The Most Overrated Books Showing 3,051-3,100 of 5,680

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "You distorted it because you can't accept the fact that some people disagree with you."

For many of us it's not that we disagree, but that we haven't been provided with an effective argument to enable us to agree or disagree. We're in apathetic limbo, defending the work on the only solid ground we have to go on.

Cosmic's pitch feels like a skeleton of disjointed abstraction with some tantalizing shreds of meat, like an unfinished Salvador Dali canvas. Fascinating in places, but where are you taking us?

"Find another outlet for your theories about the book."

Blogger is free and easy to use and you can control access to it and direct us and others there with links.

[Deborah]

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..."

well, its all personal taste is't it? But, here goes:
off the list, for me only…must clarify due to comments not too nice if another disagrees….
Moby Dick
Twilight
The Da Vinci Code
The Great Gatsby

[Deborah]

Kallie wrote: "There is a big difference between thinking something overrated, and being dismissive because I don't get a books's message or enjoy its style. I consider it important to leave some space in my min..."

I agree

[Deborah]

Laura wrote: "Most overrated book: Fifty Shades of Grey"

absolutely!!!!

[Deborah]

Feliks wrote: "Maria wrote: "various internet sites"..."

Such as which ones? Fer cripes sakes, who puts any credence in what some fuqqin internet site says about anything real in the world? The internet has a m..."

I have found that if you say anything about "good literature", knowing what that is, many people automatically get offended, felt condescended to, and write the nastiest comments, a come back, not really a worth while comment. I wish they would just say "I think it is offensive to put down others who don't read what you do"…instead of some of the ridiculous (I am sorry to say, mostly by males) put down ugly words, cynical comeuppance, etc... and they won't let up. But the truth is there is such a thing as good literature, and bad literature. Which is not to say that one or the other is more enjoyable to an individual. However, some people take good literature seriously, or attempt to….there is never going to be a complete consensus on what is "good" or "great" or "overrated"
but we all have read books that have an amazingly high reputation by
many critics, readers, etc., that we personally just don't enjoy and are therefore, "Overrated for us". That means even us who like "good" literature. In fact I would like to see more of it on this site…but thats a different story and I don't want an more nasty comments. The fact that I cannot get into Moby Dick is my limitation, and I also really couldn't "get into"Gabriel Garcia Marquez….everyone who loves good literatures favorite!
So…..it is an impossible task, general consensus. Books are read at different stages of our lives and this plays a crucial role in how we evaluate their effect on us. I do think that the more one exposes themselves to good or better literature the more they will appreciate the difference between this and say, John Grisham who writes very readable plot driven best sellers. Most people love these books….LeCarre, etc. I hate them.Popular literature. They think we are snobs and get offended. I has always been this way with all the arts…visual as well as written. People take their tastes very seriously…much more than they do another human being. And they don't want to be put down for them. When you look at their shelves you can see what they read….at least they read!!!!!!! That is really more important!

[Deborah]

Edward wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "There are already enough underlying messages for me in Catcher about how to live in a fallen world without adding crackpot theories that the book provides a hi..."

thanks!!!!!

[Deborah]

well, I would have to say that at my advanced age, as well…i am going to be 60, my tastes have changed to some extent…I read books over to make sure and of course the greats, for me, are better as I age.
Some others, not so deep as I thought when I was 20! An obvious non surprise. Now that I have begun writing more seriously, I read a bit differently. The more I write, the more critical I become. But, when I am impressed, I am more fully impressed. Others opinions only bother me if I ask. Without reading, what kind of world would be bearable? Different worlds for different people perhaps.

[[deleted user]]

Deborah wrote: "well, I would have to say that at my advanced age, as well…i am going to be 60, my tastes have changed to some extent…I read books over to make sure and of course the greats, for me, are better as ..."

Yes, we change and our opinions about everything does, too. And changing opinions is a sign of thinking, using your brain.
And some book that I consider boring or not good might mean something else for another reader. It is subjective.
SO " overrated- underrated" does not really make much sense. Shall we close this discussion? LOL It has been going on for too long already in my opinion.

[Karen]

Lucie wrote: "Deborah wrote: "well, I would have to say that at my advanced age, as well…i am going to be 60, my tastes have changed to some extent…I read books over to make sure and of course the greats, for me..."

Well it would be nice if we could change it from overrated to books we didn't like and why.

