The Most Overrated Books Showing 4,101-4,150 of 5,680

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "...there's a sense of regurgitation about the work I've read as if she were trying to upstage another's work."

My reading of the three short stories of hers I mentioned was two or three years ago, except for this week's re-reading of "Where Are You Going...". I knew little about her then except for the brief introductions in my textbooks and an intro in the "Best American..." anthology she edited.

Technically, she's very highly skilled, and the stories were entertaining. But they didn't flow nor engage me like a Carver story would, whom I have read extensively. His later work is about the best I have read--technically sound and deceptively engaging. "Cathedral" and "Are These Actual Miles" and "Chef's House" and "Blackberry Pie" and "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" are my favorites. A lot of people like "Errand."

Carver certainly fits my suffering artist theory. He sacrificed a lot to become the writer he became. His career took a toll on his wife and kids as well.

He, too, taught at the college level, but he taught writing, not literature. A lit prof might be too hard on her/imself as a writer.

What you said about Oates makes me wonder if she's under a lot of pressure at Princeton to be prolific. It's a prestige job at a prestigious institution. A lot of pressure, I imagine, goes with it.

[Geoffrey]

She certainly is prolific, Monty. That would explain her sheer volume.

Certain short stories not only resonate with me but endure in my memory. There's a Cheever story about the Communist gardener who is wrongfully accused of theft by his employer that I want to read again as it has stuck in my memory. Actually there are about 20-30 ss by various authors that I would like to go back and read over again as they have remained in my thoughts. They make up my "best list of SS".

[Monty J]

Monty J wrote: "My reading of the three short stories of hers I mentioned was two or..."

But every teacher knows they have to get away now and then to avoid becoming stale. Universities have sabbatical programs for this reason. More than once I've had classes where I knew more than the teacher about topics because I had been working in the field. I learned painfully to be judicious if I wanted a good grade.

The Achilles Heel of academia is inbred thinking. Princeton isn't immune to it.

I really liked Oates when I heard her on NPR. She's probably an awesome teacher.

[Vaishali]

Thank God someone actually pinned Catcher in the Rye and Great Gatsby for what they are: literary crud. I wanted to say so in high school, and I'm finally getting the chance now.

Thanks, Goodreads.

[Vaishali]

Matt wrote: "What's the point of "is such-and-such book overrated" threads? It's like saying, "I hate strawberry ice cream, who's with me?""

Matt, it may be important if we consider the effect on kids in public schools. CITR and GG are two books I loathed in high school, and yet had I said so, my English teacher would not have given me a just grade on my papers. I'm not saying school districts are going to knock these off their reading lists because of Republic Goodreads Netizens ( though I'd be seriously elated ) but since many teachers are Goodreads members, it could be a start. Cheers!

[Monty J]

Vaishali wrote: "Matt wrote: "CITR and GG are two books I loathed in high school, and yet had I said so, my English teacher would not have given me a just grade on my papers."

The poor grade would have been well-deserved unless you supported you opinion with analysis.

Hubris alone doesn't justify trashing important literature, even on Goodreads.

You apparently can't support your opinion or you would have done so. So why are you here? Just to throw mudballs and get attention? Or do you have something of value to contribute to the discussion?

[Kallie]

Vaishali wrote: "Thank God someone actually pinned Catcher in the Rye and Great Gatsby for what they are: literary crud. I wanted to say so in high school, and I'm finally getting the chance now.

Thanks, Goodreads."

Actually, it wasn't Goodreads that published the list and 'pinned' CiTR and GG. The original poster said they culled the list from various internet sites. That does not in itself make any book on the list indisputably overrated. Nor does your loathing.

[Jay]

Catcher in the Rye, indeed. overrated.

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "That does not in itself make any book on the list indisputably overrated. Nor does your loathing."

This place is like a porch light in June; it attracts all kinds of pests who seem to just want to throw mudballs.

[Monty J]

Jay wrote: "Catcher in the Rye, indeed. overrated."

Why do you think so?

We, the ignorant, await your wisdom, which must be superior, since so many millions of us have been unable to reach a similar conclusion. We bought and studied and liked the book, some of us even went to the trouble of analyzing it and expressing our thoughts in writing, discussing at length why we regard the book highly.

