The Most Overrated Books Showing 851-900 of 5,680

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "Maybe that's what it means, but it seems silly to me..."

Ditto. The whole topic of female vs male writers is a quagmire to me. What matters is the writing, not the reproductive orientation of the author.

Readers, most of them, don't check out the gender of the writer before buying a book. They open to the first page and if something clicks they read on.

The Nobel and Pulitzer prizes are not awarded based on gender. (At least its not in their stated policies.)

BTW, Harper Lee is another writer that I would classify having a muscular narrative voice. She wrote one of my all-time favorite books. Mankind is eternally in debt to her. Like Erin Brockovich, she had the spirit of a lion. She single-handedly shamed white America into facing racism.

A male author could have written To Kill a Mockingbird. Gender had no bearing on the book's acceptance; it was the message and the heat with which it was driven home. Gone With the Wind, however, had to be written by a woman because it was so intimately from a woman's point of view.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'm not sure I even know what "muscular" writing is. I assume that's a good adjective for Henry Rollins' poetry. But what about Sharon Olds? That feels fairly "muscular" to me, but it's clear she's writing from a female perspective. She even writes about her ovaries!

[Petergiaquinta]

But...lemme follow that comment up here...I'd say Henry Miller is one of the most "masculine" writers I know, but his writing certainly wouldn't be called "muscular," would it? So there's some problem I'd say in using these two words as synonyms for describing writing.

[Petergiaquinta]

And Miller hearkens back to Whitman, and he's certainly masculine and does a great deal of celebration of the body, but again I'd never use the word "muscular" to describe his writing, either.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'm not sure I even know what "muscular" writing is."

To me, "muscular" suggests forcefulness, directness, no pussyfooting around, lean, pithy, dealing with serious issues without stopping to smell the roses. There's a strong narrative drive without much counterpoint and a minimum of transition or digression. A linear through-line of plot. No teasing the reader with big words or guessing games. It challenges the reader to keep up.

Hemingway comes to mind, but so do Harper Lee and Jeannette Walls. Walls and Hem were both journalists, which probably informed their style.

[Monty J]

Fijke wrote: "Monty J wrote: "To me, "muscular" suggests forcefulness, directness, no pussyfooting around, lean, pithy, dealing with serious issues w..."

That's pretty specific. I do hope nobody will use that d..."

Me too. Literature is a smorgasbord; there are lots of choices and it's up to the reader to sample and fill their plate according culinary interest and appetite.

Few people will eat just one item. How boring if everyone wrote alike.

What Hemingway discovered, or at least he was the first to explain it I think, was that beyond a certain point the more an author puts down on paper the greater the risk of an unsatisfying meal. With his Iceberg Principle and invoking the reader's imagination, he invites the reader to participate in preparing the meal.

The art is in knowing when and how much of this powerful tool to use. Like him or not for whatever reason, it was an astute observation that writers are still paying attention to. And you don't have to be "muscular" to use it.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "..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?."

This is from one of my earlier posts, Mark: "I am not saying that the poster offended me, but the idea offends me . . ."

It would probably be more clear to say that I know that you meant no offense and I nevertheless hate the 'reproductive-organs-as-influence' idea. You are absolutely right that I have a history-wrought attitude about writing and gender, and I really don't care if that shows, or interferes with me making a proper argument as you see it. You don't seem crystal clear either (I never thought nor suggested that you believe sex and gender are the end all and be all; I don't know what you believe).

Monty's point is also true: this subject is a quagmire. But that doesn't mean I won't try to discuss it and if you see me as "insinuating" all kinds of things, so be it.

[Avita]

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 agree with this list completely, especially with Twilight. Goodness!

[Sandhya]

Catcher in the Rye was excruciatingly hard to read. i couldn't stand the Protagonist's constant wingeing.

But Great Gatsby. Waiting for Godot, and The Stranger don't deserve to be in this list, methinks.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "...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."

I'd actually describe Jane Austen as a "masculine" writer. She was supremely logical, hard-headed and had a very sharp wit. She was the very opposite of "feminine"/emotional authors such as Charlotte Bronte and Stephenie Meyer.

[[deleted user]]

Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "...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" ..."

Of course Stephenie Meyer isn't in the same league as Austen and Bronte! Did I say she was? I was just pointing out the "feminine"/emotional authors from the "masculine"/logical ones (using Meyer as she is an extreme example of the emotion-based novelist - there's no real logic in her books at all, but there's nothing wrong with that).

The fact is, men are generally more logical than women. There's a reason for the social stereotype. But it's only about a 60/40 split.

An example of a "feminine" male writer is JD Salinger himself.

