The Most Overrated Books Showing 3,801-3,850 of 5,680

[Mark]

How does the "block" function work exactly, Kallie?

[Ed]

Melissa wrote: "I agree...how could The Catcher in the Rye, The Stranger and The Great Gatsby and Ulysses be on the same list as Twilight?"

Amen! The fact that anyone would even put Twilight in the same sentence as The Catcher in the Rye, The Stranger, The Great Gatsby, and Ulysses is incomprehensible. As others have noted anyone can like whatever they want but don't try to pass off Twilight as serious fiction.

[Renee E]

Ed wrote: "Amen! The fact that anyone would even put Twilight in the same sentence as The Catcher in the Rye, The Stranger, The Great Gatsby, and Ulysses is incomprehensible. As others have noted anyone can like whatever they want but don't try to pass off Twilight as serious fiction..."

Twilight in context with those works is akin to saying that fried Twinkies are comparable to a well rounded meal prepared by a master chef.

[Ed]

Renee wrote: "Ed wrote: "Amen! The fact that anyone would even put Twilight in the same sentence as The Catcher in the Rye, The Stranger, The Great Gatsby, and Ulysses is incomprehensible. As others have noted a..."

LOL - I could not have summed up the difference better. :)

[Michael]

Oops, wrong thread.

What the hell, I'll post it here too. It's a great quote I just stumbled upon after watching "The Grand Budapest Hotel."


This quote from Roger Ebert's review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" captures what makes me uneasy about much of what has been written about "Lolita" in this thread:

An odd thought occurred to me a few hours after I saw writer/director Wes Anderson's "The Grand Budapest Hotel" for the first time. It was that Anderson would be the ideal director for a film of "Lolita," or a mini-series of "Ada." Now I know that "Lolita" has been filmed, twice, but the fundamental problem with each version has nothing to do with ability to depict or handle risky content but with a fundamental misapprehension that Nabokov's famous novel took place in the "real world." For all the authentic horror and tragedy of its story, it does not. "I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art," Humbert Humbert, the book's monstrous protagonist/narrator, writes at the end of "Lolita." Nabokov created Humbert so Humbert might create his own world (with a combination of detail both geographically verifiable and stealthily fanciful), a refuge from his own wrongdoing.

[Mark]

Edward wrote: Can you unequivocally say that the two books you mentioned were "art?"

Yes.

[Renee E]

Mark wrote: "Edward wrote: Can you unequivocally say that the two books you mentioned were "art?"

Yes."

I wish I hadn't just taken a drink of hot coffee before I saw that :D

[Olivia]

It's like a vicious circle. Sometimes there are certain things that have "classic" status (not just books but across all sorts of genres) and therefore everyone sings their praises whether they agree or not for fear of looking stupid or crass.

I wonder how many of these so called "classic" and highly rated books would stand up to the test if everyone had to truly be 100% honest about them.

Sometimes its more about the hype than the actual thing.

[Gary]

Olivia wrote: "I wonder how many of these so called "classic" and highly rated books would stand up to the test if everyone had to truly be 100% honest about them."

Sometimes its more about the hype than the actual thing.

I don't think that's the case for a book that gains "classic" status. Hype is a fad effect. Hype affecting a classic is oxymoronic. The reason classics gain their status is that they've withstood the test of time, not that people are succumbing to some sort of academic equivalent of mob mentality passed down through the generations unchanged. "Hype" for a book in the last 20-25 years or so is a possibility, but a book written even 50-100 years ago? I don't see how that adds up. Hype that lasts decades isn't hype but review and admiration, and that doesn't go with over-rating a book.

[Kallie]

Gary wrote: "Hype that lasts decades isn't hype but review and admiration, and that doesn't go with over-rating a book. ..."

Well said, Gary. If my contemporary sensibility find Kafka weird and difficult, Proust overly obsessed with descriptive details and Melville with whales, and etc., that doesn't make those writers overrated, and certainly not pushed on readers through hype. Hype sells the flavors-of-the-month.

[Paul Martin]

"Hype" for a book in the last 20-25 years or so is a possibility, but a book written even 50-100 years ago?

