they find weak or inferior. Salinger had fought against just those k..."

[Rodney]

The thing that nags at me so much about "Catcher" is that people judge it a little too much on how closely they identify with the character. They will like if they like Holden and they will hate it if they hate him. These are valid approaches at some level, but you also have to step back and realize that it's about a troubled youth. You can empathize with him and at the same time realize that he's immature, naive, and a little unstable. He's one of those outsiders who sees the world in exaggerated terms, where everyone is either genuine or phony -- not perfectly accurate, but absolutely true to his feelings.

[Raymond]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "@Raymond

What books from the eighties do you think are on a similar topic as Catcher but surpass it? Or are you being ironic and I'm just sleepy?

The novel from the eighties I recall everybody wa..."

Ah, I am often Ironic and even sardonic but I was not being so this time. I loved "Catcher" but I felt that it was surpassed in the eighties by a few novels that espoused similar thoughts and ideals. Often written by great American writers (and I am a Brit and so have no wish to bum them up) but that said there are often great American writers. I considered "Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolfe on a similar theme and better than "Catcher" Also American Psycho By Bret Easton Ellis (though he was not fully published until 91. Do you wish me to trot out the great British writers? Lol- there are so many of them. Pat Barker, Salman Rushdie that wrote of the same things at the same time.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'll give you Salman Rushdie as one of the great talents of the 20th Century, but he's never written a coming of age novel, an introspective Bildungsroman of a lost soul like Holden trying to find his way in an ugly world. And I like Bonfire, but it's a work of satire, and Sherman (or whatever his name is) is a master of the universe. He's no Holden Caulfield.

The closest thing I can think of is Easton Ellis and Less than Zero, but as I already said I don't find much to like in that book.

[Rodney]

I'm not sure either what the exact 1980s comparison of Catcher would be, but I'll give you a pretty good bildungsroman of recent vintage: Black Swan Green by David Mitchell, from 2006.

[Gary]

Rodney wrote: "I'm not sure either what the exact 1980s comparison of Catcher would be, but I'll give you a pretty good bildungsroman of recent vintage: Black Swan Green by David Mitchell, from 2006."

I nominate:
Less Than Zero for the 1980s.
High Fidelity for the 1990s.

The point being, though, that Catcher has primacy in that sub-genre, or thematic emphasis--whatever one wants to call it.

[Gary]

Rodney wrote: "The thing that nags at me so much about "Catcher" is that people judge it a little too much on how closely they identify with the character. They will like if they like Holden and they will hate it..."

Agreed. For a lot of folks "relating" the the protagonist is vitally important in their reading experience and, in fact, I'm sure all readers do that to one extent or another. I'm not sure that readers who "like" Catcher because they "like" Holden are necessarily giving it a better read. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with folks reading a book for pure, escapist diversion, but that is a rather superficial way to read and probably not a great way to approach something like Catcher.

[Kallie]

Rodney wrote: "The thing that nags at me so much about "Catcher" is that people judge it a little too much on how closely they identify with the character. They will like if they like Holden and they will hate it..."

To me, reading fiction is just as much about access (through a skillful writer) to a character/consciousness different than my own as it is about finding something in them with which I identify, or admire. What I remember most about Holden is not how troubled he was though that was part of the story, but how compassionate he could be and that the 'phonies' he complained about tended to be bullying people who treated vulnerable people like objects.

[Raymond]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'll give you Salman Rushdie as one of the great talents of the 20th Century, but he's never written a coming of age novel, an introspective Bildungsroman of a lost soul like Holden trying to find ..."
In Mr Rushdie's case I was thinking of Ormus (I may have the name wrong as it was a long time ago I read it) in "The Ground beneath her feet" but it is not a coming of age story rather a one sided romance. Yet the character is so focused upon his imaginary love that he is disassociated from everything else and in a way is similar to Holden whilst being a polar opposite in what he wishes from life.