Shower us with your wisdom.

Or you might want to read a comprehensive review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Renee E]

Maybe a good start to explaining why you consider a book overrated is to cite a few example of "overrated compared to . . ."

[Jay]

Hi Monty,

I, a reader of inferior intelligence, am honored to be challenged.

I wish to equal the comprehensive review you just shared; unfortunately, the book just did not ring right to me. Perhaps because Holden and I don't share the same experience; that having grown up the very hard way I found his response to his circumstances to be "douchy".

I do understand your love for the book and I know it hurts that someone like me could just easily join in with the mob hurling mud on this well-respected classic.

If I should account for my lazy comment, I would say that I wrote it as a sign of my relief over the nagging question of whether I really did get the book. My "literary" and "misunderstood" (as what they would claim themselves to be) friends do like it. I don't. What am I missing?

Please don't take my comment personally. You may just have to accept the fact that not everyone likes it. Move on, sir.

[Monty J]

Jay wrote: "What am I missing?"

If you really want to know, read the review I posted. Or read some of the dozens of reviews availble on Goodreads, some favorable; some not.

Of course I don't expect everyone to like the book, but taking the time to understand why can be self-illuminating.

Jay:"Perhaps because Holden and I don't share the same experience; that having grown up the very hard way I found his response to his circumstances to be "douchy".

Your words echo my own after my first reading of CiTR at age 19, for I too grew up "the very hard way" (in an orphanage.) I took Holden as a spoiled brat from a rich family. Why should I care about someone who obviously didn't appreciate his cushy privileged circumstances? Forty years later, after learning about Salinger's World War II experience, I reread the book and had a more enlightened view.

Sometimes we have to climb over our own invisible barriers for a different perspective. Or maybe not. It only takes a half-hour to read a comprehensive review. (Reflection could take much longer.)

[Michael]

To state the obvious, it all seems to come down to a matter of personal taste and opinion. My question is: Why do we all tend to think so highly of our own opinions? Can we evolve beyond our inborn tendencies toward egocentrism?

[Monty J]

Edward wrote: "all seems to come down to a matter of personal taste and opinion."

On the surface it seems so; but I think maturity and life experience can help us transcend our limitations. As I wrote above, CiTR was an entirely different experience forty years after my first read at age 19. The book hadn't changed; I did.

I've tried reading Eat Pray Love three times, but after seeing the film and reading a few more reviews I plan on a fourth try to understand what so many millions of women, and a few men, find so compelling about a woman who, unhappy with her first husband, goes on a trip to wash him out of her mind and trade up. But first, to get all the way through.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "To state the obvious, it all seems to come down to a matter of personal taste and opinion. My question is: Why do we all tend to think so highly of our own opinions? Can we evolve beyond our inborn..."

I think we can, or we should. I loved Catcher in the Rye, and I stated why in my review of the book. If someone who dislikes the novel can explain why in a reasonable manner, that explanation should be respected. And it is a matter of personal taste. I love many of Jack Kerouac's books, but I certainly understand why he is not for everyone. So far though, not many here who dislike Catcher have been able to explain why in a reasonable manner- I for one would like to see more of them.
Jay said above in his post this statement I copied below;
"Perhaps because Holden and I don't share the same experience; that having grown up the very hard way I found his response to his circumstances to be "douchy"
I understand this to mean that he (Jay) grew up in very difficult circumstances, and he found Holden's problems frivolous in comparison. That's a good start; he didn't relate to the story at all.

[Michael]

I believe that any novel, work of art, or anything in existence can be viewed from a 5-star or 1-star perspective. Neither view is inherently correct. I do agree, however, that we have yet to see a well-articulated 1-star perspective on Catcher in the Rye.

[Kallie]

Okay, I admit to over-sensitive reactions to abrupt dismissals of works I find worthy of more respect. But I'm probably not going to change in that regard. As to 'Eat, Pray, Love' I couldn't get into it either and have no explanation that would satisfy someone who loves the book (in fact, my explanations would probably make things worse) so I am equally guilty.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Okay, I admit to over-sensitive reactions to abrupt dismissals of works I find worthy of more respect. But I'm probably not going to change in that regard. As to 'Eat, Pray, Love' I couldn't get ..."