I agree. But if that's the case, isn't the term "modern classic" contradictory? Or is a modern classic supposed to be something that was written, say, less than 60 years ago?

[Mark]

Here's my best example of an author who wrote books that I don't think were necessarily hyped all that much when they were published and that have certainly failed--for me--the timelessness test of what makes a classic (if that is one of the criteria): Tom Robbins.

When I first read Still Life with a Woodpecker and Even Cowgirls Get the Blues I thought this was derring do, original and unique writing. I ate it up. In the intervening years between then and now I've tried to go back to Robbins again and it just seems like contrived, cartoonish, silly-ass bullshit. I haven't tried in a long time to go back to him, but I know the last time I did I found myself wondering what the younger reader who was delighted with discovering him was thinking.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Here's my best example of an author who wrote books that I don't think were necessarily hyped all that much when they were published and that have certainly failed--for me--the timelessness test of..."

Robbins is a good example. 'Waking Up in Frog Pajamas'? That's just too cute. I haven't been able to read Kerouac again, but remain undecided. He was such an influence . . . but on whom exactly? I dunno. The test might be whether or not I still love 'Dharma Bums' or 'Desolation Angels"

[Lynne]

I would have to say the most overrated are pretty much those written up in the book section of the Sunday paper, followed by those on the NYT bestseller lists...

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "He (Kerouac) was such an influence . . . but on whom exactly? ..."

Well, there's stylistic influencers and then there's inspiration influencers. I don't feel like taking the time to say this in a more mature or sophisticated way right now, but Kerouac and arguably some of the other Beats (I think an argument can be made that "the Beats" weren't really a stylistic, however informal, school of literary artists as muach as it is sometimes portrayed in popular imagination) made it seem cool to be a writer.

That might have done as much harm as good. But I thought it was worth pointing out the distinction between stylistic influencers and inspiration influencers.

[Gary]

Paul Martin wrote: "But if that's the case, isn't the term "modern classic" contradictory?"

Agreed. I'm always skeptical when I hear "modern classic" or "instant classic." Aside from the oxymoronic nature of those terms, that does seem like hype. It could be predictive... but that depends on who you hear it from. The publisher? Probably not legit.

Cormac McCarthy, for instance, is one of those guys that sometimes gets called a modern classic/instant classic writer. I'm a fan, but I'm not sure his work will stand the test of time. I think people will still be reading him in 100 years, but I have my doubts.

[Mark]

Gary wrote: "skeptical when I hear 'modern classic' or 'instant classic.'..."

I think the way marketers use language and the way literary artists, serious literary critics and discerning readers who express their opinions in Goodreads use language are often at odds with one another.

Terms like "instant classic" most often come from the mouths of marketers or from book reviewers who might as well be marketers for all the shilling they do for their pet authors (that New York Times reviewr who always tries to see how much of Cormac McCarthy he can get into his mouth comes to mind).

I remember when I bought Bret Easton Ellis's Less Than Zero, there was a blurb on the back that said something along the lines of "makes Kerouac and his gang seem like a bunch of pussies."

Really? Is that a statement that was necessary, meaningful in any way or at all in touch with the reason I buy and read fiction?

The marketplace transmogrifies and dumbs down most of the time. Twas ever thus.

[Michael]

I got a kick out of it when a famous singer came to town and the Boston Globe reviewer described her songs as "still timeless." Huh?

[Kallie]

Cemre wrote: "Can something continue to be overrated if everybody says it's overrated ? I'm just asking because of curiosity."

Could you give an example, Cemre? I don't know who you mean by 'everybody.'

[Mark]

Edward wrote: "Seems stupid to try to direct books at those incapable of understanding them. Thoughts? "

Since you asked for my thoughts, I'll play just this once. But probably the last time as I think I recognize a contrarian and mean spirited streak in your posts.

I'm all for provocateurs and gadflies, believe me. But one can cross a line and just become someone who likes to stir shit up. I might be wrong about that, because I've only recently started paying close attention to this thread again. And I mean no disrespect, either. Call 'em as I see 'em.

Marketing is the advance function for sales. So marketers are not trying to "direct books" to anyone--an odd phrase. They want to SELL books. Move units. So they don't really care whether they are understood, only that they are purchased.

