The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,851-1,900 of 5,680

[[deleted user]]

Beauty of a secular upbringing in a communist country. No bible!
But I kind of like David and Goliath, too.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: I read the book in the hills of Nepal in the 1980s. It was glorious because I had nothing to distract me and nothing else to do besides enjoy it.

I can imagine. Surroundings are influential.

[Geoffrey]

What? Holy crap! Who´s putting down the fucking Bible?

[Petergiaquinta]

The Good Book? Perhaps a great book, even. But the epitome of "overrated." The Koran/Quran even more so, but since the Bible's 300 years older or so (at least in its finished format), I deem it the winner. And thankfully few people will kill me for saying so...which means, wait, no...it's the Quran!

[[deleted user]]

Oh I bet there are some Christian fundamentalists who would kill you, too!

[Petergiaquinta]

And if any of them can read and are on this thread, I'd just ask them please to scroll up and notice it's Ian you really want to kill...

[Ian]

Such a Christian sentiment; killing people for their beliefs. Oh wait, what's the number of that commandment? See what I mean about being overrated?

[[deleted user]]

I think all religious books ( including Communist Manifesto by Marx) are overrated as well as ceremonies. I am secular Jewish, but I celebrated Passover once. Never again. ALl that stuff about us being the chosen people, everybody hates us but God will punish our enemies. I complained to my partner- a lapsed Irish RC and he said " But all religions are like this! He is most likely right.

[Ian]

Maybe it's a good idea to ask "what is it that makes a book overrated"? That question might be broken down into two parts. The first one is "whose rating" and the second part might be "why is that rating over the top?"

In looking at the lists I see classics and books that have been hyper hyped. The latter generally being more recent publications. Certainly books like Catcher, Moby Dick and Gatsby fall into the first category. Books like Atlas Shrugged and da Vinci are part of the second.

Books in the first category can seem overrated because they are now dated. They may have been the first of a new genre or some departure from the standard pattern. But now as writing has moved on their reputation is less and less supported by the experience of people who read them.

It seems to me that the second category is more of a recent phenomenon. The truth is that I didn't enjoy many of the latter books by Tom Clancy. I thought that Brown's books were overhyped foolishness. But the marketing machine got behind them both and built them into bestsellers.

So there seems a difference between books that once merited their rating but no longer do so and books that never really merited their rating. What do you think?

[[deleted user]]

Well isn't it a bit like a Big Mack? It is most likely the most eaten meal in the world, so a best seller, but thta odes not make it a special delicacy. ANd sorry, how dare a bloody European woman criticised McDonalds " ?
Don't worry, I have eaten much worse food in Britain occasionally, BigMac is fine.

[Karen]

Lucie wrote: "Well isn't it a bit like a Big Mack? It is most likely the most eaten meal in the world, so a best seller, but thta odes not make it a special delicacy. ANd sorry, how dare a bloody European woman ..."

Oh I like that comparison. Nothing beats an English breakfast though!

[[deleted user]]

yes English breakfast in most places is fine, it is the English lunches and dinners I am worried about ( now they will take my British citizenship away! :)

[Kallie]

Ian wrote: "Books in the first category can seem overrated because they are now dated. They may have been the first of a new genre or some departure from the standard pattern. But now as writing has moved on their reputation is less and less supported by the experience of people who read them."

But I don't think Holden's concerns are dated, i.e. trying to figure out how to deal with people and stay true to yourself.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, I agree. People do not change that much. Otherwise old literature would not still move us.

[Ian]

Kallie, I agree with your comment. I think what seems dated about the book is the style of writing and the way the author presents the story. Ian

[Geoffrey]

English cuisine is such an easy target. The best that can be said for that is the Brits never have a weight problem.

[Paul Martin]

Geoffrey wrote: "English cuisine is such an easy target. The best that can be said for that is the Brits never have a weight problem."


.....they don't?

[Ian]

Isn't the question of a book being overrated defined by the distance between expectations and the reality of reading it? There are books that we are told since our early years that we ought to hold in reverence but, when we read them, our experience is defined by disappointment. I have this experience with Shakespeare. Amid all of the hype, I can't stand reading the stuff. I find it stilted and distinctly adolescent.

We are told, increasingly by marketing mechanisms determined to drive sales and academics determined to establish their credentials as experts, that this or that book should be seen as important. But, like the art forgers in the Orson Welles movie that I referenced above, authors of fake writing only thrive because these marketing mechanisms sprinkle holy water on their tones. And these hyper's apprentices seem to be nothing more than art experts in the literary field.

