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

[Erika]

Every single Harry Potter book

[S.W.]

Avada Kedavra on that last post! May you rot in Azkaban with Dementors forever sucking your soul. LOL!!!

[Geoffrey]

Elyse posting 168

The book`s title was "SMALL" by Paul Smail. No wonder my confusion.

I read it in 2001 on a vacation in Bahamas and could not put it down, despite the allure of snorkeling in the wondrous waters of the Atlantic.

As for a list of untouchables or overly rated, here goes.

NADJA by Andre Breton.
SANCTUARY by William Faulkner
GREAT GATSBY by SF
PARADISE LOST by Milton, correct?
THE LIGHT IN THE FOREST
THE POWER AND THE GLORY by Greene
PERFUME by Susskind
does de pincher code rate as lit?
or Livingston Seagull
or Zen of Motorcyle
or teachings of don juan
or anne rice`s works?
If so, add them to the ever expanding lists. And after watching TWILIGHT I suspect Stephanie Meyer as well. Can`t we get over the bloodsuckers, people?

[J. Dallas]

Michael wrote: "Making a list like this is like making a list of the most over rated ice cream flavors.

Chocolate
Strawberry
Vanilla

What do you think constitutes something being 'over rated' to begin with? Is i..."

The point of this discussion is a gathering of opinions as to what we constitute to be books that are over rated. That seems to be pretty clear. If that is not to your liking I guess the question then would be why are you in this discussion?
I would agree with all on the list except "Waiting for Godot" and "The Da Vinci Code".
I would add to the list: Any other F. Scott Fitzgerald book (He is a bore and his characters are two dimensional) and the Hunger games (They don't live up to the hype).

[Benja]

It's very easy to perceive high school must-reads as overrated. Catcher probably suffers for it.

[Harold]

At the risk of offending the American classic lovers, I have to admit that I hated Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms. I hated his style of writing. I know I'm in the minority but just my opinion. I did read For Whom the Bell Tolls and liked it but didn't fall in love with it.

[Geoffrey]

Harold
I for one, am not ofended. His novels don´t come up to the quality of his short stories, the latter can not be beat by anyone.

[Harold]

Thanks Geoffrey. I did read a few short stories and enjoyed them. One in particular was made into a movie which I loved with Burt Lancaster in the late 40's called The Killers.

[James]

The best book on your list is probably The Catcher, then The Great Gatsby.

My least favourite book of all time has to be The Golden Bowl by Henry James.

[Anneli]

Chava wrote: "Whenever I see a person slam, or call The Catcher In the Rye an overrated, my heart breaks a little more. It is beyond my comprehension how someone can hate this book. In my mind, if you hated it, ..."

I agree with every word. I applaud you.

[CD]

Geoffrey wrote: "Harold
I for one, am not ofended. His novels don´t come up to the quality of his short stories, the latter can not be beat by anyone."

Short stories you say??

Somerset Maugham
O. Henry
James Thurber
Rudyard Kipling

I haven't even scratched the surface with the four authors above.

[Ana]

Haruki Murakami

[Geoffrey]

Ana
Yes, they may match Hemingways ss but they don´t beat him.

[CD]

Geoffrey wrote: "Ana
Yes, they may match Hemingways ss but they don´t beat him."

Do you have a favorite Hemingway Short Story?

[pocket rocket]

I found Fahrenheit 451 to be rather overrated. It just didn't hit me very hard, emotionally.

[Geoffrey]

No. There are several contenders for best Hemingway ss so I will refrain from picking only one.
But my favorites are
A WELL LIT CAFE
THE OLD MAN
SHORT AND HAPPY LIFE OF GEORGE MACCOMBER
THE WHARF AT SMYRNA

In addition there is a ss about a matador much past his prime who goes back to the ring and gets gored. I don´t recall the title but the story has stuck with me.

[Anne Hawn]

Harold wrote: "At the risk of offending the American classic lovers, I have to admit that I hated Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms. I hated his style of writing. I know I'm in the minority but just my opinion. I di..."

That's just the kind of review that doesn't offend "classic lovers" in my opinion. I have never liked Hemingway for similar reasons, but neither one of us is saying that he is a terrible writer or that his writings don't have merit. There is much to be learned from authors we don't personally like. I think anyone can dislike certain classics just like they can dislike a genre such as Science Fiction or Romance.

[Ron]

I tend to avoid almost all authors with "cult" followings.

John Grisham , Stephen King ,Asimov and J.K.Rowling to name a few.

I have read something from each of these,except Rowling, and never was that impressed or inspired to dig any deeper.

Also authors who churn out a book a month usually fall off my radar as well.

Twilight and Dan Brown's 'Code' fall into those "cult/fad" followings that I am referring to.

Apologies if my comments are going slightly off topic.

Seems as if I read Moby Dick years ago and liked it. Can't be sure.