[Leslie]

Mark wrote: "Edward wrote: "Seems stupid to try to direct books at those incapable of understanding them. Thoughts? "

Since you asked for my thoughts, I'll play just this once. But probably the last time as I ..."

I agree with your entire post, Mark (buyer beware, indeed - avoid "buying a lemon" at your own risk).

[Leslie]

I've always thought "modern classic" referred to post 1900 works. Instant classic...that's 100% marketing schtick.

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "Can something continue to be overrated if everybody says it's overrated ? I'm just asking because of curiosity."

I know you're probably just joking around, but I got to thinking about this a bit.... I think it boils down to a "some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" situation.

There's more than one type of "rating" when it comes to books--or any kind of media, really--being over- or under-rated. I'd break it up into three general categories: popular success, literary/critical success, and then there's the test of time.

So, when you've got a book like The Da Vinci Code which sold an awful lot of copies (popular success) but is pretty roundly reviled by academics (literary/critical success) and I am confident will not stand the test of time (though I've been wrong before...) then you have a book that is over-rated, but also recognized as over-rated by a segment of that "rating" public.

It's not limited to books. I'm sure there are example of this in movies (Independence Day, Armageddon, the oeuvre of Michael Bay or Peter Jackson...) and television (reality shows, Ellen Degeneres, all those Law & Order or CSI programs) or even restaurants like McDonalds or Taco Bell.

Conversely, there are academic/literary successes that don't hold up to the hype often attribute to them in those communities. I usually call this The Grad School Effect. The way it works is some PhD candidate will become so enamored of his/er subject that s/he starts speaking of it in superlatives and florid terms. I like John Milton, for example, but there's a tendency amongst Milton scholars to pull this move where they talk about how he's SO much better than Shakespeare--and he's not. He's great in his own way, but he's no Billy S. Similarly, I think T.S. Eliot is an important poet, and James Joyce an important novelist, but they did not restructure the nature of their genres in the way that is almost always attributed to them by scholars. Influential? Sure. Redefining? Not even close.

When it comes to the last category, standing the test of time, that's a lot harder to think of examples. Standing the test of time is the big one. We'll have to see if things like Harry Potter or Infinite Jest last to the time when we're all disembodied brains floating in oxygenating fluids. If the telepathy-implants in our collective corpus collosi are all abuzz in the future equivalent of Goodreads with our AI masters discussing the significance of Anne Rice and Dean Kootz then we "meat-computers" may all have to reassess.

But I don't think something could be completely acknowledged as "over-rated" by all members of all three categories and still be over-rated. That's pretty well the definition of a flop.

[Gary]

Mark wrote: "Terms like "instant classic" most often come from the mouths of marketers or from book reviewers who might as well be marketers for all the shilling they do for their pet authors..."

Agreed. "Instant classic" is the "New & Improved!" of book reviews.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: "Gary wrote: "skeptical when I hear 'modern classic' or 'instant classic.'..."

I think the way marketers use language and the way literary artists, serious literary critics and discerning readers w..."

Hello Mark! Nice to hear from you on this thread again. I remember reading a passage from 1984 that concerned the future of literature: it said that book were going to become goods no different than food, cars, furniture etc. (I don't recall it word for word). Was Orwell that far off? Sadly he wasn't, contemporary literature seems to have big regards for sales and little for the quality of the writing itself: it's always a good book as long as it sells.

[Colleen]

deleted user wrote: "Which books do you think are overrated?

Here's a quick sampling from various internet sites that recommend skipping these:
The Catcher in the Rye
Moby Dick
The Great Gatsby
Waiting for Godot



The..."
I was unaware that anyone had rated Twilight highly in the first place so I am not sure it belongs in a list of classics. That said, anything is better than an Ayne Rand book. The woman couldn't write and epitomized selfishness- perhaps as an example of what attracts a selfish adolescent, her books merit being tossed in a bin. The Da Vinci Code? Someone has obviously confused popular drivel with
well written prose.

[Anne Hawn]

Gary wrote: "There's more than one type of "rating" when it comes to books--or any kind of media, really--being over- or under-rated. I'd break it up into three general categories: popular success, literary/critical success, and then there's the test of time."

