The Most Overrated Books Showing 701-750 of 5,680

[Petergiaquinta]

Nah, it's equating it to Twilight...like whatever you like, but be thoughtful about it.

[6138]

Fijke wrote: "6138 wrote: "I have read the Book Thief and was one of the worst books that I have read in my entire life. Poorly written and full of historic inaccuracies, which sadly confuse young people about w..."

I don't remember all the inaccuracies, I read it some time ago, I am trying to forget it as hard as I can and of course don't want to review it (I don't own it, it was a library book... thanks god); but the one that I can't forget and really pissed me off was at some moment where the main character says something like "without words Hitler has no power" or "all the power Hitler has in in his words".
That not only is an oversimplification, it is a great lie. I understand of course, that Zusak didn't do any research on the matter and doesn't know a thing about WWII, but that was just too much.

[Christopher]

Evaluating some of these books through our current culture lens is unfair. "Ulysses" was loved by all the writers of that time because it was so different and fresh. Now writers do stream of consciousness all the time so we kind of forget that. "Moby Dick" is one of the first novels to teach you something--whale hunting--while telling a story. Lots of novels do that today too. "Atlas Shrugged" is long winded and only coveted by die hard libertarians, thus its enduring popularity. As far as "Twilight," and other so called YA books that are so popular, I suspect more adults read them than young people, an excuse to read something easy. A mental step above watching TV. In a 100 years no one will be reading them.

[Christopher]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Maria wrote: "How come nobody has a problem with threads that ask you to list your favorite books? I've participated in such a thread where there are well over 70 people willing to share books the..."

Gatsby is a classic because it captured the time period so perfectly.

[Mark]

S.W. wrote: "Don't beat yourself up, Mark. You're a rock star of free thinking and I've enjoyed your witty banter. If you're not a writer, you should be, brother. If you don't want to be a writer, can I have..."

Permission denied but a hardworking thief is hard to stop. I do write but nothing published yet. Thanks for the kind words. Makes my soul feel good.

[Mark]

I, too, have a hard time accepting that nothing Monty, Petergiaquinta or I say will likely change Mkfs's mind nor opinion. It's almost as if all three of us want to catch him coming through our own personal field of rye. We're having a hard time trying to meet him coming through it.

Now what was that, Mkfs, you were saying about most people having white whales but not having personal fields of rye?

I confess I've stalled in the midst of Moby Dick twice now (and I promise to get back to it soon! Why am I reminded of Zelig all the sudden?). So no Moby Dick spoilers, please. But I think I understand enough about what goes on in the book to be relatively certain of this: the white whale served--at least on one level--as the object of Ahab's monomaniacal, self destructive obsession. I'd argue, in fact, there are far more people who have their various personal fields of rye than have their white whales. Most of us would give up and move on. Ahab never did.

What continues to confound me, Mkfs, is your assertion that the last two decades have seen a marked increase of book and movies with coming-of-age storylines. Not that I want to beat a dead white whale here. Maybe you've confused the entertainment industry's relentless marketing stories about youth to the young. Certain so-called coming-of-age stories may have become more commercially successful and, therefore, more visible (and tiresome for me as well). I suspect you're itching to do a take down of the Harry Potter series and, in my opinion, crap like Twilight and Hunger Games. Well deserved targets. Understandable intentions. Have at it. But why make silly-ass assertions about trends in literature (and film) that are as difficult to prove as they are probably not true? And why decree CitR guilty by retroactive association?

The coming-of-age storyline is as old as storytelling itself. Those crafty Germans came up with a word for it toward the end of the 19th century: bildungsroman. As Monty alluded to in a previous post, preliterate human experiences (if not even deeper phylogenetic ones) have hardwired the arc of maturation into our psyches.

Once specific, socially maintained rituals provided people with the procedures that allowed them to get their Corinthians 13:11 on, so to speak. For a long time now (unafraid here to show how much of a Joseph Campbell fan I am) art and literature has supplanted the power and purpose of those previous mythological rituals. Their effectiveness and potency began to flounder around the time of the age of reason and continued to do so as a lay person's perception of science ascended to the throne of God. Exceptions abound, of course. For proof visit your friendly neighborhood earnest Christian Fundamentalist or radical Islamist. But even though the old ways are now either impotent or forgotten (and you could convince me that the new old ways are beginning to suffer the same fate), most art and literature of the last three centuries addressed the same issues once handled by those mythological rituals. So saying there are more coming-of-age stories these days than there used to be seems a lot like saying "the sun sure rises more than it used to."

