The Catcher in the Rye The Catcher in the Rye discussion


11982 views
The Most Overrated Books

Comments Showing 801-850 of 5,680 (5680 new)    post a comment »

message 801: by Mark (last edited Apr 09, 2014 07:36AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark The definition of "overrated," as others have said earlier, is an issue here. I mean if I rave about a book that only a handful of us have heard of and read, and the rest of the handful doesn't care for it, am I overrating it?

With the concept of "overrated" being that slippery, I don't understand how anyone could put two diverse works on an imagined level playing field of "ratedness" and declare one more so than the other.

I don't know what "overrated" is, exactly, so I won't say that the Harry Potter series is, but I'll confess that I'm always confused when adults tell me they've not only read and enjoyed them, but that they found them to be (imagine a tone of near breathless whisper) "great."

It's an unpopular opinion in my real time interaction with people, so I suspect it would be here too, but I sometimes say and always think: "You are a grown-ass person and you think these books are great?

And in real life, as is often the case on Goodreads, no one who holds the Harry Potter series' books up to be great, can explain to me why they feel that way. Beyond "it's just a really good story."

I don't understand.


message 802: by John (new) - rated it 4 stars

John Missig 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 they loved. Not on..."

I don't know why people are stupid and can't answer a simple question like "Which books do you think are overrated?"

Instead we get a whole bunch of bullshit about "what does overrated even mean?" or "it's all subjective." Of course it's subjective and if you don't know what overrated means, then you should either look it up or refrain from commenting at all.

I personally loved your list. Here is mine ( not quite 10 though)

1. The Stand
2. The Da Vinci Code
3. The Great Gatsby
4. Anything by Hemmingway
5. The Lord of the Flies ( I read this at an early age, I am going to give it another go)


message 803: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark John wrote:"I don't know why people are stupid..."

Hey, thanks, John, I had almost lost track of the fact that I'm stupid, so distracted was I by other things. Whew! Good to have someone like you to remind me of the facts about myself and bring me back to earth. Some things one shouldn't lose sight of.

Oh ... I'm sorry, maybe this is another one of those situations where I should have refrained from commenting only didn't know it until it was pointed out by a superior intelligence such as yourself. Darn it. It really can be so trying to be stupid like me ... in a way you'll never know.

Could be worse, I suppose, I could be self-aware. Or pompous.


message 804: by Jim (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jim Swike East of Eden.


Petergiaquinta Oh, you dirty member of the cultural elite, you!

But clearly, it's that word "great," isn't it? Because we really shouldn't use the same word when we're talking Harry Potter as when we're talking Moby Dick or Wordsworth or Shakespeare.

But alas, language is limited and some folks who mean "good" go on to say "great" when they should limit themselves to something like, "reelly reelly reelly good." And other folks, some posters on this thread possibly, may not understand why a-holes like you and me, Mark, even want to distinguish between a good story with interesting characters and a great piece of literature. Because Harry Potter is wunnerful wunnerful, and I've enjoyed it tremendously, but I don't mistake J.K Rowling for Chaucer or Faulkner or even for Steinbeck...

Is it worth talking about what makes "great" beyond just simple, captivating storytelling?


message 806: by Monty J (last edited Apr 09, 2014 11:44AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Monty J Heying Maria wrote: "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 book is also about obstacles to happiness such as human cruelty and racial bigotry. In the book, Curley's wife is both victim and antagonist. Senise, more than any director who has interpreted the book, declined to interpret her faithfully.

Otherwise, the film was beautifully rendered.

Steinbeck caused a lot of confusion about Curley's wife by creating a softer version of this character for stage and film so soon after the book was released. The scene where she calls Crooks "N...r" and threatens to have him lynched has never been portrayed in film, and I doubt it ever will be.

But that vicious scene in Crooks' room shows how someone can be so psychologically damaged by their own wounds that they vent it on those more vulnerable than they (represented by Lennie, Crooks and Candy.)

Films are expensive to make and they have to make a profit, and that scene is too controversial, too negative toward women and racially inflammatory for producers to take the risk. A film would never get funding with that scene included (even in today's more liberal climate where a film like Twelve Years a Slave can get Best Picture.)

So we are forever saddled with a softened version of Curley's wife.