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "Lucie wrote: "Deborah wrote: "well, I would have to say that at my advanced age, as well…i am going to be 60, my tastes have changed to some extent…I read books over to make sure and of course the ..."

What a good idea!

[Karen]

Deborah wrote;
"Most people love these books….LeCarre, etc. I hate them.Popular literature. They think we are snobs and get offended. I has always been this way with all the arts…visual as well as written. People take their tastes very seriously…much more than they do another human being. And they don't want to be put down for them. When you look at their shelves you can see what they read….at least they read!!!!!!! That is really more important! "

LeCarre is a good writer, I've only read one book by him, but own many as my husband is a fan. I'm going by what he tells me and what I have read about LeCarre. The book I read (can't even remember) I found somewhat boring, and very well written.

[Leslie]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "You distorted it because you can't accept the fact that some people disagree with you."

For many of us it's not that we disagree, but that we haven't been provided with an effective ..."

What it is for me is something along the lines of interpreting any art, it's very personal what one sees and gets out of it. Essentially one sees and gets out of it what one needs...maybe or maybe not based on exchange with others. So, if I am with someone looking at a painting and they say "see that blue blob there in the corner? That represents blah blah blah." Well, maybe that resonates with me in a way nothing else has resonated before, so I can bring it into my experience and appreciate it. But, maybe I have something else that represents that for me, and I don't need that blue blob to mean that, especially if the red triangle in the corner means something else more important to my needs/understanding/meaning (or maybe I don't appreciate having someone tell me what something IS). If I don't appreciate blue blob like someone else, that doesn't mean I do not have appreciation for or understanding of the blue blob issue. It means I don't need YOUR message to complete my understanding of the world.

[Karen]

Nice post Leslie! Can you send me a picture of that painting?

[Gary]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g031x...

[Karen]

Gary wrote: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g031x..."

Lol !

[Julia]

I loved The Catcher In The Rye and The Da Vinci Code. I'd add Thirteen Reasons Why.

[Deborah]

Karen wrote: "Deborah wrote;
"Most people love these books….LeCarre, etc. I hate them.Popular literature. They think we are snobs and get offended. I has always been this way with all the arts…visual as well as ..."

This is true…many popular writers are good writers. Stephen King is a good writer. Hey..its not easy to have a story hold together. Its a style.
I shouldn't say I hate them…they serve a purpose and I have respect for some of these writers. Some, however, really don't know how to write well…I am talking sentences…and are VERY popular. (Dean Koontz for example..oh gosh, now I'll get bashed).

[Leslie]

Gary wrote: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g031x..."

Gary...you are priceless!! :D

[Deborah]

Leslie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "You distorted it because you can't accept the fact that some people disagree with you."

For many of us it's not that we disagree, but that we haven't been provided wi..."

Leslie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "You distorted it because you can't accept the fact that some people disagree with you."

For many of us it's not that we disagree, but that we haven't been provided wi..."

These comment forums are really confusing. Obviously no one NEEDS to read a comment: but they do. If they don't like it, it should only be because the other person has written back rude, personal words…which I see a lot of and makes me want to leave the site altogether... If it is a comment regarding the topic in general, agree or disagree….we each make the choice to read a comment and
shouldn't blame the other if we don't like how they said it. Skip it, and move on until you find someone who resonates with your own sentiments and language style.

[Karen]

Deborah wrote;
"This is true…many popular writers are good writers. Stephen King is a good writer. Hey..its not easy to have a story hold together. Its a style.
I shouldn't say I hate them…they serve a purpose and I have respect for some of these writers. Some, however, really don't know how to write well…I am talking sentences…and are VERY popular. (Dean Koontz for example..oh gosh, now I'll get bashed)."

No I don't think so

[Cosmic]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "So yeah, I am interested in the allusions Salinger uses in the novel. But allusions are used to work toward a larger idea that holds up to scrutiny. The strands of the novel come together to reinforce meaning. The genius of Salinger, as you put it, isn't in throwing a bunch of random ideas, numbers and names at the wall and seeing what sticks. He's carefully working toward that final scene in the park with Phoebe and the last two pages in the asylum after that. And Holden's final, profound realizations in the novel about how he needs to let life move forward and what he needs to do with his own life don't have much to do, as I can see it, with secret societies and conspiracies. ..."

