The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,251-1,300 of 5,680

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "I would try Blood Meridian again ..."

I tend to be obsessive about subjects once I dive into them (does it show?). So I've done a bit of research into McCarthy's career. You may want to give the following novels a try before returning to the ones you've read before:

01. The Orchard Keeper
02. Outer Dark
03. Child of God
04. Suttree

All these titles, in chronological order of publication, had Albert Erskine working as McCarthy's chief editor. Erskine was William Faulkner's editor, too. Here's my half baked theory.

In 1981, not long after Suttree's publication, McCarthy won the MacArthur Fellowship (also known as the "genius grant."). I suspect this along with the incrementally established reputation of his previous work, brought him a notoriety that Random House could bank on to move units. So he was less diligently guided by a skilled editor. Or maybe he became more emboldened to push back at his editor. I can hear it now: "Change it?!? The MacArthur people think I'm a fucking genius. Why the hell should I change it? You should consider yourself lucky I don't jump ship to another publisher!" After Blood Meridian's publication, he did. Knopf.

His last book with Random House marked McCarthy's commercial breakthrough. From that point on, I theorize, editors worked with him a lot less if at all. Maybe that's why I found the first two books of the Border trilogy to alternate between laughably bad and cause for a rarely interrupted groan fest.

I don't have a insiders' knowledge of how publishing works. But I suspect this sort of thing happens. My wife, for example, is a big fan of Stephen King (I yet remain innocent of any of his works). She detects far more rambling born of unchecked self indulgence in his later books. And theorizes he's edited lightly (if at all) in those books in contrast to his earlier ones. Sure, someone looks for typos, grammar gaffs and other technical flaws. But the kind of guiding and collaborative editorial role a Maxwell Perkins provided is probably gone. Once writers achieve King or McCarthy's marquee power, I imagine such editorial interaction is either no longer offered or easily dismissed.

For (some) writers to reach a point where their name itself sells their books might be their just reward. Perhaps, along with their big piles of money, they've earned the right to be self-indulgent by the time, effort and agony they've put into their art. I take all kinds of cranky, snarky (and, to me, well deserved) shots at McCarthy. Still, I do think he put in years of toil before any of the big checks were in his mailbox.

I'll get to Blood Meridian sooner or later, but I'll confess I suspect what's in store for me is a sort of odd exercise that reminds me of William Burroughs lite.

I've braced myself for repeated scenes of horrific and brutal violence on the sun drenched sands of the American southwest. These will take the place of the homo eroticism, erotic asphyxiations and other off putting to the squeamish leitmotifs of Burroughs's canon.

Although, after what (at times) seems like suffering through the more repetitive parts of a novel by Burroughs, I feel like I know some of the points he was trying to make. I usually don't have the foggiest idea what McCarthy is trying to say. The lengthy and turgid philosophical monologues in The Crossing numbed me. And after all those words, words, words--I, again, still don't know what the hell he meant.

So I hold out more hope for the earlier titles. And I'm willing to give The Orchard Keeper another read. On my first go I found it deliberately confusing in ways that smacked of being contemptuous toward his readers. Then again, I don't know how to square that opinion with my current reading--and enjoyment of--Ulysess.

And, yes, I realize that when you read my Goodreads posts and consider my chiding of writers for being self-indulgent, I'm setting myself up for a pot calls the kettle black smack in my head. I just like to write is all. I try to do it as concisely as possible. Sigh. But yet again, wall of text.

[David]

I only read the first Harry Potter book, but she lost me when he got to gate 19 and a half. Then there was Quidditch (sp). Did Harry ever lose a game? Where's the suspense if he never loses?

[Paul Martin]

David wrote: "I only read the first Harry Potter book, but she lost me when he got to gate 19 and a half. Then there was Quidditch (sp). Did Harry ever lose a game? Where's the suspense if he never loses?"

He did for sure. Fell of his broom, broke his arm and the expensive and precious broom was destroyed by a tree.

Dramatic stuff.

[Petergiaquinta]

David wrote: "I only read the first Harry Potter book, but she lost me when he got to gate 19 and a half."

Hey, that's Platform 9 3/4, ya muggle!

https://www.goodreads.com/photo/user/...

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "David wrote: "I only read the first Harry Potter book, but she lost me when he got to gate 19 and a half."

Hey, that's Platform 9 3/4, ya muggle!

https://www.goodreads.com/photo/user/......"

God, is that you?

[Petergiaquinta]

Oui, c'est moi.

That wall really hurts the first time through.

[Paul Martin]

I find your ironic pose on my Holy Grail deadly offensive.

Deadly, I tell you.

[Mark]

We're reading Ulysses. Finally going to get through the bastard. Join us. I don't understand enough about groups to know if you can request an invite on this page:

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

But if you can't, just ask me to send you one.

