The Most Overrated Books Showing 551-600 of 5,680

[Monty J]

CD wrote: "The reinvented man, Gatsby, needs Daisy to complete his ascension."

Goeffrey wrote: "The comments that he did it all for Daisy beg the prehistory to the present story.

Here is the conversation between Nick and Jordan after she has spoken to Gatsby about seeing Daisy:

(p.63) "It was a strange coincidence," I said.
"But it wasn't a coincidence at all."
"Why not?"
"Gatsby bought that house so that Daisy would be just across the bay."
Then it had not been just the stars to which he had aspired on that June night. He came alive to me, delivered suddenly from the womb of his purposeless splendor.
"He wants to know," continued Jordan, "if you'll invite Daisy to your house some afternoon and then let him come over."

(Jordan, p.64) "...he says he's read a Chicago paper for years on the chance of catching a glimpse of Daisy's name.

Here a weakness of the book is demonstrated. These crucial character-revealing bits are delivered not with the full force of a bold declaration from Gatsby, the ostensible hero, but as third-hand gossip, from Jordan through Nick. Gossip is always suspect. Heresay is inadmissible in court, but in a novel? Meh.

We don't know how much of these juicy tidbits were made up or embellished by Jordan, or even Nick. But it's all we have to go on so we accept it, grudgingly on my part.

Both Gatsby and Daisy come across to me as impulsive, hypo-manic personality types (bipolar Type II.) Properly controlled, these people are capable of amazing feats of energy and are well-rewarded in the business world.

But lets not confuse obsession with love. Once the hormones get going, and clearly Gatsby ignited Daisy's, there's no way to judge the quality of their relationship until they run their course.

Every romantic relationship has an initial hormonal phase that has to be weathered before ration and true love have a chance. But the book climaxes before the hormones are depleted.

As Geoffrey has pointed out, Gatsby's impulsive drive has been well demonstrated outside his relationship with Daisy. That he wants to shag someone's wife because he feels he has a prior claim on her merely demonstrates his impulsive lack of self control. And using other people to get to her is not very heroic.

But Nick is clearly swept up by the idea that Gatsby is driven by an overwhelming love for Daisy, and because Nick is narrating the story, the reading audience gets yanked along with him. Most of us anyway.

(Nick, p.63) "He had waited five years and bought a mansion where he dispensed starlight to casual moths--so he could "come over" some afternoon to a stranger's garden."


As for the parties being for Daisy's benefit, here's the only reference I can find thus far:

(p.63) "I think he half expected her to wander into one of his parties, some night," went on Jordan.

"Half-expected" falls way short of the high devotion required of the widely held hyper-romantic view that Gatsby threw extravagant parties primarily to attract Daisy.

The more plausible reason for the parties is that they were part of Gatsby's role as a shill for Woflsheim. They were a business expense in the dirty business of making connections to pedal junk or counterfeit bonds and other such illicit activities.

It was the Roaring Twenties, the period leading up to the Crash of '29, when Wall Street corruption was at its highest. Booze and easy sex were lubricants for the engine of corruption that caused the Great Depression.

(And history is repeating itself. Wall Street fought regulation and we got the Reagan era junk bond-fueled S&L Crisis, the Energy Crisis, and the sub-prime mortgage-fueled Bush Recession. Thanks to the repeal of Glass Steagall, the gnomes of Wall Street still use our savings accounts as collateral. Unconscionable greed is back in full swing.)

[Elisabet]

Some of the books you mentioned are classics and have endured because they are forced on students. As a teacher, I do not see any value in my students reading The Great Gatsby or The Catcher in the Rye. Most kids cannot relate to the story or characters. In my opinion Fountainhead is a better book than Atlas Shrugged. I saw an interview with Ayn Rand when the book was released. What she intended to accomplish by writing that book failed. There are so many other valuable books that should be labeled classics and used in schools.

[Petergiaquinta]

Are you sure you're a teacher?

[Elisabet]

And considered a great one.

[Michael]

Per Da Vinci Code:

Content....

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

Style....

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

[Gabriel]

"Xenophobia, I shall dispel you, unless you are more challenging than I!"

Good thing good books aren't rated more. The guillotine can't cut mustard and is blaming the mustard for it.