[[deleted user]]

Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "The fact is, men are generally more logical than women. There's a reason for the social stereotype. But it's only about a 60/40 split.

An example of a "feminine" male writer is JD S..."

Haha, well yes, of course. We could easily define "masculine" writing as "coming from a male author's perspective". (Though that would be less fun.) I agree that the style of thinking is not the whole picture, and that the author's life experience (how familiar they are with the lives of men and women) will greatly influence their writing.

It's a pointless discussion anyway haha!

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: "It's a pointless discussion anyway haha!"

Groan, how true.

Speaking of Salinger, during WWII, Salinger is said to have heard Hemingway was in Paris and tracked him down to his "headquarters" at the Riz and let him read some of his then work in progress which became The Catcher in the Rye. Hemingway said he was a good writer.

Sure would like to have been a fly on the wall that day.

[Mark]

Rachel wrote: "It's a pointless discussion anyway haha!"

Even Oblio was able to find his point after his journey through the pointless forest.

But seriously folks, isn't it all too easy to say pretty much everything that transpires in Goodreads is pointless? What's the point in any of this discussion, in writing book reviews for no money, in reading fiction in the first place?

Nearly everything, as far as I can tell, can be considered a quagmire too--if by "quagmire" we mean an area of such complexity and nuance that it will never be fully resolved and pinned down in unshakeable terms.

So where we are is pointless quagmire? What to do?

"I'd consider myself a realist, all right? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist. I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everbody's nobody. I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing. Walk hand in hand into extinction. One last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."

Rustin Cole, True Detective

[Petergiaquinta]

Mark wrote: "Rachel wrote: "It's a pointless discussion anyway haha!" Even Oblio was able to find his point after his journey through the pointless forest."

"Listen, Nietzsche, shut the fuck up..."

ibid., op. cit.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "...isn't it all too easy to say pretty much everything that transpires in Goodreads is pointless? What's the point in any of this discussion, in writing book reviews for no money, in reading fiction in the first place?"

Oh God, no. You people are family almost. I've gotten greater, more consistent intellectual stimulation (= love) here than anywhere, even college. Bitching with you guys has forced me to think more deeply and research literature more thoroughly than in any classroom. You have also shown me an amazing array of interpretations of an author's work. And the experience enriched my reading enjoyment immensely.

I'd be shelling out beaucoup bucks for therapy if I couldn't come here every day.

[Mark]

ha ha, Petergiaquinta & Monty: quite nice, must sleeeeeep now though.

[S.W.]

Wow, this thread is starting to resemble an episode of the Gilmore Girls with all the crazy quotes and name drops. Thank God for Wikipedia and thank Gore for the internet!

[Geoffrey]

Monty, hear ye,hear ye. Yes, I wish I had had these debates in literature classes back at the university.
Instead I got boring profs whose students would yawn every time they turned their backs. My English department had reams of academic credentials with awesome publications but when it came to teaching.....I`m so glad all those farts are retired. They should have all been working in publishing.

Mark, my major complaint is that as a species we are almost unique in killing our own out of greed and ideology. I say almost as chimpanzees are known to do the same. What is it with the primate line?

[S.W.]

Obviously Geoffrey never had a hamster growing up. There are plenty of examples of excessive brutality in the animal kingdom: the dominant males of many species routinely kill the progeny of lesser rivals. Just be happy you weren't born a male Black Widow Spider---but I concede that Homo Sapiens are a uniquely unpredictable and dangerous species.

I received a BA in English from the University of Iowa 25 years ago. Frankly, I didn't learn anything in the classroom but the fault was mine and mine alone. You can lead a horse to water…

[Kallie]

S.W. wrote: "Obviously Geoffrey never had a hamster growing up. There are plenty of examples of excessive brutality in the animal kingdom: the dominant males of many species routinely kill the progeny of less..."

Shrews also sound terrifying; we are lucky that they are so tiny.

[Geoffrey]

Actually I did have a hámster. I recall now it ate its sickly progeny. But please recall my statement exactly.

[[deleted user]]

I actually LOVE The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye! I know a ton of people, especially teenagers, hate them (mostly Catcher) but I think they're great.

As for adding to the list (and I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this, so chill), I would add The Hunger Games and Divergent, which are both way overhyped and not well written, in my opinion.

[Mark]

Carraway wrote:"As for adding to the list (and I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this, so chill), I would add The Hunger Games and . . .

I could be wrong about this, but I think you've seriously miscalculated the generational demographic and/or the intellectual orientation of most of the people who are most engaged in this thread. Although I think that's Petergiaquinta's cue to call me a cultural elitist.

