The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,701-1,750 of 5,680

[Mark]

I have been away again for the past five days. I discovered Funkadelic/Parliament later in life because when I was younger I had some biases about musical tastes mixed with some sort of identity politics that I now realize was absurd. The more cartoonish they became (after album 7 or 8?), the more they became more of a fun diversion than anything else, but the earlier albums blow me away.

I am moved by many of the Mountain Goats' songs. John Darnelle (sp?) is an incredibly gifted songwriter.

[Petergiaquinta]

So that's a "no" on the Motoraquabooty Affair? Okay, no hard feelings...:P

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "So that's a "no" on the Motoraquabooty Affair? Okay, no hard feelings...:P"

I missed that ... huh?

[Petergiaquinta]

Well....I don't know if it's the most cartoony thing Parliament ever did, but it's the cartooniest thing they did I ever paid good money for. And what I got was a picture disk with Sir Nose Devoid O'Funk on one side and George Clinton on the other, waterskiing on two dolphins wearing chaps and listening to a boom box.

Clinton is wearing the chaps. Not the dolphins...

[[deleted user]]

I love Mountaingoat's lyrics.It is very good poetry

" Our conversations are like minefields, No one's found a safe way through one yet

OR THIS ONE

And the deathless love we swore to protect with our bodies
Is stumbling across its bleak ending

But none of the rage in our eyes
Seems to finish it off where it lies

I got the CD from my daughter and listened to the songs again and again in my car for about a month

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: "I had some biases about musical tastes mixed with some sort of identity politics that I now realize was absurd."

..what?

[Kallie]

Paul Martin wrote: "Mark wrote: "I had some biases about musical tastes mixed with some sort of identity politics that I now realize was absurd."

..what?"

Wanting to project a certain image of oneself? That is how I take what Mark said. Its the kind of exasperating but also endearing and funny way kids, especially, behave. But not just kids.

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "...what?"

What Kallie said is very close if not correct.

In my last three years of high school, I was a "disco sucks" type of guy. Hard ass rock 'n' roll was a pure expression of an unfettered spirit, while something like Donna Summer's I Feel Love was a soul-sucking abomination for dupes.

But slowly-spreading cracks were appearing in my world view even then. One night in the throes of Lysergic truth telling I commented to a car full of bearded Budweiser swillers (my friends at the time) that "southern rock sucks." The car got very quiet except for whatever Marshall Tucker song was on the eight track player at the time. I'm lucky I didn't get my ass kicked up and down the playground.

I discovered punk rock in '79 and a variation of musical tastes driven by vague identity politics didn't go away. The Damned or the Clash or Black Flag or The Minutemen made real music while bands such as Depeche Mode or Cabaret Voltaire were for the same sort of people who had been previously duped by disco. The only possible value of Frank Sinatra's music, for an additional example, was for it to be ironically skewered with a lampoon as in Sid Vicious's version of My Way.

Somewhere along the way after graduation from college, that all fell away to a more open and, I think, reasonable mindset toward music. Not that I've gotten beyond my own personal tastes and preferences. John Legend's All of Me makes me throw up in my mouth a little. But not because I imagine that he eschews "keeping it real, man!" but because I think it's a predictable, uninspiring and uninspired song.

Nor could I be swayed into thinking that dozens of "one, two, fuck you..." American hardcore bands from that particular era of music that I might have listened to back in the day are good simply because they took on some sort of confrontational, personal/political stance.

And Frank Sinatra, I now recognize, is a mighty mountain in the topography of American popular music with a stature equal to (although he is obviously very stylistically very different from) Bob Dylan.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I realized that one essence of music is STRUCTURE ... skilled musicians can play a bluegrass version of Donna Summer's I Feel Love if they desire, with banjos instead of Giorgio Moroder's throbbing synths. And another aspect of it is HISTORY. There are evolutionary threads through time that link Elvis Costello to Elvis Presley and Oingo Boingo to Louis Jordan.