[Paul Martin]

The fact that a book is highly rated in the US doesn't necessarily mean that it's one of the best books in world literature. Many of the great American classics are, in my humble opinion, overrated and have had their reputation boosted by 1)the American cultural export after the war and 2)the increase in English-speaking people in Europe and Asia which makes Anglo-American literature by far the most available.

[Mark]

Elisabet wrote: "Some of the books you mentioned are classics and have endured because they are forced on students. As a teacher, I do not see any value in my students reading The Great Gatsby or The Catcher in the..."

Where (geographically speaking) do you teach? And what grade?

[Kallie]

Elisabet wrote: "Some of the books you mentioned are classics and have endured because they are forced on students. As a teacher, I do not see any value in my students reading The Great Gatsby or The Catcher in the..."

They endure because many adult readers enjoy them. Yes, when was in high school, teachers 'forced' Dickens, Shakespeare, Hardy, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Wilder, and others 'on' me. I am grateful for those introductions because I became accustomed to challenging reading and went on to read other classics and literary books and enjoyed them too. imo, Ayn Rand books are more like propaganda diatribes than art.

[Charles]

Overrated books? Of those listed:


The Catcher in the Rye - Yeah overrated but it caught the zeitgeist of the time which is why boomers love it.

Moby Dick - Would have to be self-published today. A plot interrupted with a How-To manual for whaling.

The Great Gatsby - Another book that is more a reflection of the time it was written rather than an engaging plot.

Waiting for Godot - Only saw the play in college. zzzzz - much ado about a thin concept, no interest in reading.

The Stranger - Boring.

Ulysses - Incomprehensible at first and not worth the effort, there's so many better things to read.

Atlas Shrugged - A lot of words to support the plot but also a primer for personal responsibility - something not many people like.

The Da Vinci Code - Good thriller. As far as a commentary on Catholicism? Please, get a spine. Try writing about the Qaran and see what happens.

[Cosmic]

Paulmartin wrote: "The fact that a book is highly rated in the US doesn't necessarily mean that it's one of the best books in world literature. Many of the great American classics are, in my humble opinion, overrated..."

I think this is true. But I also think that the Catcher is under rated. Why? Because people have been told what to expect of that book and that is all they look for. When they get through reading it they are left, in my opinion, "the emperor new clothing" syndrome.

We all know that Salinger, who wrote the CATCHER, had a horrible experience in WW2. Other than hearing about PTSD, I don't hear many people relating the CATCHER to the author. I personally have found a whole history lesson in the CATCHER.

Here is a case in point from the first paragraph on the third page:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Did you get that out of reading that paragraph the first time, or even the third? Probably not. Why? Because you weren't taught to "see" that. Because Salinger has written in an unconventional way. It might be a classic (old Greek classical) way, for a present day audience. I think that he may have gotten his inspiration for his "hidden text" from the code breakers in WW2. Definitely something that I think is a fascination since the days of espionage.

If you doubt that the thread I picked is isolated...I have 12 more post, and many more to come. But don't take my word for it...google up ducks and WW2 and see if that doesn't change your perception of "where do the ducks go?" And then reread chapter 6 when he goes to the history museum...he tells you there that they fly south.....except when. Go read it again.

I read it six times in a row before I started seeing this. This book is underappreciated because once a person reads it and is told what they are suppose to see they move on...glad they got that bit of trite off their must reads.

[Petergiaquinta]

Elisabet wrote: "And considered a great one."

Well, maybe...then again, that word "great" can be fairly loaded, but since you dismiss the value of your students reading The Great Gatsby, maybe you haven't given much thought to the word.

Classics don't become classics because someone drops a "label" on them. And classics don't remain classics because they are forced on students. There are plenty of good books that should be read both in and out of school that aren't "classics." But what you typed up there just doesn't sound much like a "teacher" to me.

"Most kids" cannot relate to any number of things they encounter in school. But then that's why they're in school, innit? With the guidance of a good teacher, students might discover they have a great deal in common with Holden Caulfield or Nick Carraway.

You sound more like an "educator," if I do say so...

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta wrote: " maybe you haven't given much thought to the word..."