Abrupt dismissals are what I and others complain of, and they easily cause defensiveness- I think we were talking about needing some well articulated responses as to why a classic novel like CITR is disliked.

[Michael]

Here is a 1-star review that is the most "liked" review of Catcher on Goodreads, and which has the second most comments, most of which appear to be enthusiastically supportive.

"I read this book for the first time in the 8th grade. I had to get my mom to sign a permission slip because of the cursing. Before I began reading, I had so many expectations. Back then, I read Seventeen Magazine, and back then, Seventeen Magazine ran brainy features about books and poetry. There was one feature where they asked people what book changed their lives, and something like more than half said Catcher in the Rye. I think there might have been some celebrity comments in there, too. At any rate, it was a ringing endorsement.

So you can imagine my disappointment when I hated it. Not only did I hate Holden, but I hated everything about the novel. There was nothing I enjoyed. I did my book report where I confessed my hatred (which led my teacher to confess that she did, too), but I couldn't let it go. I honestly felt that my loathing of a novel that so many others found "life-changing" indicated some deep and horrible flaw. I felt like hating Catcher in the Rye was my dirty little secret.

Time passed, and my self-loathing mellowed. I began to think that perhaps I'd come at it too young, so after my first year of college, I decided to re-read it, go at it with fresh eyes, and see if my opinion had changed.

Here's the thing: it hasn't. I get it. I get that Holden is supposed to be loathsome. I get that he is the hypocrite he hates. I get that almost all teenagers go through the kind of thinking he experiences. I get it. I do. I just don't like it.

Oh, and I'm not ashamed anymore."



Not very helpful, for our purposes. This next one is more so, in that the criticisms are more specific and capture what some find so annoying about the book. This one is the sixth most "liked" review.


"If I could give this book a zero, I would. I absolutely hated it. Generally, I don't hate books, either. Usually it's a very strong dislike, and generally, I give them a second chance. But no, I will never be reading this book again.

In my opinion, Holden is the worst character in the English language. Salinger tried just too damn hard to make him 'universal', to the point where he becomes unrealistic. His train of thought is annoying and repetitive, and God, those catchphrases of his. Can someone shut this kid up? Holden is almost the anti-Gary Stu. Nearly every thing's wrong with him. The one good thing about him being his love for his younger sister.

The plot is one of the worst I've ever read. It's boring, and it, like Holden, is unbelievably and painfully repetitive. Holden calls up an old friend, has a drink. Holden calls up a girl, has a drink. Holden dances with a girl. Then he drinks. Was there a climax to this book? I must have missed it. Maybe it was Holden nearly freezing to death (um, what?) in Central Park? No, no, maybe it was when Holden called up that hooker! Maybe not. The plot is so fuzzy and flat I couldn't tell when to peak my interest.

And that's just it, it never did.

So buh-bye, Holden! Your book's been gathering dust on my shelf for the past two years and it'll stay that way. Until I decide to sell it, of course."

[Monty J]

Michael wrote: "Here is a 1-star review that is the most "liked" review of Catcher on Goodreads, and which has the second most comments, most of which appear to be enthusiastically supportive.

"I read this book f..."

Both "reviews" say more about the immature self-absorbtion of the reviewers than the novel. The reviewers sound a lot like the character they're complaining about. They repeat the same complaints, attempting to be clever, and exert little effort being specific about the novel, yet when they do, it shows a superficial perception of the content.

These may be popular "reviews," but they lack any real meat. There isn't enough to bother addressing.

We're still lacking a substantive negative review.

I wonder if people who aren't through living their version of Holden's immature reality can't step outside of it to get a good view of it. They can't get past the details to gain a perspective.