I've had another experience that shows the other side of the question of overrating books. For years I tried unsuccessfully to read Nietzsche. His books made no sense to me and I found them extremely hard going. In those days, my judgment on Nietzsche was that he was overrated - as were his books. But then, some years later, after I had had a lot more life experience I went back to the books and they seemed wonderfully clear and insightful. Perhaps overrating is time sensitive.

[[deleted user]]

Good point. I hated Ulysses by joyce age 25, maybe I should try it again.

[[deleted user]]

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 liked Catcher in the Rye, although it is best read while still a rebellious little teen punk. Moby Dick is a stone cold classic of American Literature, unique in its form and function, full of both Shakespearean and Biblical language and detailed descriptions of sea travel and whaling. Anyone who thinks it is worth missing is not worth considering as a critic. The Great Gatsby is a central item of the American novel, full of utterly beautiful passages, and fraught with moral decay, and fun to read to boot. Waiting for Godot is an essential play, necessary for the understanding of modern drama. And funny. And so on...Atlas Shrugged is terrible, as is The Da Vinci code and Twilight. In general, the list is a combination of the obvious and hipster glib.

[Karen]

Catcher in the Rye should be read by adults also, it can be understood in several ways

[Monty J]

Dale wrote: "I liked Catcher in the Rye, although it is best read while still a rebellious little teen punk."

It should be read a least twice, first as a teenager, quickly, and again later in life, after age thirty, slowly, with a bottle of red wine. It will be an entirely different story when you have been tossed around by life enough to understand what went over your head as a teen.

Someone who has been shaken to their knees by the loss of a loved one will comprehend the book with different eyes from everyone else.

[Petergiaquinta]

Ian wrote: " I have this experience with Shakespeare. Amid all of the hype, I can't stand reading the stuff. I find it stilted and distinctly adolescent."

Whoops, Shakespeare is "adolescent"? Explain that for a minute there...

[[deleted user]]

LOL Somebody brave who does not like Shakespeare.
This is my opinion ( I am sure it is completely subjective so do not shoot me! )Funnily enough I loved Shakespeare ( in Czech translations) age 12, So yes, adolescent indeed.

Well I am told the language is beautiful- as a foreigner, I prefer his language in ( very good) Czech translations, a French friend feels the same ( about French translations) I find the original tough to grasp.
But the plots?! Come on - simple, full of dead bodies, predictable, nobody would call it good literature if written now.
The only things I like about Shakespeare are all those quotes- brilliant when taken out of context. And the characters are well written. Shame about the plots!
And yep, I am still a British Citizen let's hope it will stay that way!

[Paul Martin]

Lucie wrote: Well I am told the language is beautiful- as a foreigner, I prefer his language in ( very good) Czech translations, a French friend feels the same ( about French translations) I find the original tough to grasp.

I, too, prefer the translations the first time I'm reading it (you know, I do like to understand what's actually going on), but a while ago I noticed that it was much easier and more enjoyable to read the original text if I read it out loud. I don't know if it's my imagination, but it feels wonderful to read it, in a playful and satisfying kind of way. I've not experienced this with anything else.

[Kallie]

Paul makes a good point. Shakespeare's language and characters and their situations come alive when read aloud, and better yet when acted by a good theater company that casts the play's magic spell over the audience.

[Petergiaquinta]

I hardly think Shakespeare's plots are contrived or predictable. Perhaps they seem that way today because they've been performed again and again and have entered our collective consciousness over the centuries. And again they may seem predictable because they are universal. But unless you're stuck in Romeo and Juliet, I don't know what's "adolescent" about Shakespeare...and don't get confused, the two young lovers themselves are adolescents, but the play is not. It raises all kinds of interesting "adult" ideas worthy of consideration, especially by adults, especially by adults who think they already know everything.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I hardly think Shakespeare's plots are contrived or predictable. "

I agree. Whoever calls King Lear predictable either has some sort of extraordinary literary foresight, or has a very different notion of what is predictable, and what's not.

[Cosmic]

Mixing music video imagery with literature.
I was watching Britney Spears video Overprotected.

In it she is talking about taking risk while sitting on a horse from a carousel.

The words to the song could easily have been Holden's.