Try reading a chapter or so of her novel, available online. If one can get a sense of the validity of a critic from the quality of what they themselves create ... well, just take a look-see and you'll catch my drift.

I wonder how a novel by Charles (above) would read? The aplomb with which this dickhead denounces revolutionary works of art amazes me. But he throws no such stones at Atlas Shrugged, so I sense he might be some sort of twisted reactionary. The most laughable thing is that The Da Vinci Code is not criticized as the overly venerated piece of hack work it is while books such as The Stranger and Ulysses are thrown on this mongrel dog's trash heap without a second thought. Get a spine, he advises those in the world who have not kept pace with his bravery. I will, Sir Charles, and I'll pick up a brain for you while I'm at it.

It was your comment, Peter, that drew me in here when I saw it fly by on my feed. I am afraid I am going to have to hold you personally responsible ("something not many people like," btw.)!

[Petergiaquinta]

Mark wrote: "The aplomb with which this dickhead denounces revolutionary works of art amazes me. "

If you want to hold me personally responsible for the sentence I copied and pasted there, I gladly accept, mon semblable.

I just wish I had written it myself.

[Jen]

re message 43 by Chava
"boring & WINEY" ?

[Mark]

Fijke wrote: "Just a question: from most of what people say here (and what I hear in general), I gather that in American schools teachers or some other authority assign specific books to their students to read a..."
It has been more than 30 years since I graduated from high school in America. I recall that some of what I considered to be your more enterprising teachers would have room in their lessons for students to select their own books but it was usually an option added on to a list readings assigned to the entire class overall. It was the exception, not the rule, to be sure.

In my college literary courses (to the extent that I recall), it was probably more prevalent, but still an exception.

[Gene]

Petergiaquinta & Mark: Hey guys. Try not to be so overly intellectual in your critiques of other commenters. You don't want to put people off by using terms that are over their heads. :-/

[Daniel]

Well, to be fair, the mere concept of "just appreciation of classic novels" seems to be over those other comenters's heads...

[Cosmic]

Fijke wrote: "Just a question: from most of what people say here (and what I hear in general), I gather that in American schools teachers or some other authority assign specific books to their students to read a..."

As part of our English class we would read, example, Tom Sawyer as a class and discuss it in class. He is an American writer and I am sure they were highlighting American literature. In The Catcher in the Rye discussion group you have a high school class discussing the CATCHER as well as other books he has assigned in his class. That might be a living example of American English class. Although when I went to school they usually only did one of these literature books a year. The rest was textbook based. A reading list for summer was suggested but not required.

[Jim]

Charles Dicken's Bleak House, I expected more.

[Cosmic]

Fijke wrote: "Just a question: from most of what people say here (and what I hear in general), I gather that in American schools teachers or some other authority assign specific books to their students to read a..."
Fijke wrote: "Just a question: from most of what people say here (and what I hear in general), I gather that in American schools teachers or some other authority assign specific books to their students to read a..."

As part of our English class we would read, example, Tom Sawyer as a class and discuss it in class. He is an American writer and I am sure they were highlighting American literature. In The Catcher in the Rye discussion group you have a high school class discussing the CATCHER as well as other books he has assigned in his class. That might be a living example of American English class. Although when I went to school they usually only did one of these literature books a year. The rest was textbook based. A reading lrist for summer was suggested but not required. (Although the ivy league boarding schools in the area required their students to read five classics during the summer of an approved reading list.)

[Pratiksha]

50 Shades of Grey series
Fallen series (I still wanna punch Luce Price...badly!)
If I Stay
Thirteen Reasons Why
Mortal Instruments series
Twilight series

[Paul Martin]

Cosmic wrote: "Paulmartin wrote: "The fact that a book is highly rated in the US doesn't necessarily mean that it's one of the best books in world literature. Many of the great American classics are, in my humble..."

I agree. It wasn't really directed at CITR. Thanks for the links, though.

[Geoffrey]

But Nick is clearly swept up by the idea that Gatsby is driven by an overwhelming love for Daisy, and because Nick is narrating the story, the reading audience gets yanked along with him. Most of us anyway.
above is a monty quote

I can`t but resist but that Marquez attempts quite successfully to do the same in LIFE AND DEATH IN THE TIMES OF CHOLERA. The protagonist, the effete dandy, has a lifelong obsession with his teenage idol and finally marries her after her husband`s death, decades later. I find Marquez much more convincing in his attempt to get us to accept the glory of this lifelong obsessive love than SF.