I suspect the only hate you'll get for pointing out the shortcomings of The Hunger Games and Divergent are from people who drop in with a shallow comment and then swoop away never to be heard from again.

Thanks for sharing.

[Paul Martin]

Carraway wrote: "I actually LOVE The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye! I know a ton of people, especially teenagers, hate them (mostly Catcher) but I think they're great.

As for adding to the list (and I k..."

I don't really understand how people can "hate" The Catcher in the Rye. Not understand it? Sure. Find it boring? Alright. Dislike it? Fine.

It's rather short, and its message isn't exactly controversial or provoking, so I don't quite see what there is to "hate".

[Kallie]

Paul Martin wrote: "I don't really understand how people can "hate" The Catcher in the Rye. . . It's rather short, and its message isn't exactly controversial or provoking"
These are good questions that only the haters can answer (although none have, so far). Most of them say that they find Holden's 'whining' about phoniness and superficiality (both of which erect barriers against the genuine communication he longs for) provoking, as though the problem is entirely his. The narrative voice is intense; that may be one reason why most readers either 'love' or 'hate' the book. I suspect that the reasons are more cultural and literary. 'Whining' is in bad form, in predominantly WASP culture - something along those lines; this was certainly the unspoken, pervasive feeling in my family.

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "I don't really understand how people can "hate" The Catcher in the Rye. Not understand it? Sure. Find it boring? Alright. Dislike it? Fine."

It is possible that narcissism is involved. I read a statistic that 90% of the world is codependent. Holden exhibits strong codependency traits. Narcissists don't understand that world view and find it detestable.

Here's a blog I wrote on the subject:
http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...

[Geoffrey]

I never found CITR loathesome, nor did I particularly like it. I simply did not understand it nor value it much when I read it as a teen.

As for Monty´s comment, he couldn´t be more wrong. I have a member of my family who is both co-dependent and narcissistic. I suppose the conflict causes for her neuroticism.

[Geoffrey]

I have read only a few books that I hate. They include SANCTUARY by Faulkner, NADJA by Andre Breton, PARADISE LOST by UNOHOO, and GG, the latter being a source of great soul wrenching among so many of us Goodread posters. Offhand, I can´t think of much more, although I do have a low opinión of THE POWER AND THE GLORY.

[Geoffrey]

Monty, you have raised an interesting point-the exclusivity of human characteristics. I have often pondered this as well when you consider that incarcerated doublé ax murderers have enjoyed opera. Exactly how extreme emotionally can human beings be? We have the dutiful fathers and family men going on vigilante hunts for "subhumans", the bank embezzler who is a loving parent...the "perfect couple next door" who are swinging their lives away.....etc.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "he might as well just have gone on to shoot himself in that final scene after killing Lennie."

First,you have a great name - Petergiaquinta - it rolls off the tongue like the lyrics to a great opera!

Secondly, you make some great points especially about George becoming like all the other guys who float from farm to farm, job to job without purpose or meaning in their lives and that he won't be much different from Carlson or Whit or any of the other nameless drifters.

Thirdly, you said George might as well just have gone on to shoot himself in that final scene after killing Lennie. If he had, I might feel a whole lot different about George. I might even buy that his actions were selfless. But, he didn't. Why do you think he didn't turn the gun on himself after shooting Lennie?

[Paul Martin]

Kallie wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "I don't really understand how people can "hate" The Catcher in the Rye. . . It's rather short, and its message isn't exactly controversial or provoking"
These are good questions..."

Mhm, that makes sense, thanks.

I'm not even sure I understand what it means to "hate" a book. I've read books that I disliked, and even loathed, but never hated. Maybe my own personal definition is a bit too narrow though. I've never been provoked into a frothing rage where the destruction of the book at hand becomes of paramount importance - which is what I imagine it must be like to really hate a book :)

[Paul Martin]

Maria wrote:"Why do you think he didn't turn the gun on himself after shooting Lennie?"

Why would he do that? Shooting Lennie was presumably a last solution, since otherwise he would've been either hanged or jailed. George knew he would get away, whereas there was no hope for Lennie. I don't see a single reason why George should kill himself as well.

George didn't want Lennie to die. I think he desperately wanted him to live, seeing how Lennie was the one who kept their dream alive.

[Petergiaquinta]

Maria wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "he might as well just have gone on to shoot himself in that final scene after killing Lennie."
First,you have a great name - Petergiaquinta - it rolls off the tongue like t..."

Well, thank you! I was never that fond of it myself...it's been more like an albatross around my neck most of my life, but then I grew up in Iowa, and it was a little more than what most folks could handle there.

