The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,951-2,000 of 5,680

[Daniel]

Mark wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Daniel wrote: "FWIW, I like that Green doesn't always ruin a scene by spelling out how the other works mentioned connect with or pertain to what is happening ..."

There's a s..."

When I talk about intertextuality/transtextuality in a paper or something, I usually work with Genette's theory, in which intertextuality spans allusion, quote, and plagiarism. As such, intertextuality does not mean name-dropping, and even when the author takes that route, he/she should be cunning enough not to make the reader think it is only there for show, as it happens in much of TFiOS. It also happens in 50 Shades, by the way, though in a much more insulting way.

[Petergiaquinta]

Since I'll never read 50 Shades, tell me what texts it references! This sounds potentially humorous...

[Cosmic]

I mentioned the Iceberg Theory coined by Hemingway, but in the link above I found some more information about it that may interest some.

"Freud describes the human mind as an iceberg, so that the huge density submerged :
The oldest and the best meaning of the word "unconscious" is the descriptive one: we call "unconscious" any mental process the existence of which we are obligated to assume because, for instance, we infer it in some way from its effects-but of which we are not directly aware. ...If we want to be more accurate, we should modify the statement by saying that we call a process" unconscious" when we have to assume that it was active at a certain time, although at that time we knew nothing about it23" . "

[Daniel]

Well, the protagonist (Anastasia) is purportedly an English Lit student, and has this sick obsession with Tess of the D'Urbervilles, but the only way you find out about this is from dry name-drops and vague, badly interpreted allusions, because not once in 500+ pages does Anastasia pick up as much as a leaflet and actually reads. Besides, she's supposed to be just about to graduate at the moment the novel starts, while her understanding of literature is on par with that of a 10-year-old who thinks all men are worthless unless they remind her of Mr. Darcy or something.

[Vickie]

I would add Paul Coehlo's the Alchemist.

[Petergiaquinta]

Tess...that's curious, and not at all what I expected.

Wait, does she kill her dominant (?) at the end of the book?!?

[Daniel]

I doubt it, that would be too awesome. I only made it to the end of book 1 before imploding.

[Anurag]

i loved The Catcher in the Rye and The Da Vinci Code. otherwise i feel the same and i have read all these books except Waiting for Godot.

[Dr Rashmit]

may I just suggest Inheritance series ... especially Eragon

[Geoffrey]

Kallie wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I´ve never heard of an animal torturing another animal. "

For God's sake. I never said they did. I said humans can't define animal minds and label all their behavior as instinct..."

The last I never denied. I believe I wrote that we are the only animals that torture. Sorry if I didn´t but I thought I had been clear on that point.

[Geoffrey]

And I never said that you said they did torture. It was my point of differentiating human behaviour from the other animals.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: " human behaviour from the other animals."

It should be pointed out that humans are, first and foremost, animals, and it is foolish to deny our animal nature. We are capable, as has been proven throughout history, of what we like to term "animal behavior."

The medulla oblongata, or lizard brain, sits atop our spinal cord between it and the cerebellum and governing survival impulses such as fear, fight or flight, procreation, hunger, sleep, etc. The thinking brain has to be trained to override or exploit these impulses based on some systematic hierarchy of values.

But when it comes down to survival, as so famously proven by the Donner party, we are capable of cannibalism and God knows what.

Some cultures don't even need survival for an excuse for murder: crashing airliners in to buildings, gassing Jews, beheadings, maiming, Rwanda, Kosovo, The Rape of Nanking, The Bataan March.

Imagine what will happen in this country if we run out of oil before energy alternatives are in place.

[S.W.]

According to T.Boone Pickens, as the oil runs out, the price/barrel will climb to a point that would make wind and solar energy economically feasible without government subsidies. We're nowhere near that point now. We don't need centralized bureaucrats playing guessing games with our energy sector, picking winners and losers, and creating false markets with carbon credits.

If our country ran our of oil, I imagine we'd all fly around on brooms.

[Monty J]

S.W. wrote: "...as the oil runs out, the price/barrel will climb to a point that would make wind and solar energy economically feasible without government subsidies."

Pickens is a bright man, one of the brightest in the energy field. And he puts his money where his mouth is, being one of the largest investors in wind power.