Uhm ... I've gone on quite a bit. Have I made my original point more understandable or less so?

[Geoffrey]

There are considerably more differences between Dylan and Sinatra than just style

[Mark]

Geoffrey wrote: "There are considerably more differences between Dylan and Sinatra than just style"

Sure, I wasn't attempting to write a contrast and compare essay about the two musicians. Nor do I recall saying that style was their only differentiation, smarty pants.

My point was that the impact, influence and longevity of their careers are of a similar magnitude.

[Kallie]

I felt tortured by the dvd my brother-in-law wished to share, of Neil Diamond in concert. My sister and nephew and I had to sneak, one-by-one, from the viewing room. Sorry if this offends anyone but I just couldn't take it. I would rather watch Sid Vicious any day, and for sure Dylan or Sinatra.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "I felt tortured by the dvd my brother-in-law wished to share, of Neil Diamond in concert. My sister and nephew and I had to sneak, one-by-one, from the viewing room. Sorry if this offends anyone ..."

The Vegas style Diamond I can see being hard to take. But he wrote some excellent songs, imho.

[Kallie]

Elvis did Vegas, but with a sense of irony or so it seemed to me. I prefer that, and vocalists like Ella Fitzgerald or Billie Holiday to the likes of Barbara Streisand and Celine Dionne (sp). I know; the latter have great voices and Neil does too. But they pluck my nerves the wrong way.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "Elvis did Vegas, but with a sense of irony or so it seemed to me ..."

Elvis transcended irony. I was never interested in Celine Dionne. Powerful voice, no nuance. Babs can really sing well, I don't know why she makes your diss list.

But, then again, I have never understood why people consider Billie Holiday a great vocalist. Idiosyncratic, sure. But I get nothing from her voice.

Ella Fitzgerald, yes!

Maybe I don't "get" Billie Holiday because I can't hear through the primitive audio recording technology that existed during her time. Because I'm a big fan of Carmen McRae, who is supposed to be a lot like Lady Day.

[Karen]

This is all very subjective- I saw a Neil Diamond concert on T.V. once, just him solo playing guitar, he was quite good.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: Have I made my original point more understandable or less so?

Ah, yes, you have indeed. I was a bit tired when I made that comment. I suppose I could have deciphered it with a little effort, but oh well.

[Paul Martin]

Kallie wrote: Wanting to project a certain image of oneself?

With me it was the other way around: spent a lot of time trying to avoid projecting a certain image of myself, as I was not on the same musical wavelength as my peers during my school years. Whenever I had people over, I'd never play what I actually liked, but simply what I assumed they would like. I even spent time catching up on artist and albums names in contemporary popular music, just to arouse less suspicion (as if anybody really would have cared if they'd found out what I really liked).

Seemed perfectly rational at the time.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Elvis did Vegas, but with a sense of irony or so it seemed to me ..."

Elvis transcended irony. I was never interested in Celine Dionne. Powerful voice, no nuance. Babs can really si..."

I think if Elvis had transcended irony he might have lived longer. Like Dylan, he appeared (at least in one Vegas performance) to be disgusted by his hysterically worshipful fans.
Why I don't much like Streisand: hammy.
Billie Holiday had no illusions but plenty of soul and that's what she sang from. Like all great blues singers, her voice could be cracked and broken as an old worn out shoe and still convey that soulfulness (no pun intended) without getting all hammy about it.
Ella and Nat are probably my all-time favorites though, for the simple, real, warmth they give every song.

[Geoffrey]

And Bernie Madoff, we all recognize, is a mighty mountain of a transgessor in the topography of contemporary injustice, with an infamous stature equal to, (although he is not of the same nationality)as Idi Imin.

Just tweaking ya, Mark.

[H Anthony]

If you like the Mountain Goats, you might be interested in John Darnielle's first novel, due out later this year.