I own and have studied all three film versions, including the 1982 version with Robert Blake and Randy Quaid as George and Lennie. The version truest to the book is the '39 version with Lon Cheney and Burgess Meredith. But Curley's wife's racial epithets and threats of hanging are missing.

Here's an analysis of Curley's wife: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...


message 807: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark Petergiaquinta wrote: "Is it worth talking about what makes "great" beyond just simple, captivating storytelling?"

I'm taking all my cues from John (y'know, the throbbing God of superior intellect who posted above recently) so before I answer your question, I must:

01. look up the definition of the word "great" and understand it to my core with same black and white, unerring certainty that a man of his intelligence possesses (I can dream about somehow getting close to the light if I cannot be the light).

02. or refrain from commenting at all.

I dispense with nuance all together from now on. Here is my list of my top ten overrated books

01. A Storm of Swords (A Song of Ice and Fire, #3)
02. A Clash of Kings (A Song of Ice and Fire, #2)
03. Wizard and Glass (The Dark Tower, #4)
04. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Harry Potter, #6)
05. Anthem by Ayn Rand
06. The Dark Tower (The Dark Tower, #7)
07. The Witching Hour (Lives of the Mayfair Witches,#1)
08. The Road by Cormac McCarthy
09. No Country For Old Men
10. John (oh, wait, he's not a book ... well, poetic license, eh?)


message 808: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark Fijke wrote: "what can go wrong in a discussion on books being overrated."

Well said. All of it. Nice post.


Michael Sussman By some process that usually includes both popularity and critical acclaim, some titles come to be known as "great" books. But this does not mean that every person who reads such a book will agree with the general consensus.

One title that comes to my mind is Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions, which won critical acclaim and was one of his most popular novels. I didn't like it when it came out, and found it equally disappointing when I reread it recently.

I adore several of Vonnegut's works, but I felt like he put very little effort into this one. He even dismisses the book in his own introduction.


Petergiaquinta Michael wrote: "By some process that usually includes both popularity and critical acclaim, some titles come to be known as "great" books."

No, I disagree entirely. "Great" has nothing to do with popularity...a "great" book transcends popular opinion. In fact, some great books aren't that popular at all, and that's why the cry babies out there still nurturing grudges against their high school English teachers created these "overrated" lists in the first place. I'd say there is in a great book just the right combination of what Chaucer's Harry Bailly calls "best sentence" and "moost solaas." A great book has been labored over, and each and every word counts. A great book demonstrates a craft that mere story telling rarely engages in. A great book will go on being a great book even if no one is reading it.

I'd say there's something almost Platonic about the whole thing: Is it a great book because the gods read it or do the gods read it because it's a great book?

(It's the second one, mes enfants.)


message 811: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark Petergiaquinta wrote: "calls 'best sentence' and 'moost solaas' ..."

What does "moost solaas" mean, me fellow droogie?


message 812: by Paul Martin (last edited Apr 09, 2014 11:12AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Paul Martin Fijke wrote: "The book has an excellent storyline, it's clever, the world-building is imaginative"

The Harry Potter series have meant a lot to me too, but compared to other works of fantasy, I think the world-building is pretty...lame.

For me it was the maturation and depth of some of the characters. I was about the same age (and if I'm not wrong, I'm guessing you were too?)as the characters, and I suppose that's the reason it meant (and means)a lot to people our age. People can say whatever they want about Rowling as a writer, but she sure knew how to relate to the people the book was aimed at, namely the kids around the same age as Harry.

Even though they're a huge part of my childhood, I'm not the least offended when people older than myself express disbelief, or even contempt, for it's popularity. It belongs to a certain generation of readers.

I agree with Mark - I find it very strange when people who were grown adults at the time of its publication proclaim their love for Harry Potter.

I'm almost certain I would've disliked it if it had been published today, which is why I'm rather careful not to talk too much trash about books like The Hunger Games, which I thought was a ridiculous, generic and lousy book.


message 813: by Ken (new) - rated it 1 star

Ken That's a good point Paul,

and one that may help explain my (slightly older) generation's position. There weren't any smash hit series about young adult experiences when I was that age. None that made any waves with me, anyway. There was the Star Wars expanded universe, but that had mostly adult characters. Same with Uplift, Tolkien, and all the classics.

When the HP trend and copy-cat series that followed hit, I was and still am one of those slightly-older people who can't fathom why it's praised so highly - except that as you say, they tend to resonate with their primary targeted audience.