Catcher in the Rye is more for audiences that are'coming of age'. Or am I thinking of Portnoy's Complaint ? Anyway, I digress. Good topic.

[Anne Hawn]

CD wrote: "Short stories you say??

Somerset Maugham
O. Henry
James Thurber
Rudyard Kipling

I haven't even scratched the surface with the four authors above."


Those are some of my favorite authors!!! What can be more fun than "The Ransom of Red Chief?" When I was in high school I read just about everything by Thurber and O. Henry, as well as books by William Saroyan. I haven't thought of them for years. Somerset Maugham is the author that made me understand the power of literature. I've got to go back and read some of those again!

[Daniel]

Attacking the classics as a whole is a very ignorant standpoint for a simple reason: by doing it, you imply that there is a real thing called "The Classics", and that it is a compact and totally functional category. It is not. There is no real connection between Gatsby and The Karamazov Brothers, or between Don Quixote and Jane Eyre. But the creation of an occidental canon centralized these dispar books, gave them a single label, and tries (to this day) to teach them to ALL people. This can't work. It can't work because people don't like being told what's good for them: once you tell people "hey, take a bite, this is really healthy", most of them become preconditioned to consider whatever it is you're feeding them as salutary, sterile, pretty much dead. The classics have earned a place in the canon precisely because of the opposite: they were once fun, lively, vibrating, innovative.

And in order for people to fully appreciate these fun qualities in a "classic" book, they need to be caught off-guard; they need to approach the book not because it is on a syllabus, but because they'd like to read it. Otherwise they get bored and end up giving 1 star to Don Quixote, which is ridiculous.

But the issue is even more complicated than that: even if I read the back cover of Dead Souls and say "Hey, this rocks!", I'm not going to actually enjoy the book unless I have a gusto for investigating stuff on my own, because its (awesomely fun) plot is entangled in the world of 19th century Russian land management, which I obviously don't live in and am not taking a seminar on. I need to read other things in order to get it and love it, and this happens with most "classics", since they depict or come from distant pasts.

So, I guess my point is the following: before you claim a "classic" is overrated, make sure you approached it with an open mind and made a little independent effort to understand the social and literary world in which it was written.

[Miss]

Nisrin wrote: "I agree with Catcher in the Rye. I didn't enjoy it all. The Alchemist by Paolo Coelho was a let down for me too. I liked ALL of his books better than this one. Books are subjective though and I mig..."
Mind you, you can't compare the crappy books of Paolo Coelho to Catcher. Those books aren't even literature. You should dig more in why it is considered important in the first place.

[Monty J]

Daniel wrote: "So, I guess my point is the following: before you claim a "classic" is overrated, make sure you approached it with an open mind and made a little independent effort to understand the social and literary world in which it was written."

Thanks for saying this.

The topic of this post strikes me as arrogant, empty-headed and overly broad. I suspect Goodreads hires trolls to make controversial posts in order to raise hit count so they can charge more for advertising. And the fish keep biting.

[Geoffrey]

Whew, Monty, that´s really cynical.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Whew, Monty, that´s really cynical."

Yes. I have a hard time trusting people who make blanket assertions or pose open-ended questions without criteria or contributing much to the discussion, especially when they don't even provide a profile. (This isn't the present case, but I've seen this too frequently on Goodreads. It's an easy way for them to make a buck and it can't be policed from the outside. This is a common practice on the web. I've been approached.)

[Karen]

Chris wrote: "Waiting for Godot was hilarious.
How is the Great Gatsby over-rated its an honest classic because of its critique on the American dream.
Ulysses was groundbreaking in the style of writing.
Th..."

Kenneth wrote: "Not really Chris, that would just be another rating system subject to the possibility that some books are more highly rated than they deserve - which is again the same subjective dilemma again.

T..."
The bible is definately overrated. Good points

[Ken]

Monty, I suppose I'm not as cynical as you because I see these 'trolls' as a lamentable feature of my generation and the one following mine. They grew up with the pseudo-anonymity of the internet and the soothing annihilation of television 24/7. Anything is instantaneous, anything is fair game. No repercussions. And these troll-types, likely they harvest the opinions of others instead of forming their own critical analysis.

Well, maybe I am as cynical as you after all. But I'm not surprised by it, because they seem to be the majority of young people.

[Seth]

Before anyone begins to remove books from the must read section to the, go ahead and skip section, someone should define what the word overrated means in relation to literature. Otherwise this is an inane debate about personal opinions, and experience with the books.

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..."

[Daniel]

Well, then the first thing we'd need to define is just who we mean is overrating these books. For starters, the list provided by the OP is very ambivalent; there are some "classics" and some banal Young Adult books, and the two cannot be in the same conversation when it comes to their being overrated or not. Not because some of those books are vastly better than others (though they are), but because the "classics" have been praised for a long time by the Academy and cultured spheres of the population — while others have been in the spotlight only a few years/months, and been praised mostly by tweens who don't know any better.