The problem lies in making a smooth transition. We are at such a juncture, past the tipping point, where a major dislocation of supply could create panic.

E.g., terrorists could start nuking oil fields, refineries and storage facilities. The Bay Area has three refineries within spitting distance of each other.

Harry Potter has the all the answers, I'm sure.

[Michael]

S.W. wrote: "According to T.Boone Pickens, as the oil runs out, the price/barrel will climb to a point that would make wind and solar energy economically feasible without government subsidies. We're nowhere ne..."

S.W.: Your position only makes sense if you don't accept the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change.

[S.W.]

Geologically speaking, we're long overdue for another ice age. How do we know that global warming isn't preventing this? Excellent points, Monty, I suppose we're fortunate that terrorists haven't gone after our infrastructure...yet. If I was a right winger, I'd argue for a strong defense but we can't afford to be the policemen of the world. A writer friend is working on his apocalyptic novel as we speak: China is the lynch pin and they corner the oil market and stop buying our debt---they drive us into bankruptcy and chaos ensues!

[Igor]

S.W. - war solves all problems.
Igor

[Geoffrey]

I`m not sure as to whether your correcting me on my differentiating us from animals. Yes, Monty, we are animals as well. We may claim to be superior but it`s in intellect only. We`re the only ones who`ve gained the capability to protect or destroy this planet. If we fail, there won`t be anyone around to say, "I told you so".

I can`t keep but from thinking that other beings in the universe who`ve reached this level of "progress" have destroyed their planets and the likelihood is, that we will too. I am very pessimistic about that eventuality. I don`t see much hope other than that I won`t be around.

[Paul Martin]

Daniel wrote: and his portrayal of sickness ranges from pedestrian to insulting.

That was my reaction to it as well. Having had three fatal incidents of cancer in relatively young age in close family over the past two years, the book leaves me wondering if John Green has ever interacted with a person with terminal cancer. To answer my own question: I'm sure he has, since he seems like a sensible and intelligent man and probably wouldn't have written a book like this if he hadn't, but we've clearly had very different experiences in what we've seen.

That book angers me so much that I'm just going to pretend I've never read it.

[Noah]

The Catcher in the Rye - haven't read it, and quite honestly do not really care to
Moby Dick - have read a few excerpts, and I am indecisive whether the prose is masterful or just superfluous garbage
The Great Gatsby - the only inclusion I can fully concur on; Fitzgerald's prose is rather good and elegant, but the novel conjures nothing but forced and consequently limp drama and an ensemble of pathetic characters
Waiting for Godot - haven't read it, though I definitely do intend to in the near future
The Stranger - pretty good; captivating, as cliche as it sounds, something was missing...
Ulysses - greatest book ever written; whoever says it's overrated simply struggles with it and compensates for his or her lack of mental ability by claiming it to be "not worthy of its hype", and then there are the select few who are intelligent and simply prefer more classically written novels, and that's OK; but I'll vouch for the novel's classification as THE ultimate masterpiece
Atlas Shrugged - haven't read it
The Da Vinci Code - I've read some of it, and it is pretty bad; but it nonetheless doesn't deserve the title of "overrated"; its fanbase is comprised of weak minded adults and stupid teenagers
Twilight - haven't read it, but it probably is terrible; however, for that to fall into the category of overrated is absolutely callow; I can't think of a single person over 14 who has enjoyed this series

[Kallie]

Ahem. There is no garbage in Moby Dick -- superfluity by contemporary taste standards maybe, but no garbage.

[Gary]

Kallie wrote: "Ahem. There is no garbage in Moby Dick -- superfluity by contemporary taste standards maybe, but no garbage."

I just want to chime in to note your very adroit, apt and deft use of the word "superfluity" in this context. Kudos. ;)

[Leslie]

Gary wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Ahem. There is no garbage in Moby Dick -- superfluity by contemporary taste standards maybe, but no garbage."

I just want to chime in to note your very adroit, apt and deft use of ..."

Agree on all points Gary and Kallie!