Paul Martin Kenneth wrote: "That's a good point Paul,

and one that may help explain my (slightly older) generation's position. There weren't any smash hit series about young adult experiences when I was that age. None that m..."


Well, I would've been just like you if I had been 5-6 years older. When the last book was due for publishing, I was already sensing that I was not as excited as I had been before the previous books. I remember finishing it on a 8 1/2 hour train ride from Oslo to Stavanger, and I was almost relieved when it was over. I was 17 and had outgrown them, simple as that.


Petergiaquinta Mark wrote: "What does "moost solaas" mean, me fellow droogie?"

Essentially, when Harry Bailly sets up the story telling contest for the pilgrims at the end of the General Prologue, he says he'll award the free supper to the pilgrim whose tale is most instructive (sentence) and most entertaining (solaas), i.e., that best engages both the brain and the heart, I suppose we could say. And that's a criteria that stands the test of time for winning tales. So Harry Potter is pretty good; it's fine story telling, highly entertaining, and it teaches us important lessons about how to live in this world and treat our fellow creatures. But it probably doesn't reach the heights of "best sentence," because we don't have to think too hard when reading Rowling. She is a gifted story teller, but there isn't a tremendous craft at work there.


message 816: by [deleted user] (new)

Ronjaws wrote: "Of Mice and Men is my ATF."

Mine, too.


message 817: by [deleted user] (new)

Monty J wrote: "Maria wrote: "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 ..."

That's a great review Monty. Thanks for sharing it. Mae, Curly's wife, is a really interesting and complex character. On the one hand I disliked her but at the same time I felt very sorry for her. There are definitely strong themes of racial bigotry and human cruelty throughout the book. I especially wonder if Steinbeck wrote the last scene between George and Lennie to demonstrate human cruelty or human kindness. When I first read it, I believed it was human kindness. But after my third read, I'm convinced it was human cruelty. What do you think?


message 818: by [deleted user] (new)

John 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..."

John, I read Lord of the Flies when I was very young and absolutely hated it. In fact, I couldn't even get through it. Then, I read it again a couple of years ago and loved it. I hope you do give it another chance and find it a good read. I'll be interested to hear if you liked it.


message 819: by [deleted user] (new)

Mark wrote: Here is my list of my top ten overrated books.

Oh, say it ain't so, Mark.....you haven't really read these books, have you?


Geoffrey Paul Martin wrote: "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 pr..."

Because I´ve never read it!


message 821: by Monty J (last edited Apr 09, 2014 07:14PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Monty J Heying Maria wrote: " I especially wonder if Steinbeck wrote the last scene between George and Lennie to demonstrate human cruelty or human kindness."

[Spoiler alert] Whitt's euthanasia of Candy's dog foreshadows the dramatic final scene where George shoots Lennie, painlessly, in the back of the head, just as Whitt explained in the bunkhouse before killing the dog.

The key to understanding the final scene, to me, lies in Candy's reaction to the killing of his dog when he later says that he shouldn't have allowed someone else do the killing, implying that it was his responsibility because he was the one who loved and cared for the dog.

Likewise, George's killing of Lennie is an act of kindness, a mercy killing to prevent his friend from being killed by Curley or, worse, being sentenced to live out his years chained to the wall of an insane asylum, as Slim warned.

Also, George grieves for Lennie when the sheriff comes and takes the gun. "Some times a man's got to."

I think Curley's wife is one of the most interesting characters in all of literature and film. She is utterly fascinating. She creates havoc without even trying. I so wanted things to end well for her despite her flaws. (The book version, not the film. I cared much less for Senise's fluffy version than Steinbeck's original feisty hardened version. People carrying a load of emotional baggage aren't fluffy and they don't stroll casually about in such a carefree manner.)

See, I can't stop talking about her.

To avoid sentimentality, the book uses loneliness at the theme, but what I think Steinbeck really means in his heart is that people have a fundamental need to love and be loved. But that's considered sappy; so we get loneliness instead.


message 822: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark Maria wrote: "Oh, say it ain't so, Mark.....you haven't really read these books, have you?"

I read Anthem, actually. Was quite young at the time and now I like Rush's 2112 better than that book (they're thematically connected).

