The Most Overrated Books Showing 751-800 of 5,680

[Dante]

Maria wrote: "Dante wrote: "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?
..."

Maria - Heart of Darkness was book that we read in my now-defunct book group about 10 or 15 years ago. I founded the book group in part to force myself to read and discuss "classics" that I didn't manage to read in college (or later) for one reason or another. (I was an English major, for what it's worth.)

Knowing that Heart of Darkness was the inspiration for "Apocalypse Now" (and had been Orson Welles' first choice for his film directorial debut before he ended up making "Citizen Kane" instead), I looked forward to reading it.

Unfortunately, I -- and many others in the book group -- found it to be as impenetrable as the jungle which Conrad describes in the book: as (relatively) short as the book was, reading it felt like a never-ending slog. I can't ever imagine trying to read it again (let alone multiple re-readings!), but I commend you for your perseverance. :-)

For years afterwards, whenever we discussed which book we disliked the most of all the ones we had read in the group, Heart of Darkness was the front runner by far.

[Petergiaquinta]

Too bad. For me, Heart of Darkness and The Stranger were the two most powerful books I read in high school, two books that helped form my young mind, and two books that I have returned to many times since those early days without finding any loss of their power or attraction. And Heart of Darkness in the Congo rang true for Coppola's treatment of Vietnam, just as it would if someone wanted to use it for Afghanistan today. It endures and continues to resonate with meaning.

[Dante]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Too bad. For me, Heart of Darkness and The Stranger were the two most powerful books I read in high school, two books that helped form my young mind, and two books that I have returned to many time..."

The Stranger is on my "to read" list -- my father had a copy of it back in my childhood home, and I brought it back to Chicago with me last summer so I could read it myself. I hope I enjoy it as much as you did, Peter -- unfortunately, Heart of Darkness just didn't do it for me. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

[Michelle]

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 would agree with everything but The Catcher in the Rye and The Da Vinci Code. However none of the above are books I would mention to non-readers as a "you just have to read this".

Ulysses, the worst in my opinion.

Twilight blows my mind that it is on the list. The edition I read had Amazon rating it, at the time, not only one of the best of the year but the decade. It was just an okay YA book. But it sure seemed to change the face of publishing. ;)

I would add Atonementby Ian McEwan to this list.

[Michelle]

Rachel wrote: "'Ulysses' and 'Midnight's Children' are two of the worst books I've ever read. They make Stephenie Meyer look like a genius.

'The Da Vinci Code' is actually a fairly good thriller, and 'Twilight' ..."

Ha Ha I love that first line Rachel. I sure hope people don't think Stepahnie Meyer is a genius but I know some claim that Joyce is.

[Paul Martin]

Well, I'm rather relieved to see that I'm not the only one who didn't enjoy Heart of Darkness. I have no idea why really, I think it was the writing that really put me off - it just didn't really flow well in my head. English isn't my first language though, so I think I'll try again with the Norwegian translation.

The time period and setting really interests me, which is why I thoroughly enjoyed El sueño del celta (The Dream of the Celt). Don't be fooled by the title, a significantly unterrated book in my opinion.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Too bad. For me, Heart of Darkness and The Stranger were the two most powerful books I read in high school, two books that helped form my young mind, and two books that I have returned to many time..."

I think I might have to give Heart of Darkness another try then, seeing how The Stranger was hugely influential on me as well.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: "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").

Well, it's not like he's one of my favourite authors of all time, but he's one of those contemporary writers that, in my opinion, writes a quality book now and then. Reading the classics is great of course, but every now and then I just think it's refreshing to read something new that hasn't yet been judged by time - and since reading a book does take some time (for me, at least), I prefer to pick something "safe", and that is the role McEwan has in my life, haha. His stories and themes may not always be the greatest, but I usually find them insightful and clever. And of course, he's an expert at creating and describing unbelievably awkward situations. All this, plus his quality prose, makes it worthwhile, at least for me.

Will people still be reading his books in 50 years? I think they might do so in the UK, but in the rest of the world? No idea.