I think George dies inside the moment Candy calls him into the barn and he sees the body of Curley's wife in the hay. When George says that he knew the dream would never come true, Candy pleads with him to stick with it. He tells George they can still swing it--Candy has the down payment; George has contacted the owners; without Lennie, they'll have to work one more month, but what's that in the big scheme of things? But George says no; without Lennie, he won't do it. Without Lennie, the dream is dead and achieving it without him is meaningless. If George were as selfish as you imply, he'd move forward with the plan with Candy. But he won't because without Lennie there is nothing left for George that matters.

And so why doesn't George just shoot himself? Well, who does that anyway? That sounds more like grand opera or Shakespearian tragedy. We regular folks just shoulder our burdens and move on, and that's Steinbeck for you, just regular folks trying to make their way in a universe that doesn't give a shit about them and, more often than not, will just shit all over them.

[Monty J]

Maria wrote: "Why do you think he didn't turn the gun on himself after shooting Lennie? "

Why would he kill himself? Out remorse over killing Lennie? There was no reason to be remorseful, as he had done Lennie a tremendous favor by terminating his soon to be miserable life, just as the killing of the dog was a mercy killing.

In an interview Steinbeck said Lennie was based on a real person who killed a man with a pitchfork, stabbing him several times. He said the guy was living in an asylum, chained to a wall. Conditions in mental asylums for the criminally insane back then was a fate much worse than death.

[Janis]

<
I agree with the whining comment. I am from a British background and can still hear my father saying "mustn't grumble". My father would have hated the whining yet he went through many of the horrific experiences that Salinger went through on D-Day and the Bulge. There was an awful silence afrwe WW2 that few people spoke of.



i>Kallie wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "I don't really understand how people can "hate" The Catcher in the Rye. . . It's rather short, and its message isn't exactly controversial or provoking"
These are good questions..."

[Cosmic]

Janis wrote: "<
I agree with the whining comment. I am from a British background and can still hear my father saying "mustn't grumble". My father would have hated the whining yet he went through many of the horr..."


Salinger wasn't just whining he was looking for answers to how wars are started and who benefits from them. How soldiers are coerced into fighting them through "patriotism".

History repeats itself. Just because someone has more might does not make them right.

I believe this is what Holden was taking about with the game and he refers to the American Indians as an example, through out the book, because it was a popular war (since we won), but was it just? Can wars be just when so many innocent people are killed?

[Maureen]

The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye. Both were valued for capturing the zeitgeist of the era, but neither is timeless nor classic.

[Kallie]

Maureen wrote: "The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye. Both were valued for capturing the zeitgeist of the era, but neither is timeless nor classic."

We don't know that yet. Gatsby and Catcher were published quite some time ago and people are still reading (and arguing) about both of them.

[Daniel]

What is the standard period a book has to survive in order to be considered "classic" or "timeless"? I mean, Gatsby is closing in on 100 years, is as popular today as it ever was, and still provides a great read for many... I dunno, but that qualifies as "classic" for me.

[Cosmic]

Maureen wrote: "The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye. Both were valued for capturing the zeitgeist of the era, but neither is timeless nor classic."

I disagree with you that the book is not timeless or classic. We still have wealthy people living entitled lives and treating people like animals.

As far as the Catcher goes I have found a lot of history to explore by not reading it as a book about a boy but reading it as an allegory. The songs give meaningbtobthe text. Since we have the internet they are easily procured and we can benefit from the meaning Salinger intended to convey. I think just like the book The Thirty-Nine Steps there is an encrypted message.

Example: Holden says that he hates the movies, yet he takes his sister, Phoebe to see The 39 Steps by ALFRED HITCHCOCK. Have you seem that? Have you read the book?

There are words that are in the Catcher that are in the book The Thirty-Nine Steps. These add meaning to the text about Holden getting a good Good-bye. There is more in there than that...like why did he include this movie/book (and it is clear that he wanted you to read the book to gain meaning around the true nature of the book, if for no other reason than to question it.

I personal have learned a lot about the civil war, different historical figures mentioned in the book as well as philosophy that Mae it possible for people to kill of indigenous people like animals. Read about Mr. Spencer and Google Spencer and you will come up with Herbert Spencer. He conned the term "survival of the fittest" and Holden questions a game that is not fair and how "might makes right".

Salinger would not let anyone make a movie out of the book. It forces you to read it. You either read it or you haven't really experienced it...and he didn't want someone to take away that experience, because the story (wars, money, and power) is imbedded in the different books mentioned, the first songs by the different singers, the first movies by the actors mentioned (Little Shirley Temple) and propaganda, something that was taken to the level of a new science. See The Century of the Self.