I took all those titles from the top-rated books of that John guy who had the gall to call me, pretty directly, "stupid." I didn't read most of them. I read No Country for Old Men and, for the record, several other McCarthy novels. I think he's way overrated.


message 823: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark Monty J wrote: "George's killing of Lennie is an act of kindness."

Whole post very nice, Monty. Thanks for sharing.

Kindness and also responsibility. We don't often find examples of the two being so well blended in a character.


message 824: by Kallie (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie Mark wrote: "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 ..."

Reproductive equipment. I'm just not sure that alone makes the difference. A lot of conditioning also happens, before we can even read (or write).


message 825: by Kallie (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie Mark wrote: "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 ..."


Also, as I recall Sexton had very mixed feelings about being a housewife, etc. Maybe because she was manic-depressive, or maybe because trying to be the wife and mother she was 'supposed to be just didn't suit her interests and desires. Women didn't have (or probably imagine) much choice then, even in the early sixties.


Paul Martin Geoffrey wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "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 distinct..."

Oh, sorry then.


message 827: by Mark (last edited Apr 10, 2014 04:14AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark Kallie wrote: "Reproductive equipment"

I think that's a central part of what distinguishes/separates female humans from male humans, yes. The conditioning that you mention ... you mean that females face a different set of conditioning then males, right? I'd agree. Why the different conditioning? Do you think it stems from the biological differences? I try to avoid being reductionist in my thinking, so I'm not saying the difference in "reproductive equipment" is the end all and be all of explaining the differences between men and women. But it does seem that a lot of the other reasons for the differences stem from biology.

Does that make sense?


message 828: by John (new) - rated it 4 stars

John Dodds Da Vinci Code and Twilight don't have a place in this list - the others are high literature, though some perhaps a little unreadable and I can agree that you could skip some of them, though I would keep Catcher, Moby Dick for sure.
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..."



message 829: by Monty J (last edited Apr 10, 2014 10:06AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Monty J Heying Mark wrote: "Why the different conditioning? Do you think it stems from the biological differences?."

Biological imperatives might be more accurate, the primary difference being reproductive, and for many it is a difference that diminishes in significance over time as we mature past the child-bearing/rearing years.

Reproductive orientation may influence story theme, but not necessarily writing style. I could not, and have tried and failed three times (I will try again) to get into Elizabeth Gilbert's wildly successful Eat Pray Love, but I loved Jeannette Walls' The Glass Castle and Half Broke Horses.

It felt as if EPL was written for women, whereas the TGC and HBH were for everyone. Narrative voice and themes define market orientation. There are women writers who write for everyone. Walls will go places if she keeps doing that. She's just warming up.

I loved Elizabeth Rosner's Speed of Light and Blue Nude. She writes for everyone, but her work is far less well known because it's more literary. She has a new book coming out in the fall, Electric City. Can't wait.

SOL contains the most powerful scene I have read in literature. Check out my review for an excerpt. This book has been optioned by Gillian Anderson for her directorial film debut.


message 830: by Holly (last edited Apr 10, 2014 08:32AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Holly Monty J wrote: "Mark wrote: "Why the different conditioning? Do you think it stems from the biological differences?."

Biological imperatives might be more accurate, the primary difference being reproductive, and ..."


I think the subject of gender roles defining writing/reading is fascinating, Monty. Maybe you could start a thread dedicated specifically to that topic? I would be interested to read what you and others have to say on the subject.


message 831: by [deleted user] (new)

Monty J wrote: "Maria wrote: " I especially wonder if Steinbeck wrote the last scene between George and Lennie to demonstrate human cruelty or human kindness."

[Spoiler alert] Whitt's euthanasia of Candy's dog f..."


I've also thought a lot about how the whole incident with Candy and his dog parallels the fatal scene with George and Lennie. It seems to me that Candy initially reacts with compassion - not being able to shoot his dog - but then, later he regrets letting a stranger do it and says he should have done it himself. I think this statement is significant because it directly influences George's decision at the end of the story to shoot Lennie. It seems to me that Steinbeck uses Candy's statement as a device to flip things around so that the reader really isn't sure what compassion is any more.

I do think Steinbeck uses this subplot as a subtle device to direct the reader down a path that might not otherwise be considered. Just imagine what the story would be like if JS had left this subplot out - would we even consider George's actions humane? Probably not. But, add it to the story and JS creates ambiguity which leads to years of debate about George's actions and motivations. It's a brilliant technique.

