The Most Overrated Books Showing 5,501-5,550 of 5,680

[[deleted user]]

Anne wrote: "I'd say The Girl on the Train is overrated; left me completely cold."

But that is not considered real literature, is it? That is easy reading

[Anne]

Lucie wrote: "Anne wrote: "I'd say The Girl on the Train is overrated; left me completely cold."

But that is not considered real literature, is it? That is easy reading"

Lucie wrote: "Anne wrote: "I'd say The Girl on the Train is overrated; left me completely cold."

But that is not considered real literature, is it? That is easy reading"

I didn't realise the list was confined to 'literature'. The Da Vinci Code? Really?

[Janis]

I agree with the both of you but it would be a horribly dull world if everyone thought Harry Potter books were great! We are all different and not cut from the same loaf. We change, we evolve and hopefully we do not see everything from the the viewpoint.


Lucie wrote: "Madison wrote: "Being overrated is definitely a matter of opinion, but I guess everyone has one... my "most overrated book" would be...Harry Potter. I know I seem to be the resident HP hater (even ..."

[Kallie]

I agree with what Stephen said about just commenting on the books that excite us. I just read 'Lila' by Marilynne Robinson. I felt right inside Lila's life and mind, not just the loneliness and poverty, but the beauty that kept her going. I've resisted Robinson at times because she is in a humanist way religious but this book was so powerful (and enchanting, like 'Housekeeping,' my other favorite by her) I began thinking, Well, if Robinson believes in god, I'm not going to rule him out.

[Janis]

It was great literature when I was a sophomore in high school. My definition about grew literature changed through the decades.

[Muhamed]

Michael wrote: "Making a list like this is like making a list of the most over rated ice cream flavors.

Chocolate
Strawberry
Vanilla

What do you think constitutes something being 'over rated' to begin with? Is i..."

I second this comment. You nailed it.

[Aayush]

This list is absolute tosh. The dismissal of a book for its difficult manner or abstruse references is denying artistic merit where it is due. None of those books are overrated except Twilight (that piece of shit.)

[Gary]

Aayush wrote: "This list is absolute tosh. The dismissal of a book for its difficult manner or abstruse references is denying artistic merit where it is due. None of those books are overrated except Twilight (tha..."

The Da Vinci Code is crap too, though I don't think "over-rated" really applies to either that book or Twilight since they're pretty universally trounced by serious readers. I guess if by "over-rated" one means or "pop lit" or "pulp lit" then they might qualify, but I don't think I'd stretch the term that far.

[Kallie]

Aayush wrote: "This list is absolute tosh. The dismissal of a book for its difficult manner or abstruse references is denying artistic merit where it is due. None of those books are overrated except Twilight (tha..."

Well said. And great books can also be written in deceptively simple, casual style and vernacular (i.e., Gatsy and Catcher).

[Beachparrot]

"Whenever I see a person slam, or call The Catcher In the Rye an overrated, my heart breaks a little more. It is beyond my comprehension how someone can hate this book. "

I agree with you. The Catcher In The Rye is an incredible book.

[Kallie]

Timothy wrote: "Michael wrote: "Making a list like this is like making a list of the most over rated ice cream flavors.

Chocolate
Strawberry
Vanilla

What do you think constitutes something being 'over rated' to ..."

Jane Eyre is still one of my favorites after 3 or so reads, and I found the Scarlet Letter haunting and timeless. Both called out hypocrisy and sexism in unique, deeply felt voices.

I also like Catcher a lot, but not as well as Eyre or Scarlet. I don't agree at all that they are dated. People would do well to appreciate voices/language from the past. Both take getting used to but how boring if all we had came from the present.

[Howard]

I have no idea how a Harry Potter book got a Hugo award.

[Kallie]

Timothy wrote: "Lucie wrote: "Madison wrote: "Being overrated is definitely a matter of opinion, but I guess everyone has one... my "most overrated book" would be...Harry Potter. I know I seem to be the resident H..."

I tried to read one and soon lost interest. Lately my favorites are British novelists I'd never heard of, probably because mediocre pap gets more attention as long as the current shiny objects are featured.