[Kallie]

Dante wrote: "Maria wrote: "Dante wrote: "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 ..."

About Heart of Darkness. . . I remember feeling horrified and moved, but would have to read it again to comment in detail because the last read was ten years ago. But to me, everything Conrad wrote is worth a re-read. I don't understand calling one of the greatest moral writers (but always through character and narrative) overrated.

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "She was an abolitionist and a feminist and volunteered as a nurse in the Union Army. "
I know more of that now and knew at the time that she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin (which I also read then). But she presents LW characters in a sentimental voice that doesn't just mirror them but makes them models who become admirable through learning to correct any too-feisty behavior and attitude.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: " ... she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin..."

No, that's not right.

Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe

Little Women by Louisa May Alcott

You must have gotten slightly confused about the two, somehow.

[[deleted user]]

Dante is right - 'Heart of Darkness' is difficult to read even though it is very short. Like he said it is "as impenetrable as the jungle which Conrad describes in the book." And, I have to admit when I first starting reading it, I thought the exact same thing. It wasn't until I was finished that I really appreciated Conrad's mastery of language to make the reader feel that slog through the jungle.

I, too, read the book with a book club but the difference is that there was one woman in the group who loved the book and had read it many times. She pointed out a lot of things that I never would have noted on my own. It was her guidance and enthusiasm for the book that made me persevere.

I realized that the story had great depth and that I may have to read it several times to appreciate it fully. On this first go round, the question that kept haunting me throughout was "Who are the savages really?" and of course, the horrifying answer every time was "The white imperialists." Just this one point hooked me to re-read it and delve further.

I started reading other people's reviews of the book and even searched out what Conrad himself said about it. This remark he made about 'Heart of Darkness' impacted me the most, "...it is well known that curious men go prying into all sorts of places (where they have no business) and come out of them with all kinds of spoil. This story...(is) all the spoil I brought out from the centre of Africa, where really I had no sort of business....Heart of Darkness is experience pushed a little (and only a little) beyond actual facts of the case for the perfectly legitimate, I believe, purpose of bringing it home to the minds and bosoms of the readers...That sombre theme had to be given a sinister resonance, a tonality of its own, a continued vibration that, I hoped, would hang in the air and dwell on the ear after the last note had been struck."

Conrad certainly achieved his goal with me at least - the horror of it all is firmly etched in my mind and like Petergiaquinta I think the message is timeless and can be universally applied. However, I will say you have to work at reading and understanding it. But, in my humble opinion, it's definitely worth it.

[Mark]

Maria wrote: "But, in my humble opinion, it's definitely worth it."

Bravo! Nice post. I think I might have to move this up further on my "to read" plans for this year ... although I have deliberately trying to read more women authors. I'm shamelessly scant ... no, beyond scant, I'm in an extreme and inexcusable deficit ... in that area.

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "...she presents LW characters in a sentimental voice that doesn't just mirror them but makes them models who become admirable through learning to correct any too-feisty behavior and attitude."

Well,now you've got me interested. I'll have to reread it.

The tour guides sure gave Louisa a buildup as a heroic strong-willed, feisty example of early feminism. Perhaps it was a matter of modern feminist standards being applied retroactively. A bit of wishful thinking.

I'm wondering if the book was showing what happened to her, that she had to restrain her spiritedness in order to get along? Or perhaps she was pandering a bit to sell the book. The family was continually in dire financial straits until her mother's inheritance.

Alcott, her father, was more of a thinker and philosopher than a breadwinner.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: "Maria wrote: "But, in my humble opinion, it's definitely worth it."

Bravo! Nice post. I think I might have to move this up further on my "to read" plans for this year ... although I have delibera..."

Thanks, Mark. Let us know what you think of HOD if you end up reading it.

Which women authors are you thinking about adding to your list this year?

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: " ... she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin..."

No, that's not right.

Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stoweh,

You must have gotten slightly confused ab..."

For sure. I blush.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "I blush."

You are among friends. Blush not. I just thought you'd want to know. OK?

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "I blush."

You are among friends. Blush not. I just thought you'd want to know. OK?"