Gary, this is an excellent post. After I read your post a couple of times, some thoughts began to gel. If you look back to the beginning of this discussion, you will see that there are a number of well read contributors who can discuss the merits of a number of books usually called either "Literature" or "Classics." (I define "Literature" as books that are studied seriously and will more than likely stand the test of time.)

When I was a librarian, we had to weed the collection and I would go out and take out the 5 copies of The Da Vinci Code and leave only one behind; when that copy became worn, I withdrew it and if I ever got a request, I could get one from another library. On the other hand, I would look at some books such as TCIR or The Grapes of Wrath and wonder if my battered single copy needed to be reordered yet.

It somewhat the same with this discussion. Many of the contributors are well read and can discuss many of these books intelligently even if they didn't necessarily like reading them. The books are much too important to dismiss with a flippant "It was awesome" or "I hated it; it was rubbish." However, they stop posting when the comments are full of fluff, and don't come back until there is real discussion.

I loved your "Grad School Effect." That is so true! Some people want to go to the other side of classic and find an uberclassic. The more obscure the better. Then they dismiss other books as beneath them. I'm sure the University libraries had to stock those books until the fad was over.

Librarians stand at the crossroads of the book trade. We have to get the latest books that are on the NY Times list and get multiple copies so no patron has to hear that he is 45th on the list, but these will eventually be weeded.

On the other hand, a decent library should always have a wide range of the classics. Any person should be able to come to a library and find Macbeth, or Of Human Bondage or Of Mice and Men no matter how long ago they were written.

[Gary]

Anne Hawn wrote: "When I was a librarian, we had to weed the collection and I would go out and take out the 5 copies of The Da Vinci Code and leave only one behind; when that copy became worn, I withdrew it and if I ever got a request, I could get one from another library. On the other hand, I would look at some books such as TCIR or The Grapes of Wrath and wonder if my battered single copy needed to be reordered yet."

That is hilarious.

I saw one of those "How is it Made?" programs a while back which focused on book publishing. They were churning out copies of Twilight with factory efficiency and it just made me depressed.

But nothing is ever really wasted, and you're tactic shows how one can be a subversive influence. I'm reminded of the history of WWII when the Nazis would drop propaganda leaflets on London--just to intersperse the bombs. Londoners, being a sardonic and practical lot, would bind them up and hang them in toilet stalls to be used as TP.

Maybe we should combine book publishing with bathroom tissue to fully round out the lifecycle of certain books.

[Monty J]

Gary wrote: "They were churning out copies of Twilight with factory efficiency and it just made me depressed.
"

Do people actually READ Twilight? Or is it just a book people buy to put on the shelf and impress certain visitors? Same with 50 Shades. I get the sense that cultism plays a role here.

I don't get it. I'll never get it.

[S.W.]

Monty, I read the entire Twilight series in order to study the YA genre. There were several gag worthy moments but I can see how this book would appeal to young, teenage girls---especially those with a Vampire boyfriend and a Werewolf best friend. I'd advise taking an antiemetic at least 30 minutes prior to reading these books. You could save time and simply watch the movies, but that's cheating. All joking aside, I think Mochaspesso has shown the most insights into this genre and I've learned a lot from reading her posts.

[Gary]

Monty J wrote: "Do people actually READ Twilight? Or is it just a book people buy to put on the shelf and impress certain visitors? Same with 50 Shades. I get the sense that cultism plays a role here."

Yeah, they read it.... I haven't read Twilight but I did read 50SoG to see what the hype was about. Other than playing off on the success of the Twilight series, I still don't know why it was localized in that particular book, but I do think I get the success overall. It's more to do with the decline of pop culture into mediocrity and derivative pap than anything to do with the book itself. The prose is the kind of stuff that makes you want to jab your eyes out Oedipus style, but that's really got nothing to do with why people grabbed it up. It was "safety porn" for a lot of folks--kind of like training wheels on a bicycle. Bog standard, slipshod porn put into a derivative Twilight format so that it could be spoonfed without too much of a shock to the sensibilities.