Both criteria can be analyzed, but it needs to be done separately, since the definition of "overrated" depends on the person. A 50-year-old English professor might think the use of similes in Heart of Darkness is dehumanizing towards black people, for example; but for tweens it's mostly just about how "boring" and "complicated" things are.

[Anne Hawn]

clas•sic [klas-ik]

adjective

1. of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece of work.

2. serving as a standard, model, or guide: the classic method of teaching arithmetic.

I have always thought of a classic as a book which had impact around the time it was written and has had value for several succeeding generations. It also has to be well written in structure and quality. Some classics do not follow the rules of your 8th grade grammar class, but the writing style enhances the subject.

I also have some problems with the question of our topic. I don’t think classics that have stood the test of time can be overrated. They can lack appeal for whatever reason, but it doesn’t change their quality.

I have no problem calling the latest best seller “overrated.” Someone recommends a book to me that is on the NY Times list and tells me it is fantastic. I read it and find that the grammar and syntax stink. The plot elements are strung together like spaghetti from last night’s dinner and that the appeal is because of the novelty of the subject, or the wish fulfillment of the reader. Ten years from now it will be weeded from all library shelves.

Despite the awkward question that formed this discussion, it has been extremely enlightening. It’s one of the best discussions I’ve been in online. I know infinitely more about the category of “classics” than I did before and I have been reminded of many treasures I haven’t thought of in years.

[Camille]

Guess I've always thought of "classics" as books that endure, that have stood the test of time. They have appealed to generations in part because of the insights they provide into human nature, and also because of the depth and quality of the writing. However, it's possible to appreciate something without liking it. The same might be said about music and art. For me, the best thing about Catcher in the Rye is that it's mercifully brief, but the fact that I find it to be an irritating book doesn't mean it isn't a classic. I'm perfectly willing to defer to the experts on this one, even as I head toward the Mystery section of the library.

[Brad]

The books of Ayn Rand, Dan Brown and John Grisham, for different reasons. Rand can't write, even if you find her ideas interesting. Brown is nonsense. Grisham's stories are completely implausible while feigning realism.

[Penny]

Brad wrote: "The books of Ayn Rand, Dan Brown and John Grisham, for different reasons. Rand can't write, even if you find her ideas interesting. Brown is nonsense. Grisham's stories are completely implausible w..."
Is this not personal taste?

[Ken]

It is personal taste. But I agree with him.

[Geoffrey]

I believe you Monty, but I have but to wonder, why would a website jeopardize its reputation by paying someone to troll to make a few extra bucks from advertisers. I can´t imagine the r income to be significantly greater by hiring trolls to spice up the life of the message threads. It seems a bit stupid to me-I´m not questioning the veracity of your statement, but wondering how dumb they would be.

Back in my salad days I worked for a weekly newspaper in my home town as a general assignment reporter. The paper had a stated circulation of 5,000 subscribers and newspaper stand sales, but as I doubled as the circulation manager as well, I was aware that the real circulation was half that. I had to dispose of the unsold copies which never amounted less than 2,000. Advertisers paid on the basis of a circulation of 5,000!

[Daniel]

Rand is indeed an interesting case: it's obvious that she's an intellectual heavyweight (even if her ideas are somewhat dubious), but, given her shoddy style, are her books truly belonging to a literary canon?

There is a famous case of a writer who has considered a classic in his day, and then slipped into obscurity due to poor style: Theodore Dreiser. I wonder if Rand will suffer the same fate in time.

[Monty J]

Daniel wrote: "Rand is indeed an interesting case: it's obvious that she's an intellectual heavyweight (even if her ideas are somewhat dubious), but, given her shoddy style, are her books truly belonging to a lit..."

Here's my take on Rand: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...

[Kallie]

Daniel wrote: "Rand is indeed an interesting case: it's obvious that she's an intellectual heavyweight (even if her ideas are somewhat dubious), but, given her shoddy style, are her books truly belonging to a lit..."

Whatever his style, Dreiser gave readers stories and characters based on social reality. I remember how unhappy I felt for Carrie. An American Tragedy was sadly true-to-life also (and the film was great). Rand's writing style is much like that of books in the Romance genre, and those never seem to go out of style. Maybe because of that people are more inclined to identify with her 'characters' than Dreiser's, but his ring true and hers are thin as dimes.

[Ken]

Monty, I felt as if I were reading my own thoughts in your article on Rand. 100% with you on that!

[Anne Hawn]

I also liked Dreiser although I liked Sister Carrie better than An American Tragedy. The latter dragged a bit in the middle. I think we read AAT in the 11th grade. I can't ever forget that opening scene with the family singing hynmns on the street corner and compared it to the end of the book. It still bothers me when I think of it now.