[Geoffrey]

As for MOBY DICK a publishing house editor would have forced Melville to drop all the whaling manual briefs, so yes, the novel could have been published today but other than a vanity house.

[[deleted user]]

@Mark, Gene, Daniel, and Petergiaquinta - Until now, I haven't had to interfere in the conversation on my thread. However, I find your negative and hurtful comments about fellow readers and their posts most inappropriate and unwelcomed. We've created a really wonderful community on this thread among people who feel free to express themselves openly, honestly, and most importantly respectfully. If you can't do the same, then please find another thread that suits you better.

[Daniel]

Oh, excuse me if I take offense when someone insults wonderful, or at least interesting, books because they haven't learned to distinguish between taste and evaluation. I don't care if someone doesn't like a classic, it's fine, I think we've all had that experience (mine was Mrs. Dalloway, for example). What I find excruciating is when some random guy comes in and dismisses 5 classic books without a second thought because they bored him, which obviously means they're "terrible" and "overrated". Now THAT is disrespectful.

Over the last few months I've had several great mini-conversations with people on this thread, some of whose opinions I do not share but who nevertheless take the time to be thoughtful and respectful not only to me, but to the topic at hand. I'd never even think of attacking them. It's entitled, ignorant people that I and some other commenters have problems with.

Besides, in any case I'm not hindering their freedom of speech with a little sarcastic comment. They're free to speak as they wish, but other commenters (such as myself, Mark, or Petergiaquinta) are also free to question them. That said, I do think some comments have been a little bit out of place and overtly hostile, and I clarify that I was specifically referring myself to Charles in message #595 and his reductionist evaluation of classic literature; not to the teacher, whose name I don't recall and whose message felt articulate enough, even if polemic.

[Kate]

To this list, I would add Last of the Mohicans and The English Patient. Of the books on this list, Moby Dick bored me to tears. I detest Atlas Shrugged. The Great Gatsby was just adolescent from the get-go. I actually liked The Stranger and Catcher in the Rye, and Waiting for Godot is a masterpiece, but you have to see it as a play to really get it. I have never been able to get through Ulysses, but I'm not sure that means it's overrated, or if I'm not smart enough to get it.

[Daniel]

I wouldn't say getting Ulysses is a matter of smartness as much as it is of readyness. You'll want to read Joyce's previous work first, especially A Portrait of the Artist..., since it constitutes a sort of ars poetica for Ulysses, and some characters reappear.

This is a big part of why I haven't tried it yet, I just read Portrait last fall. And I'd imagine that even if you had read Portrait and Dubliners that it would not be a bad idea to revisit them before plunging into Ulysses, for Joyce is one of those authors that require you to be in a certain state of mind and concentration. He is for me, at least.

[Kate]

Daniel wrote: "I wouldn't say getting Ulysses is a matter of smartness as much as it is of readyness. You'll want to read Joyce's previous work first, especially A Portrait of the Artist..., since it constitutes ..."

I agree that Joyce can be challenging. I've read both Dubliners, which is a wonderful book, and Portrait, which is a completely different experience than Dubliners, and also a fabulous book. Ulysses is like reading Faulkner on steroids. You're right about having to be in a certain state of mind. I've never had sharp enough focus for a sustained enough period of time to get through much of it.

[6138]

Elisabet wrote: "And considered a great one."

By who?

[Mark]

Maria wrote: "@Mark, Gene, Daniel, and Pergiaquinta - Until now, I haven't had to interfere in the conversation on my thread."

Oh, Maria. I'm pleased to be among the unwelcome, to tell the truth. Revoke my privileges anytime you like. Put me in a friggin' Hester Prynne white dress and paint a big, red "h" for "hurtful" on the front of it, if it will make you feel better.

Sorry I mistook this for an open marketplace of ideas and expression. I suppose this is one of those basketball leagues where everyone gets a trophy?