But beyond that there's a fantasy that goes with the fantasy--that anyone can sit down and write something that is, basically, a rip off of another work and gain, parasitically and without effort, the praise, adulation and cash that goes with originating new art. It's taken over mainstream culture. Some idiot drones some shitty doggerel while some other idiot "mixes" a real artist's work, and these are suddenly "musicians." Peter Jackson puts his notes from his high school D&D campaign on film, calls it J.R.R. Tolkien's masterwork and everyone call him a genius, throwing literally billions of dollars his way....

To one extent or another, all artists stand on the shoulders of giants, of course. The difference is that for the past 30 years, the current generation has been standing up there pissing on the audience, and the audience doesn't seem to realize it.

NOTE: OK, that was old man crank level stuff, but I stand by it.

[Jonathan]

I've just re-read the Great Gatsby again about 30 years after originally reading it. I wouldn't say it's overrated as I think the whole premise of overrated books is so subjective as to be worthless, however, I did struggle to know why it is so revered. It's undoubtedly a good story and maybe it has more resonance to those born in the USA than me.
I'd rather put a more positive list together of my personal favourites, and Ulysses and the Master and Margharita would be number 1 and 2.

[Anne Hawn]

Gary wrote: " It was "safety porn" for a lot of folks--kind of like training wheels on a bicycle. Bog standard, slipshod porn put into a derivative Twilight format so that it could be spoonfed without too much of a shock to the sensibilities."

Exactly!!

[C. J.]

Gary wrote: "...To one extent or another, all artists stand on the shoulders of giants, of course. The difference is that for the past 30 years, the current generation has been standing up there ..."

It's sad how much media has been looking down or disrespecting its audience. And it's also sad when the current generation marvels in something just because it's popular! Hunger Games, Divergent, any new books (I am sure that these are out there) being called "Dystopian" and touted as the next kind of Katniss and whatever in the world his name is characters, and it's a shame when there are underrated or nearly forgotten gems in the realms of fiction in books and even in movies.

I have gotten into books like the Travis Chase trilogy by Patrick Lee. It seems he is becoming more apparent. And there is a movie coming out too though I am not impressed by the current director attached "David S. Goyer" who made such classics as "Blade: Trinity." I hope it becomes good out of story-telling, adapting it right for screen, and some fun direction and not putting it together just to make millions of bucks.

If it's not good in quality or plot-telling I will reject it as a movie goer as it disregards the fans and source material because you can't polish poop, it stays poop. (Sorry a little immature I know).

[Anne Hawn]

I started looking through my 5 star books to see what might qualify as a book possibly destined to be a classic and I could only come up with one; Cry the Beloved Country . It made me think about what qualities a book has to have to actually put on that list. I have a lot of 5 star books because I rank them according to genre. A book can have 5 stars as a mystery that would never make it as a classic because it was never meant to. It's just a well constructed mystery with engaging characters. I'm feeling now that I need a seldom used 6th star.

To me the book must have something timeless to say and to say it with beautiful language. Some, like All Quiet on the Western Front have something unique to say and have a great voice, but they don't have the kind of prose that captures pages in one metaphor.

I read Cry the Beloved Country every decade, at least. I always learn something new from it. The language, like that of Out of Africa evokes the timeless beauty of Africa itself. It captures the clash between the ancient tribal rhythms and the voracious devouring of the white colonial restlessness, without descending into maudlin political correctness.

My personal definition also has to include the ability to speak to all sorts of people from the semi casual reader to the student of philosophy. I've got some esoteric books that I love, but will never rise to my definition of classic because they speak to a narrow group of intellectuals.

So...any thoughts as to other candidates?

[Mochaspresso]

heh. Most of the time, I choose my 5 star books by how much I enjoyed them at the time and timing can often be everything. For me, different books at different times fulfill different needs. I was on vacation when I read the first 50 Shades. I truly believe that 50 Shades reads very differently when you are on the beach in the Caribbean with specialty drinks and a desire for nothing more than a juicy read. Imo, 50 Shades is great for escapist reading, which is probably why it appealed to such a broad audience. I don't think it will become a classic but it might become a very popular cult classic.

[Renee E]

You might try Anne Rice's work, under Anne Rampling and A. N. Roquelaure.

Or I can send you the erotic sections (that may or may not stay in) of the story I'm working on (or that's working me). ;-)

[Monty J]

Chouinard - anyone read her? Any recommendations?