I do think there was some selfish motive involved on George's part when he shot Lennie. There are moments in the story where George lists all the things he could do if he didn't have to worry about Lennie. I do think he is conflicted - on the one hand, he clearly doesn't want to be alone - but on the other hand, he resents having to take care of Lennie and craves freedom. The conflict is not an unusual one - we've all been there, haven't we? - We want to be in a relationship but as soon as we are in it, we think of all the things we're missing - however, it happens to various extents and elicits a spectrum of responses. Obviously, George's response is extreme -- typical of Steinbeck.

I think it's worth considering that George's actions are born of a selfish character. I agree that George is attached to Lennie - he cares about him and takes care of him - but, it seems to me, he does this more as an amusement - as if Lennie is his "mouse" whom he plays with until things get a little too rough - and then, to free himself - to protect himself - he shoots Lennie. The behavior actually mimicks Lennie's behavior - Lennie plays with his actual and symbolic mice throughout the story and kills them when they threaten him. And although George recites the dream - I don't think he really believes in the dream - This is a man who travels from job to job - who pays for his pleasures - this is a man who slips in and out of situations - he's illusive, he's a survivor, he values his freedom - he's not sacrificing anything - he'll find another "mouse" - he'll adopt another dream - as he travels on.


Petergiaquinta Maria wrote: "he values his freedom - he's not sacrificing anything - he'll find another "mouse" - he'll adopt another dream - as he travels on. "

I don't think so...Lennie has been a long-term commitment of George's, one that has caused him a great deal of trouble over the years, but one that he has stuck by. He could have abandoned Lennie when Lennie has caused him problems, but he's stuck with him, not because Lennie's a "mouse," but because he loves him and Lennie gives him a sense of place and worth in a world where too many people lack these things. George has sacrificed everything here at the end of the book, everything that matters to him. Now he will be like all these other guys who float from farm to farm, job to job without purpose or meaning in their lives. Lennie gave him that purpose, and without Lennie he won't be much different from Carlson or Whit or any of the other nameless drifters. There's no evidence George will find another dream; there's much to suggest that life without Lennie will be an empty, meaningless affair for George. Here at the end George hasn't protected or freed himself; he is protecting and freeing Lennie. George is left with nothing but grief and pain, just like Robert Burns says in the poem; he might as well just have gone on to shoot himself in that final scene after killing Lennie.


message 833: by April (new) - rated it 4 stars

April I agree with most on the above list. Of newer books I've read I think that "The Goldfinch" and "Gone Girl" are both extremely overrated. They were both painful to finish reading.


Geoffrey I´m much in agreement with #882. Flitting from job to job provides considerable freedom and Independence but Little security. It´s their dream to escape this goal- less lifestyle by starting their own farm. Lennie would have amply provided the brawn to George´s brain in making it successful. But the relationship is more than just about economics, there´s a true bonding there arisen out of mutual caring.


message 835: by Monty J (last edited Apr 10, 2014 11:21PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Monty J Heying Maria wrote: "I think it's worth considering that George's actions are born of a selfish character. I agree that George is attached to Lennie - he cares about him and takes care of him - but, it seems to me, he does this more as an amusement"

George proved his commitment to Lennie in helping him to escape the law dogs in Weed. He risked his life to rescue Lennie.

Yes, George grumbles about the inconvenience of putting up with Lennie, but that dream is everything to him. He went to the bordello with the others, but he left early after only a couple of drinks and kept his word to mail the money to pay for the farm.

George also stuck with Lennie when Curley attacked him, yelling for him to fight back when Curley wouldn't stop hitting him. That was risking his job.

There was an ego payoff to George in caring for Lennie. Slim and the other men looked up to him for doing it. But otherwise George didn't need Lennie as much as Lennie needed him.

In today's parlance, George might be classified as a co-dependent, someone who is "excessively preoccupied with the needs of others."

But I think more than anything Steinbeck was illustrating the power of collective action. One man alone is weak, but two men together can create a synergy. George and Lennie compliment each other. And when Candy comes along, another dimension (capital resources) is added, further increasing the synergy.

OMM is contra-thematic to John Houston's Treasure of the Sierra Madre, where one man's greed undermine's the success of collective effort.


Christopher Clark Do you really need to do a spoiler alert on a 50 year old book?


message 837: by Kallie (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie Monty J wrote: "Mark wrote: "Why the different conditioning? Do you think it stems from the biological differences?."