Wolf in White Van

[Michael]

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 Stranger
Ulysses
Atlas Shrugged
The Da Vinci Code
Twilight"

I certainly agree about the last three on the list: Atlas Shrugged is too wrapped up in its own repugnant ideology to be pleasing or gratifying in any sense; The Davinci Code does not surpass its predecessor, Angels and Demons in terms of pleasure, and that book is essentially just a narrow hallway pretending to be a maze; and Twilight? In another universe, it features meticulously crafted prose, humanesque characterization, and a storyline that wounds and is worth the wounding; but this is not that universe.

As for the rest: I cannot agree. Each deserves their distinguished praise. I feel they are featured on an "overrated" list just because the list-maker was forced to read them in high school or college, and didn't have a teacher to imbue them with a sense of aesthetics or a taste for difficult pleasures, and so they "hated" them because they are "boring." Or, they picked them up to see what the hype was about, found prose they could not gulp down like water, and tossed them aside for easier, more gluttonous pleasures.

Ulysses, for instance, is one of the most difficult novels ever written, second perhaps to Joyce's Finnegans Wake, which isn't really a novel after all. But does difficulty preclude greatness? I can't see myself living in a world where that concept was a truism. The most fulfilling rewards in life tend to come from the most difficult tasks. Ulysses, though it makes us work for it, gives us an exuberant three-fold image of humanity in Poldy, Molly, and Stephen that renews our ever-dwindling hope in humanity. Certainly, that is worth praising ad infinitum.

[Karen]

Well written-thoughtful and full of insight- and I completely agree. Good literature is worth the work. I am reminded of when I first tackled Faulkner more than twenty years ago, I gave up on him. I'm so glad I changed my mind.

[Kallie]

Yes, well said. Thanks for encouragement to read Ulysses. And we were going to suggest worthy underrated (or even unknown) books. I vote for Melville's 'The Confidence Man,'a somewhat surreal story about the huckster side of American character that I need to re-read.

[[deleted user]]

Indeed just because you simply cannot understand the bigger themes of "meaningless" novels like the Stranger and Waiting for Godot does not mean they are overrated.
Ulysses may be in that list simply because of the vast use of idiosyncratic language, let alone the sexual implications. The difficulty of the Joycean prose is directly proportional to the complexity of the ideas and sensation that Buck Mulligan seems to perceive. The hatred of the Great Gatsby may come from the fact that all American highschooler are forced to read it. In addition to that the facade of the story and the characters are not exactly empathetic and are generally labelled as dull. The Keitsian prose is not even taken into an account. Why would it? Especially in a society where the vast majority of people, let alone adolescents, read for mere amusement, for "fun", for the suspense of the plot, because the books are always better than the movies based on the additional details that are left out of the visual representation, and so on and so forth.
I feel that the reason why this list (and many others) are created is because these novels (most of the list, not the last three) do not "please", amuse may seem as a more apt description, their inner ethos in a most superficial way. That is probably one of the reasons of YA popularity; it does not require much critical thinking, the emotions are rather cheap and easily obtained by the vast use of dead metaphors and cliches.
When you finally finish those books, those "OMG! This is the best book I have ever read" that most adolescents seem to be fond of (those who dare to pick up a book I should say), you are left with nothing but the plot and the "glorious details" that the movies should have included. Why read if what you read will not enrich your mind nor your spirit? (Harold Bloom)

[Michael]

Karen wrote: "Good literature is worth the work. I am reminded of when I first tackled Faulkner more than twenty years ago, I gave up on him. ..."

That was my experience with Great Expectations and Gatsby: I plodded through them in high school, but when I returned to them as an adult, I thought, "What was I thinking? These are outstanding!"

And regarding Faulkner: I love using his short stories, "A Rose for Emily" and "Barn Burning," in my high school classes, but I've been a little anxious about having them read As I Lay Dying, which is a potential book in the curriculum. I'm thinking about adding it to my senior AS English Lit class for next year. I think my reservations have more to do with my anxieties about teaching it than about their abilities to appreciate it.