So I used some colorful language to express my point and am in the good company of people who did the same. You know what I have stuffed in my wallet? I've got a yellowed with age, wrinkled, crinkled poetic license with the words "good for a lifetime" stamped over where the expiration date usually is. If a woman who thinks of herself as a novelist and a man who writes "speculative fiction" can't deal with that kind of heat they had better find a different kitchen.

As I believe the late, great Frank Zappa once said, "ideas can't hurt you." And my ideas expressed in words shouldn't be able to either, unless of course a person chooses to perceive them in a way that is painful to them.

If Charles or Elisabet found my comments to be "inappropriate" or "hurtful," let them say so themselves and let them give me a whole bunch of push back in this forum. Or if they think I'm just a raving madman, they can ignore me. That's always an option.

Consider this: with inarticulate alacrity Charles dissed the works of Camus, Joyce and Beckett. He did so in a way that seemed to signal that those works were beneath his contempt. He did so in a way that seemed intended to let us all know that why he would dismiss their works is not with his effort. In some cases, he made a hilariously failed attempt to wipe a mountain of literary legacy off the map with criticisms that are no more than single word sentences.

My response was to slam back hard (and true--like a warrior) at him for that insolence. Now your response is to blow your damned recess whistle AT ME and call for me to behave in a more mannered way on the playground?

WHAT ABOUT RESPECT FOR NOW DEAD LITERARY ARTISTS WHO SWEATED, STRUGGLED AND LEFT IT ALL ON THE FIELD FOR THEIR WRITING, FOR THEIR ART? Who, mon ami, will call for a fair measure of respect for them? That would be me, Kid Lorax. I speak for the dead artists for the dead artists have no tongues, at least not ones that work in real time now that they're buried. What they wrote will outlast and outshine this conversation on your precious thread.

So it's not that I've been disrespectful at all. It's more like I've made some deliberate choices about who deserves my respect and who doesn't. Joyce, Camus and Beckett deserve my respect because although I've never known them, they have touched me with their art. To me, Charles deserves to be publicly called out as reckless in his criticisms and shoddy in his observations. And that I did. It's a free country. If he has been hurt by me being "hurtful," he can say so himself with all he's got.

[Michael]

Mark wrote: "...WHAT ABOUT RESPECT FOR NOW DEAD LITERARY ARTISTS WHO SWEATED, STRUGGLED AND LEFT IT ALL ON THE FIELD FOR THEIR WRITING, FOR THEIR ART? "

I agree entirely with Mark. The arrogance with which some commenters dismiss these classics is laughable.

[Kate]

Ooohhhh!!! The literary insolence seething through this thread! It's breathtaking!

[Kallie]

If Charles or Elisabet found my comments to be "inappropriate" or "hurtful," let them say so themselves and let them give me a whole bunch of push back in this forum. Or if they think I'm just a raving madman, they can ignore me. That's always an option.

Consider this: with stunningly brief alacrity Charles dissed the works of Camus, Joyce and Beckett in such a way as to signal that they were beneath his contempt, beneath any details about why he feels so confident in dismissing their works with, in some cases, single word sentences. Now, in response to that I slammed him for that insolence. Now your response is to blow your damned recess whistle AT ME and call for me to behave in a more mannered way on the playground? WHAT ABOUT RESPECT FOR NOW DEAD LITERARY ARTISTS WHO SWEATED, STRUGGLED AND LEFT IT ALL ON THE FIELD FOR THEIR WRITING, FOR THEIR ART?

I appreciate this thread, Maria, but I agree with Mark. We are discussing literature here and what qualifies as such. Unsupported opinions are not worth defending unless their authors, themselves, care to share some more thoughtful commentary. I think of Goodreads discussion groups as forums for real discussion and arguments; people should share their reasoning (their thoughts) at least as much as their opinion.

[[deleted user]]

Kallie wrote: "If Charles or Elisabet found my comments to be "inappropriate" or "hurtful," let them say so themselves and let them give me a whole bunch of push back in this forum. Or if they think I'm just a ra..."

Kallie, there is no problem in challenging people to share the reasoning of their opinions. I hope you and others will continue to do that.

[Gene]

Maria wrote: "@Mark, Gene, Daniel, and Petergiaquinta - Until now, I haven't had to interfere in the conversation on my thread. However, I find your negative and hurtful comments about fellow readers and their p..."