Absolutely.

[Anne Hawn]

Maria wrote: "Dante is right - 'Heart of Darkness' is difficult to read even though it is very short. Like he said it is "as impenetrable as the jungle which Conrad describes in the book." And, I have to admit w..."

I have to second what you said, Maria (Dante and Kallie). Joseph Conrad is a master at language and just reading some of the descriptions is a thrill. He uses the sounds of the letters in words to create a feeling. There is a part in Heart of Darkness , where he is describing the river and the murmuring consonants create a feeling of peace and serenity and then he begins using some of the vocative consonants like p, k, t and you feel that something is intruding...something is not right. Then comes the villain and you look back and say, "I knew trouble was coming!"

When you add to the beauty of the language Conrad's ability to truly understand that "heart of darkness" as well as Sigmund Freud could you have an incredibly powerful book that is well worth the time to search out it's meaning.

Some books we don't have the skills or understanding to read, but when we take the time to really work at them, they teach us. Then we read the book again and there is a whole new level of meaning.

[Kallie]

Anne Hawn wrote: "He uses the sounds of the letters in words to create a feeling. "
That's true; Conrad's use of language is poetic, and most poetry takes a second reading before imagery, symbolism, meaning become clear to the reader. That's an interesting experience, to see how the mind (with or without actual interpretation from an outside source) opens to a text simply through re-reading.

[Mark]

Maria wrote: "Which women authors are you thinking about adding to your list this year?"

History by Elsa Morante. I'm started reading it in January and had wanted to finish by the end of March. I've obviously failed at that goal, but am enjoying the book nevertheless.

Jagannath by Karin Tidbeck. Currently reading this one, too. The book lends itself well to start and stop since it's an anthology of short (very) stories. I say "start and stop" but I don't mean in the middle of any one of the stories. So far they've all been short enough that I can finish one, maybe two in a single session. Of the handful or so that I've read so far, I can't imagine deciding to pause midway through any of them to come back to it later. Have you ever had a dream so intriguing that a little sliver of your consciousness surfaces just to hope you don't wake and end it? These short stories are like that. Not that the dreamscape is always pleasant. There's tragedy, loneliness and, in the one I read most recently, a deeply perverse horror (though subtle and exquisitely crafted). Highly recommended and I'm probably not yet at the halfway point.

The titles on my list that I haven't yet started, in the tentative order in which I plan to read them, are as follows:

01. Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones

02. The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver

03. Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking

04. This Beautiful Life by Helen Schulman

05. Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation and Other Essays

06. Unclean Jobs for Women and Girls by Alissa Nutting

07. So Many Ways to Sleep Badly by Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore

08. Our Aesthetic Categories: Zany, Cute, Interesting by Sianne Ngai

That ought to take me well into the summer if not beyond it.

Thanks for asking, Maria.

Oh, and I'm open to suggestions of books by female authors from any and all my Goodread chums. I was kind of shocked when I did an inventory and realized how unintentionally sexist I'd been in my reading choices for most of my life.

[Ronjaws]

The Lovely Bones is a good read. Sad but good.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'm with Fijke...I'd move straight to Poisonwood Bible. It's sentimental and book clubby, too, but I'd say it has more to offer the thoughtful reader. It's kind of a Heart of Darkness lite, but at the same time it left me thinking a lot about the nature of cultural imperialism and religious belief systems.

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "It's sentimental and book clubby, too."

I'm not wed to anything on the list that I haven't already started and some of the titles that are on there are by virtue of meeting two criteria: (a) written by a woman and (b) a copy already exists under the roof since the merger of my and my wife's personal libraries.

I'd be more than happy to read female writers from a zone or with a sensibility similar to, say, a Faulkner or a Chabon or a Burroughs or name your favorite author who has transcended the "book-clubby" appellation.

I think I'm on the right track with Joan Didion, for instance.

[Petergiaquinta]

How about Margaret Atwood maybe? Or Arundhati Roy jumps to mind, The God of Small Things.