[Raymond]

Kallie wrote: "Rodney wrote: "The thing that nags at me so much about "Catcher" is that people judge it a little too much on how closely they identify with the character. They will like if they like Holden and th..."

Good point Kallie. I never did identify with Holden but I did understand how and why Holden became "Holden" due to the storytelling.

[Mitchell]

Thank you so much for your perspective, Kallie! I couldn't agree more. Over-esteeming identification with a book's main character(s) is a flawed premise. Estrangement is just as much of a literary value as is a sense of kinship. A reader's ability or inability to display compassion for a variety of characters is a mirror that self-aware readers will incorporate into the process of self-examination. Two-dimensional dismissal of characters and books as not accurately reflecting the reader back to him or herself is shallow and intellectually facile. Such readers are out of their depth with writers like Salinger; they're better off sticking to reality TV and Reader's Digest.

[Raymond]

Mitchell wrote: "Thank you so much for your perspective, Kallie! I couldn't agree more. Over-esteeming identification with a book's main character(s) is a flawed premise. Estrangement is just as much of a literary ..."

Ouch Mitchell. I get your point but are you not being a little obstreperous and hitting just a little below the belt. Those here that do not like the book are also intelligent thinking beings. Rather smart too by my reckoning and is literature not just a matter of taste. I think you silly for suggesting that someone that does not like Salinger (even as a fan) is stupid. Only a prigg would do so.

[Rodney]

Kallie, Holden is compassionate, but he is a complex character and no saint. It's even possible to see why people don't like him (although I remain against face-punching on principle). To me part of Salinger's great skill as a writer is that we (or at least I) empathize with Holden even as he reveals himself as an awkward and annoying person -- whether he's jumping on Stradlater's back or waking up Ackley to ask him to play canasta or carrying a snowball on to a public bus. Also, he can be a little phony himself, such as when he meets the mother of a student he hates and decides to tell her what a wonderful person her son really is, even though he knows he's bolstering a pointless and counter-productive delusion. Also, coming from wealth, Holden is very class conscious, even a bit of a snob, and gets very judgmental. ("The father had on one of those pearl gray hats that poor guys wear a lot when they want to look sharp.") Balanced against all this is the fact that while he has almost so real self-awareness he has an immense insight into people and an immense tenderness.

[Gary]

Raymond wrote: "Those here that do not like the book are also intelligent thinking beings."

Maybe. Maybe not.... At the very least, we can't assume that they are either intelligent or thinking. They've certainly failed in at least that one regard, and we should give it due weight. I wouldn't use Catcher as an IQ test by itself, but I'd take note of what someone said about it in exactly the opposite way I would if we were discussing Twilight or Snooki's autobiography. It's not an absolute, of course, but it is something to bear in mind.

[Rodney]

I'm on board with loving the book, but the very history of The Catcher in the Rye involves its rejection by people I would generally regard as intelligent. the following is from Louis Menand 's October 1, 2001 New Yorker article, "Holden at Fifty":


“The Catcher in the Rye” was turned down by The New Yorker. The magazine had published six of J. D. Salinger’s short stories, including two of the most popular, “A Perfect Day for Bananafish,” in 1948, and “For Esmé—with Love and Squalor,” in 1950. But when the editors were shown the novel they declined to run an excerpt. They told Salinger that the precocity of the four Caulfield children was not believable, and that the writing was showoffy—that it seemed designed to display the author’s cleverness rather than to present the story. “The Catcher in the Rye” had already been turned down by the publishing house that solicited it, Harcourt Brace, when an executive there named Eugene Reynal achieved immortality the bad way by complaining that he couldn’t figure out whether or not Holden Caulfield was supposed to be crazy. Salinger’s agent took the book to Little, Brown, where the editor, John Woodburn, was evidently prudent enough not to ask such questions. It was published in July, 1951, and has so far sold more than sixty million copies."