[Igor]

Howard wrote: "I have no idea how a Harry Potter book got a Hugo award."

Beats me. I barely munched through 20 pages of the first book before I put that aside and went doing other things.

Igor

[Gary]

Igor wrote: "Beats me. I barely munched through 20 pages of the first book before I put that aside and went doing other things."

You might want to give it another shot and power through the beginning. I had several false starts with those books because I also found the opening chapter or so insufferable. The Dursley family stuff is IMO always hamfisted and weak; the worst aspects of any of the books that I've read. (I haven't read the whole series.) After that intro the rest of the books are middling to good. Probably not Hugo Award level, mind you, but not bad. I'd read Rawling again before I picked up, say, Orson Scott Card or Robert Heinlein.

[Klain]

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 ..."

So far I only read the catcher in rye and really enjoy it.

But for me "Milk and Honey" is so overrated

[Кузман]

ready player one

[Howard]

Gary wrote: "Igor wrote: "Beats me. I barely munched through 20 pages of the first book before I put that aside and went doing other things."

You might want to give it another shot and power through the beginn..."

I read the first book, and didn't have any desire to continue reading. Same thing for Robert Jordan & for Game of Thrones.

[David]

the great Gatsby is My selectionAL for the discussion abnormal!

[Bill (Just a)]

For me as a former Southern Baptist, The Bible is the most overrated.

Also agree with the Gatsby criticism.

I have not read Thrones. But the TV series is great. Perhaps it is one of those better watched than read.

[Gary]

I'll say it: The books were so much better. I stopped watching the HBO GoT series years ago.

But I'll leave it at that, because it's a whole 'nother can of wyrms.

[Maisy]

I admit I was sceptical at first when I got told to read the Cather in the rye , but it's really addictive . It's a good read as the characters are realistic and it has an equal share of positive and negative. The only part of it that I wasn't so much of s fan of is the ending but it makes sense why the author would end it the way it ends - that's just personal preference.

Twilight despite all the hate it gets is actually a good book. People say to avoid it because of the movie . personally I think it's a bit like the coldest girl in cold town which is Ann amazing book that I would recommend .

[Joyce]

Timothy wrote:
Keep in mind too that the HBO seasons have far surpassed the original novels in the storyline. Those novels ended around HBO's Season 4. As you know we're now waiting for the eighth and final season. Next April, it looks like.

Yeah, if George R.R. Martin ever decides to finish the GOT saga, he may as well go with the TV storyline; it's excellent. (I still can't believe I managed to read all five books.)

[Richard]

The Catcher in the Rye?! It is a gem of a book.

[Michael]

Exactly. As are Moby Dick, The Great Gatsby, Waiting for Godot, and The Stranger.

[Kallie]

I disagree about Gatsby being on this list. It's a brilliant, evocative, novel about privilege in America, and only Fitzgerald could have written its bittersweet humor.

[Mark]

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 ..."

I can’t deny I enjoyed Catcher in the Rye , maybe I read it at a time when I related to and understood the protagonist. I won’t read it again however, I don’t want to ruin that connection.
Great Gatsby is dull however, it is about a community of dullards, the idle rich . In that sense , I feel it is a cleverly written book that captures their community well. Their self importance, superficiality and their nothingness. It’s a dull read because the characters are dull and this in itself is masterly.
Waiting for Godot needs to be seen in the media of live performance. Then it is masterful and truly comes to life with the big existential questions.

I agree with all the others listed and here are a few more.
Jaws
The Slap
The Beach
Vanity Fair
And now I will commit blasphemy, many of Charles Dickens novels are dry and dull. Great characters, interesting ideas, killed with too much ambling prose.

[Petergiaquinta]

I hardly think that comment regarding Dickens counts as “blasphemy “ these days...it’s just the standard response of a contemporary reader unable to appreciate and enjoy what the author is doing with language by weaving such beautifully textured and nuanced wordscapes.

Take the first page of A Tale of Two Cities, for example...by this line of reasoning that wonderful passage would be so much clearer and concise if it were boiled down to a simple sentence or two, right?