In any event, thank you for the reply!

[Michael]

Kallie wrote: "And we were going to suggest worthy underrated (or even unknown) books."

As an English teacher, I read a great deal of YA to stay abreast with what's out there; but unfortunately, much of that reading is forced. There's only so much of the same predictable plotting and sappy pathos that one can take before one retreats to the asylum. But one "YA" writer out there--or, to put that better, a writer who writes books that are labeled YA but appeal to the general population--who I feel deserves more praise is M.T. Anderson. His Octavian Nothing books brought me to realize that there really doesn't need to be a distinguishing line between YA and Literary Fiction: those books are written in ornate 18th-century prose, and yet the voice is unmistakably that of an adolescent boy who, though highly educated, is experiencing the turmoils of being an adolescent boy, with the added flavor of being alive during a particularly tumultuous time in history. Anderson's other books are not as strong, though his novel Feed is an interesting look at where the synthesis of technology and our humanity will take us.

Check him out, if you haven't already, and if you have the chance!

[Mark]

Sebastian wrote: "Indeed just because you simply cannot understand the bigger themes of "meaningless" novels like the Stranger and Waiting for Godot does not mean they are overrated.
Ulysses may be in that list si..."

Keitsian?

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: "Sebastian wrote: "Indeed just because you simply cannot understand the bigger themes of "meaningless" novels like the Stranger and Waiting for Godot does not mean they are overrated.
Ulysses may ..."

Yes that poetic prose that occurs at times; "and he kissed her when there were falling leaves with no trees (paraphrased I can't remember what he actually wrote)

[Mark]

Sebastian wrote: "Yes that poetic prose that occurs at times ..."



Oh, John Keats! Yes, I understand Fitz was quite the admirer of his work.

I didn't understand or make the connection. Keatsian, btw.

[Michael]

Mark wrote: "Keitsian?"

*Keatsean, as in influenced by John Keats, which Fitzgerald's writing undoubtedly is.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Mark wrote: "Keitsian?"

*Keatsean, as in influenced by John Keats, which Fitzgerald's writing undoubtedly is."

I just realized it, maybe I was typing too fast

[Michael]

Sebastian wrote: "I just realized it, maybe I was typing too fast"

No worries! It's a good point.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Sebastian wrote: "I just realized it, maybe I was typing too fast"

No worries! It's a good point."

I feel like the aesthetic aspect of a literary text is soon to be forgotten if, as a society, we persevere with Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Divergent etc. let alone Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey

[Paul Martin]

Sebastian wrote: I feel like the aesthetic aspect of a literary text is soon to be forgotten if, as a society, we persevere with Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Divergent etc. let alone Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey


Hardly. I suppose it's safe to say that we've now entered an age where massive and clever marketing, with profit as the main goal, is able to virtually force the average not-too-conscious-teenage-reader to read whatever it is they're marketing at the moment. As a consequence of that, the literary element may suffer, but not forgotten. We're still here, discussing this, aren't we?

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "Hardly ... We're still here, discussing this, aren't we?"

I agree with Paul and, respectfully, disagree with your concerns Sebastian.

Call me cynical, but I think that people who either don't care at all about aesthetic merit (of maybe "heft") or who prefer to see some aesthetic merit in what others see as accessible, predictable and formulaic crap will always be in the majority. People who get a kick out of thinking about and discussing their takes on the value of Ulysses or The Great Gatsby or the specifics of and the extent to which the poetry of John Keats influenced F. Scott Fitzgerald or whatever will always be in the minority.

Society can go hang as far as I'm concerned. I'm no complete misanthrope seeking to completely escape contact with it, but I'm fairly confident that when I encounter or consider it in undifferentiated critical masses, it will usually disappoint me.