[Nm]

I am shocked about the catcher in the rye being overrated comments. But I understand it if 1. You have heard way too much about it before you read it, and 2. You are over 19. If either one of those apply you shouldn't bother because you will find it overrated.

My pick is In The Woods by Tana French. That thing got five stars everywhere...was built up, even recommended by people to me. Curious mix of a talented writer who can create a page turner....of utter disappointing crap that wasn't even well thought out. Everyone had beer goggles on for that one. I was insulted that she committed the cardinal sin of mystery writing, so much so that I wanted to throw the book across the room much like amazon readers did (check out the one star reviews there, there are many) but I couldn't because it was an e book. SUCKS. But engaging writing, so isntnthatbweird????

[Mark]

Nm wrote: "You are over 19. If either one of those apply you shouldn't bother because you will find it overrated..."

Several folks in this thread, myself included, feel quite the opposite. The book really worked for me and I read it when I was in my early twenties. Got even more out of it during a reread some ten years later. Thinking about going back to it again soon. But I think the airtight perfection with which Salinger sustains Holden's voice makes for a less cozy reread than other books.

[Cosmic]

Monty J wrote: "My major concern is that fantasies like HP, Annie and Batman have an effect on the collective unconscious, distorting reality in a way that can be detrimental. Over time, the unreal becomes perceived as real.

In America, the vast majority (80+%) of kids who grew up in foster care an orphanages end up incarcerated by their mid-thirties. We are a prime recruiting ground for prostitution and crime...."

I just wanted to add something to this. I really liked the Pippy Longstocking character. When I grew up and started reading about books to read to my own children then I realized that she was an orphan. Interestingly she is a redheaded orphan. I was reading that all this orphan literature was another was to undermine the family unit.

In writing this I am reminded that Anne of Green Gables is also a redheaded orphan.

It wasn't till a few weeks when I started watching this video: The Ultimate History Lesson by John Taylor Gatto the link is for part one. It's is either at the end of this one or the beginning of the next one that John talks about how the Barron Robbers made orphans out of the Irish immigrants that moved here. How they would be placed in orphanages and then shipped by train out of state mostly west. This did not stop until the western states complained about the crime that was rising due to this policy. I am not giving you the whole story because I hope some of you will watch the video. I did not know about this history and it makes me a little suspect when I hear about "orphan" literature. I really did love Pippy Longstocking because in a lot of ways I identified as an orphan because of neglect and placed in "school", and "church" to grind me into adulthood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l...

I just think that orphan literature is over rated. How prevalent is it in literature? Especially children's?

I learned super man was raised by wolves. Pecos Bill feel off the back of a wagon and was raised by coyote.

Hope you will watch the video I know you will enjoy it.

[Cosmic]

Nm wrote: "I am shocked about the catcher in the rye being overrated comments. But I understand it if 1. You have heard way too much about it before you read it, and 2. You are over 19. If either one of tho..."

I am with Mark, I am 50 and have fallen in love with the book, but for different reasons than most on here. I see that Salinger did write about WW2 as well as other wars but you have to look up names and read the context of the names and words around them.

Examples: I see Allie as being a allegory for Allies.
Phoebe as feeble. Holden as the bank because he is holding Phoebe's money.
Spencer as Herbert Spencer...the game the survival of the fittest and how war was not a game that the weak could win at. War operates from the paradigm might makes right. Something Salinger did not believe in.

Did you watch the movie The 39 Steps? When you read the book The Thirty-Nine Steps you will see how Holden got a good Good-bye and that Salinger uses names to add meaning to passages that appear to be confusing.

The ducks are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW

And don't forget to play "smoke gets in your eyes" by the platters when you read about the carousel.

No I don't really think that kids have the cultural knowledge to really understand the Catcher the way that Salinger intended. I think they think it is autobiographical of Holden and he tells you that it isn't a David Copperfield kind of book ...then everyone put that spin on it

If people believed that what he was trying to save children from was war and warn them about the people that created them to make money on the feeble (carousel)...then you would see this is an adult book...just like Bambi

But if you enjoyed it just as a teenager rebelling kind of book, don't let me stop you.

[Monty J]

Cosmic wrote: "I just think that orphan literature is over rated.."

The primary problem with so-called "orphan literature" is that authors often make the main character an orphan as a cheap trick to get parents out of the way and garner sympathy for the character in the mind of the reader. SE Hinton admitted this in The Outsiders.

(Anne of Green Gables may be an exception, but she's Canadian.)

Most of these authors have done little or no research into the lives of orphans and therefore cannot produce a convincing three-dimensional character that feels authentic.

This is why Will Hunting is such an exception. I would like to know where Affleck and Damon did their research. I'm not saying the character couldn't have been improved, but it's the most convincing cinematic rendition of a contemporary American orphan that I have seen by far except in The Italian.