[Kallie]

Anne Hawn wrote: "I started looking through my 5 star books to see what might qualify as a book possibly destined to be a classic and I could only come up with one; Cry the Beloved Country . It made me think about..."

Anne, I am tripping on'timeless.' The novels I rate 5 star either transport me to their time (and the manners and mores and characterizations that fit) or are indubitably of mine, with characters that come alive enough to make me feel empathy or fascination or suspense over what they will do next. If you mean timeless in their appeal, I could name the novels that I think deserve to survive, but even if there were some objective way to determine that I wonder if it would matter.

[Leslie]

I appreciate the perspectives of Kallie and Mochaspresso. Very inclusive and tolerant of others tastes and objectives in reading. I don't have Twilight or 50SoG on my reading list, but not every book on my list is a brain-burning classic. And whether or not a book will have longevity isn't a factor in my rating or selection process, of books - or people.

[Leslie]

Monty J wrote: "Chouinard - anyone read her? Any recommendations?"

Do you want to write an erotic story, Monty? Or do you just want to write an erotic scene into a story? The erotic scenes I have read in stories are very clunky and poorly done for the most part. It seems like something writers just throw in because it's an adult story and they think it needs to be there, but they're not very good at it. On the other hand, a person who writes an erotic story would have to have the talent and practice. I'm not a writer, but if I were going to try to practice it, I would probably try to write scenes from movies as practice...maybe that's a silly idea but would a visual "prompt" help move it along? I don't mean to write like a movie scene, but sort of like writing down conversations one hears on a bus to practice realistic dialogue, I thought maybe it would be a worthwhile exercise.

[Anne Hawn]

Mochaspresso wrote: "heh. Most of the time, I choose my 5 star books by how much I enjoyed them at the time and timing can often be everything. For me, different books at different times fulfill different needs. I w..."

Same with me. I'm one of those people who take 6-8 books out of the library at one time. I also enjoy reading several books at the same time. It just depends how I feel at the moment as to what I read. Even though I have upwards of 2500 books on my want to read shelves, I still read some books over and over. It's like visiting with old friends. One of my favorite series are the "44 Scotland Street" books by Alexander McCall Smith...actually any of his books. He creates characters I like, or ones I love to hate.

On the other hand, I also loved The Elegance of the Hedgehog , but I can understand why a lot of people don't like it. I have always wondered what happens to geniuses who are born into ignorance and poverty.

Kallie, I do the same thing as you do. I get into a mood and I read a lot of books of the same type or on the same topic. Right now I am reading about Hitler, Stalin, Ted Bundy and other master villains. I want to understand how they think and what kind of reality they see...then, I also read Agatha Raisin and Hamish Macbeth books...a very eclectic mix.

[Leslie]

Cemre wrote: "Is there anybody else who finds it confusing that some people HATE some novels? Although there certainly are non-fictional opinion-oriented books that ı hate, ı can't remember any novel that ı hate..."

The only reason I would have such a strong feeling about a novel would be if the book was recommended to me by someone, in which case I would feel obligated to read the whole book rather than casting it aside when I discovered something about it I disliked. I had a very strong dislike for Gone Girl which was hugely popular amongst people I know, and The Goldfinch, which luckily was not recommended to me so I could toss it onto the turd pile shelf and move on. But I might revisit that one just because still so many people I know "loved" it. The bigger they are the harder they fall, I suppose...if my expectations are built and the book doesn't do it for me, I'm going to more strongly dislike it than if I go into it blind.

[Monty J]

Leslie wrote: "Do you want to write an erotic story, Monty? Or do you just want to write an erotic scene into a story? The erotic scenes I have..."

I am seriously considering it. Sexual expression is an integral part of being human, but in America at least, tabus have suppressed much literary expression of it by the best writers. Perhaps the explosive interest in 50 Shades is a sign of a long pent-up need, so to speak.

Television and film are far ahead of literature in this vein. There is mind-rotting porn and there is elegant, sensitive erotica. Quite a spectrum to tread, and I've never tried my hand at it. Other than Playboy it was Fanny Hill... when I was a college freshman half an eon ago.