[Bill (Just a)]

Rodney wrote: ""The Catcher in the Rye" is a great American novel, but it's not going to appeal to people who enjoy punching in the face anyone they find weak or inferior. Salinger had fought against just those k..."

I liked what I have read by Salinger. I have not read this. I have recently read "Shoeless Joe". Salinger is a character in the novel. That has made me want to read "Catcher in the Rye".

[Kallie]

Rodney wrote: "Kallie, Holden is compassionate, but he is a complex character and no saint. It's even possible to see why people don't like him (although I remain against face-punching on principle). To me part o..."

Of course Holden is f;awed. annoying, phony himself at times, etc. He's like all interesting humans, and characters that I experiences as real rather than over-determined to fit some authorial ideal.

[K M]

I actually loved "Catcher in the Rye." I remember my class discussing the book in lecture, and most people thought he was whiny and an asshole, and yes: Holden Caulfield is able to pick out the worst characteristics in those surrounding him...everyone is a "phony." But, isn't this what we do when we are in pain? I know when I'm feeling down or grieving, and unable to talk to anybody about it, I can become bitter towards those around me.

Holden lost his brother, and wasn't able to express his pain to anyone. His parents ignored him. His "friends" at school used him. A trusted teacher/adult abused him (and it is suggested that it might not have been the first time)--and as the readers, we can see him falling into his mental breakdown by the end of the novel. I loved how you can see the contradiction between what was happening inside his mind and what was coming out of his mouth. I understand how people can dislike or even hate the book..(if I had read it in high school, I would have hated it too) but it will always be a book that will stay with me.

[Raymond]

Gary wrote: "Raymond wrote: "Those here that do not like the book are also intelligent thinking beings."

Maybe. Maybe not.... At the very least, we can't assume that they are either intelligent or thinking. Th..."

I loved the answer Gary, even though I am a big fan of "Snooki's autobiography". That Holden Caulfield fellow has little to offer that Snooki has not "set us straight" on already. I first read "Snookie's Disillusionment" when I was still young and was enraptured with the teen angst, her predilection for self harm and her final thrust into the limelight, I remember that it was rather green. The education by nuns, the dis-education on the christian god and her search for enlightenment elsewhere. Snooki's trips to India where she realised that the Hindus have a god for almost everything except for premature ejaculation. Snooki, of course, realised that he was coming soon..

[Jonathan]

Raymond wrote: "Apologies in advance to all those that did not like "Catcher in the Rye" as I loved it. I have read many better books since it was first sat in front of me but at the time I found it a revelation. ..."
I've read it twice, once in my 20's and once in my 50's and both times I found it wonderful and just as fresh and funny as the first time. Definitely an all time classic.

[Gary]

Raymond wrote: "I loved the answer Gary, even though I am a big fan of "Snooki's autobiography". That Holden Caulfield fellow has little to offer that Snooki has not "set us straight" on already. I first read "Snookie's Disillusionment" when I was still young and was enraptured with the teen angst, her predilection for self harm and her final thrust into the limelight, I remember that it was rather green. The education by nuns, the dis-education on the christian god and her search for enlightenment elsewhere. Snooki's trips to India where she realised that the Hindus have a god for almost everything except for premature ejaculation. Snooki, of course, realised that he was coming soon.."

Excellent analysis, Raymond. I'm going to try Tyra Banks book Modelland next which I'm pretty sure is an existentialist exploration of Jungian archetypes.

[Janis]

Agree wholeheartedly. Hated the book and could not understand the appeal.

i>Vickie wrote: "Rest In Peace to the author, but I thought The Bridges of Madison County was highly over rated!"

[Lewis]

My poorly chosen words came back to haunt me!

I am not in the habit of punching people in the face, and at my age it is generally not recommended. And outside of the boxing ring, where I was not very good at it, and a few times in self-defense, I've never done it and don't recommend it as a problem-solving tool.

That said, I still don't like CitR or Holden!