If you REALLY want to see a great orphan story, get the subtitled Russian film, The Italian. It was filmed in a Russian orphanage and I could swear 90% of the kids were real, not actors. THAT, my friend, is what it is like. Not a dry eye in the theater during the final scene.

[S.W.]

I just ordered B.R. Meyers's A Readers' Manifesto and John Gardner's On Moral Fiction from Amazon. Thanks for the recommendations, Mark.

Like Mark's distaste for Cormac, I was having trouble understanding the allure of Denis Johnson. Jesus' Son seemed like a Bukowski retread to me. The college kids were raving about DJ. I didn't get it? Charles Dodd White (Goodreads Author, Literary Professor, Appalachian Writer) advised I read Hicks, Tribes, and Dirty Realists: American Fiction After Postmodernism by Robert Rebein. After reading this book, I felt like a babe in the woods. But Rebein gave me a framework upon which I am building my knowledge. Half the books on my to-read list came from this book (most of the rest from this old thread).

[Monty J]

Cosmic wrote: "I see that Salinger did write about WW2 as well as other wars but you have to look up names and read the context of the names and words around them."

Bravo. You are an inspiration, a sterling example of what Mortimer Adler describes as "an active reader," in How to Read a Book."

"...everyone put that spin on it..."

Depending on their willingness to be active readers, people are only able to interpret a book according to their knowledge and life history. This is an inverse reflection of Hemingway's Iceberg Principle.

The reader brings to the table whatever they have; so as they mature, they have more life experience to apply. The book seems to change with time, but it is they who have changed, enhancing their ability to interpret.

[Kallie]

S.W. wrote: "Jesus' Son seemed like a Bukowski retread to me. "

Johnson writes short stories that read a lot like poems. He's also written some novels. I like his style and he writes natural dialogue. I thought Jesus' Son brilliant and the film too; both captured a 70s sub-culture to a T. Bukowski is more the diamond-in-the-rough roaring drunken poet type, and he doesn't write fiction at all. He's certainly talented, but I don't enjoy his writing much because misogyny seeps through (I liked the movies about him better, except the documentary where he treated his wife like a dog on camera; I thought he might kick her). I wouldn't even compare these two writers, let alone call Johnson -- a much more versatile if uneven writer who writes complex female characters -- a retread of Bukowski.

[S.W.]

So true MontyJ. Age and experience bring wisdom and understanding which enhances our ability to analyze literature but somewhere along the line our inner child can get trampled and we can lose touch with our imagination and sense of childhood wonder. We forget how to play and have fun. I used to be able to look at the stars and feel the immensity of the cosmos, now I just see stars.

I think Salinger may have been using Holden's resentment of adults to warn us of this process. Is Salinger trying to "catch" his reader's inner child and keep them from falling off the cliff at the end of rye field? Is Salinger trying to forestall or modify this fall from grace when we transition from childhood innocence into the adult world of hypocritical phoniness?

Kallie, I now can agree with you on DJ after reading Train Dreams, Tree of Smoke and Rebein's analysis. I went back to Jesus' Son and couldn't believe how much I missed. The writing is so "natural" it appears almost effortless. The Dirty Realism was the link to Bukowski (a superficial first impression).

[Monty J]

S.W. wrote: "Is Salinger trying to "catch" his reader's inner child and keep them from falling off the cliff at the end of rye field? Is Salinger trying to forestall or modify this fall from grace when we transition from childhood innocence into the adult world of hypocritical phoniness?"

An interesting way to look at it.

I think we all have a public personna we keep polished and up front and a private personna that is not so shiny and clean. I think it is human nature to be hypocritical, and some are much more so than others. (The more evolved people are able to bring the two more in synch while migrating toward True Self.)

I think Holden noticed this personality duality and rather than being amused he saw it in a negative light, labeling it "phony."

It takes work and courage to nurture and redeem the inner child, especially when the child was badly damaged. But it can be done.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "... he (Bukowski) doesn't write fiction at all."

Hey, Kallie, I'm confused by your statement and seeking some clarification here.

By the above statement do you mean (a) Bukowski's work is so autobiographical that one can hardly consider it fiction or (b) Bukowski is exclusively a poet?

If you meant the former, that's debatable.

If you meant the latter, it's not accurate.

Bukowski wrote novels (Post Office, Women, Factotum, etc.), short stories (Erections, Ejaculations, Exhibitions and General Tales of Ordinary Madness, South of No North, etc.) and of course all of the poetry (plenty more to be posthumously published according to what I've read).

I've read a lot of Bukowski. And I likes a great deal of what I've read, too. But not all of it. I think he's to easily misunderstood, too easily reduced to an oversimplified caricature (for which he shares some of the blame) and too easily venerated and idolized by people who read from a far too narrow range of options.