[Petergiaquinta]

Have you read Toni Morrison? That's just what you might be in the mood for. Start with Sula or The Bluest Eye. I think you'll find her with some sensibilities akin to those of Faulkner.

[Michael]

Ann Patchett's Bel Canto is fabulous.

[Kevin]

Moby Dick is unreadable. ugh!!!

[Kallie]

You could start earlier with Dawn Powell (overlooked) and Paula Fox (ditto); both are superb novelists. Flannery O'Connor, if you have not read her short stories especially. Elizabeth Hardwick's Sleepless Nights, a memoir about NYC life (she was one of the founders of NYRB) More contemporary: Deborah Eisenberg and Joy Williams are among the very best short story writers, and Valerie Martin's and Susan Choi's very timely (again excellent) novels.

[Daniel]

Agree with Peter, The Bluest Eye is one hell of a book.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "History by Elsa Morante. I'm started reading it in January and had wanted to finish by the end of March. I..."

'History' is a great novel, btw. I'd like to read it again. It's worth a thread all its own.

[[deleted user]]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Maria wrote: "Dante is right - 'Heart of Darkness' is difficult to read even though it is very short. Like he said it is "as impenetrable as the jungle which Conrad describes in the book." And, I ..."

"Some books we don't have the skills or understanding to read, but when we take the time to really work at them, they teach us. Then we read the book again and there is a whole new level of meaning."

I totally agree with you, Anne. Most of the time when I don't like a book, it's really because I don't understand it. I either lack the background or context in which it was written or I know little to nothing about the author. It also really helps to read these types of books with someone else or with a book club. Other's guidance and enthusiasm go a long way toward helping me to figure out what I don't know and encouraging me to read on.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: "Maria wrote: "Which women authors are you thinking about adding to your list this year?"

History by Elsa Morante. I'm started reading it in January and had wanted to finish by the end of March. I..."

Mark, thanks for sharing this interesting list of women authors. I've never read anything by any of them and I'm only familiar with two names on the list. It seems I need to start reading more books by women authors, too.

[Anne Hawn]

Maria wrote: "Most of the time when I don't like a book, it's really because I don't understand it. I either lack the background or context in which it was written or I know little to nothing about the author. It also really helps to read these types of books with someone else or with a book club. Other's guidance and enthusiasm go a long way toward helping me to figure out what I don't know and encouraging me to read on. "

I am trying to do this with Toni Morrison and Salman Rushdie. I've read 3 of Toni Morrison and 3/4 of Rushdie. I love Rushdie's writing...the poetical nature of it and the way he expresses himself, but I didn't like the characters or the plot. ( The Ground Beneath Her Feet ) I am going to try again with some of the others. I need to study Toni Morrison with a book group or commentary. With both of these, I feel like I don't have the right "background or context" as you say.

[Paul Martin]

Just finished Of Mice and Men. I would definitely not call it overrated, (gave it four stars, after all) but I certainly don't think it's his best book.

Loved the characters and the writing, but due to it's short length I can't really say that it made the same impression as The Grapes of Wrath and, especially, East of Eden.

Do some people actually consider Of Mice and Men his best work, or is its popularity due to its short length and the fact that people usually read it in school?

[Geoffrey]

Hmmmm, Paul. I find several of JS`s books to be of equal import. GOW and OMM are equals. In fact, I believe that to be the reason for JS`s unparalleled distinction of American`s pre-eminent writer in that he wrote as many masterpieces as he did.
THE PEARL
THE GRAPES OF WRATH
OF MICE AND MEN

Who else has written three masterpieces and counting?

[Paul Martin]

Geoffrey wrote: "Hmmmm, Paul. I find several of JS`s books to be of equal import. GOW and OMM are equals. In fact, I believe that to be the reason for JS`s unparalleled distinction of American`s pre-eminent writer ..."

I've never been to California. I've never had any special interest in California. I guess that for someone familiar with California and its landscape and history, the format of OMM works just fine. For me, on the other hand, I couldn't really settle into the setting before it was all over. I imagine it would've been even worse if I hadn't read some of his other work first.

And...I find it quite unbelievable how you can omit East of Eden in a list of his masterpieces!