[Bill (Just a)]

Janis wrote: "So agree about Hemingway and avoid "dinner party" books like the plague. Did like "Emma" though."

One of my favorite books of last year was "The Dinner" by Herman Koch.

[Raymond]

I do not believe that I have ever read a "dinner party" book, even if some books that I have read have had dinner parties in them. I could not imagine such a thing being entertaining. That said I once watched a Norwegian (I think) film called "Festen" (I just looked it up- it is Danish- subtitled, of course) which was pretty much all set around a dining table.
It was full of clever dialogue and was excellent. Highly recommended.

[Iosif]

I loved all of them

[Brooklyn]

"The Catcher in the Rye
Moby Dick
The Great Gatsby
Waiting for Godot
The Stranger
Ulysses
Atlas Shrugged
The Da Vinci Code
Twilight"

How can one even put Twilight and Moby Dick in the same list? I would agree with Atlas Shrugged, DaVinci Code, Twilight - but sorry I find the rest great books - that require more time and effort on my part to appreciate. Perhaps from a different time - with references I don't always know - oftentimes taking a class or reading background to some of these books really helped.

My over-rated recent books I can think of is A Little Life
by Hanya Yanagihara -- and I did not love The Girls either. Both greatly praised and I felt ..not so much.

[Esdaile]

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 ..."

The Stranger is L'étranger by Camus? I do not think translations should be included at all. If someone does not speak the original language, how can they be sure much of what they dislike is not the fault of the translator? I am interested and pleased by the inclusion of Moby Dick because I am constantly told that this is a "great" story but those saying so seem singularly incapable of explaining their reasons for thinking so. Atlas Shrugged might be overrated in terms of literature but in terms of propaganda, no. As a work of propaganda it is hardly surpassed. As propaganda it is a work of genius. James Joyce's Ulysses-must read it again. Waiting for Godot is overrated I think but surely there are more "worthy candidates" for inclusion? I am wondering about Middlemarch by George Eliot. I cannot for the life of me understand why this novel is praised so highly and on so many literature course reading lists. The Catcher in the Rye I totally agree! Never have I read such poor stuff so highly recommended. I literally threw it into a dustbin, something I hardly ever do with a book. It was very poor stuff indeed. Absolutely third rate and it is astonishing to me that so many people professed to value it and so many critics praised it. Why?

[Esdaile]

Emma wrote: "Honestly, it depends on your personal preferences. There are plenty of books that I think aren't worth the paper they are printed on, but other people think are the greatest books ever. There are a..."

If you think a book is "not worth the paper it is written on" that is a judgement and not a personal preference. This confusion is often made.

[Kallie]

"How can one even put Twilight and Moby Dick in the same list? I would agree with Atlas Shrugged, DaVinci Code, Twilight - but sorry I find the rest great books - that require more time and effort on my part to appreciate. Perhaps from a different time - with references I don't always know - oftentimes taking a class or reading background to some of these books really helped."

Totally agree. People need to differentiate between failure to comprehend/appreciate, or contextual ignorance, or lack of patience, and bad writing. So, I am having a very difficult time getting through Ulysses, but I know damn well that doesn't make it a trash book. It's just not a book I am ready for and should try later or study with someone who has greater understanding of the work than I can summon. By the way, Middlemarch is a great novel, whether someone understands why Dorothea's misplaced admiration is an important facet of human self-deception or not.

[Brooklyn]

here! here!
100 thumbs up: " People need to differentiate between failure to comprehend/appreciate, or contextual ignorance, or lack of patience, and bad writing."
It doesn't mean I have to love anything "classic" - I still cannot get through Pride & Prejudice (and people love it I know) - but I don't declare it over-rated! I can appreciate a well-written book and not like it.

[Jennie]

Bravo! A comment that needed to be made. I have chosen not to read certain books -- Harry Potter -- does that make me less of a person because I do not like to read fantasy, horror or science fiction. I like to read what I like to read. I find great literature in other types of genres. Watching James Lee Burke's words dance across the page are moving and oh so delightful.