I think (I could be all wrong here) CitR annoys you--and many of the book's other detractors--because of the carefully constructed (and, again, I think impressively sustained) dialect Salinger, through Holden, uses to tell the story. The reader never gets a break from it. It is repetitive. But on the other side of the coin, this device makes Holden and his story seem genuine to many readers. We hear the naturally limited voice of a real living person (within and, in some ways, again, impressively, beyond a certain historical context) that never veers off into writerly descriptions of sunsets on the ocean or adult ponderings of how Marxist theory has mitigated his feelings of self worth.

What you, I think, find limited and unsophisticated about CitR inspires other readers to strongly identify with the narrator and the novel.

[Jennifer]

I love Catcher in the Rye, but it's definitely one of those books that people either LOVE or HATE. So it's only overrated to people who don't like it. I loved it, so it's not overrated in my opinion.

I agree. The Great Gatsby is cool, but definitely overrated. It's not THAAAT good.

[Monty J]

Mkfs wrote: "...but they are not said to have their own personal Fields of Rye."

Do you like Holden or think he's an idiot? And what does that say about you? Framing The Catcher in the Rye through a psychological lens may help in understanding your reaction to this controversial classic.

Holden imagines himself in a field of rye where children are playing and feels an urge to protect them from falling over a cliff. Entertain for the moment that the field of rye represents Holden's feelings of codependency, an excessive preoccupation with the needs of others, as in the urge to protect the innocent and vulnerable.

Foreshadowed by his repeated concern for the ducks in Central Park--Holden announces to Phoebe that he wants to be a Catcher in the Rye and protect children from going over the cliff. Similar behavior reappears later when he's in tears while watching Phoebe ride the carousel with "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" playing in the background.

A narcissist could care less about protecting others, vulnerable or not. He/she is incapable of empathy. So a character like Holden would seem ridiculous, even repellent, whereas the narcissist might feel strongly attracted to Ayn Rand's John Gault.

I read somewhere that eighty percent of Americans have codependent tendencies. This could help to explain the vast popularity of the book while some readers are repelled by Holden's "whiny repetitiveness."

(Lest I get torched for accusing people of being codependent or narcissistic, let it be clear that this is a mental exercise intended only to deepen our understanding of a book. Only you, or your therapist, know your behavioral tendencies.)

[Paul Martin]

Mkfs wrote: "I should propose as a metric for how overrated a book is:

The number of ad hominem claims (or suppositions of maturity, education, knowledge, morality, etc that are based on the opinions expresse..."

My inner contrarian (although usually forcefully restrained) is inclined to agree.

I both respect and find it amazing when people dedicate years of their life on an in-depth analysis of a book (like Montys analysis of CiTR - truly enjoyed it, thanks!), but this is, in my opinion, not something that is required in order to have a qualified opinion of a book. Sure, you're not an authority on CitR after one read, but Goodreads is a place for public debate, not an online university for sharing your docoral thesis on a certain work of literature. If you (as in anybody) are offended by a comment written by some guy who's read the book in question 'only' once, without having made any attempt at a in-depth analysis, I'd say that there's no basis for accusing that person of 'missing some of what it is to be human.'

[Petergiaquinta]

Monty doesn't need me to defend him, but that last mean-spirited barb you quote there was made by me, not Monty. And I stand by it. The alternatives sound even meaner...

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "Goodreads is a place for public debate, not an online university for sharing your docoral thesis on a certain work of literature."

Although if you've got one to share, who are any of us to say Goodreads can't be a place for both? And all varieties of discourse beyond and in between? It's already a place where you get considered and thoughtful opinions (as Mkfs's was, regardless how much I disagree with him) and people who, god knows why, swoop out of nowhere to say, "OMG, I like really loved CitR, but ... I mean ... The Great Gatsby, not so much." and then never return (not that I'm complaining).

I suppose that Mkfs's Ad Hominem beef is fueled mostly by Peter's comments (because if he thinks my comments have been Ad Hominem, I'd like him to explain how and where). Well then have the balls to take Peter on directly. It's only the internet. No one dies.

Besides, Mkfs equated CitR with Twilight, if I was following along correctly. That, in my opinion, is a stupid thing to say. Not because Mkfs is a bad person, but because--like it or not--there's far more literary substance to the one work than the other.

Perhaps Mkfs could expound upon why he can equate the one with the other in an intellectually justifiable way? Sure Ad Hominem retorts are logical fallacies in any debate but so is "it is so because I say so."