The bold part I totally agree with you! Salinger's allusions are not random. They are thought through and serve his text. I have been trying to figure out how they add meaning and what the common thread is in these allusions. But when I have found a common thread when viewed through the lens WW2 and the culture of the time it was written you have not nor do you now wish to consider them. This makes your experience of reading The Catcher In The Rye different from mine.

When I first read TCITR I was like scratching my head and wondering, "how is this a classic?" It reminds me of reading Ulysses by James Joyce, although I think his book is even less accessible than TCITR. Given that this group is supposed to be about overrated books I think that TCITR is overrated with the interpretation that "Cliff Notes" have provided and many of you accept. So that is what makes my opinion valid in this group.

By writing you all I have learned a lot about the Catcher in the Rye. I am indebted to you even today for the tidbit about Normandy. I hadn't yet put the connection together fully with Hamlet and Salinger. I am learning, and I think it is important to have people to bounce ideas off of. You don't want to be that person that sharpens me, then don't respond to my post. Don't read it. But you all are not the only ones that read this thread. Many people read it and a few post. Maybe I will help someone like myself that found the Catcher In The Rye overrated to take another look at it. This is my goal in posting here.

I have never told any of you you should leave the group, like you are encouraging me to do. This is why I think Salinger is right when he defines a moron as someone who will not discuss something intelligently. Instead of attacking me why don't you see some other connections in the Catcher In The Rye that have resonated with you. Or explain where you are coming from? Why focus on me? (Monty I appreciate that you have started several threads around your views of the Catcher and have even read them! I don't disagree with your point of view for the reasons that Deborah and Edward have given that different books have resonated with them at different times and they are seeing if they still resonate the same way as when they were 20. ) Well a book gives us what we are ready for. Not everyone is ready for all the allusions and intertextuality that is in the Catcher, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't be aware that someone found something deeper and more meaningful to them. So I am that voice to Salinger's allusions. Maybe I am wrong but none of you have pointed out my mistakes only attacked me personally.

In the Golden Book (AA) on resentment, the author says that if they are kicking you you are still in front.

The fact that I bother you creates a lot of relevance to me. It has made me search harder to prove my point. And through that study I have made a lot of other connections that I would have never seen.

One that I got last week was that there is a song that Stadlater whistles that is popularized by Tommy Dorsey. Tommy Dorsey first big film was Ship Ahoy! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_Ahoy
In this film the girls tap out a dance routine in Morse Code The movie also is credited with one of the most unusual displays of dance on screen for a sequence in which Powell's character, needing to communicate a message to a (real) US agent in the audience of one of her shows, manages to tap out the message in morse code. (Reportedly, Powell taps genuine code during the performance.)

This is not just a new idea in the Di Vinci Code, it was thought up probably all the way back to the Egyptians.

"If you want to play the game you have to play according to the rules.

Game, my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all the hot-shots are, then it's a game, all right- I'll admit that. But if you get on the other side, where there aren't any hot-shots, then what's a game about it? Nothing. No game." The Catcher In The Rye

I realize that I am a minority but I refuse to be bullied by you to get off. I have a thread on Goodreads called
Breaking The Code To The Catcher In The Rye. Here is a link to what I have written about the game:

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

I may write a book one day who knows. But I also enjoy communicating with real people that like Salinger and The Catcher In The Rye.

[Gary]

Leslie wrote: "Gary wrote: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g031x..."

Gary...you are priceless!! :D"

I can be had. I'm not cheap, but I can be had.

.
.
.

OK, that's not true; I'm pretty cheap, really.

[Renee E]

Gary wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Gary wrote: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g031x..."

Gary...you are priceless!! :D"

I can be had. I'm not cheap, but I can be had.

.
.
.

OK, that's not true; I'm pretty cheap, really..."

But are you tawdry?

[Gary]

Too tired for tawdry.

[Monty J]

Gary wrote: "Too tired for tawdry."

Pregnenolone and DHEA works wonders.

[Renee E]

Monty J wrote: "Gary wrote: "Too tired for tawdry."

Pregnenolone and DHEA works wonders."

So does iron.

Get thee to a gym!

(just got back :p)

[Monty J]

Cosmic wrote: "I have never told any of you you should leave the group, like you are encouraging me to do."

Not all. No one has said leave the group. What I said was there are better places designed to comprehend lengthy material, then come here and link to it. I've done this many times. Goodreads is not designed for compiling a thesis, whereas Blogger is ideal for it. Blogger even accommodates comments, images and links to videos.

You need more space and freedom of structure than Goodreads allows, but that doesn't mean you can't cross-reference.