I have no desire to change nor concerns about the reading habits or aesthetic decisions or general directions of society as a whole. And fat chance I could change any of that if I wanted to anyway.

Most of 'em are annoying bastards. I figure I'll keep working on finding the ones I like and keeping the rest of 'em off my goddamned lawn.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Sebastian wrote: I feel like the aesthetic aspect of a literary text is soon to be forgotten if, as a society, we persevere with Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Divergent etc. let alone Twilight and 5..."

That's a good point. But will this last? How many adolescents nowadays will actually challenge themselves with the great works of the Bard, Chaucer, Homer and many others? But I share your positive views, if the great Greeks and Romans survived the Dark Middle Ages I think there is more than a chance that it will survive our times.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: I agree with Paul and, respectfully, disagree with your concerns Sebastian.

Call me cynical, but I think that people..."

Oh no don't get me wrong my objective will not be to transmit Shakespeare and other great authors to society. Like Harold Bloom says it is already hard to change oneself let alone change others. I think we should focus on the ones who show the potential to truly appreciate the great works of literature. Not everybody is capable of it and it is a sheer fact that we will have to accept. We are a minority yes and we will always be one.

[Paul Martin]

Sebastian wrote: How many adolescents nowadays will actually challenge themselves with the great works of the Bard, Chaucer, Homer and many others?

Well, I suppose you may be right that a significantly smaller percentage of today's adolescents will do this. But that's just me making a baseless assumption:)

if the great Greeks and Romans survived the Dark Middle Ages I think there is more than a chance that it will survive our times.

That's a good point. Reminds me of something that someone else on this thread said when we discussed something similar early on - something like "even though the 19th centry produced some of the worlds greatest literature, that doesn't necessarily mean that the average person was walking around reading Plato and Aristotle." Don't remember who it was... Mark? Kallie?

[Mark]

Sebastian wrote: "Not everybody is capable of it and it is a sheer fact that we will have to accept. We are a minority yes and we will always be one ..."

I'm not focusing on anyone else but myself. That's not a selfish or egotistical statement but an attempt to mind my own business. Not, obviously, when it comes to sharing my opinions with any who care to read or listen to them, but certainly when it comes to trying to alter someone else's behavior (even "the ones who show the potential" you speak of).

This streak runs so strongly in me that I respectfully decline your tacitly offered membership in your particular "we."

You seem young and full of "go get 'em" piss and vinegar as well as, apparently, a focused "objective."

I'm on a very different trip, as they say.

But good luck!

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "Don't remember who it was... Mark? Kallie? ..."

I don't think it was me. But lord knows I'm not capable of keeping track of all the crap I say in this forum.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Don't remember who it was... Mark? Kallie? ..."

I don't think it was me. But lord knows I'm not capable of keeping track of all the crap I say in this forum."

Nor am I, but I do think we discussed and argued about whether earlier societies did or did not in fact enjoy difficult lit we now consider classic, like Shakespeare (at least viewing the plays) and Dickens. I remember reading that people lined up in New York at the dock waiting for the latest Dickens installment (in a London paper?) to come in. I wonder if that could ever happen here again.

[Kallie]

Michael wrote: "Kallie wrote: "And we were going to suggest worthy underrated (or even unknown) books."

As an English teacher, I read a great deal of YA to stay abreast with what's out there; but unfortunately, m..."

M.T. Anderson. I will check him out. Paula Fox also writes prize-winning YA novels. I haven't read them, but really admire her adult novels. She's another writer for the underrated category. By the way, I commend you for teaching 'As I Lay Dying.' What struck me about that book (besides its overall excellence) was the humor, but how do you teach that without seeming to laugh 'at' the characters (that seems tacky)? It's the only Faulkner novel I've read and I want to read more; would some of you recommend favorite Faulkner novels?