I just don't know the Latin term for that one.

[Kallie]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But don't we struggle with compassion and cruelty?

Don't we long for something that can never return?

Don't we wish keenly and painfully for a perfection that doesn't exist in the temporal world?..."

I so agree. These problems do not go away, are not dispelled by growing older and 'knowing' better. And that is exactly why Catcher remains relevant and transcends genre, as far as I am concerned.

[Kallie]

Christopher wrote: "Moby Dick" is one of the first novels to teach you something--whale hunting--while telling a story. Lots of novels do that today too. "

But not in Melville's voice, so it's unlikely that people will read those novels one hundred years from now (if there are readers and books, that is). Voice can (but rarely does) render "current culture lens" irrelevant; which is probably why Melville seems more real to me than, say, Herman Wouk or some other best-selling 20th century writer.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty doesn't need me to defend him, but that last mean-spirited barb you quote there was made by me, not Monty. And I stand by it. The alternatives sound even meaner..."

I know, it was directed at you, not him. Guess it wasn't very clear.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Goodreads is a place for public debate, not an online university for sharing your docoral thesis on a certain work of literature."

Although if you've got one to share, who are ..."

Of course, I didn't mean to suggest that all the discussions should be dumbed down as much as possible. My view is simply that you can't berate someone for loathing a book you liked, even though they clearly didn't read it very carefully and might not care to elaborate in length as to why they didn't like it. It would be preferable if everybody did, of course.

But you're right, I should have made the reply to Peter. He was the one who made the comment in question, after all.

Maybe I'm way off here, but I didn't get the impression that he was actually comparing the literary value of CitR with Twilight. I think the point was that he'd get the same Ad Hominem thrown at him if he'd made the same arguments in a discussion regarding Twilight - thus somehow 'proving' his method (however silly it may be) for assessing if a book is overrated or not.

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "I think the point was that he'd get the same Ad Hominem thrown at him if he'd made the same arguments in a discussion regarding Twilight - thus somehow 'proving' his method (however silly it may be) for assessing if a book is overrated or not."

By Jove, I just went back and reread that part of the thread (yes, you can now consider yourself quotable, btw) and you're right.

My apologies to Mkfs ... he didn't equate the two other than to say that ... well, what you said.

Ad Hominem is a tricky accusation. It's one thing to say "Because you have negative characteristics your argument must be flawed" but it's another thing to say "Because your argument--in my view--is flawed you have negative characteristics." The former is Ad Hominem. The latter is making some educated guesses about a person based on what they've said about a book, politics, the umbrella stand in the corner, etc.

But, to your point, I went off all half cocked when I ranted about him saying the two works were in the same zone as he didn't.

Clearly I often use these threads as a springboard to write my own thoughts. It's almost like blogging but somehow more focused, not so much in a vacuum.

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "Sure, you're not an authority on CitR after one read, but Goodreads is a place for public debate, not an online university for sharing your doctoral thesis on a certain work of literature."

Ideally it's a cross section of the spectrum of readers. Everyone should be welcome to share their views, for only then to we get a broad sense of how a book is being interpreted. This way we avoid a distorted conception of a book.

It's not so much about being right or wrong; it's about being heard.

No one can be told their opinion is wrong because it is THEIR opinion. We may not agree with it, but in striving to understand it we are forced to examine the details more thoroughly and often learn something new.

[Bill]

So true Martin! Only the author truly knows what was in his or her head at the time he or she wrote their masterpiece! And in my humble opinion - they may not have known what impact (good or bad) their work would have.

[Michael]

As Lewis Carroll wrote regarding the Alice books:

"I'm very much afraid I didn't mean anything but nonsense. Still, you know, words mean more than we mean to express when we use them; so a whole book ought to mean a great deal more than the writer means. So, whatever good meanings are in the book, I'm glad to accept as the meaning of the book."
(source: Collingwood, "The Life and Letters of Lewis Carroll")

[Robert]

The Yellow Birds. Just finished it. Here's my review: https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

[Monty J]

Overrated? Review or book?

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "Overrated? Review or book?"

Oh, I get it! And I removed my attack-comment (removal being not something I often do). What was it that Philip called me? "Our intellectual Rottweiler." But that's in the other thread, eh?

Still, this seems like an insidious way to infiltrate the conversation and say, "hey, read my review."

Without an audience, we all fall down. None of us are immune.