[Mark]

I agree with your remark.
I do read contemporary writing , however , the classics are a national treasure to be revered and like anything , personal taste affects this.
An example that comes to mind is Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. Read it several times and still find it deeply profound and intelligent. Yet a few people I’ve recommended it to have struggled and been unable to read. I believe this to be the case regardless of a writers credence and fame.
However, Tale of two cities and Great Expectations are the Dickens novels I truly enjoyed. The characters , plots and language bought beauty and intrigue to both books. Which I personally found lacking in other Dickens novels I’ve attempted to read . Generally made it half way and need to pick up something with an energy I connect to.
Even so, Dickens was a literary master .

[Petergiaquinta]

Agreed!

[Elizabeth]

Kallie wrote: "But Holden is not just another teen because he expresses what he is feeling, which many teens don't get to do (if through Salinger). Salinger got it exactly right though; he is a worthy conduit for..."

You see, I think the thing with catcher is, especially for people my age and younger, it doesn't ring as true as it did when it was first published. Since catcher there have been countless books wherein teens express their feelings, and as such, Holden's constant emotional monologues don't stand out as special.
For me personally, I read it at the "ideal age" of 16 and I couldn't stand it. I quickly lost my patience with the pretension and hypocrisy of Holden. I saw him as a whiny, rich, privileged kid, who is going through a tough time, yes, but in a way that, even at the tender age of 16, I could tell was stupid and unhealthy.
I feel like a lot of other more current readers feel similarly, especially since people are generally more knowledgeable and accepting of mental illnesses than they were when catcher was published, and there are more books that deal with teens in mourning and/or with mental illnesses (and do so without Holden's terrible attitude toward the reader). People are more familiar with Holden's issues, as there are now more characters like him in fiction.
If you pick this up for the first time as a teenager and it resonates with you - fantastic! It's always wonderful to find a book that you feel a connection to.
But for me, I find it overrated. It leans on the laurels it was given after its publication, and ignores the progress that has been made with subsequent books about Teenagers With Issues (a genre I personally find annoying, and found annoying as a teen). Honestly there is only so many uses of "phony" I can take.
Holden has little growth, is cruel and insensitive towards others, and is always on the defensive with the reader. Some don't mind this, it is a symptom of his grief, but I could not take a full book's worth of it with no breaks, which is what catcher is. Nothing better than constantly attacking the reader to really get them on your side!
As far as some "classics" being on this list...really...I don't care. Just because something is "classic" doesn't automatically make it "good," and just because someone doesn't like a classic doesn't automatically mean they "don't understand" and are being a "lazy young reader." I believe it is important to critically look at the "classics" and ask, is this still important and why or why not. No classic should be completely sacred.

[Petergiaquinta]

Holden has “little growth”?!? Didn’t you finish the book? Perhaps you didn’t read the last 20 pages?

I’d also dispute with you your assertion that he is cruel. Holden is one of the kindest, most compassionate characters I’ve met in literature. I don’t see how you think he is cruel toward others...

[Mark]

The reality is that Catcher in the Rye is about an insecure schoolboy on the brink of a mental breakdown. To this end, Salinger captures the angst, lack of resilience and self doubt brilliantly. The portrayal of a boy trying to fit in and still feeling an outsider glares at the reader. For people who are in or have been in this situation probably appreciates this novel more.
The book is about a bleak and sad topic.
Some people are trapped in that life for years and whilst some claw through , some meet a tragic end.
If you read this book expecting whistles and fireworks and a jolly , happy ending. You won’t connect with the tale. If you realise it’s capturing a delicate time in this boys life and the negative cycle he is caught up in.
I try to put myself in the place and times when I read.
Same as the Great Gatsby . It is a dull read however , this dullness clevely captures the nothingness and self importance of the dull idle rich.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "The reality is that Catcher in the Rye is about an insecure schoolboy on the brink of a mental breakdown. To this end, Salinger captures the angst, lack of resilience and self doubt brilliantly. Th..."