The only thing I've read by Denis Johnson is the novel Already Dead, which I have on my reread list. It was at times evocative, powerfully so, and at other times murky, disjointed and seemingly not very focused on taking the reader to a specific destination. I think he's written several novels, if I'm not mistaken.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "(b) Bukowski is exclusively a poet?"

I've read at least one Bukowski story, about a dog attack. Gruesome. I wasn't impressed, except that he accomplished so much with so little formal education.

I found his personal habits repulsive and think he did things for shock value to market himself, a form of hypocrisy.

Ray Carver wrote a story about a reading Buk did at City Lights book store in San Francisco where he fondled a woman and bragged about his beer drinking and carousing with young women. He had a fascination with the raunchy side of life that I am repelled by, but I can take him in small doses.

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: " I found his personal habits repulsive and think he did things for shock value to market himself, a form of hypocrisy."

A typical reaction on the whole and not entirely unexpected. A person can read his work without condoning or endorsing his behavior. I don't have the inclination to defend him as an artist or a person here and now but if I did there's some evidence to counter the brand of hypocrisy you accuse him off.

His focus on what you call "the raunchy side of life" distracts many a reader from the fact that he often wrote honestly about class division in America from the side of the division rarely heard from. We can forgive the poor for being poor but we have a harder time forgiving them for being drunk, I suppose.

An old friend said it best when I was younger and enthusiastic about Bukowski's writing because he made it seem more possible to me that I could write: "It's important to get into Bukowski but it's important to get over him too." I didn't fully understand that at the time but I do now.

Boy oh boy, Monty, if I was in a sparring mood, I might be tempted to accuse you of striking a haughty tone. But, Haha.

[Kallie]

Mark, I should not have said Bukowski doesn't write fiction at all, but that his protagonists seem very Bukowski and of the books I tried I remember vignettes that did build and deliver, but not a typical fiction narrative arc. I still remember some of the imagery from his work. It's powerful, but like Monty I can only read him in small doses. My impression from the documentary was that he grew up lower middle class, in L.A. (with a brutal, terrorizing dad; Dad as sadistic prison guard), and at some point, when he began writing at least, became a post office employee and worked there for quite some time. There was one vivid passage about catching meat carcasses, maybe from his younger days.

S.W. and Mark are going to get me reading lit crit again. Robert Rebein and B.R. Meyer, okay.

[S.W.]

When I first encountered Denis Johnson, I thought he was glorifying the life of addiction and implying that we should expand our horizons through drugs and alcohol. I worried that younger readers would say, "See, DJ pickled his brain and still became an award winning, brilliant writer. Give me a bump!" As I learned more, I realized Johnson viewed himself as extremely luckily to have survived those "wasted" years and his writing comes from a clean, sober mind. His personal story is one of redemption.

When I first read Bukowski (25 years ago?), I thought, " If this misogynistic dirtball can get published, maybe there's hope for a weirdo like me." Bukowski gave me insights into a lifestyle and world I had no desire to experience for myself. The vulgarity and the low brow focus was something new to me back then. I ate it up. Mark's quote was perfect: read Bukowski, then get over it and move on. But I may go back for a fix now and then...

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "...he often wrote honestly about class division in America from the side of the division rarely heard from."

Well put. Buk filled a gap.

I didn't mean to sound judgmental. I wasn't always a good Boy Scout myself, and it's painful to be reminded of my slippages. I came from the working class and am proud of my heritage.

I admire Bukowski's honesty. I just think he may have exaggerated some for story effect. (I can't imagine kids standing by while a dog tore another one apart. I witnessed something similar and waded in kicking and screaming and rescued a small poodle from a pack of dogs.) Still, Buk gave us some things to think about.

Actually, he reminds me of a guy I worked with on highway construction during my college years. He was an ex-convict named B. Traynham. Beer drinking, cussing, carousing,gambling, bullying. Did the best Justin Wilson imitation around. Kept our work crew in stitches during breaks. (Here's Justin in case you've not been introduced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F41qB...) Despite his flaws, Traynham did something heroic in the Navy, or said as much.

I was a biology major and he called me "Needle dick the bug fucker, I guarr-on-tee" in his best JW voice.

[Mark]

S.W. wrote: "read Bukowski, then get over it and move on. But I may go back for a fix now and then..."

Yes, but now I worry about quoting my friend's words "it's important to get over him, too."

Mostly younger readers (particularly those who want to be writers) obsess over, idolize and even fetishize Bukowski and his writings. He tends to bring on a tunnel vision among impressionable readers. And if they don't "get over" that, they risk missing or arriving too late at a basic reality. Bukowski's approach--interesting, honest, visceral and powerful as it may be--is, after all, only one way to skin a cat.