My, it is getting late here on the east coast.

[Paul Martin]

Well, I just realized that I've been participating without actually mentioning a single book.

The most overrated book I've ever read has got to be Atonementby Ian McEwan.

Terribly disappointing.

[Petergiaquinta]

And what, pray tell, did you find so disappointing about Atonement? (I'm taking a cue from Mark here.) Atonement is a book about books, about the power of writing, about the role of fiction in our lives. And there's that redemption thing going on as well. I have a mighty soft spot for books like that. Plus, it's very well written.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "And what, pray tell, did you find so disappointing about Atonement? (I'm taking a cue from Mark here.) Atonement is a book about books, about the power of writing, about the role of fiction in our ..."

I'd post a link to my review, but I guess that would qualify as an "insidious way to infiltrate the conversation and say, "hey, read my review."".

I, too, am obviously taking a cue from Mark here. How is he able to dictate how we're supposed to communicate in here...

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "How is he able to dictate how we're supposed to communicate in here?"

Really? I don't dictate anything. I share my thoughts fearlessly and sometimes I shoot before I aim or even understand, which is why I retracted my "insidious way to" etc. comment

Actually I need to be more proactive about reading other people's reviews. I usually refrain from reading reviews of books that I want to read eventually, spoilers or no.

[Kallie]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "And what, pray tell, did you find so disappointing about Atonement? (I'm taking a cue from Mark here.) Atonement is a book about books, about the power of writing, about the role of fiction in our ..."

I am curious to know too; it's one of the few McEwan's that didn't annoy me at some point. And you at least have contributed other posts. Mark is not the boss of us!

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "Mark is not the boss of us!"

Never said I was or wanted to be.

http://youtu.be/HHjKzr6tLz0

Mr. Martin's review of Atonement:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[[deleted user]]

Skip the last three. The others are mandatory reading for anyone interested in literature, especially if you're an existentialist and have lots of time on your hands. Read Ulysses and The Great Gatsby just to see what can be done with language. If you want a story, read Mills and Boon.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Mark is not the boss of us!"

Never said I was or wanted to be.

http://youtu.be/HHjKzr6tLz0

Mr. Martin's review of Atonement:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show..."

Joking, Mark. Sorry that wasn't clear ("not the boss of us" was intentional kid syntax, my apparently lame hint).

[Petergiaquinta]

But Mark's had such a beneficial impact on this thread! I credit him with coaxing this motley krewe of book-hating mouth breathers spewing a lot of shite into a fairly well-reasoned discussion group. And as a beneficent force in the e-universe, he's even helped me ratchet it down a bit. Or not. Feel free to post a link next time; it easier than going to look for the review, which is what I'm going to do right now...

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "... Joking ..."

Oh, I suspected as much. But in jest there is truth, so I wanted to be quite clear. Besides I get lonely during the day and Goodreads allows me to interact with other humans.

And check out Mr. Mandatory above. You calling me bossy?

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "How is he able to dictate how we're supposed to communicate in here?"

Really? I don't dictate anything. I share my thoughts fearlessly and sometimes I shoot before I aim or eve..."

Haha, just joking.

[Petergiaquinta]

Thanks, Kallie.

Okay, I get it now. Atonement is not the book you (Paul Martin) want it to be, and I've felt that way many a time about other books, so I understand the reaction.

But here's the thing: I don't think Atonement is about love or military history or the horrors of war or comradeship. And it's not exactly fair of a reader to expect a book to be any or all of those if that's not what the book is about at all. As I briefly suggested earlier, and we can go into far more depth of discussion here if folks want, Atonement is a book about books, about writing, about the way that fiction allows a writer to create (or better, in terms of what we discover Briony has done here, "re-create") the world through words and story telling. This is why you have the play at the beginning and why you have so much detail about publishing and editors and the focus on Briony when you would like it to be on other characters. It is Briony's story, even if McEwan is the author, and that's not just some "clever artistic trick," unless of course we acknowledge that all good writing is a trick, just black marks on a page that send worlds spinning and bring characters to life and make us think and sometimes make us weep and always change our lives for the better. It's a form of magic, and a good writer is always a kind of conjuror and that's what Briony is here, and so too is McEwan. (And yes, much of what I wrote here is from Nabokov, so back off, I just cited my source of inspiration.)

I'd suggest if anything Atonement is under-rated, and at the moment lives in the shadow of its film adaptation and the popular impression that it's a sort of Downton Abbey between the wars kind of period piece with a surprise ending. I'd say it's a lot more than just that, and it might be worth another read.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Thanks, Kallie.