Hey, hey, hey! I'm on YOUR side, Maria. I was chastising the namecallers in a low key, ironic manner. Please read the posts more carefully before you lump people together.

[Lauren]

The topic seems very subjective rather than objective. To me it's all a matter of opinion. For instance, what I might consider a great book, you might hate.
I agree with some of those,but they're all worth a read so that you can be the judge yourself.

[Peter]

In my opinion, The Da Vinci Code was one of the most highly overrated books I have read. It is way off the mark of becoming a classic. Granted, I kept turning the pages, as it had an interesting premise. However the mundane writing bored me. (He did this, she did that, this happened). I have read and loved hundreds of books but, having never studied literature, I find it difficult to understand or to explain why the writing was so poor. Perhaps some educated people could put it succinctly.

Waiting for Godot seems to be a common title in this post so I think I should have a go at it.

[[deleted user]]

Gene wrote: "Maria wrote: "@Mark, Gene, Daniel, and Petergiaquinta - Until now, I haven't had to interfere in the conversation on my thread. However, I find your negative and hurtful comments about fellow read..."

Good to know, Gene. Thanks for setting the record straight.

[Laura]

50 Shades of Grey is overrated and poorly written in my opinion.

[Reborn]

Maria 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 didn't love Catcher and I outright hated Gatsby, da Vinci Code and Moby Dick.

I'm confused as to why Twilight is even on this list. While the stories didn't interest me, the writing, themes, just overall quality of the other books on this list is way out of Twilight's league.

One of the things is not like the others ...

[Reborn]

David wrote: "Gone Girl."
Oh goodness. That was a horrible book. Every time someone I like or respect loves that book, I die a little inside.

[Mark]

Maria wrote: "Maria For those of you who've asked - Here are the various internet sites I used to create the sampling of books the sites recommend skipping:

http://listverse.com/2009/02/09/top-1...

http://flavorwire.com/293260/10-epide...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07... "

Maria:

I see what's going on here. Since you've been introduced to my Mr Hyde side, allow me to present you with the good Doctor Jekyll within me this morning.

I think all three of the listicles you shared in this posts are good examples of what the digital age has done to literary criticism or, to be less fancy, human beings who at one time tried to write honestly about about books they have read (or about anything else, really).

Sites such as The Huffington Post and Flavorwire are driven by a pretty simple business model. Their financial success depends on convincing as many people as possible to do the following: (1) visit their sites, (2) stay on their sites for as much time as possible and (3) share content from their sites through social media outlets (twitter, Facebook, etc.). The value of #3, from their perspective, is that it stands to increase their numbers for #1 and possibly #2.

In the same way that an episode of commercial network television--anything from the original Star Trek to the current series of Law & Order--is written toward the commercial break, these publications are writing to, again, catch your attention, keep you on the site as long as possible and motivate you to share their content.

People much smarter than I (that bar is not one I consider to be high, btw) have written books explicating how this is creating a culture and a condition of public intellectual discourse that is nothing more than a race to the bottom. So I'll limit myself to one facet of how the prevailing "click-bait" ethos of most online publishing is eroding substantive discourse about literature, music, politics ... you name it.

How do you get people to spend more time on your site? A titillating headline, a tease, with the promise of a pay-off if you click is one thing, but once you've lured a person in, how to get them to stay? Make sure the content of the article is provocative enough that those who are inclined to write a comment at the end of the post will.

The content might provoke comments because it's contrary to a popularly and passionately held belief (whether that's: "OMG, I can't believe you dissed Twilight, it's the best book ever!" OR "Many learned literary critics have agreed that Ulysses is at once a monumental and revolutionary work of prose. Indeed one could divide English speaking literature into those books that came before it and those that came after.").

The other side of the coin is content (we used to call it "writing") that affirms a popularly held belief (whether that's: "Dudes, thanks tons for adding Catcher in the Rye to this list. Like, they tried to force that crap down my throat in high school and thought it was just the dumbest book EVAH." OR "High time The DaVinci Code is singled out for the travesty it makes of more careful and competent works in the historical fiction genre.")