[Cosmic]

Monty J wrote: "You need more space and freedom of structure than Goodreads allows, but that doesn't mean you can't cross-reference. ..."

Well I have found that Goodreads is good for me. Even here Goodreads will let me have over 11,000 words. So there is plenty of space to write what I need.

I am glad blogger is working for you.

[Anne Hawn]

Monty J wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "I have never told any of you you should leave the group, like you are encouraging me to do."

Not all. No one has said leave the group. What I said was there are better places design..."

Monty, I agree about using Blogger as a means of expressing a more complex idea. I have a blog called "Twaddle" in which I can develop ideas that were generated from this thread and others. It gives me the freedom to write the way I want and not have to worry about the people who have just come to this discussion and are interested in discussing the original question.

I have read the comments on your blog, Monty, many times and I think it's a good way of communicating with others who are interested in pursuing a more in depth discussion. I use Blogger and it couldn't be easier.

One of the reasons I enjoy this group so much is because we can share ideas and interpretations. So many times I have finished a classic and wanted to have the kind of feedback I enjoyed in college, or even high school. There are so many ideas generated. I can remember reading Clarissa in college and absolutely hating it. The main character was more hysterical than dramatic; I couldn't stand her. When test time came, I had this question, "Who is the more successful dramatic heroine, Clarissa from Clarissa or Sophia from Tom Jones ?" I knew what the teacher wanted, but I had to say that Clarissa was so dramatic that no one could relate to her and therefor Sophia was more successful. Fortunately, I had a very good teacher and I got full marks because I could substantiate my opinion. My answer generated a great discussion.

When someone comes on this list and says that all or most of the classics on the original list are garbage, I think many of us want to respond with some of the reasons we love these books and to help others see why. I didn't end up liking Clarissa , but the discussion helped me see the value of the book.

[Anne Hawn]

I just wanted to add that I don't see the opinions of most members of this group as trying to ram something down someone's throat. This is especially true of responses to people who hate TCIR, but I don't think it is demeaning to be asked to substantiate an opinion.

[Leslie]

If I say the color of the sky is being manipulated by the government so that people think it is blue, because blue causes people's minds to be more open to subversive suggestion, I sure hope someone is going to say "hey, can you substantiate that?"

[Anne Hawn]

Leslie wrote: "If I say the color of the sky is being manipulated by the government so that people think it is blue, because blue causes people's minds to be more open to subversive suggestion, I sure hope someon..."

Absolutely!

[Karen]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Leslie wrote: "If I say the color of the sky is being manipulated by the government so that people think it is blue, because blue causes people's minds to be more open to subversive suggestion, I s..."

Agreed, so often we witness unsubstantiated claims that people believe. It's scary- and thank you Anne, I think we mostly have inteligent discussions here, and I like when people tell me I need to back up what I say. Not that I say much. People here have encouraged me to think more deeply about what I read, that's the goal.

[Monty J]

Anne Hawn wrote: "I don't think it is demeaning to be asked to substantiate an opinion. "

Agreed.

[Karen]

Edward wrote: "Leslie wrote: "If I say the color of the sky is being manipulated by the government so that people think it is blue, because blue causes people's minds to be more open to subversive suggestion, I s..."

Leslie didn't call anyone that. Let's move on.

[Leslie]

Edward wrote: "Leslie wrote: "If I say the color of the sky is being manipulated by the government so that people think it is blue, because blue causes people's minds to be more open to subversive suggestion, I s..."

It is one thing to appreciate the non-traditional manner of interpretation, and another all together to demand others to follow along with it or else label them personally as inferior intellect/lazy, etc, etc, etc, and then cry "bully" because this ram-rod and insulting method of presentation is rejected/questioned/dismissed. No one called anyone a crackpot...the theory was called crackpot - but, perhaps it is being over-interpreted.

[[deleted user]]

Edward wrote: "While I wish we'd move on, every time I get on this thread, I see this subject has been resurrected. Somehow I failed to notice the "demand" Leslie referred to. Perhaps someone would be so kind as ..."
YEp, every mother will tell you that you should not tell a child " You are stupid" but " What you just did was stupid" There IS a difference.Try it, it works!

[Leslie]

The "subject" only gets resurrected by Cosmic, and then "defended" by you. Everyone else is trying to get around her reams of "Me Monster" data, and "come to my thread" requests, politely (in Peter's and Monty's case) declining to engage, and then being insulted or called bullies for doing so.