I like to read about people who overcome adversity, women who are champions in a variety of fields, female authors, to name a few.

[Kallie]

Joe wrote: "I still cannot get through Pride & Prejudice (and people love it I know) - but I don't declare it over-rated! I can appreciate a well-written book and not like it. "

Exactly!

[Brooklyn]

Interesting article re: topic
http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2007/...
"Great Disappointments

Ten LRC contributors warn of “classic” books with over-sized reputations."

[Gary]

Joe wrote: "Interesting article re: topic
http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2007/...
"Great Disappointments

Ten LRC contributors warn of “classic” books with over-sized reputations.""

That's a funny and informative article, and I'm very much in agreement with Vidal re: Moby Dick. (I don't often agree with the Gore-Meister, in fact, but when yer right, yer right.)

I have to admit, though, several of those books weren't even on my RADAR. Hard to think of a book as over-rated if one hasn't even rated it....

[Rodney]

I admire Gore Vidal in many ways, but I never read anything by him that was as good as Moby-Dick. I'm inclined to agree that Underworld doesn't amount to a whole lot, however. Everyone who reads it remembers the classic prologue about Bobby Thomson's famous 1951 home run. But I've yet to meet a reader who recalls anything that occurs in the hundreds of pages that follow.

[Brooklyn]

Gary wrote: "Joe wrote: "Interesting article re: topic
http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2007/...
"Great Disappointments

Ten LRC contributors warn of “classic” books with over-sized reputat..."

I finally read Moby Dick last summer and enjoyed it very much warts and all - but I read it knowing what to expect!

[Petergiaquinta]

Gore Vidal was a well-manicured guest on many a talk show whose urbane wit might have won him a few invitations to dinner, but he's a pretty awful writer, and while he may be an expert on dicks in general, his opinion on Moby Dick is nothing but blubber.

[Raymond]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Gore Vidal was a well-manicured guest on many a talk show whose urbane wit might have won him a few invitations to dinner, but he's a pretty awful writer, and while he may be an expert on dicks in ..."

I agree.

[Kallie]

Rodney wrote: "I admire Gore Vidal in many ways, but I never read anything by him that was as good as Moby-Dick I'm inclined to agree that Underworld doesn't amount to a whole lot, however. Everyone who reads it..."

What do you admire about him? Just curious, because he was clever and handsome but also very privileged, none of which qualifies him to judge a genius like Melville -- not even the very flawed Pierre much less Moby Dick . (I see, though, that he also called MB a 'Masterpiece' whatever that means to him. I enjoyed Underworld though it's true I don't remember much other than a nun teacher and woman artist; the narrator was pretty invisible. I recently read Falling Man. De Lillo is a strange writer. I think it's the voice and writing itself that are arresting, more than the narrative, and why I re-read him. I just like his writing.

[Rodney]

He has as much right to judge Melville as any of us, although I disagree with his opinion. I think on balance Vidal's legacy is that he's a terrifically entertaining and engaging writer who left behind some good novels and some remarkable essays. In particular he wrote absolutely first-rate literary criticism; I think that's where his talents really blossomed. When he wrote about politics, he led with his biases, and his thoughts tended to be somewhat predictable. When he essayed literary talent, he seemed to have a much broader scope. He was part of that great tradition of novelist critics who read closely closely and pulled things apart and tried to figure out how the machinery worked. I've always liked his essays on Henry James, for example. As for DeLillo, I don't know - I found that voice began to wheeze after the 300-page mark. The impression I got at the time was that he overextended himself, or at least he did for me. I got tired of listening to him. You have to have a powerful voice to sustain a book of that kind of scope.

[Sarah]

I couldn't even finish The Catcher In The Rye, as much as I wanted to see where it was going. I like Great Gatsby but imagine it is over-hyped. I was in middle school when Twilight was released and it was definitely overrated. I couldn't get into the books or the movies.