I do want to be truthful, though, to how much I still admire, and always will admire, his writing (that of it that I do like; some of it's absolute crap).

And I'm worried that the quote might make me sound far more dismissive than I am of what I find to be his good--in fact, truly great--writing. I think I have a healthy appreciation of his limitations. I'd still probably count him among my favorite writers.

One can find gems among the rubble, indeed, you might say one can find the pearls that he cast before swine.

I don't use that line from the Sermon on the Mount without good reason. Bukowski also attracts a readership that tends to have a disdain for other literature. In that sense, he "did give what is holy to the dogs."

The Bukowski enthusiasts with strong anti-intellectual and celebratory of the transgressive streaks delude themselves. While they've no doubt pictured themselves drinking beers and raising hell with the mighty Buk, I imagine he would have loathed being in the same room with them.

One small example. Some Bukowski fans believe his fictional alter-ego validates their disdain for precious, pretentious and "safe" literature. This is the kind of writing they (and, to be fair, often he) hold in contempt.

What these poseurs fail to appreciate is he had read it. Here was a guy who had read Dos Passos, Jeffers, Celine, Hamsun, Hemingway and on and on before he gave an opinion on them. I'll grant you the opinion was often one I find flawed one. But Bukowski defaulted to a persona of bravado and macho bluster.

I see now the unimaginative Bukowski reader, grasping for an accessible mythology. He proudly says, "I don't read that dainty candy-ass shit, man, I read Bukowski! He knew how to keep it real!"

Never do they understand that they dismiss writing they remain ignorant of. While Bukowski had read volumes of it, paying close attention. And he probably liked much of it a lot more than his public persona usually admitted. Yes, he could be and was a self destructive, antisocial and unpleasant asshole. Couldn't you say the same about Hemingway, Faulkner, Mailer, Burroughs, Joyce ... etc. We could all add other names to the list.

Anyway, here's one of the aforementioned gems:

The Laughing Heart

your life is your life
don’t let it be clubbed into dank submission.
be on the watch.
there are ways out.
there is light somewhere.
it may not be much light but
it beats the darkness.
be on the watch.
the gods will offer you chances.
know them.
take them.
you can’t beat death but
you can beat death in life, sometimes.
and the more often you learn to do it,
the more light there will be.
your life is your life.
know it while you have it.
you are marvelous
the gods wait to delight
in you.

When he was alive, he didn't make it easy for anyone to separate the real person (who I have no doubts was horribly flawed, I am too) from his persona. In fact, like many writers, he thrived on and maybe got a little too caught up in mixing his persona with his self. But if you ever had any doubts that he wasn't aware that he was putting on a bit of a show ...

Bluebird

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say, stay in there, I'm not going
to let anybody see
you.
there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I pour whiskey on him and inhale
cigarette smoke
and the whores and the bartenders
and the grocery clerks
never know that
he's
in there.

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say,
stay down, do you want to mess
me up?
you want to screw up the
works?
you want to blow my book sales in
Europe?
there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too clever, I only let him out
at night sometimes
when everybody's asleep.
I say, I know that you're there,
so don't be
sad.
then I put him back,
but he's singing a little
in there, I haven't quite let him
die
and we sleep together like
that
with our
secret pact
and it's nice enough to
make a man
weep, but I don't
weep, do
you?

So, yeah, I agree with my friend's advice: "It's important to get into Bukowski, but it's important to get over him, too."

But by "getting over him" that doesn't mean I forget the reasons I got into his writing in the first place. And it doesn't mean I think his best stuff still doesn't stand up (for me). It does.

Wanted to be clearer about that.

[Saneseeker]

Has anyone mentioned the Bible? A dull and very overrated work of fiction...

[Mark]

Saneseeker wrote: "the Bible"

But the movie was awesome! Haha.

Actually, that's more an example of a mythological text than a work of fiction ... and although Maria used the word "book" in her initial question, the list implies that she meant novels and other works of fiction.

[David]

Monty J., I didn't have a problem with THE HOBBIT or Frank Herbert's DUNE series. Rowling just doesn't do any suspension of disbelief.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "Mark, I should not have said Bukowski doesn't write fiction at all, ..."

Ah, so you meant his writing is unconventional or a departure from what one might typically expect from fiction? I take it that's what you mean. Seems like since the sluice gates of modernism opened (which eventually gave way to the sluice gates of postmodernism ... who knows what's next?): departure from previously established expectations is almost a norm. It's an expect the unexpected situation.

one vivid passage about catching meat carcasses

That sounds to me like Kid Stardust on the Porterhouse. It was originally anthologized in Tales of Ordinary Madness, but may have found it's way into subsequently published short story collections. Although he often repeated variations of one of his life experiences--embellished, to be sure, as Monty points out, but, hey, that's art!--in poems then in short stories and sometimes they'd surface in one of his novels.

