The Most Overrated Books Showing 301-350 of 5,680

[S.W.]

Monty, I suppose the megalomaniacs have made so many correct financial and business decisions over their lifetimes that they begin to believe they are infallible on all issues. Their success is a constant affirmation to their perceived rightness and superiority. It is by definition a mental illness---death is the only cure.

[Karen]

One wrote: "It's all very subjective. A few of them are obvious classics and certainly shouldn't be considered over rated. I think the modern works like Twilight and Hunger Games get to much attention, but m..."

I agree, it is very subjective. Just because someone doesn' t like a book does not mean it's over rated. This thread should be call the books we don't like.

[Anne Hawn]

I agree, it is very subjective. Just because someone doesn' t like a book does not mean it's over rated. This thread should be call the books we don't like.

Short and to the point! I agree with you Karen. In fact, we could change it to Popular books we don't like. That would include classics and contemporary books. I do think there is a place for contemporary books that are over rated to express the feeling that some books are a "flash in the pan" and that they will slither into obscurity eventually because they won't be reprinted.

[Kallie]

I agree, it is very subjective. Just because someone doesn' t like a book does not mean it's over rated. This thread should be call the books we don't like.

Short and to the point!
Thanks, Karen and Anne. This makes more sense. Who is objective enough to deem books overrated? On the other hand, some books seem to carry a really terrible influence, mainly along the lines of justifying fewer rights for some and more for others; or exploiting/killing/overconsumption: you name it. So to just say I don't like such a book is too mild a criticism. Maybe books like that deserve another thread, like the vilest character in fiction discussion.

[Anne Hawn]

some books seem to carry a really terrible influence, mainly along the lines of justifying fewer rights for some and more for others; or exploiting/killing/overconsumption: you name it. So to just say I don't like such a book is too mild a criticism. Maybe books like that deserve another thread, like the vilest character in fiction discussion.

Absolutely!

[S.W.]

So true! That's why one of my all-time favorite books is JS Mill's, On Liberty. It's not exactly an entertaining read but it's an immensely influential read. Truth in diversity!

[Anne Hawn]

S.W. wrote: "So true! That's why one of my all-time favorite books is JS Mill's, On Liberty. It's not exactly an entertaining read but it's an immensely influential read. Truth in diversity!"

Another one of my most influential, but definitely not entertaining books. It's a book that you study one sentence at a time and is desperately needed in this political climate. Voters and politicians are demanding laws to address a specific need (or want) without considering the consequences when extended to other similar, but not so wholesome situations. This should be required reading, as well as Thomas Paine's Common Sense

[Eric]

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..."

Man, a lot of great books on that list you got there...I wouldn't skip any of them.

[Geoffrey]

As for WAITING FOR GODOT, I would conjecture that it´s denominational biased. As a non Christian still waiting for the TRUE MESSIAH, it has more resonance to me than it would for a person who accepts Jesús as his personal Saviour.
And by the same token if I were a "runaway Catholic" I would be more disposed to Dan Browns claptrap.

[Daniel]

I don't think Godot is necessarily God or a Messianic figure; the play could work very well with Godot being a secular notion of human transcendence.

[Geoffrey]

I don´t get that one at all, Daniel. What do you mean by human transcendence?

[Daniel]

Maybe transcendence is not the best word, I apologize. I mean that the play still works if you see Godot as any kind of "meaning/goal of life" which can be sought actively (by working) or passively (by, well, sitting and waiting like Estragon & Vladimir). These can be notions like artistic success, social progress, etc. Not that the religious level doesn't work too.

[Natalie]

On the Road by Kerouac!

[Natalie]

I love "Gatsby" and "The Stranger". But I think this list is fair.

I'm going to add "On the Road" by Jack Kerouac.

[[deleted user]]

Happy new year, friends. Just wanted to take a moment to tell you how much I've enjoyed reading each and every one of your posts. I'm delighted this thread has sparked a lively discussion, and it's still going strong. I appreciate your honesty and thoughtfulness about the books you've read. I've learned a lot from the discussions. I also think those who have participated have started to form a really nice bond of friendship and respect. What a terrific by-product that's sprung from a simple question. Finally, I wanted to assure you, just in case there was any doubt, that I'm not a troll. I don't work for Goodreads. I started this thread and two others (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... and https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... to connect with some interesting people. I'm just like you - a person who loves to read and enjoys the exchange of ideas and opinions about literature. Best wishes to all of you in 2014. I look forward to reading more of your posts and discussing a variety of topics with all of you in the new year.

[Ian]

I really hated pride and prejudice, so I personally feel it is overrated and has its popularity largely bolstered by young girls who see it as escapist wish fulfillment. However, the prose is too good to merely dismiss it as 1700s Twilight with less vampires and more card games and tea parties. It at least does some things well.