I definitely think both books are a classics. The characters are still very real to me and I feel the tragedy of their lives in a way that is almost personal. Society and greed destroyed those people and they are still doing it. I'd say that those two books are as relevant today as they were in the 20's.

I hardly ever watch TV because I hate the values portrayed on the shows and especially the commercials. How do they know what I "deserve?" That message of entitlement and superficial worth creates an American tragedy just as much today.

It is odd that it should come up in this discussion. On my trip back home to Florida I saw a couple in their mid to late 60's on the ramp off I-95. They were homeless and they looked so beaten up by life. I thought of the beginning of AAT and wondered how they had moved from "the promise of youth" to homelessness on a raw January afternoon.

And yes...I turned around and gave them $20 and wished I had given them more.

[Paula]

Monte Monte Monte...
Clearly you didn't read any of this very interesting discussion. You came onto a 300 post 1700 view post and called us all Trolls because we are sharing a broad discussion where maybe some of the many posters don't share your viewpoint? And YOU are the intellectual in this discussion?!

I bet you're a real hit at parties.

[Paula]

You really come off pompous when you are arrogant about the "fish" that keep bighting at this "hook" when your mouth is firmly attached.

Try sheep as an analogy- maybe lemmings- for some reason I feel either might fit more in your wheelhouse.

[Kallie]

Anne Hawn wrote: "I also liked Dreiser although I liked Sister Carrie better than An American Tragedy. The latter dragged a bit in the middle. I think we read AAT in the 11th grade. I can't ever forget that ope..."
Anne, your post is all too true. We seem to be headed back to the sort of society Dreiser depicted in his novels -- but worse now that greed's reach has grown and keeps on growing. And Rand's so-called philosophy is used to justify greed.

[S.W.]

The goal of productive work is Happiness. The accumulation of wealth is just one of many byproducts derived from productive work. Others include art, knowledge, charity, books, buildings, inventions, fame and infamy. I don't think it's fair to equate "work" with "greed." Productive people should get to enjoy the fruits of their labor---that is not selfish. If you take away the reward, no one will work and ALL will be unhappy---but I digress.

The works of Ayn Rand are large flabby tomes that I just can't bring myself to read. They taunt and shame me: I shall not be rewarded for my laziness. Perhaps I'm the one who's OVER-RATED?

[Kallie]

S.W. wrote: "The goal of productive work is Happiness. The accumulation of wealth is just one of many byproducts derived from productive work. Others include art, knowledge, charity, books, buildings, inventi..."

S.W., who in this thread equated work with greed? I don't think wealth is always a byproduct of productive work; many more people would be wealthy, if that were so. I also don't think that wealthy people necessarily work for their wealth.

[Monty J]

Paula wrote: "Monte Monte Monte...
Clearly you didn't read any of this very interesting discussion. You came onto a 300 post 1700 view post and called us all Trolls because we are sharing a broad discussion whe..."

A contraire, I was here from the beginning. Go back and take a look.

The only one I implied was a troll is the initiator of the topic.

And I did not exclude myself. I'm a fish the same as the rest. It's a harmless metaphor.

Nor did I single anyone out. No need to take offense unless one is feeling guilty, which is self-incriminating.

[S.W.]

Kalle wrote: "Rand's so-called philosophy is used to justify greed."

Rand's so-called philosophy is that happiness is achieved through productive work, therefore her thread equated work with greed. I never said all forms of productive work lead to the accumulation of wealth---as many hard working teachers and social workers can attest---but I did read a Yahoo! article about a high school teacher who built a nest egg of several million dollars which she donated to charity upon her death. In her case, saving and investing grew her wealth. Others may inherit wealth, but money doesn't buy happiness: Productive work is the best currency. If Kalle doesn't consider investing a form of productive work, then she'd be correct that the rich don't necessarily "work" for their wealth. It's so trendy these days to castigate the rich! I suppose it's analogous to ripping apart many of the best-sellers we've highlighted as overrated.

[Monty J]

S.W. wrote: "...money doesn't buy happiness:"

Except in the case of megalomania. People like H.L. Hunt craved the power and control that wealth garnered him. There will always be a few H.L. Hunts around. Koch brothers, Rupert Murdochs... .

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

[S.W.]

It backfired on King Midas. BTW…you really "rock" Monty J!

[Kallie]

S.W. wrote: "It's so trendy these days to castigate the rich! I suppose it's analogous to ripping apart many of the classics we've highlighted as overrated.
"
Rich people analogous with classic (or any) literature? I don't think so.

[S.W.]

Kallie caught my mistake. She's very correct indeed! I meant best sellers---oops. I didn't get it edited fast enough for her quick eye.

Just as we shouldn't judge a book's literary merit by it's sales figures, people should not be judged (good or bad) by their net worth.