If we're thinking of the same short story, that's an excellent example of Bukowski's tackling the travails of the labor class as subject material that Monty and I are back and forth on.

[Petergiaquinta]

Mark wrote: "S.W. wrote: "read Bukowski, then get over it and move on. But I may go back for a fix now and then..."

Jeezus Christ, I was thinking about posting "Bluebird" yesterday...Do we know each other? Are we related? Is the friend you reference named Logan?

[Geoffrey]

Thanks Monty for the enlightenment. My problems with HP is that there is so much magic, and of course a plenitude of special effects. Whenever I see the latter in abundance, I automatically assume it´s to make up for the lack of substance. In the case of HP, I don´t know if the latter is a charge made to stick having never bothered to see any of the movies to its end. It´s boring, boring, boring......Okay he flies on a broom, can he solve any problems without the use of magic or is he totally magic-conditioned? What a crutch!! What a crock!!!

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta wrote: " Is the friend you reference named Logan? ..."

His name is Anthony Guido. But, please, call him Tony.

He's a friend of the father of one of my dearest friends. Said dearest friend was the best man at both my weddings. I like to think I'm done with weddings now, at least with my own.

Said dearest friend's father--a Paul Sr. to his Paul Jr.--has been working on a novel based somewhat on Ulysses since I first met and got to know his son.

Confused? Who wouldn't be? Morbid and impolite though it may be to say it, since Paul's dad is now well into his seventies, I'm half convinced that the grim reaper will tap him on his shoulder while he's still puttering with and tweaking this novel. Then I'll convince Paul Jr., who also writes, that he should use his dad's draft as the basis for a "story within a story" novel where he finds his departed father's manuscript and, with his own life events as a framework for the plot, labors to complete it and have it published.

I'd be a willing editor and collaborator. We'd both steadily be driven mad by the metafictional mise en abyme energies we'd unleashed into the universe and after much hyperbolic rhapsody and misadventure, the very final shot of the movie would be a triumphant and gaudily dressed Rachel, solid of mind and svelte of body, standing on our graves, head titled toward heaven as she laughed and laughed and laughed.

Roll credits.

Tony is Paul's Dad's friend.

[Petergiaquinta]

Geoffrey wrote: "Okay he flies on a broom, can he solve any problems without the use of magic or is he totally magic-conditioned? What a crutch!! What a crock!!!"

I'd rather be discussing Holden, and so I'd argue now that we're stuck on HP instead of Game of Thrones, that Holden is a more complex character than any of those penned by Rowling. Mark, awhile ago, called Holden allegorical, but I disagree. Allegorical figures are like Christian Pilgrim, Everyman, Mankind (another eponymous figure from the medieval morality plays), Farmer Death (at beginning of Tale of Two Cities or the Vengeance from the same work), the Red Cross Knight in The Faerie Queene, et al. They have no real meat on the bones; they don't bleed when you prick them; they only represent an idea or an ideal. But Holden is a fully fleshed out character and the depth of his psychology is established there in Salinger's novel for us just as true to life as his voice. I'm not saying he doesn't represent something as well, but he's a fully realized character, as fully developed as just about anyone I know in a book. Hell, he might be more human than a lot of humans I know.

Harry Potter...not so much, although he's not as flat as some might think. For example, to get back to Geoffrey's statement there, Harry has a tremendous compassion for others based on his own upbringing as a boy. He does solve some problems without magic using only the goodness of his heart. He mediates between friends; he shows concern for the eccentric Luna Lovegood, his giving of the sock to Dobby doesn't involve magic...and lest you respond that this purity of heart is nothing more than shallow writing, he has a tremendously difficult time wrapping his head around Snape's sacrifice, even when he knows the truth of what Snape has been doing over the years. I'm not going to argue for a ton of depth of character with Harry, but it's more than just magic wands and flying broomsticks (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, anyone?).

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "called Holden allegorical, but I disagree..."

I think I was being sloppy when I said that, to tell the truth. Maybe. I hate to look back through to be sure, but didn't I say something along the lines that the CitR is so specifically symbolic as to be nearly allegorical ... which sounds like a whole bunch of bullshit and a bag of donuts now that I think about it.

Anyway, to your point, yes! I think CitR is richly and complexly symbolic and also that Holden's humanity and authenticity is not diminished because of the symbolism.

I suppose symbolism is to allegory what metaphor is to simile. Is that profound or is it just an indication that I could answer at least one SAT question correctly?