So these recommendations of books to avoid you've come across on these sites are NOT to be trusted at all. Not one of these lists was written with any heart or soul and there's precious little decent reasons provided for why the "writers" of this online content think these book are overrated. These articles are NOT literary criticism. They are NOT book reviews. They are NOT human beings who are trying to write honestly about books they have read.

It IS hack click-bait written to run up individual page visits, increase time spent on the page/site and maximize social media shares because that's how these sites increase their profit margin.

Since you like "vintage classic literature", which is a bit amorphous and subjective as far as categories go but most good categories are, you might enjoy Clifton Fadiman's book, The Lifetime Reading Plan.

The copy I own is apparently out of print, but there's a new edition available it seems:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

I also tend to be downright evangelical about this book because I think the guy did such a thorough and chock a block full of good examples job of revealing the nature of "overrating" the merits of books within the contemporary (but now crumbling thanks to the aforementioned race to the bottom) political fiefdom of professional book reviewers.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

I think you would find the Fadiman helpful because many of the books you've read and given five or four stars to are, I'm fairly certain, featured in his "plan." You could read what he has to say about these books that you've already read and then judge what you might want to read next based on what he says about books that you haven't yet read.

Hope you find these suggestions useful. Cheers!

[Peter]

The Lifetime Reading Plan - I did not know such a book existed. Thank you. I will give it a go and see if it helps me understand what I have read to date... and what I may have missed out on.

[Pam]

Maria 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..."

Maria 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 Catcher in the Rye is probably my all time favorite book.
OVERRATED: Although I am not entirely familiar with all titles (Twilight, Waiting for Godot), I totally agree with overrating on The Great Gatsby and the
Da Vinci Code. I believe the #1 overrated book is "Atlas Shrugged".

[Stephen Livingston]

"The Catcher in the Rye" is one of the most over rated books I've read.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "...this is creating a culture and a condition of public intellectual discourse that is nothing more than a race to the bottom. So I'll limit myself to one facet of how the prevailing "click-bait" ethos of most online publishing is eroding substantive discourse about literature, music, politics ... you name it."

"It IS hack click-bait written to run up individual page visits, increase time spent on the page/site and maximize social media shares because that's how these sites increase their profit margin."

Oooooh, I wish I had said this.

Bravo, again, Mark.

The worrisome question is when or whether Millennials will wake up and recover from their click-bait pattern of thinking. I doubt they are even conscious of it. If they don't then classic literature will be steamrolled by the likes of Southpark.

As a member of the first Television Generation, I have witnessed the effect of TV on attention span on all levels of communication. Not just TV programming, but politics, film, print news and (gasp!) literature.

This is Evolution in action.

[Daniel]

The Great Gatsby may be overrated, but only because so many people list it as the best ever. It's still very good. Fitzgerald's prose is excellent, and a worthy and important part of American Lit history. I didn't like the book when I first read it in high school, but I read it again this year (at the age of 24) and enjoyed it thoroughly. I also thought the Leonardo DiCaprio movie was quite good, although it received it's share of flack too.
The Stranger was okay. Another book I haven't read since high school. Currently, I have no plans to reread it.
The Catcher in the Rye was one of my least favorite books in high school, as I found Holden Caulfield to be overly whiny and hard to relate with. I haven't read it again in full since, though I have read parts for various reasons, and I have come to believe that it is probably better than I thought it was, but I still think it's probably vastly overrated. That said, the Wilhelm Stekel quote used in it is one of my favorites: "The mark of an immature man is to want to die nobly for a cause. The mark of a mature man is to want to live humbly for one."

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Mark wrote: "...this is creating a culture and a condition of public intellectual discourse that is nothing more than a race to the bottom. So I'll limit myself to one facet of how the prevailing "..."

Another culprit steering our race to the bottom is the practice of dumbing down reading material so high school students can 'relate'. If anything is overrated, it is this tendency to dismiss, especially for younger students, works to which they cannot relate; we want to make their world bigger, not shrink it to size. I can see finding introductory material that better reflects a new reader's world; but by High School, kids should have mastered reading and be ready to tackle language challenges, especially (but not only) if they expect to go to college. As a TA I have had students, in Anthro 101, who I swear could not read the exam questions well enough to pass; something went awry with their reading long before that, obviously.