Well said about 'Catcher . . .' but I'm not at all convinced that Gatsby is 'dull' as I found it both funny and tragic. Impressions of books are so subjective, especially when one first reads an author. Here is a voice new to that reader, and this newness in itself can give rise to all sorts of mental and emotional resistance, because we have to let go of so many prejudices about what we like and don't like. It's work just to let go of those prejudices, let alone read a novel that is written in the English of over 100 years ago, or translated. I think a novel or any book people find worth reading decades to centuries later has earned its status, even if some find it 'dull' or whatever. Let's just face the fact that as readers we may lack the ability to appreciate some works many find great and enjoy, and that is on us, not the book. I still can't get through Ulysses. That is my shortcoming, not Joyce's.

[Mark]

I am glad that the preferences and tastes of human beings are so diverse . I’m also glad that we interpret and connect with books, music, movies, theatre, food etc in our own way.
I did find the Great Gatsby dull , however as I mentioned, it is about dull and superficial people . Tragic , I guess so because they are full of their own importance and that their are characters desperately wanting to be the same.
Still enjoyed reading it, with my own values and understanding.

[Anabella]

I need to read it again.

[Mark]

OK, new to this already ancient thread. I want to VEHEMENTLY disagree with Catcher in the Rye and Ulysses.

Ulysses first. Very difficult book to read and best read in a class with the Ellman annotated edition. That said, this is the first truly, fully psychological novel in English, which is to say the first 'modern" novel. Personally, I've grown tired of the psychological novel as the only possible approach to fiction, but very many great books owe their heritage to Joyce's monumental plumbing of the human mind and culture. I suspect some people think it's over-rated because it's so difficult. I guess quantum mechanics is over-rated then, too, but we wouldn't have electronics without it. Buck up!

Catcher in the Rye is a tougher call. I can see that younger readers might dismiss it (not while they're young, I just mean generationally younger ones). But this book was among the first wave of the books to call BS on American culture at its most self-absorbed '50s period. Holden Caulfield made "phoney" the ultimate middle class epithet, and generations of us since have been searching for the authentic.

[Marina]

No sorry, Catcher in the Rye was a huge disappointment when I read it. I'd agree with Elizabeth and others here, it's hugely over-rated! There are others mentioned above that I also agree with but Catcher sprang immediately to mind when I saw the discussion thread.

[BELINDA]

So I loved The Catcher in the Rye but I would add 50 Shades the writing in that book was over looked for the smut. The ending was as if written by a teenage girl.

[Mark]

50 shades of grey is a notoriously badly written novel. Not fit to be called literature. I have not and never will read it. Too many good novels out there. However, I am lead to believe that it encouraged people who rarely if ever read, to pick up a book. Hopefully it encouraged some to keep reading.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: ".I did find the Great Gatsby dull , however as I mentioned, it is about dull and superficial people . " actually, Mark, it is about the seductive, corruptive power of wealth, even when the wealthy are dull and superficial. That is what Nick Carraway observes, with such quiet irony one is not hit in the face with satire on every page. (Not that satire has to be bad; Nathanael West wrote brilliant satire). As for a lot of the declarations about enduring books being overrated because they are no long 'with it' in some way . . . In my opinion, that assumption, because we don't appreciate the book from our own p.o.v., is simply what an anthropologist would call ethnocentric or culture-bound and we could even go so far as to say arrogant. We are all limited in our abilities to appreciate some art that is worthy of appreciation.

[Michael]

Kallie wrote: As for a lot of the declarations about enduring books being overrated because they are no long 'with it' in some way . . . In my opinion, that assumption, because we don't appreciate the book from our own p.o.v., is simply what an anthropologist would call ethnocentric or culture-bound and we could even go so far as to say arrogant. We are all limited in our abilities to appreciate some art that is worthy of appreciation.


Well said, Kallie. Classic novels that have stood the test of time ought not to be easily dismissed.

[Emilio]

I completely disagree. The Catcher in the Rye is a great book for teens who are in high school and it will most likely be enjoyed by boys because it is easier for them to relate to the main character. The Stranger is also a fantastic novel that will fill the reader with existential questions. However, i would agree that The Great Gatsby is a bit over rated. I understand that it was a metaphor for the American dream at the time, but it has not aged well in its ability to resonate with younger audiences.