[Mochaspresso]

Paul Martin wrote: "That was my reaction to it as well. Having had three fatal incidents of cancer in relatively young age in close family over the past two years, the book leaves me wondering if John Green has ever interacted with a person with terminal cancer. To answer my own question: I'm sure he has, since he seems like a sensible and intelligent man and probably wouldn't have written a book like this if he hadn't, but we've clearly had very different experiences in what we've seen.

That book angers me so much that I'm just going to pretend I've never read it.


He did have interactions with people with terminal cancer. He worked as a Chaplain in a children's hospital.

People will probably roll their eyes at me for saying this, but pop news media can occasionally be useful. :) This is an article about the girl who served as an inspiration for Hazel's character.

http://www.people.com/article/esther-...

[Mark]

Thenoah is reading no books, has read no books, has zero book they want to read. No friends. Joined this month. One follower. Weird.

[Karen]

Mark wrote: "Thenoah is reading no books, has read no books, has zero book they want to read. No friends. Joined this month. One follower. Weird."

I saw that also- it is a bit strange since this is goodreads; good book reading.

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "Mark wrote: "Thenoah is reading no books, has read no books, has zero book they want to read. No friends. Joined this month. One follower. Weird."

I saw that also- it is a bit strange since this i..." Well, he only joined this month so most likely just did not get time to put any books on. Seems a bit sure of his opinions. I always get a bit suspicious of people presenting opinions as facts. How we like anything is subjective.
Ulysses, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I struggled. I also often pick books according to other people's opinions on other books. This is why I like the " compare books" feature. I often get on with people who give books like Alchemist one star, and who like the books I like.

[Karen]

Lucie wrote: "Karen wrote: "Mark wrote: "Thenoah is reading no books, has read no books, has zero book they want to read. No friends. Joined this month. One follower. Weird."

I saw that also- it is a bit strang..."

I agree Lucie, I thought presenting opinion as fact ends when people reach adulthood, but I am seeing more of it. And this is the place where I get suggestions on what to read from people who have similar tastes as mine.

[Anne Hawn]

It is interesting to try to analyze Holden Caulfield as you read. He makes statements which don't agree with his actions. Put together, you begin to understand the conflict in his life. I'm reading it again and I am struck by the inconsistency in what he says and does. To me, that is what the book is about. The reader come to understand Holden's psychological motivations and understands why he eventually needs psychiatric care, but is also left with the knowledge that he will make a complete recovery because of the strengths he shows even in his rebellion.

That thought reminds me of something I have been meaning to comment on in this thread. One of the characteristics of classics vs. popular, but unsatisfying best sellers is the lack of inner consistency of characters. I call it the "You'll never believe who was guilty" syndrome.

It is easer to explain this with a bad example than a good one. In one of Dan Brown's books, the reader is stumped until the very end of the book when Brown turns on one of his characters and makes him the villain. Throughout the book this character acts in a certain way and makes statements that show depth of reasoning and faith. When the author suddenly turns on this character, there is no ground work, no attempt to explain his earlier thoughts and actions...nothing! It's a cheap shot and drives me nuts. However interesting the mystery or how exciting the plot is this is a fatal flaw. It is also incredibly sloppy writing.

That doesn't mean that a quality book can't have a character be the surprise villain, but there has to be groundwork. It also doesn't mean that a character can't change or evolve over the course of the book. That's one of the reasons to write a book. Look at Pip or Silas Marner. Both of them evolved as the book went on. In Silas, we also get more information about his early life and begin to understand why he turned into a hermit. Then Eppie comes into his life and gives him what he really needed all along. George Eliot understood his psychological motivations and we see how they are changed by a tiny golden haired little girl.

Pip, on the other hand, is still maturing. Because of his background, he has a desire to be upper class and when he gets a lot of money, he wants to distance himself from his meager beginnings. He turns his back on the people who love him. Resolving this issue is the point of the book.

[Karen]

Good comment Anne, could this be why I've never read Dan Brown? Probably.

[Cosmic]

Anne Hawn wrote: "It is interesting to try to analyze Holden Caulfield as you read. He makes statements which don't agree with his actions. Put together, you begin to understand the conflict in his life. I'm read..."

Could you be more specific Anne?

Do you think that Salinger's motive in writing the Catcher was to explore mental illness? Why?