[Kallie]

I think simile would be to metaphor what symbolism is to allegory but I'm too lazy to research that so feel free to shoot it down. Salinger and symbolism, hmm . . . if S employed symbolism in any of his fiction, my impression is that said symbols rose naturally within the story, from his subconscious engagement with the characters and narrative.

[Petergiaquinta]

Mark wrote: " Is that profound or is it just an indication that I could answer at least one SAT question correctly? "

I'm not going to weigh in on that analogy right now; it kind of hurts my brain just to think about it, but they took analogies out of the SATs a long time ago, old man. In 2005, according to this article that argues for putting them back in:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/16/voca...

And the SAT is gearing up for yet another dumbing down of the test in another year or two.

If you know someone who recently scored incredibly high on the SAT or ACT, well good for them. They're brighter than the average bear, no doubt. But the 36 on the ACT right now is almost a meaningless measure compared to a 36 on the ACT back in the '70s or '80s. Once upon a time that was a benchmark that a school saw once or twice in a decade maybe. Nowadays it happens once or twice a year. Maybe more. When administrators talk about how great students are doing and they point out increased test score averages, etc., don't get too impressed by those numbers.

[Anne Hawn]

Brave New World and 1984 were written to expose policies of governments that, if continued or expanded over time would result in something similar to the societies portrayed in those books. Catcher in the Rye was written by someone who had suffered from the effects of War and Holden is railing at a world that is phony and unfair.

Brave New World and 1984 have been amazingly prophetic...not in the actual society created, but with the infringements on liberty and its effects. I am very concerned about legislation and policies which have gone even further than society was at the time the books were written and a populace that only wants a quick fix. Our Declaration makes clear that our government was instituted to protect liberty, not government. The reaction to 9/11 was to create a government policy that resulted in spying on ordinary citizens and world leaders who are our allies.

Who is writing the about this now? I don't mean books about partisan politics, but books that extend recent decisions and policies to their logical but alarming interpretations. The easiest way to get at what I am trying to say is to look at each law or policy in the hands of a dictator like Putin. Is there anyone writing the next Brave New World or 1984 >?

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Whenever I see the latter in abundance, I automatically assume it´s to make up for the lack of substance."

Agreed. Special effects, CGI, etc., often compensate for lack of acting and storytelling skill.

Out of sheer curiosity I saw Captain America and almost walked out. (Never have paid $ a Schartzenburger or Indiana Jones flick.) People firing assault weapons while doing acrobatics or leaping from aircraft to aircraft! Boorrring, but I was amazed at how much bullshit people are willing to pay for.

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "or Indiana Jones flick..."

Do I detect the whiff of a rabid ideologue in the air. Does anyone else ... sniff, sniff ... get a bit of that, too?

Just kidding, Monty.

I know what you're saying and am generally in agreement. But I have to say that compared to the 3D ACTION ADVENTURE BONANZA A-GO-GO movies that are flooding the market today, the first two or three Indiana Jones movies were, imho, damned good storytelling, damned good cinema.

They don't deserve to be equated, in my opinion, with Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator movies.

[S.W.]

Anne, I thought Denis Johnson's novel Tree of Smoke (2007 National Book Award) was an indirect commentary on the Iraq War written from the perspective of the Vietnam War. The parallels were ominous: widescale intelligence gaffs, hyped up threats, civilian casualties, etc…

Written in 1979, Aksyonov's The Island of Crimea was a satire that predicted many recent events. Maybe Tom Clancy stole this idea for Command Authority from Aksyonov?

[S.W.]

That was a great question, Anne. Where's Daniel the Dystopian? I bet he could name several candidates. One of my writer friends/mentors (4th novel forthcoming) is writing a "what if" dystopian novel about the aftereffects of China's decision to stop buying our debt. This lynch pin sets off the whole armageddon scenario. I'm not sure if this is the book coming out this fall or the one he's currently writing. I'm beggin' for an ARC. Stay tuned!

[Daniel]

Anne Hawn wrote: " Brave New World and 1984 were written to expose policies of governments that, if continued or expanded over time would result in something similar to the societies portrayed in those books. C..."

Well, there's Atwood, but she only writes dystopia rarely. Cronin's The Passage series is pretty good, but I can't say it's specially critical of any current policies as much as of otherness and segregation in general. I believe the last great dystopia written is McCarthy's The Road. There's also a good chunk of Saramago's work, though those are more parables than dystopias (and there's the little fact that he's dead now).

Oh, also, I believe there's a hyperbolization of North Korean totalitarianism in Mitchell's Cloud Atlas, but I haven't read it.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "a rabid ideologue..."

It's more of a fixation on realism. The minute someone starts talking/showing flying people and monsters and wierdwolves and vampires and elfs, I just sort of tune out.

I have seen monsters, and they all had two feet, looked like regular people. Those are the monsters I prefer to deal with.