[Kallie]

I wonder if the problem isn't having a book hyped, especially if you are a young person establishing your own passions and identity. You want to make your own discoveries and if people come on strong about something, it's as if they (like religion or other social promotions) have stolen that sense of finding your own connections with life through literature. I read Salinger later (no way would my OK high school have included him in our reading) so I found him on my own and that may have made a huge difference for me. At the same time, I have to say that the books we we were supposed to read opened my mind and I am grateful for that. Maybe I wasn't so concerned about finding my own way, at that time, as are some other young people. Maybe my world felt so narrow, I was grateful for Hardy and Dickens and Shakespeare.

[Michael]

Monty J wrote: "Michael wrote: "Here is a 1-star review that is the most "liked" review of Catcher on Goodreads, and which has the second most comments, most of which appear to be enthusiastically supportive.

"I ..."

I agree, Monty. Nicely put.

[Kallie]

Anyway, I think that what "Eat, Pray . . ." lacks for me is the honesty and passion I find in "Give Sorrow Words: Maryse Holder's Letters from Mexico." But admittedly, "Eat, Pray . . ." has been hyped, and "Sorrow" has not; it's an underrated book if anything.

[Karen]

Monty wrote; "I wonder if people who aren't through living their version of Holden's immature reality can't step outside of it to get a good view of it. They can't get past the details to gain a perspective."

I agree with this part Monty. We are lacking a negative articulate perspective of this book. Is there one?

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "I wonder if the problem isn't having a book hyped, especially if you are a young person establishing your own passions and identity. You want to make your own discoveries and if people come on stro..."

My husband didn't read the book when he was young because it seemed that everyone was reading it, and hyping it, and as a young person he wanted something different. So he read it about four months ago, and liked it very much- didn't love it, but he really liked Holden- and that took awhile. Holden grew on him.

[[deleted user]]

I cannot believe you are still arguing about Catcher in the Rye- how many months now?
Wow! I just popped in to see what you are talking about....It is in my opinion a good book, but isn't life too short?!
Lucie ( you can shoot me)

[Karen]

Lucie wrote: "I cannot believe you are still arguing about Catcher in the Rye- how many months now?
Wow! I just popped in to see what you are talking about....It is in my opinion a good book, but isn't life too ..."

We're really not arguing, but discussing several things. Life is too short regardless of what anyone is discussing. Not discussing it won't lengthen it.

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "Lucie wrote: "I cannot believe you are still arguing about Catcher in the Rye- how many months now?
Wow! I just popped in to see what you are talking about....It is in my opinion a good book, but i..."
True, but there are so many other books!
But I am a Philistine, you know that, Karen! Good night

[Karen]

Lucie wrote: "True, but there are so many other books!
But I am a Philistine, you know that, Karen! Good night"

Oh Lucie!! And here I thought you would stay and "talk" with us! You are not a philistine, boy it's late in London ya know!

[Dorothy]

Karen wrote: "Monty wrote; "I wonder if people who aren't through living their version of Holden's immature reality can't step outside of it to get a good view of it. They can't get past the details to gain a pe..."

This is similar to my understanding of how individuals view really frightening movies. The older you are and the more experiences you have the less inclined you are to go to the horror show. You have already been scared out of your wits by real life and you don't need any movie to scare you again.
I am sure that if Holden was living in 2014 his activities would have been monitored much more closely by his parents. Someone would have noticed he was way over the norm with the anxiety and depression (if not his parents, then a teacher, family friends or even a peer) and he would probably be on meds or getting some treatment. Mental health was barely on the radar when this book was written. The book is hard to understand without putting it in the cultural context of its time.

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "I wonder if the problem isn't having a book hyped, especially if you are a young person establishing your own passions and identity. You want to make your own discoveries and if people come on strong about something, it's as if they (like religion or other social promotions) have stolen that sense of finding your own connections with life through literature."

Bingo. Excellent observation. The late teens is when kids, if they are healthy, are stretching their wings and don't want to be told anything. The surest way to get an idea rejected is to promote it.


There are some who resist independence. Probably they're the ones who've had parents who don't want to let go of them and "infantalize" them, making them dependent. They're the ones I suspect who see Holden as resisting adulthood. I have a hard time with that interpretation and can refute it with mountains of text, but it's a common interpretation.

[Vicki]

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..."