[David]

The Diary of Anne Frank--poor girl, but the book is overrated for political reasons

I could never get into Saul Bellow. Wanted to like him, but couldn't.

100 Years of Solitude--magic realism magically bores me.

[[deleted user]]

David wrote: "The Diary of Anne Frank--poor girl, but the book is overrated for political reasons

I could never get into Saul Bellow. Wanted to like him, but couldn't.

100 Years of Solitude--magic realism magi..." really bored me, too.
Try some Salman Rushdie books for magical realism with a difference

[Cosmic]

I found this quote and thought about how a book is overrated and why:

"Doris Lessing in her introduction to her equally brilliant (although not as complex as Ulysses) The Golden Notebook said that the more interpretations a reader could give to a novel, the better it is. It was short of detesting that fictions that cannot be read another way were mediocre."

I think this is what makes The Catcher in the Rye classic. Some people will look at it from a psychological point of view and get something out of it. Others of us will look at it from Salinger's point of view and try to reason that he was telling us about life, and specifically about wars and stock markets.

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

[Monty J]

David wrote: "...magic realism magically bores me."

I'm with you, David. If a writer has to resort to gimmickry like magic and fairies, I lose interest and put the book down. I suspect he/she lacks the will, talent, interest, discipline or skill to write realistic fiction. I include Stein, Garcia-Marquez and Kurt Vonnegut in this category, although I did finish some of their work.

If the author can't take the subject seriously, how can I?

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "David wrote: "...magic realism magically bores me."

I'm with you, David. If a writer has to resort to gimmickry like magic and fairies, I lose interest and put the book down. I suspect he/she lack..."

Was Vonnegut magical realism? I don't think of him as such; more sci-fi satire, if you ask me -- like Malaparte's 'The Skin' or Joseph Heller's 'Catch-22.'

[Kallie]

We could enjoy such diverse opinions, if stated with respect (or at least a sincere attempt at respect). I've enjoyed a lot of Saul Bellow though I don't know if I will read him again; and 'realistic fiction' (I forget the literary term but I think that includes Flaubert Zola, etc.?); and I doubt that Monty hungers to read about mutilated cows since he's never come across to me as a bloodthirsty philistine, and . . . I really wanted to know, Edward, what your comment 2074 refers to.

[Kallie]

We could enjoy such diverse opinions, if stated with respect (or at least a sincere attempt at respect). I've enjoyed a lot of Saul Bellow though I don't know if I will read him again; and 'realistic fiction' (I forget the literary term but I think that includes Flaubert Zola, etc.?); and I doubt that Monty hungers to read about mutilated cows since he's never come across to me as a bloodthirsty philistine, and . . . I really wanted to know, Edward, what your comment 2074 refers to.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "We could enjoy such diverse opinions, if stated with respect (or at least a sincere attempt at respect). I've enjoyed a lot of Saul Bellow though I don't know if I will read him again; and 'realis..."

I would also like to know that, thank you for your post Kallie.

[Monty J]

Edward wrote: "You crave "realistic fiction." That's tantamount to "fantasy realism." There's probably some book on chupacabra or mutilated cows right up your alley."

What? You don't believe in chupacabras and two-legged udder horses?

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "David wrote: "...magic realism magically bores me."

I'm with you, David. If a writer has to resort to gimmickry like magic and fairies, I lose interest and put the book down. I sus..."

Any fairy stuff. Vonnegut was almost okay because I could imagine that he was hallucinating.

[Michael]

So I take it, Monty, that you don't care for Shakespeare?

[Michael]

Waiting for Godot is brilliant, and has been called the most significant play of the 20th century. But it can't be fully appreciated unless you see it performed on stage, or in the wonderful 4-DVD collection, "Beckett on Film."

[Mark]

Michael wrote: "So I take it, Monty, that you don't care for Shakespeare?"

Ha ha! I have to say, Monty, it does seem you're drawing a severe line here. That's what makes us all individuals, so I'm not dissing you at all. But, man, it's a hard-ass line.

I am not a visual arts kind of guy. Or at least I haven't devoted time and attention to it at the level that I sometimes think I should. So the following might be a bad analogy, but ... who was a better painter? John Singer Sargent or Jackson Pollack.