I wonder what meaning you may have gotten from the ducks? How did that compare to the fish? Did Holden's upper class status make him mostly concerned about the ducks, in an allegorical way, where the taxi cab driver was worried about the fish. We get a clear picture of the fish and the ducks and where they go when Holden talks about going to the Natural History Museum.

Why do things seem to stay the same at the museum, what is Salinger saying there? Could he not be saying that "history repeats itself".

For me Salinger's book that took him ten years to write is pregnated with meaning and truth, but it has to be digested through historical, literary and musical (even architectural, when you read about the history of Radio City Music Hall) perspectives.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin, Petergiaquinta, Monty J

I think the reason George doesn't shoot himself is simply because its a predatory world and the strongest survive - I love this quote and think it illustrates the point and of course foreshadows the final scene:

"A water snake glided smoothly up the pool, twisting its periscope head from side to side; and it swam the length of the pool and came to the legs of a motionless heron that stood in the shallows. A silent head and beak lanced down and plucked it out by the head, and the beak swallowed the little snake while its tail waved frantically."

George isn't uber altruistic, or noble, or heroic - he's just "regular folk" who is smart enough to see what's coming and strong enough to pull the trigger in order to save himself - he's a survivor.

I realize by shooting him, George spared Lennie the gross indecency of a horrible death or tortured imprisonment. But, when you come right down to it, didn't he commit murder? Is murder ever morally acceptable?

[Andrew]

Paul Martin wrote: "Carraway wrote: "I actually LOVE The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye! I know a ton of people, especially teenagers, hate them (mostly Catcher) but I think they're great.

As for adding to ..."

I totally agree. Some people love to hate on what others consider great.

[Martha]

Andrew- that is a catchy line - I love it!

[Kit]

The Catcher in the Rye
Moby Dick
The Great Gatsby
Waiting for Godot
The Stranger
Ulysses

These are all great works of literature; some are not my favourites but I understand their value to the canon.

Certainly Da Vinci Code and the Twilight books are mediocre in quality but no worse than Harlequin Romances or any other such genre drivel.

Totally agree @ 50 Shades of Crap, which, as someone else pointed out, certainly fall far short of the quality of erotic literature that is available. The Story of O and Nine and a Half Weeks are at least not cliche-riddled.

It's very sad that publishers don't seem to care about quality of writing any more -- or even quality of editing for that matter.

[[deleted user]]

Carraway wrote: "I actually LOVE The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye! I know a ton of people, especially teenagers, hate them (mostly Catcher) but I think they're great.

As for adding to the list (and I k..."

I haven't read Divergent, but I'm a big fan of The Hunger Games trilogy. In my opinion (whatever that's worth - probably not much haha), all three Hunger Games novels are at least a hundred times more enjoyable, interesting, and thought-provoking than either Gatsby or Catcher.

I found The Great Gatsby very dull, with no real positive qualities. The Catcher in the Rye was better, but the main character was a little annoying after a while and there wasn't much of a story (it made me wonder what the point of reading it was).

But, that's just my personal reaction - different books mean different things to different people.

PS: I hope you don't class this post as "hate" haha!

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "I don't really understand how people can "hate" The Catcher in the Rye. . . It's rather short, and its message isn't exactly controversial or provoking"
These are..."

Me neither. I'd love to read a book like that though! Maybe I should convert to radical Islam and read The Satanic Verses... :D

[Monty J]

Maria wrote: "Is murder ever morally acceptable?"

Yes. It is the ultimate act of personal sacrifice and loyalty when done to relieve the suffering of a loved one because the "murderer" will have to live on with the memory of that moment.

[[deleted user]]

Fijke wrote: "Kit wrote: "It's very sad that publishers don't seem to care about quality of writing any more -- or even quality of editing for that matter.
"


There are still excellent books being written and ..."

I agree that great books are still being written today. I disagree that "genre" fiction is somehow inferior to "literary" fiction. There are some brilliant genre novels, and some poor literary ones. On average, I'd say the overall quality for both categories was about the same.

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: " I disagree that "genre" fiction is somehow inferior to "literary" fiction. There are some brilliant genre novels, and some poor literary ones."

Agreed.

It's like comparing a poodle with a weimeraner. Two different breeds cannot be measured against each other. And sometimes their characteristics overlap. Each as its own purpose and the rules for one that don't apply for the other. The level of art and demands of skill can be the same for "literature" or romance.

As I have said elsewhere, literature (broadly defined) is a smorgasbord, and appetites and tastes vary and few people will pick just one item.