Perhaps if literature were more open to the subject, society would be less uptight about it and fewer social ills related to sexual expression--recent California legislation regarding "Yes Means Yes" being but one example.

[Colleen]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Gary wrote: "There's more than one type of "rating" when it comes to books--or any kind of media, really--being over- or under-rated. I'd break it up into three general categories: popular success,..."

Ann I read your comments with great interest. You made absolutely valid points. I have a question which is decidedly off-topic but as an avid reader who buys a lot of books could not possibly afford to buy my books new, I buy most of them used from sites like Abebooks and Amazon. I have noticed with surprise, that so many current books, important books, and books in excellent condition come from libraries. I presume it is the lack of space that forces libraries to discard books but I am wondering what criteria is used or is it just the personal preference of the individual librarian?

[Renee E]

Monty J wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Do you want to write an erotic story, Monty? Or do you just want to write an erotic scene into a story? The erotic scenes I have..."

I am seriously considering it. Sexual expressio..."

Monty, you are leaning me back toward leaving those passages as they are. I've been back and forth so much of the time, but what you said is something that's kept nagging at me. It's part of who these people are, how they interact, and shows their changing relationship.

Thanks for your words.

[Leslie]

Monty J wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Do you want to write an erotic story, Monty? Or do you just want to write an erotic scene into a story? The erotic scenes I have..."

I am seriously considering it. Sexual expressio..."

As long as the focus is on making money rather than "evolving humanity" sexuality will remain exploitatively driven. Sex is a product taken to its lowest common denominator, a masturbant. I call it "watch-the-hole porn". It isn't about relationship it is about violation and instant gratification, but that is what gets the eyes on the screens. And if we are "prudish" about that, it is because we should be, but we shouldn't lump all expression of sexuality into that basket, which unfortunately is what happens.

[Anne Hawn]

Colleen wrote: "I have noticed with surprise, that so many current books, important books, and books in excellent condition come from libraries. I presume it is the lack of space that forces libraries to discard books but I am wondering what criteria is used or is it just the personal preference of the individual librarian?"

It is definitely the lack of space. No library can keep everything, nor should it. Librarians do collection development and that means knowing their community including the schools and their requirements. Basically, except for classics, if a book hasn't been checked out in a year it's subject to being weeded out; not always, but frequently. Also, if there are multiple copies bought when the book was wildly popular, they are weeded when the demand goes down.

I tried to get in the books my patrons wanted and spent a lot of time finding new authors that they would enjoy. When I started, there was a dearth of YA books, so I spent a lot of time lurking on Teen Book Groups to see what they wanted. I also needed to keep the Newberry and Caldecott award books in every age group as well as old favorites. In order to get new books in, old books have to go.

Sometimes I would hate to get rid of a particular book, but it usually went in a Friends of the Library book sale, so it would go to a good home.

[Monty J]

Leslie wrote: "
As long as the focus is on making money rather than "evolving humanity" sexuality will remain exploitatively driven." ...And if we are "prudish" about that, it is because we should be, but we shouldn't lump all expression of sexuality into that basket, which unfortunately is what happens.

Bingo. You nailed it.

I've read some sexual content in The Paris Review, not long ago actually, that shocked me, but it had such a ring of authenticity that I accepted it as realistic fiction. San Francisco's ZYZZYVA, another litmag, had been probing the literary fringes for years under Howard Junker, but he sold the magazine and it has shifted toward the mainstream, while still maintaining a regional, i.e. liberal, appeal.

The time may be ripe for a sexual liberation or revolution in American literature which will reclaim important facets of human sexuality from the Larry Flints of the world. It could make literature more interesting while sacrificing nothing in terms of quality and literary ethics.

[Anne Hawn]

Monty J wrote: "The time may be ripe for a sexual liberation or revolution in American literature which will reclaim important facets of human sexuality from the Larry Flints of the world. It could make literature more interesting while sacrificing nothing in terms of quality and literary ethics."

Absolutely! We get too many books published which have little plot, but have torrid sex scenes thrown in to sell the book. Also, the same problem is found in the Horror genre. There is a tremendous difference between the incredible suspense developed by Poe, Walpole or other great writers, and the kind of horror which relies primarily on horrific gore in scene after scene.