I was fortunate enough to go to the Tate Gallery a few years ago and saw some of Pollack's work up close. Blew me away. The passion and power of a raw desire to communicate and express screams at you from the canvas. Of course, there are people who will look at a Pollack painting and say, "I could do that."

But they haven't. And they don't. And, really, they can't. That said, I can understand why people think that what John Singer Sargent painted was more difficult than Pollack's work.

I don't think it's a question of whether a writer puts "any fairy stuff" (an unfortunate phrase, I'm thinking) in his work or not. I think it's a question of whether it comes across as "gimmickry" or as integrated into the extended fictive dream (John Gardner's notion, but I've heard William Burroughs outline a similar theory).

What it comes down to is whether you (as the reader, as the viewer, as the audience member) buy it, believe it, are not undeniably confronted with the artifice of it. And I mean an artifice that breaks the spell--maybe just the deal--between art and observer. It's can be tricky territory. Sometimes the writer decides to shine a strong and deliberate light on the artifice as a method of expression. SEE: Metafiction.

If Tralfamadorians had shown up in For Whom the Bell Tolls, I would have thrown the book on the floor with a whoop of "oh, come on now!" But I completely bought them in Slaughterhouse-Five.

Have you read Fitzgerald's short story A Diamond as Big as the Ritz? Is that gimmickry or did he sell you on it?

[Anne Hawn]

"fantasy realism."

I don't think I want to cut myself off from any genre that has the ability to teach me something...often something I don't even know I need.

Watership Down is a ostensibly book about rabbits, but it is really about different forms of government and freedom. The same is true of Animal Farm and the last part of Gulliver's Travels . People have preconceived ideas about types of government that stand in the way of the author's message. Fantasy has a way of getting around that.

Here's the blurb on Phantastes by George MacDonald: "MacDonald would later astonish and influence writers such as C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and W. H. Auden, who saw in this work the successful embodiment of the depth and meaning of our inner, spiritual world. The poignancy of "Phantastes" lies in its representation of a spiritual quest, one in which ideals are compromised, and the ultimate surrender of the self brings both overflowing joy and profound sadness."

Maybe I don't think that there is a spiritual quest or that it doesn't pertain to me but someone has told me that this book changed his or her life. I look up the book and find that lots of people much smarter than I am have said the same things, so I read it and it opens up a whole new world to me.

Yes, Shakespeare too..."The Tempest!" There is a lot of self knowledge that I would have missed if I hadn't studied it.

So...I am still going to keep reading Salman Rushdie, and Toni Morrison and a number of others whom I find very difficult because enough learned people have determined that they have value and I'm going to stick with it until I understand enough to say whether I believe they are right or wrong.

I'm 68 years old and I know there is a lot more that I need to learn and I don't want to let my natural inclinations make me pass it by.

[Michael]

Not to mention pure fantasy, such as Lewis Carroll. (And no, his books are not just for children. He had an enormous influence on James Joyce, among others.)

[Monty J]

Michael wrote: "So I take it, Monty, that you don't care for Shakespeare?"

Haven't read much Shakespeare since high school. Macbeth, Hamlet, and a sonnet or two. All good. Saw The Merchant of Venice a few years ago and liked it quite a bit.

I lean toward writers that keep me grounded in reality--Walls, Rosner, Lee, Carver, Cheever, Baldwin, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Chekov, Tolstoy, etc.

Mankind needs real answers to real problems, and writers who do that appeal to me most.

Marquez I need to study further, after reading "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" and realizing that he was satirizing Catholicism, making fun of the gullibility of the masses to mindless propaganda. (My interpretation.)

So I don't cut myself off entirely from fantasy; it's just not my first preference and I have a long reading list.

[Theodorus B.]

I think any reading material that I had to read in high school AND college, I would consider to be overrated. However, I'm not saying these types of books aren't worth reading. They're likeable and usually easier for many different people to read and understand.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "Have you read Fitzgerald's short story A Diamond as Big as the Ritz? Is that gimmickry or did he sell you on it?"

Read it years ago and recall that dragged. I'll have to reread it. I've come a long way since then in my study of literature.

[Renee E]

Michael wrote: "So I take it, Monty, that you don't care for Shakespeare?"

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Monty, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" ;-)