[Mark]

I agree Kallie , with your previous phrase re Great Gatsby and seductive power of wealth. Wants my mind relaxed into the theme of the idle rich and satire, I enjoyed the read.
What is interesting is that fellow readers are happy and find it worthwhile to discuss the pros and cons of Catcher and Gatsby at length on Goodreads. Which makes me feel, the books are of high literary importance.
There are now infinite numbers of books on the shelves these days to discuss, many of which most people who enjoy reading wouldn’t look at twice. Many being poor quality and trite such as, 50 shades of grey , Mills and Boon 😱 etc , ( like all arts on all levels, they have there place). They are empty , soulless books with nothing to discuss.

[Michael]

Here is a bit of Joshua Rothman's take on The Great Gatsby, from a 2013 New Yorker article:

What’s most appealing about “Gatsby” might be its mood of witty hopelessness, of vivacious self-destructiveness. When Daisy says, of her daughter, “I hope she’ll be a fool—that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool,” you can’t help but be drawn in. Perhaps she’s right: look around, and you can easily see the advantages of being rich, attractive, and ignorant. Even if she isn’t right, Daisy’s attitude strikes a chord. This atmosphere of casual, defiant, disillusioned cool is the novel’s unique contribution to literature. It’s the reason the novel’s endured.

...The real achievement of “Gatsby,” in other words, is that it shows us a state of mind. It’s a state of spiritual hunger and dissatisfaction, of restlessness and curiosity, of excitement and anticipation, in which one is, as Nick puts it, “within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.” All this unfolds beneath that disillusioned surface. This is how you feel when you understand that there is no obviously right way to live, but find that you must choose anyway. It’s pessimistic and ironic, in the sense that you are always only half-committed to your way of life. But it’s also exciting, because you are always on the edge of discovery. There’s always something at stake. The main thing is that you are never settled. You are always hungry, always searching, always throwing feelings away in order to make room for new ones.

[Kallie]

Timothy wrote: "Emilio wrote: "I completely disagree. The Catcher in the Rye is a great book for teens who are in high school and it will most likely be enjoyed by boys because it is easier for them to relate to t..."

There is actually no such thing as a 'timeless' book and if those were my words in this thread, I misspoke. All novels have a context that conveys the era during which the artist wrote, and values of that era. So insisting that they correspond with our era and its values seems absurd to me. As when contemporary readers reject Austen or Bronte because they are not feminist enough. To me, the characters either come to life (and are allowed to do that by an artist who doesn't let her/his message interfere with their life) or they don't. That and a story that in fact lives thoroughly in its time and expresses that gestalt makes for a great novel, IMO.

[Kallie]

Michael wrote: "Here is a bit of Joshua Rothman's take on The Great Gatsby, from a 2013 New Yorker article:

What’s most appealing about “Gatsby” might be its mood of witty hopelessness, of vivacious self-destruct..."

Well said, and I think this describes Fitzgerald's sensibility. He was both enthralled by and ironic toward the Jazz Age glamorous wealthy (not the Puritan work ethic sort), how they frittered away their lives and money. But that was when he was young. His last years in Hollywood weren't glamorous. Which reminds me that I want to read "The Crack-Up."

[Liz]

I think the Catcher in the rye is definitely not overrated, but when I first read some of those books listed (Great Gatsby cough cough) I thought they were extremely overrated. I reread the Great Gatsby and loved it, so I guess its where you are and your current taste that influences how you understand a book.

[Brooklyn]

I love the great gatsby and consider it a perfect novel - perfectly written - classic American dream etc— but I do understand that it is probably not the greatest book to be foisted upon high school English students. It’s one to be appreciated with more life experience and more understanding of American history and life in the 20th century . Catcher in the rye I have always felt meh! But I am willing to reread with an open mind - it may another one that changes with age. I think the books that schools force upon high schoolers really need to be updated and rethought- and not just pick a book because it was considered a classic 50 years ago. Which has no bearing on the quality of a lot of these books

[Val]

Brooklyn wrote: "I think the books that schools force upon high schoolers really need to be updated and rethought.."

I couldn't agree more. School programs are full of depressing books which I think is not the best way to influence a young mind.