I just found it entertaining and thought you might enjoy it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PZYSiWHW8V0

[Gene]

Let's face it. The Bible is only a "book" in only the most technical of senses. It would be more useful to call it a "collection of writings." It has only a vague unifying theme of "God," and even the idea that it always referred to a single God is disputed. More or less a random collection of myths, anecdotes, stories, poems, and geneological lists. After 1,000s of years, the Catholic Church almost arbitrarily decided by committee what writings would be deleted/added. So, for the purposes of this Discussion, it's no more a "book" than an encyclopedia is, and I don't think anybody here would seriously start a thread about Britannica Junior. :-)

[Mark]

Gene wrote: "Let's face it. The Bible is only a "book" in only the most technical of senses. It would be more useful to call it a "collection of writings." It has only a vague unifying theme of "God," and even ..."

But the adventures of Encylopedia Brown! Quite underrated.

Seriously, though ... well said. Transparent axe grinders bring up the Bible. It's not a book in the sense that 99% of the titles discussed in this thread are.

[Paul Martin]

Gene wrote: "Let's face it. The Bible is only a "book" in only the most technical of senses. It would be more useful to call it a "collection of writings." It has only a vague unifying theme of "God," and even ..."

True, true.

[Cosmic]

Karen wrote: "Catcher in the Rye should be read by adults also, it can be understood in several ways"

I totally agree! And if you were to read it by looking up the books, movies, the first movies the actors mentioned, and songs....you would come away with a richer experience of what Salinger was saying. If you read it like pop literature with out understand these references well it seems a little shallow.

I am reading Ulysses right now and see connections in reading it and how I read The Catcher. I read the Catcher three times in a row and started seeing patterns and asking myself more questions that I missed the first time around. I still haven't figured it all out because there is so many references that I am trying to read and understand.

Salinger had a very privileged education and I wish to learn from him. Not everyone takes this much time reading this book and so I can see why they would only get a one dimensional view of it.

Some of the very basic things that anyone that reads the Catcher should be familiar with is the movie and the book The 39 Steps and the song that was playing on the carousel. Shirley Temples first movie also adds a lot. It was called Stand Up and Cheer. Kinda funny in light of the football game that is play. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation, Ring Lardner,Out of Africa and A Farewell to Arms. If The Catcher is read in the light of these books mentioned in the Catcher then I think everyone would see that the book is underrated, because they "tell" us the book is about Holden...but Holden tells you that he is not writing a David Copperfield kind of book...yes you need to read David Copperfield and then you will understand the name Caul-field...as well as references to the window...and probably more. I haven't read it again since reading the Catcher.

So since I have a list of books mentioned in the Catcher why not make a shelf in your Goodreads library called The Catcher and put these books on it.

[[deleted user]]

Now I will definitely read it again, especially that I read it as a teenager and in Czech translation! nice comment thanks

[Geoffrey]

The GOOD BOOK was not written as fiction, so by intent, should be excluded from this discussion. However as a work of non-fiction literature with fictional aspects, it should be fair game for discussion if we include autobiogaphy in our conversation. And certainly THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK is considered literature. So the issue is a complex one.

[Courtney]

I like to find the nuggets of knowledge in each book I read. So I do have difficulty even commenting on this query, but 50 Shades was a huge waste of time. It received a lot of hype and the story just wasn't there. I felt it was drug out for an easy buck. Though Paula previously mentioned how it did make it more acceptable for people to openly read smut. So there was even a bit of good from that monstrosity.

[Andrew]

Perhaps this is more to do with defining a 'classic'? Standing the test of time transcends age groups, eras and culture. Knut Hamsun's Hunger was written in 1890 and still reads like it was written yesterday. I was surprised to see Moby Dick (1856!) on the list. As with movies I loved in my youth, many novels do become dated. Perhaps that's why the sixty-three year old 'Catcher' is a popular choice here?

[Monty J]

Andrew wrote: "Perhaps that's why the sixty-three year old 'Catcher' is a popular choice here?"

Like Don Quijote, CiTR deals with timeless issues. Mental illness, neurotic behavior, and the transition from juvenile to adult are vital parts of the human condition.

But it is over the heads or beyond the reach of most younger readers and more than a few adults; hence the controversy.

Check out my essay on Holden and Codependency: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...

It has been reported that 96% of the world's population are codependent, making it a near universal trait.

The small minority of narcissists hate Holden while the vast majority of people are drawn to him in some way they can't put their finger on. Self sacrifice on behalf of others is programmed into the Judeo-Christian mentality from birth. I give ten examples where Holden exhibits this trait.