Unless it's comedy. I did enjoy Young Frankenstein.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "S.W. wrote: "read Bukowski, then get over it and move on. But I may go back for a fix now and then..."

Yes, but now I worry about quoting my friend's words "it's important to get over him, too."
..."

Great poetry. Keepers. Thanks for sharing.

[Monty J]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Monty should not feel offended or bullied simply because SW pointed out how his impressions of HP were wrong."

As I have said before, one doesn't have to eat an entire bowl of chili to know you don't like the taste. One spoonful is plenty.

It's not about being right or wrong. People have reasons for the way something makes them feel, and they shouldn't be judged as "wrong" because their feelings are different from someone else's.

Where bullying comes in is when people who disagree start throwing labels around like "Literary snob". It may be done in jest, but others reading the post may not know that and get discouraged from reading more challenging material.

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "I haven't got the impression that Rowlings purpose was to tell the world about the "plight of the orphans", as she saw it."

I agree. Rowling set out to tell a good story, not to tell a distorted version of the orphan life. But there are unintended consequences that need to be weighed. Even Dickens, bless his hallowed rusting bones, led us to believe that orphans get rescued by the benevolent landed gentry. He had to pander to sell books because poor people in his day couldn't read.

When a member of a disadvantaged minority speaks out it can sound strange and unjustified. Even today, bigots are telling black people in America to "get over it, slavery ended in 1865." Similar with Holocaust survivors and Nazi war criminal hunters. I witnessed this first hand and was shocked speechless.

Orphans have no voice, no organization, so they are most often used carelessly, in my view, in film and literature. It's time someone spoke up. That's all. And I'm new at it. I will get better.

Writers are unwitting guardians of the collective unconscious. There is a duty to get it right so mankind can move forward authentically.

When looking good (i.e., making money) distorts reality it can erode our collective sense of self, undermining the mastery of man's collective destiny. (I am not saying this well, but you get the drift.)

Superheroes and magicians are fun to fantasize over, but they give few solutions. I think this is what Holden was talking about when he said DB was prostituting himself in Hollywood.

As long as we keep buying, Hollywood (and book publishers) will feed us mind candy by the truckload.

But when we deal with reality there's hope that real solutions can be uncovered. Philomena, The Italian, Precious and The Antwone Fisher Story didn't traumatize anyone to watch. There need to be more stories like these. We're out of balance.

[S.W.]

Monty wrote: Even today, bigots are telling black people in America to "get over it, slavery ended in 1865."

Every time I begin to think that racism is a part of our dark past and not the enlightened present, some damn fool like Clive Bundy rises up and dashes my hopes. He's the old rancher who became a darling of the right wingers for standing up to big government (Office of Land Management). I won't repeat his words but if he had ever read Frederick Douglas, Richard Wright, John Baldwin, Harriet, Beecher Stowe, Alex Haley, Maya Angelou or Willa Cather then I doubt he could ever have conceived such misguided thoughts.

The social impact of a book/author does weigh heavily on its overall merit. But before this impact can be measured, the book/author must be absorbed into our "culture." Then us "literary snobs" can connect the dots. The test of time allows this process to occur. Recently published books haven't matured or aged enough (like a wine or cheese) to accurately predict their value.

Fifty Shades of Grey may eventually become know as the book that revolutionized the publishing industry and made self publishing a viable alternative. It was still written in an amatueristic hack style---no one will be emulating that, hopefully.

[Von]

I'm left confused, what is this thread really all about?

[Mark]

Vons wrote: "I'm left confused, what is this thread really all about?"

Vons: Many of us have kind of gotten to know each other by discussing the topic six ways to sundown already. And so the conversation had become kind of free wheelin', to say the least, and often wheels far from CitR and/or "what books are ovverated?"

It's something that could be called the "Is Nick Carraway gay?" syndrome, I suppose. Because the same thing kind of happened in that thread too.

Pull up a stool, someone will buy you a beer and feel free to gently course correct us back to the ... uhm, topic! That's it, topic. If that's what you want to do.

[Mark]

S.W. wrote: "a darling of the right wingers ..."

Through no conscious effort on his own part, Bundy has provided quite a service to the national conversation and what passes for politics these days.

A combination of true believer Tea Party folks (which I think are in essence a confused and woefully ignorant lot) and political opportunists just looking for that all too popular refuge of a scoundrel, public office, cuddled up to this guy and gave him even more media attention than he'd had previously. This gave him the opportunity to shoot of his mouth and reveal how stupid and evil (and racist) he really is.

So the people who were championing Bundy out of political opportunism had to do 180s but fast. And the people who haven't reveal that underneath their veneer of "get the government off our backs" bullshit, they are just as racist as he is.

If out in the open evil throws light on evil that wasn't out in the open in the first place, I'll take it.