[[deleted user]]

Ian wrote: "I really hated pride and prejudice, so I personally feel it is overrated and has its popularity largely bolstered by young girls who see it as escapist wish fulfillment. However, the prose is too g..."

It's funny you mention this, Ian, because I too was not crazy about Pride and Prejudice. However, I found myself highlighting quotes throughout. The prose is very good and there are some universal and timeless quotes which I've saved on Goodreads. My issue with some of Austen's work is that it sometimes is superficial, a bit saccharine, and often ends tied up perfectly with a bow on top.

[Kallie]

Maria wrote: "Ian wrote: "I really hated pride and prejudice, so I personally feel it is overrated and has its popularity largely bolstered by young girls who see it as escapist wish fulfillment. However, the pr..."

It's good to hear from you, Maria. You posted what turned out to be a lively topic that forced us to think, so thanks very much for that and a good New Year to you, too. I have to argue against Austin being superficial, or at least against her being that in any significant way that defines her work; most of the time, her protagonists are young women not especially favored in a superficial way, but having minds of their own. Emma is an exception, but seeing how shallow she has been changes her to a person with more depth and humility.

[[deleted user]]

Kallie wrote: "Maria wrote: "Ian wrote: "I really hated pride and prejudice, so I personally feel it is overrated and has its popularity largely bolstered by young girls who see it as escapist wish fulfillment. ..."

Great points, Kallie and well taken. I'm not an Austen aficionado and really shouldn't make broad comments on her work. I've only read three of her books. I agree with you, Emma is very good. The character and overall story are deeper and richer than those in Mansfield Park, for example. I enjoyed Emma and would recommend it.

[Kathy]

The Alchemist, 50 Shades

[Emma]

One thing you have to remember when reading Austen is that her stories are not mere romances, they are extremely satirical. If they were merely love stories, I would agree that her novels are overrated. She basically is poking fun at all of the social conventions of the time, this is why her characters are so ridiculous. Some of her books (Northanger Abbey, in particular) were also created to parody other novels. I love all of the wonderful ironic wit and humor in her works.

I find it amusing that people are still very much the same as they were in Austen's time. The things that she poked fun at then are still happening today. Social class and status have almost as large of an impact on choosing a partner as it did back then. Think about how rare it is for an extremely wealthy person/celebrity to marry someone in the lower classes, unless it is an old man marrying a young, hot woman, in which case they are called gold-diggers. How often do parents discourage their daughters from becoming involved with men who work at fast food joints, and push them towards wealthy, well-educated men? And women are still expected to be "accomplished," only instead of sewing tiny little stitches and playing the pianoforte (neither of which hurts), they are expected to be well-educated, be gourmet cooks, have supermodel bodies, keep immaculate homes, be a soccer mom and have a successful career all at once.

[Emma]

One more thing about Austen, because her father and one or two of her brothers were clergymen, she had to be very careful about what she published to avoid embarrassing her family. Her "Juvenilia," while still light-hearted and humorous, included some darker themes that would have been considered shocking for the time.

[Jan]

I think that Lolita is overrated. Perhaps it is because the main character is a pedophile. I see nothing commendable a bout that, Mr. Nabokov! Perhaps the writing is good, but the content and character is reprehensible.

[Martha]

One wrote: "It's all very subjective. A few of them are obvious classics and certainly shouldn't be considered over rated. I think the modern works like Twilight and Hunger Games get to much attention, but m..."

It is indeed extremely subjective...even what constitutes a "classic" is very subjective. Sometimes a book gets caught up in some kind of popularity frenzy and people say you need to read it out of some kind of social obligation, because "everyone" read it-and then it becomes a "classic" because people seem to think that after it was read by so many, it must stay on the list of need-to-read indefinitely. Certainly I have read "classics" that I was sorry I bothered. And I know a lot of others who have, too. BUT-it's a very personal thing.

[Mare]

Paula wrote: "Id agree with most, and I think you covered it well-

I will vehemently argue DaVinci code, I LOVED it, thought it deserved its hype.

I'll issue a minor harrumph over Gatsyby's making the most o..."

I had to chime in about Krakauer. It's a great story; my students actually get into it, but I cannot stand the somehow-self-aggrandizing-and-congratulatory writing style. The author IME manages to make the story about himself and his own perspectives. It makes me crazy. Krakauer should not be allowed to own writing implements.

The movie, however, is excellent (with the possible exception of the seemingly-random "titties and hot dogs" scene). One of the few times I would ever recommend giving the book a miss and going directly to the film.

[Geoffrey]

Stephen King`s books I suspect would head my list. I am a bit surprised by the accolades he has received from the literary establishment and suspect that they are mucking about with the plebians.