Okay, I get it now. Atonement is not the book you (Paul Martin) want it to be, and I've felt that way many a time about other books, so I understand the reaction.

But here's the t..."

I agree. A huge part of my disappointment was precicely due to the fact that it wasn't the book I wanted and expected it to be. I've read and enjoyed most of McEwan's other books and I was kind of saving Atonement, imagining that due to it's popularity,(at least over here) reading it last would be like eating that last slice of leftover pizza for breakfast(a subtle comparison, I know.)Is that unfair of me? Well, yes. I realize of course that I had no reason to expect Atonement to be a massive culmination of all that I love about McEwan's writing, but it was just the expectation that was unconsciously there while I read it.

As for the "clever artistic trick" remark - the reason I reacted like that is, in my head, due to it's lack of impact on me. Maybe you'd agree that a way of writing only has value (to the reader) if it triggers a certain emotional response in that reader? I suspect I might have thought differently if I'd been in a different state of mind, but, well, I wasn't. "An ambush, if discovered and promptly surrounded, will repay the intended mischief with interest". Well, that's kind of I felt. The "trick" didn't succeed in sucking me in, and as a result I just ended up disliking it. Maybe I'll read it again, but I think I'll have to wait a few years. Just writing about it now sort of brings back the feeling of frustration and disappointment:/

[Petergiaquinta]

Paul Martin wrote: "I was kind of saving Atonement, imagining that due to it's popularity,(at least over here)"

I've just had an interesting realization about using word "overrated" and "underrated" when we are an online, e-community of people from different countries using English as a means of communication...on this side of the ocean (America), I'm not sure McEwan is as well known an author as he is in England/Europe, and I'm not sure Atonement the novel (despite the positive critical response it received in America) made as much of a splash here as its film did with Keira Knightley and James McAvoy. Help me out fellow Americans if you think I'm wrong about this, but I don't know a lot of people here who have read the book.

[Johnee]

Catcher. In. The. Rye.

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta wrote:"Help me out fellow Americans..."

I've heard the name Ian McEwan, but other than that know nothing. I have Atonement on my "to read" list as of today based on your comments about the book and Paul's enthusiasm about the author overall (although decidedly not this book).

I am vaguely aware of the movie. I'm no reliable barometer of what most Americans are or are not aware of culturally, though. I'm always surprised when I have examples of how selective I am about what I do and don't pay attention to thrown in my face in various venues.

As I posted to FB last week:

If I were asked to answer this survey question:

You pay attention to popular culture and the entertainment industry:
A) very much
B) somewhat
C) about average
D) not that much at all

I would be tempted to answer "A."

But social media really puts me in touch with how selective my attention is. For example, off the top of my head I am honestly not sure what movies Gwyneth Paltrow has been in, exactly who she is (dimly, I knew, an actress), why I should care about her recently saying whatever it is she recently said, and why a working mom's no doubt tedious and predictable open letter response to whatever it is she said will now get various viral high fives and huzzahs here and there in my digital landscape.

Speaking of "underrated," I think a conversation that would be just as interesting and fruitful as this one, if not more so, could be based on questions like the following: What books do you think are "underrated" or "less well known than they should be"? Sort of "What books are on your personal list of hidden literary treasures?" It might even provide the kind of environment where cranks let me adopt a more positive tone.

When you start a conversation thread like this, do you have to base it around a book title or can you somehow just set up a topic without anchoring it to a book title?

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Mark is not the boss of us!"

I am with you Mark, in spirit, but I have officially given up expecting people to contribute more than, "I didn't like it." I've tried chastising, encouraging, even flattery, but nine times out of ten, it's been a waste of my time.

I think if people knew what bothered them about a book they would say so. Others just want to chime in and be heard. It's just who they are. Part of the human condition.

[Michael]

My 15-year-old son also did not care for Catcher. I'm wondering whether current teens--in general--experience less angst than previous generations, so cannot identify with Holden.

[Geoffrey]

Hmmm. I might consider reading ATONEMENT as I have read two or three of McEwan`s novels and his homicidal-suicidal pathology became so humdrem for me.

[Kallie]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Help me out fellow Americans "
Atonement has 240,000 plus ratings and about 11,000 reviews on Goodreads. I'm not sure what that means in terms of American vs. Brit readers. My husband and I and two good reader friends really like the book. The film was pretty good but not as memorable to me as the book, especially the part where Briony is atoning as a nurse.