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "Do some people actually consider Of Mice and Men his best work, or is its popularity due to its short length and the fact that people usually read it in school?"

I put in on a par with The Great Gatsby and The Sun Also Rises, not because of writing style, but because of the depth and breadth of the book's socio-cultural footprint.

[Spoiler alert] All three books deal with the timeless issues of inter-gender relations and reclaiming hope for a better future. But Steinbeck was the first author of any country I know of who thoroughly integrated nature into his setting and character development and the plot was masterfully executed, superior, I feel, to either of the books mentioned.

The dead mouse and the killing of Candy's dog foreshadowed the euthanization of Lennie.

All three books effectively encapsulate prevailing issues of an era that are of timeless importance. For TGG and TSAR it was the struggle with values and corruption for a generation decimated by a horrific world war.

For OMM it was that same generation ten years later, agrarian rather than urban, struggling to get by during the Great Depression.

Here's one of my analyses for OMM: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...

And another: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...

[Paul Martin]

Monty J wrote: "...but Steinbeck was the first author of any country I know of who thoroughly integrated nature into his setting and character development"

That's what I've been feeling, but been unable to describe - thanks.

I'll read the analyses later, looks interesting.

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "Do some people actually consider Of Mice and Men his best work?"

If I were inclined to rank the Steinbeck books that I've so far read (all those you've mentioned plus Cannery Row) from best to worst (I'm not so inclined, my brain doesn't work that way usually and definitely not so with what I've read of Steinbeck), I'd have to consider Of Mice and Men an outlier that, for lack of a better way to explain it, wrestles in an entirely different weight class.

Monty's "socio-cultural footprint" is interesting, but I suspect few writers set out with any ideas about the size of the "socio-cultural footprint" their individual work will make. But they do either eventually come to grips with or, in some cases, begin with specific ideas about the scale of their work.

Are they painstakingly painting a miniature or engaging in the physical strength trial of painting a sweeping panoramic mural?

I think the expansive, wide ranging scale of the latter (examples that come to mind would be Steinbeck's East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath or the Elsa Morante penned novel History which I finished yesterday) yields fat tomes with sprawling stories that can boast of their own peaks because of their valleys and plateaus. To perhaps painfully extend the metaphor, such books can also hold hard to detect but fascinating tidal pools or small caverns, etc.

These types of books may not be consistently arresting of our attention but it's hard to say with certainty whether or not we, as readers, would have been transported to the dizzying heights of the peaks were it not for some of the valleys and flat lands.

On the other side of the coin, the concentration and compression inherently produced by a writer working on a relatively small scale (I'd cite Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby, The Old Man and the Sea) often feels like fiction that more consistently packs a stronger emotional punch. If there is not a great precision to the characters and plot elements, if they don't all relentlessly tick along with a sharp as clockwork, to-our-own-fictional-world-be-true coordination amongst themselves, we as a reader feel like something has gone awry that could not have been prevented by lengthening the story.

Of Mice and Men is a work on that smaller but no less worthwhile scale and can't be fairly compared to East of Eden, etc.

... does it show that I'm on my third whiskey?

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Do some people actually consider Of Mice and Men his best work?"

If I were inclined to rank the Steinbeck books that I've so far read (all those you've mentioned plus Cannery R..."

I liked East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath and Cannery Row and The Great Gatsby and even A Farewell to Arms and The Sun Also Rises. But frankly, I am tired of these guys beyond any desire to discuss them further because they are always the main topics of discussion in nearly any American lit course. You would think no other American writers were worthy of study, which is simply not the case. There are other interesting writers, some of them women, and as a woman, I frankly have become bored with the 'great American writer' sensibility as expressed through an exclusively male point of view. It is limited. Salinger at least wrote from a woman's p.o.v. in Franny and Zooey; still, that doesn't quite cover it for me. Not to be sardonic but: go figure.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: " There are other interesting writers, some of them women, and as a woman, I frankly have become bored with the 'great American writer' sensibility as expressed through an exclusively male point of view."