We are all blind to our own neuroses until someone point them out. We may not change, but we become fortified and enlightened in our conscious choices.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Perhaps that's why the sixty-three year old 'Catcher' is a popular choice here?"

Like Don Quijote, CiTR deals with timeless issues. Mental illness, neurotic behavior, and the transi..."

Self sacrifice is part of being human,I agree- but not dependent on a judeo-christian belief system. Humans have been sacrificing their own selfish wants and desires for thousands of years. Unfortunately I haven't read this book in 20 or so years so my commenting is limited.

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "not dependent on a judeo-christian belief system"

I agree. I am curious how much of this inclination is taught/learned in a behavior code vs inherent.

My essay reference above cites examples from the book. I am interested on other books, such as Don Quijote, where similar behavior is featured.

I am curious what role literature plays in shaping society's values by portraying heroes with certain traits of character. And the converse with villains.

In my blog referenced above I provide references and cite quotations from the book that may be of some use.

By extension, I am curious what the current trend in popular literature portends for the current generation--books like Fifty Shades of Grey, The Lady With the Dragon Tattoo, Twilight and Hunger Games. Makes me wonder where the bleep we are heading?

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "not dependent on a judeo-christian belief system"

I agree. I am curious how much of this inclination is taught/learned in a behavior code vs inherent.

My essay reference above cites..."

I am thinking that this self sacrifice for others wellbeing must be mostly inherited for the human species to survive for tens of thousands of years- some lesser aninals have it also to some degree.In humans, the exception would be obviously people with brain disorders. My husband has read extensively on this but only he can cite his sources. The topic is interesting, my son is fascinated by Don Quixote.

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "some lesser aninals have it also to some degree."

Yes, here's a profound example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlR3U...

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "some lesser aninals have it also to some degree."

Yes, here's a profound example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlR3U..."

Profound indeed. Dogs can be kind, some are cruel -- kind of like people.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "some are cruel ..."

Maybe I'm over thinking this or being too serious and missing the point entirely, but (hu)man is the only animal on the face of the planet that is deliberately cruel. Might be some gray area in the primate branch here and there. But dogs, I'm pretty sure, are consistently amoral.

Any cruelty we see in that part of the animal kingdom that we consider ourselves to somehow be kings of comes only from our tendency to anthropomorphize their actions.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "some lesser aninals have it also to some degree."

Yes, here's a profound example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlR3U..."

Profound indeed. Dogs can be kind, so..."

OMG, I KNOW, I can barely watch this- instinctive, and emotional?

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "some are cruel ..."

Maybe I'm over thinking this or being too serious and missing the point entirely, but (hu)man is the only animal on the face of the planet that is deliberately c..."

Dogs can be cruel (usually it's from inhumane treatment) and I know from some sorry experiences -- attacks on other dogs and people. I'm not sure what you mean by 'anthropomorphize' or 'deliberate.' They do have feelings. We've had at least 15 dogs live with us, fostered or permanently. Some were sweet, some mean, some fear-aggressive, some acted guilty when they misbehaved . . . We are down to four, all very different from one another.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "some are cruel ..."

Maybe I'm over thinking this or being too serious and missing the point entirely, but (hu)man is the only animal on the face of the planet that is d..."

The dogs behavior is not cruel because it is not thought out, it's instinctual- humans attach the word cruel to it. I THINK that is what Mark meant?

[Kallie]

Dogs don't just act on instinct. They acquire learned behavior; otherwise we couldn't train them (not that I'm so great at that . . .). They learn from other dogs, too. I think it's oversimplifying them to say that they don't think, or that mean behavior in a dog is instinctive. There's a lot we don't know about dogs, and other animals. That's one thing that makes them interesting; they are capable of surprising us (as Monty's link demonstrates).

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Dogs don't just act on instinct. They acquire learned behavior; otherwise we couldn't train them (not that I'm so great at that . . .). They learn from other dogs, too. I think it's oversimplify..."

Of course they can learn, and of course they can be trained. I have a dog, a very smart sheltie. I've had several dogs Still,their behavior that people attach the word cruel to, is not thought out,much of their behavior happens out of instinct. My dog is very easily trainable-there is a reward at the end- food and affection,loyalty.

[Kallie]

So are you saying that dogs behave instinctively from their particular temperament, and react instinctively to different humans and dogs depending on the 'vibe' they get from them? It still seems too simple. I can't say that they are incapable of thought and if they are capable of thought, they are capable of intention. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.