A thread for underrated books, yes! That would have the advantage of turning people on to books they probably haven't heard of and the comments would probably be more interesting (unless people veered off on flatly dissing each other's choices).

[Kallie]

Fijke wrote: "Oh Oh! I got a book I think is overrated! Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. I could be wrong about this, because this book might just be very significant to American culture and I just don't reall..."

Fijke, I really hated the message, even at ten or so, that females should be submissive, self-sacrificing and ever so humble. Yet I bought it too, and thought I was bad compared to the 'Little Women.' Yuck. LW should only be read as a cultural document while studying gender expectations of different American eras. The Victorian era was one of the worst; it coincided with early capitalism when women were encouraged to become housebound consumers (or factory workers) who bought all the goods they formerly produced or slaved to make them cheap and profitable.

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "...the message, even at ten or so, that females should be submissive, self-sacrificing and ever so humble."

Touring the Alcott home in Concord, I got the impression that Louisa herself was the opposite of submissive and self-sacrificing. She was an abolitionist and a feminist and volunteered as a nurse in the Union Army. I think she wrote the book to hold up a mirror to society, not to advocate or promote a lifestyle. The book was highly autobiographical.

[Dante]

I haven't read the 740 or so posts in this thread (full disclosure: I only read the first one), so my apologies if my post here is unresponsive to the most recent posts preceding it.

Returning to the original topic, "The Most Overrated Books", I remembered the "Top 100 Novels" list which the Modern Library published about 20-25 years ago (you can view it at http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/...). There were actually two (2) lists -- one by the Modern Library board and one by readers.

The board's list is pretty respectable, but the readers' choices were fairly atrocious, exemplified by the fact that the Top 10 was comprised of four (4) Ayn Rand Books and three (3) L. Ron Hubbard books. [The remaining three in the Top 10 were "The Lord of The Rings", "To Kill a Mockingbird", and "1984", about which I have no complaints.]

So right there you've got seven (7) overrated books.

Delving deeper into the readers' Top 100, I'd also say that Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" (which I *detested*), Card's "Ender's Game", and "The Hunt for Red October" (which I like quite a bit, but it's hardly great literature) have no business being on a "Top 100 Novels" list, unless you're going to be more specific about the Top 100 of a genre.

I could point out more from the readers' Top 100 that I don't think belong on the list, but I'm limiting this to ten (10) books.

My 2¢ ...

[Mark]

Dante wrote: "(full disclosure: I only read the first one),"

I become far too sidetracked, I fear, on discussing the discussion (kind of meta, I know) and the people having it. But, really, you only read the first comment? When there's 790 (and counting)?

Isn't that tantamount to saying, "I have no time for nor interest in what you other people have said, but allow me share some of my thoughts for your general benefit."

Not trying to bust your chops too bad. Think of me as the resident gadfly. But, whew, way to work a room.

[[deleted user]]

Dante wrote: "I haven't read the 740 or so posts in this thread (full disclosure: I only read the first one), so my apologies if my post here is unresponsive to the most recent posts preceding it.

Returning to ..."

Thanks for sharing the "Top 100 Novels" list, Dante. It's interesting to see the difference between the Board and the Readers.

I'm curious to know why you detest Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'. I liked the story very much but found it extremely difficult to read - it took three sittings and even then I had to review it several more times before I felt like I started to really understand it at a surface level. However, after I got a better understanding, I appreciated the message.

Did you find it dense or was it the subject/message that you objected to?

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote:

"When you start a conversation thread like this, do you have to base it around a book title or can you somehow just set up a topic without anchoring it to a book title?"

You do have to anchor a discussion to a book when you start a discussion thread.

I love your idea of starting a thread about the Most Underrated Books. You should do it. Once you start it, post the link here. I'm quite certain many of the members on this thread will gladly join in the discussion. I know I will.

[Mark]

Maria wrote: "Once you start it, post the link here...."

Thanks so much, Maria. I'll probably get around to this soon.

And thanks for starting this thread. Much good conversation here.

[Dante]

Mark wrote: "Dante wrote: '(full disclosure: I only read the first one),'

Isn't that tantamount to saying, 'I have no time for nor interest in what you other people have said, but allow me share some of my thoughts for your general benefit.'

Not trying to bust your chops too bad. Think of me as the resident gadfly. But, whew, way to work a room. "

I hear you, Mark. I don't agree with you, but I hear you. :-)