Biological imperatives might be more accurate, the primary difference being reproductive, and ..."


I don't mean to be sexist but it is simply a fact that humans have lived in patriarchal cultures (in which women serve men's needs and refrain from being too ambitious in favor of their own interests) for a very long time. There is a lot of evidence that women knew how to prevent conception before doctors took over the work of midwives (See Eva Figes -- another underrated writer -- The Ages). I've mentioned to Mark excellent women writers who do not write only for women, although they may portray them as more rounded characters than a man who is writing them would or could. (I couldn't read Gilbert's book and have no intention of trying again.) As for a woman's reproductive organs influencing her writing, I just don't think so and actually find the idea offensive. A good writer's experiences and observations influence her writing, sure, but not all women writers have the same experiences just because they share the same kind of reproductive equipment.


message 838: by Kallie (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie John wrote: "I don't know why people are stupid and can't answer a simple question like "Which books do you think are overrated?""

Maybe because the question so oversimplifies that IT is stupid.


message 839: by Kallie (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie To be clear, I am glad Maria posted this, and (I believe) in a spirit of inquiry that has inspired book lovers to argue against the weak, reductionist label 'overrated.' Well done, Maria.


message 840: by Daisy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Daisy I have not read all of these but I cannot agree with The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye at all. You can think they are overrated but I can definitely that they are worth more than you think. There is a reason why these books are considered classics, because they help define a part of us that makes us human. We can almost always connect with these ideas, try reading them again for something other than plot, you will see why these books are not overrated.


Monty J Heying Kallie wrote: " As for a woman's reproductive organs influencing her writing, I just don't think so and actually find the idea offensive."

I don't think anyone mentioned reproductive organs. It's reproductive orientation. It's human identity. We can deny that our brain chemistry and perception and endocrine systems and physiology are affected by our gender, but that doesn't change the facts.

Women are no less affected by estrogen than men are by testosterone. As we age these effects change, but they don't go away.

A bee sting is an abstract notion to someone who has never been stung. A man cannot know the struggle and pain of gestation and childbirth. Life experiences and physiology shape our world view and show up in our thinking and writing.


message 842: by Kallie (last edited Apr 11, 2014 04:38PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: " As for a woman's reproductive organs influencing her writing, I just don't think so and actually find the idea offensive."

I don't think anyone mentioned reproductive organs. It's ..."


Someone in this thread did, before me, refer to reproductive equipment making a difference between men and women writers. I am not saying that the poster offended me, but the idea offends me because what data is such an idea based upon (even qualitative), other than gender? I remember a phrase: "muscular prose"; that supposedly meant masculine and therefore good writing; that seems absurd to me. Was Proust muscular? I don't think so. Are some women writers more 'muscular' than Proust? Probably.


message 843: by Monty J (last edited Apr 11, 2014 10:25PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Monty J Heying Kallie wrote: "Was Proust muscular? I don't think so. Are some women writers more 'muscular' than Proust? Probably."

Point taken.

Comparisons are tricky and often lead to unhappiness. Abraham Lincoln notwithstanding, no two people can ever be equal because we are all individuals, in spirit and in experience. Times are also different. Literary analysts build careers making comparisons among writers. I would rather just write. And let them to heir job.

Gender may inform but it doesn't define a writer. Readers will sift out what they will. They have needs, fears, obsessions, pleasures to feed. Each writer is an individual with something unique to offer that may or may not fill a need or resonate with a significant market.

I write because I have to, not because I expect accolades. I may hope for them, but expectation can lead to suffering. Van Gough comes to mind.


message 844: by Daniel (new) - rated it 5 stars

Daniel Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: " As for a woman's reproductive organs influencing her writing, I just don't think so and actually find the idea offensive."

I don't think anyone mentioned reproducti..."


Muscular prose means masculine writing, yes, but that does not mean Un-muscular prose is always considered bad writing. I'd describe Hemingway and Coetzee as muscular, for example, and I enjoy their writing greatly; but not to the extent that I cannot enjoy prototypically "feminine" writers like Austen.

Besides, though most of the time these kinds of adjectives fall on a writer of the gender one would expect, there are indeed cases (like you insinuated) where a woman could be praised for muscular writing, or a man for gracious writing. I'm thinking of Marianne Moore and Ian McEwan, respectively, though this is totally subjective, of course.