[Karen]

I am used to being a minority as far as my tastes in literature and music, I just don't discuss it with people (except my husband) either-unless they want to know, and on this narrow peninsula on which I live, I expected this. It's a beautiful place but has it's narrow view and it's not very worldly- it's not just regionalized though, society has always been this way, I agree with that. But that's also what led me to these forums, so it's okay.

[Petergiaquinta]

Kallie wrote: "would some of you recommend favorite Faulkner novels? "

They're all good...but go to The Sound and the Fury next and then Absalom, Absalom.

And hell yeah, you can laugh at his characters...don't you think Faulkner was laughing when he wrote them? The Bundrens are a hoot!

Absalom may be the greatest of Faulkner's works...it may even be one of the top five books in American literature. But go with Sound and Fury first, I'd say.

[Kallie]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Kallie wrote: "would some of you recommend favorite Faulkner novels? "

They're all good...but go to The Sound and the Fury next and then Absalom, Absalom.

And hell yeah, you can laugh at his char..."

Thanks, I've got that one; still reading W&P so after that . . . Well, I sure laughed reading 'As I Lay Dying.' Schools are so touchy about that sort of thing now. Which may be one reason why kids often get fed such pap.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Kallie wrote: "would some of you recommend favorite Faulkner novels? "

They're all good...but go to The Sound and the Fury next and then Absalom, Absalom.

And hell yeah, yo..."

The Sound and the Fury is my favorite, and Faulkner's also. It is considered one of his most difficult, but not for me- I connected with it right away. The difficulty is because of the sudden shifts in time with little warning- you have to be on your toes! The stream of conciousness I loved. As I Lay Dying is humorous, but also tragic. You can't have funny without tragedy in a William Faulkner novel- those emotions are so intertwined, it's why I love him!

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Karen wrote: "Good literature is worth the work. I am reminded of when I first tackled Faulkner more than twenty years ago, I gave up on him. ..."

That was my experience with Great Expectations an..."

If you are prepared well I think you could do AILD for highschool. It won't be easy, but the students could learn so much! It may turn them on to other unusual literature- kids like humor, you can start there.

[Petergiaquinta]

Kallie wrote: "Well, I sure laughed reading 'As I Lay Dying.' Schools are so touchy about that sort of thing now."

I just wrapped up A Tale of Two Cities with my students...in it, the comic figure of Jerry Cruncher beats his wife for praying too much (no spoilers here). And then he gets his idiot mini-me son Young Jerry to keep an eye on her to make sure she isn't doing any more "floppin'" when he's not looking.

And I instruct my students, just in case they've been conditioned against such things, "Look, kids, in real life spousal abuse is by no means a humorous topic...but when Dickens writes about the Crunchers, it's pretty damn funny, so laugh all you like."

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Well, I sure laughed reading 'As I Lay Dying.' Schools are so touchy about that sort of thing now."

I just wrapped up A Tale of Two Cities with my students...in it, the comic figure..."

Wow, all these teachers here! High School also? I am a special ed assistant in a middle school- my kids have too much trouble with literature, they hate reading.
I think a good HS teacher can teach almost any book and make the conversation around it interesting- I don't get to do that- but we do have a special needs student who is brilliant and writes at the college level. I know that sounds strange, the brain is fascinating.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: I'm not focusing on anyone else but myself..."

Well I agree with you, by all means you did not make an egoistic statement, after all reading is a solitary pleasure. Sure we can discuss over it but it is solitary. I did not mean to say that we have to alter the mind of the "ones who show potential" introducing them to literature. I should have been more precise and say that it is impossible to make everyone read quality literature, but some few individuals are capable of it. That being said I am not suggesting that it is forced upon them but indeed taught with a Socratic approach, i.e. enabling other minds to think in their own way. Now this is pure theory and indeed just an ideal system. I mind my own business too, I seldom discuss the reasons of why Shakespeare is great. I never try to alter somebody's mind with my own perspectives. Everybody has to learn to think for themselves, that is the bottom line, one of the greatest teachings that came out the Renaissance.