I`ve never read his novels, nor intend to after having seen too many of the movie adaptations. I wasn`t thrilled by any of them. Isn`t he really in the same league as Anne Rice and Stephanie Meyer?

[Anne Hawn]

I think we might need to clarify what we mean by the term "classics." In college I took a class in philosophy class with one of the worst teachers I ever had, but I learned a number of important concepts. The one that is germane is the importance of agreeing on a definition of the terms. If you don’t agree on the definition of the term “classics” then the arguments keep going in circles.

In another post I wrote the dictionary definition of “classic” because I was struggling with the concept even then, but it didn’t really gel until Martha mentioned a “need-to-read” list. Those two terms are not interchangeable. I think that a “need-to-read” list is something informal and it mixes books that you might call “book-group books,” and “potential classics.” I’d put the latest best sellers, books by writers like Isabel Allende, Barbara Kingsolver, William Styron, J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Anne Tyler, Lee Smith, Paulo Coelho, Khaled Hosseini and many more authors, some of whom write to entertain, but some because they have something important t say. Only time will weed out the ones that have no staying power. In this group I think you will find popular books that are a waste of time to read as well as good literature.

Classics, on the other hand, have passed the test of time. They are taught in high schools and colleges because they meld exceptional language with ideas that have a lasting impact on society. If you take a class in American Literature, you will look at the literature that our country produced on a continuum. It is like archeology of the mind. You can compare American Lit with French Lit and not only see a difference but you can see a national personality. Classics have also been reprinted again and again and in different languages. They were valuable in their day and continue to have value. You can teach a class on the meaning of the books and how the style of the author conveys his or her ideas. I think this is why some of us say that classics can’t be over-rated. You don't have to like them for them to be classics.

[6138]

Geoffrey wrote: "Stephen King`s books I suspect would head my list. I am a bit surprised by the accolades he has received from the literary establishment and suspect that they are mucking about with the plebians.

..."

I don't think that Stephen King's book are great literature, but certainly are fun reads.

Most of the movie adaptations of his books are simply terrible and doesn't do any justice to his writing.

[Geoffrey]

Hmmmm. Maybe I´ll try one. What would you recommend 6138?

[Geoffrey]

Anne Hawn
The fact that anyone of them becomes a "classic autor" begs the question of the worth of those left behind. There have always been very worthwhile writers from times past whose stellar quality is lost, undeservedly I am convinced.

The literary historians have only so much time to read past Works and they usually go to the same ones their peers do. Occasionally, a few venture into a deeper reservoir of great literature lost to history.

[Anne Hawn]

Interesting. Do you have some examples?

[S.W.]

Geoffrey: You can't go wrong with King's The Green Mile or On Writing. Pet Cemetery was a favorite of mine back in high school. The Shining and Deadzone were decent movies but Cujo and IT were awful. I haven't seen the new Carrie flick. Back in the day, King was vilified as a hack, like Dan Brown today, but King seems to be outlasting his detractors. I think history will be kind to Stephen King.

[Kallie]

S.W. wrote: "Geoffrey: You can't go wrong with King's The Green Mile or On Writing. Pet Cemetery was a favorite of mine back in high school. The Shining and Deadzone were decent movies but Cujo and IT were a..."

To me, King is a middling, prolific writer of horror stories that despite their faults are unique and memorable. But Kubrick's 'The Shining' -- that is a classic film.

[6138]

Elyse wrote: "Speaking of King...... His small little paperback that came out last year called. Joyland, had so much heart."

Agree, I liked that a lot.

[Ian]

King will at least be as fondly remembered and honored as HP Lovecraft. Perhaps more so since supporting the Nazis during WW2 isn't a great career move for popularity.

[6138]

Geoffrey wrote: "Hmmmm. Maybe I´ll try one. What would you recommend 6138?"

My favorite King book is "It"; is 100% horror, so if you don't like the genre won't do it for you.

Almost every one of his books have some supernatural element in the mix, so be prepared... another good one is "The Dead Zone", "The Shining", "Joyland" and even "Under the Dome" (the book is great, but the TV series is a disaster).

Really depends on your liking, for example, the Dark Tower series is regarded as his great accomplishment, but I didn't like it at all.

A weakness of King is that sometimes gets too long and his endings are king of weak, it seems at times that he got himself in a mess that is not capable to solve. But overall are good.

I will definitely start with "It".

[Daniel]

Elyse wrote: "Speaking of King...... His small little paperback that came out last year called. Joyland, had so much heart."

That's the thing with King. He might not be that great or groundbreaking when compared to classic writers (and he knows that), but he does what he does out of true love for books. And you can really tell. Besides that, he constantly works to get better at his craft; he's disciplined. Sometimes he nails it and sometimes he doesn't, but you can always tell he's writing because he loves to create —not solely because he loves money or exposure, like most other bestelling authors.