[[deleted user]]

Oh dear. This is a loop.
Have fun, going for eye operation- no computer for couple of days, Be good! LOL

[Paul Martin]

You obscure and split, already split hairs when you draw a distinction between calling someone a crackpot and saying that their ideas are crackpot

Of course there is a distinction. If someone calls an idea of mine idiotic, that doesn't mean they think I'm an idiot. I'm surprised at how many people don't seem do understand this.

[Leslie]

Paul Martin wrote: "You obscure and split, already split hairs when you draw a distinction between calling someone a crackpot and saying that their ideas are crackpot

Of course there is a distinction. If someone calls an idea of mine idiotic, that doesn't mean they think I'm an idiot. I'm surprised at how many people don't seem do understand this."

Oh sweet comprehension, there you are!! ;)

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "You obscure and split, already split hairs when you draw a distinction between calling someone a crackpot and saying that their ideas are crackpot

Of course there is a distinction. If someone call..."
Yes, and can you please start to talk about something else than Catcher in the Rye> I liked the book and was planning to re-read it, but now I am fed up.
I think Karen's idea was a good one:
Popular books we did not like and why. NOT presenting opinions as facts.
, but as opinions. When I come back next week?

[Leslie]

Lucie wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "You obscure and split, already split hairs when you draw a distinction between calling someone a crackpot and saying that their ideas are crackpot

Of course there is a distinct..."

I wholeheartedly agree! This is, after all, not a Catcher in the Rye thread, it is an over-rated books thread, and multiple individuals have expressed your very same frustration.

PS: Best wishes for a speedy recovery of your eyes. :)

[Monty J]

This thread doesn't even belong under CiTR. The originator should have started a Group to discuss the topic of overrated books.

This is a classic example of someone exploiting, leveraging off, the popularity of CiTR in order to divert people to promote their own agenda. It's an interesting topic, but it belongs somewhere else.

[[deleted user]]

Leslie wrote: "Lucie wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "You obscure and split, already split hairs when you draw a distinction between calling someone a crackpot and saying that their ideas are crackpot

Of course there..."
Thank you, I hope I will see better!

[Leslie]

Monty J wrote: "This thread doesn't even belong under CiTR. The originator should have started a Group to discuss the topic of overrated books.

This is a classic example of someone exploiting, leveraging off, th..."

Well...in defense of the OP, it could simply be a case of inexperience with the site operations/protocols...rather than a blatant/intentional manipulation or misleading. The format of discussion does require one to select a book to base the discussion on, so without knowing about other options it seems this is the way to go. Even so, sticking to the OP topic is proper etiquette if it is called for, and the thread has been hijacked off that course by agenda of CitR paranoia-critical microtheory.

[Paul Martin]

I don't much care about staying on topic. If the topic is interesting, people will stick with it. Free conversation is good conversation. Unless someone is systematically trying to hijack the thread, of course. That's bad.

[Michael]

Whether or not we stay on this topic, I think the following points made by Mary Kluges in Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed are worth thinking about. (From a discussion of poststucturalist theories.)

"Because all truths are relative, all supposedly ‘essential' constants are fluid, and language determines reality, there is no such thing as definitive meaning. There is only ambiguity, fluid meaning, and multiplicity of meaning, especially in a literary text.

Because of the idea of relativism, there can be no such thing as a ‘total’ theory, one which explains every aspect of some event or field."

[Paul Martin]

Because of the idea of relativism, there can be no such thing as a ‘total’ theory, one which explains every aspect of some event or field."

But that would depend on whether you accept relativism or not. If every truth is relative, then the theory of relativism is also relative, and we are left with...nothing.

But that's just silly talk, I know.

[Kallie]

It is one thing to appreciate the non-traditional manner of interpretation, and another all together to demand others to follow along with it or else label them personally as inferior intellect/lazy, etc, etc, etc, and then cry "bully" because this ram-rod and insulting method of presentation is rejected/questioned/dismissed. No one called anyone a crackpot...the theory was called crackpot - but, perhaps it is being over-interpreted...."

Well said; this is a concise but accurate account of what has happened, and repeatedly. And for sure, if I tell someone what they just said was stupid or rude, I'm not necessarily identifying them with that quality. A lot more marriages and friendships would probably end if people did that. I also like Karen's idea of discussing other books we don't like and why, and moving on from CiTR.