If it helps at all, I've been reading Anne Sexton's poetry for a better part of the night so far. I take great comfort in the fact that, in addition to men and women both being human and one no better or worse than the other in any worthwhile regard, there is a gap worth exploring as well as worth bridging between the genders. I've been reading stuff in these Sexton poems that are and always will be alien to me because my plumbing and reproductive equipment is not quite the same. It's a source of amazement to me.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: " alien to me because my plumbing and reproductive equipment is not quite the same"

Do you think that is why? I sometimes wonder. In any case, Sexton is interesting for sure: also Bogan, Bishop, Plath, Gluck, Gregg and others . . . Poets. But there are also American women short-story/novelists whom I enjoy immensely. For example, I would in a heartbeat enroll in a class that discusses Flannery O'Connor (whose point of view was not particularly feminine).

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "Do you think that is why?"

Do I think that is why what? Why it is alien to me? Or why it is a source of amazement? I'm confused by your question. Of the poems I've read so far (and times before) Sexton deals directly with physical experiences of being female (I'm walking on eggshells here because I really don't want to sound like, or be, some mutton-headed patriarchal sexist man). That makes it alien, for lack of a better way to say it, on a visceral level for me. The amazing part is that she's a a poet who uses words in a very powerful and maybe surreal way.

[Paul Martin]

Kallie wrote: But frankly, I am tired of these guys beyond any desire to discuss them further

I'm not American, so you'll have to forgive my rather limited scope of American writers.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: "I'd have to consider Of Mice and Men an outlier that, for lack of a better way to explain it, wrestles in an entirely different weight class."

I agree. It's also worth saying that Steinbeck didn't really set out to write a novel. From what I read in the introduction, he wanted it to be a short story that could easily be made into a play (the "novelette" )- which makes sense considering his later proclamations about the novel being dead, while theatre was just "waking up".

[Kim]

I have not read all of them, but I really liked The Catcher and the Rye, one of my top ten favorites. I never read it until I was an adult. I have read The Great Gatsby and to me that one is really over rated. Just my thought.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Just finished Of Mice and Men. I would definitely not call it overrated, (gave it four stars, after all) but I certainly don't think it's his best book.

Loved the characters and the writing, but d..."

I am a big John Steinbeck fan - Of Mice and Men is my favorite of his works. I've read it three times. During the first two readings, I thought the main point of the story was all about friendship, devotion, love, loyalty, and obligation - an intense bond that exists between kindred spirits who hang on to a mutual dream that helps them get through hard times. However, after reading it a third time and watching the Gary Sinise version of the film - which was absolutely outstanding - I think the story is more about loneliness than anything else. The struggle between the fear of being alone and the desire for freedom that comes with being alone seems to be a central theme that I may have overlooked in past readings.

A few years ago, a friend sent me the 1939 version of the film. I watched Burgess Meredith (George), Lon Chaney, Jr. (Lennie), and Betty Field (Mae, Curly's wife) brilliantly bring to life Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. Although I loved Gary Sinise's version, there is something very special about the 1939 version that gets my vote for the "best." Perhaps it is because Mae's character is more fully developed in this version. I found myself really concentrating on her throughout the movie. She is perhaps the loneliest of all the characters - I could feel her pain - and I could understand how that pain drove her to do things that continually put herself and everyone else in jeopardy.

In answer to your question, Paul, I think Of Mice and Men is considered one of Steinbeck's best works and is popular because in a very short read it makes a huge emotional impact. Steinbeck doesn't just describe and analyze place and character, he makes you see and feel which creates a powerful internal reaction. It might be disturbing, hopeful or sobering, but regardless, it's something that hits you at the emotional level.

[Elsita]

I thought 'On the Road' was way more overrated than 'The Catcher in the Rye'. I also agree on The Great Gatsby, I gave up after 3/4 of Moby Dick and half of The Alchemist.

As for more recently published books: I mostly enjoyed the Harry Potter series, but I would not say that they lived up to all the hype. I will also go out on a limb and suggest 'The Kite Runner', it was way too contrived.

[Ronjaws]

Of Mice and Men is my ATF.