[Kallie]

Daniel wrote: "Elyse wrote: "Speaking of King...... His small little paperback that came out last year called. Joyland, had so much heart."

That's the thing with King. He might not be that great or groundbreaki..."

These are my impressions too. I may try Joyland.

[6138]

Elyse wrote: "*It* brings some mixed memories for me...
That and *Misery*.

My 12 year old daughter wanted read 'both' books. (I didn't want her to). She is my 'youngest' daughter --28 years old --a thriving..."

I forgot "Misery", that is another great one...

I correct myself, if you don't want any supernatural element in a story, "Misery" is definitely the place to start.

[mkfs]

Let's not forget On the Road, or indeed anything by Keroac.

[Celia]

I wonder if when considering what is "over rated" one should take into account the time and conditions in which the book was written. Some of the "classics e.g. Pride and Prejudice" are remarkable in that it still has something to say 200 years after it was written. Sometimes to say it is over rated simply exposes us as a complete idiot for not understanding the subtleties. Having said all that the Booker winner The Line of Beauty was over rated drivel for me.

[Linda]

Have found that a lot of Booker winners are overrated to me. The last one I enjoyed was Possession by A.S.Byatt.

[Miss]

Geoffrey wrote: "Stephen King`s books I suspect would head my list. I am a bit surprised by the accolades he has received from the literary establishment and suspect that they are mucking about with the plebians.

..."

Stephen King can't be compared with Anne Rice (don't even mention Stephanie Meyer). Rice's books are about supernatural creatures such as vampires, witches, angels, mummies, ghosts, and (most recently) werewolves- the Christ books and Sleeping Beauty are different subjects. Her characters make journeys thoughout different times in order to find meaning to their own 'supernatural' solitude. Also, they include a lot of Rice's own ideology (christian, non-christian, and about aesthethics). King's indeed is about supernatural creatures, but goes the other way around in order to entertain by scaring. So they both are different types. Regarding the movie adaptations, Misery wasn't that bad :)

[Kallie]

Miss wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Stephen King`s books I suspect would head my list. I am a bit surprised by the accolades he has received from the literary establishment and suspect that they are mucking about wit..."

It's not all that easy to create characters and situations that frighten people -- especially now, when most of us have seen or heard (in entertainment and bad news) just about all that is frighteningly imaginable. While not a King fan, I have to give him that.

[Ken]

Best thing he's done was easily The Shining. Creepy because no "monster" is ever shown.

[Kallie]

Kenneth wrote: "Best thing he's done was easily The Shining. Creepy because no "monster" is ever shown."

I think so too and there were some unforgettable scenes -- but have to say I'm not sure whether I'm remembering scenes (i.e. the topiary invasion) from Kubrick's film or from the book.

[Steve]

i like Moby Dick The Alchemist and Catcher in The Rye, Da Vinci would have been seen as a reasonable thriller if not for the hype, found ulysses unreadable, Twilight was not aimed at me! the others not read.

[Andrea]

I loved "The Catcher in the Rye" when I read it in high school, and later as a high school English teacher myself, I saw many students identify with and love that novel like no other they had read. This is the first time I'm seeing the conversation, and there's far too much to slog through, but at the top of my list of contemporary over-rateds are "The Elegance of the Hedgehog," "Edgar Sawtelle," and "Let the Great World Spin." I finished all three, but still wonder why so many applaud them.

[Philip]

I agree with all but two, and I disagree strenuously that they are over rated, and those are Moby Dick and The Stranger. It might be the time of life when I read Camus' book, as I think that is what drives the sentimentality of Catcher in the Rye. But The Stranger is an existential koan, with a real strong zinger of an ending.
Moby Dick is misunderstood, in part because the style is a bit quaint to us, and it suffers from the detailed chapters about aspects of whales - it is subtitled "or the Whale" after all. But he chapters of the story line are magnificent, with the best lyric prose anywhere. And the real secret is something I learned on my second reading: the book is hilarious! There are parts that are drop dead funny, such as the scene on the Bouton de Rose, a French ship harvesting a rotten whale carcass, when Stubb is insulting the Captain, the translator makes the insults into cloying compliments, and the French surgeon throwing open the hatch to the Captains Cabin, sticking his head out, swearing about the stench, and slamming the door back.
No, Moby Dick is NOT over rated!

[Ken]

On Moby Dick: dead on agreed! Some very comical parts indeed. And I do not mind the taxonomy. This was written at a time when there was no wikipedia or Discovery channel. Melville had to expect that he would need to provide some 'science' for his educated readers to understand why some of the plot's events turned as they did.

On The Stranger: Yes, agreed here too Philip. This is what Catcher in the Rye could have been. It is the gruff adult to Salinger's snotty brat. The distilled culmination of that message, and much better written.