That a writer gets praised by a reviewer with a certain adjective does not automatically mean all other adjectives in the language represent "bad writing" in that reviewer's mind.


Monty J Heying Daniel wrote: "...cases (like you insinuated) where a woman could be praised for muscular writing,..."

E.g., Jeannette Walls in Half-broke Horses.


Martha I've only read three out of these nine - The Catcher, Moby and Atlas- and what do you know- I gave all three the highest rating I could - 5 Stars; loved every minute I spent reading these and will defend them to the end. But to see Twilight in the same sentence as these greats makes me laugh out loud.


message 847: by Mark (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark Kallie wrote: "Someone in this thread did ..."

Here is what I said, originally: "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."

I think what I meant (and it's not one of my most carefully constructed thoughts, I'll admit) is that some of Sexton's subject material centers around the experiences that comes from being in and of a female body. I mean, she has a poem titled Ode to My Uterus and I don't have a uterus, so it's fascinating to me from that perspective. With the exception of my fascination, which you'll have to take my word for, the data checks out there.

Sorry that offended you, but I think I was talking about my perception of the writing more than the writing.

I think Sexton often writes of the experiences that are based on her gender. In a much less intentional way, Hemingway does too. When male and female writers decide to write about their gender, doesn't gender make a difference?


message 848: by Kallie (last edited Apr 12, 2014 08:52AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie Daniel wrote: "Muscular prose means masculine writing, yes, but that does not mean Un-muscular prose is always considered bad writing. " Maybe that's what it means, but it seems silly to me (as I thought I said) because the type of writing described in that way is not necessarily masculine, as Monty pointed out (tho I haven't read Walls but may try her as I like any style of writing that is good writing). Of course a man can't write a poem called 'My Uterus' (unless he is transgender) but there are myriad other experiences that overlap and even cross gender lines, and people of both genders who employ all kinds of styles that range from terse and direct to flowery.


message 849: by Kallie (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kallie Fijke wrote: "I don't think anyone here is denying that.
Also, in the interest of clarity, it might be useful to seperate sex and gender, with sex referring to which set of equipment a person has and gender referring more to how a person identifies themselves (or is identified by society). Because I'm getting the impression that not everyone is interpreting the term 'gender' the same way. "


Well, it is not as if there are so many genders and/or sexes although there is probably more variation therein than mainstream cultural assumptions comfortably accommodate. I question the use of a particular word, 'muscular,' to describe a writing style, and its implication and assumption that only men write in that style.


message 850: by Mark (last edited Apr 12, 2014 10:17AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mark First of all, thank you Fijke for articulating the distinction between gender and sex. In my (far too limited) readings of feminist theory, it's my understanding that the distinction is fundamental, text book stuff of the theory.

Second of all, Kallie, I have to say that your posts around this topic post seem to me to be more attitude in search of argument rather than argument itself. And I use the word "argument" in the most positive sense of informed discourse that even through disagreement brings new ideas to light.

Yes, "there are myriad other experiences that overlap and even cross gender lines" (although I'm not quite sure, in the context of your sentence, what the difference is between "overlap" and "cross"). And I don't think anyone said (I know I didn't) that a given writer's style, ("terse and direct" versus "flowery") is determined by their gender. You seem to keep setting up these straw men statements, insinuating that they are positions other people in the thread have espoused, and then arguing against them. It's kind of all over the place and, like I said, attitude in search of argument rather than an argument itself.

That's direct, I know, and probably rubs you the wrong way, but I've already made a statement that (unintentionally) offended you, so I figure why not go for broke?

And for the record, a man COULD write a poem called "My Uterus" if he was so inclined. In the same way you could write a poem called "My Balls" if you wanted to. It's just that in both cases the poems would be drawing far less upon authentic self knowledge and would be far more based on the observation and imagination of the person writing the poem (in those two cases).

I am not saying, and have never said, that sex and/or gender is the end all and be all of determining and defining a writers' style, subject material, value, etc. Nor am I ready to sign up for the notion that the sex and/or gender of writers have absolutely no bearing at all on what they write, the way they write it and how they perceive the world. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in a very muddy middle between the two extremes.

How is it that your view is at odds with that and what about it offends you? Because I'm still puzzled as to what all the fuss is about.


back to top