No. Except for 'Atlas Shrugged,' which I wouldn't read even on threat of death. I won't read 'The Da Vinci Code.'

[Monty J]

Dorothy wrote: "Karen wrote: "Monty wrote; "I wonder if people who aren't through living their version of Holden's immature reality can't step outside of it to get a good view of it. They can't get past the detail... I am sure that if Holden was living in 2014 his activities would have been monitored much more closely by his parents. ...Mental health was barely on the radar when this book was written. The book is hard to understand without putting it in the cultural context of its time."

Excellent comments. I would add though that many families are less than ideal, and this cuts across the socio-economic spectrum, and mental health issues are often overlooked. Holden's situation remains very relevant. Bullying is prevalent and we have seen many horrific mass shootings at schools.

[Renee E]

Troubles and the feelings they create are innately personal, and can't be emotionally invalidated by comparing them on a societal sliding scale.

*edited — didn't make any sense . . . what happens when I'm having to listen to too much yammering IRL.

[Anne Hawn]

Renee wrote: "Troubles and the feelings they create are as well, and can't be emotionally invalidated by comparing them on a societal sliding scale."

I think you also have to add the individual history and personality of Holden. There are things that happen to us at a time when we are particularly vulnerable for a lot of internal reasons. What we might take in stride at 18 can be much more devastating at 16. It may depend on what we are struggling with at the time.

[Kallie]

or 22, or 50.

[Anne Hawn]

Kallie wrote: "or 22, or 50."

Absolutely!

[Monty J]

Lucie wrote: "I cannot believe you are still arguing about Catcher in the Rye-"

Discussing. Analyzing. Not arguing. I can't speak for others, but I dip in and out from time to time when something interesting pops up. Invariably I learn something new or wouldn't bother.

And it isn't just CiTR; we just had a nice discussion about Joyce Carol Oates.

This has become a meeting place of sorts.

[Renee E]

CitR is a literary lightning rod of sorts.

[Monty J]

Lucie wrote: "True, but there are so many other books!"

If they were as compelling I would certainly spend time with them. A book can be a window into understanding of the human condition through the discussions it provokes.

CiTR is current because journalists keep referring to it. I posted a link to an October, 2014, article in the New York Times Sunday Book Review by a guy named Mendelshon and it sparked a lively discussion about whether Holden was resisting growing up and the interpretation of Holden's reaction to the bare-breasted squaw at the museum.

The book is an icon of American literature for good reason; it stimulates thought.

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "Was Holden bullied ? James Castle was bullied but ı don't remember about Holden being bullied."

I was referring to the James Castle incident, which deeply affected Holden.

The focus of the book, the essence of its meaning, is in the way Holden reacts to people and events.

[Petergiaquinta]

Ah yes, those upper middle class arguably heterosexual white boys living in the U.S. and their undoubtedly much easier lives than most people...

Adolescence is tough all over, and I don't think race or class mitigates any of those difficulties. And death of a loved one? That's a social equalizer if I've ever seen one.

Way back when...years ago it seems...one of the early posters to this thread (I think it was this thread, although there have been other threads so I might be wrong) was blathering on and on about the meaningless of Holden's concerns when so many other folks have it so much worse than him. And true that last part, but that simple observation about the suffering of others (and as a side note, any time I hear any American of any class or gender or ethnicity deriding the suffering of someone else in this nation of ours as somehow inauthentic, I say hey, take a look at the rest of the world for a second and then how about you shut your own bad American self up for a minute there and gain some real compassion for the suffering of others) really does nothing to reduce Holden's suffering, nor does it explain why he shouldn't be suffering. Yes, Holden lives on Park Avenue (? right? maybe I should check before I type that out) but he can't suffer as much as me or anyone else about the death of his brother because of his address? He somehow is screwed up just a little less inside his 16-year-old head based on his ethnicity? I don't buy it, and I probably dislike rich people more than most.

Well...except maybe Edward. Or Duane.

I'm sure that's even more incomprehensible than anything you typed today, Renee, lololo.

[Renee E]

You made sense to me, for whatever that says about either of us, Peter. But hell, I understand Duane, so there ya go. :D

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Ah yes, those upper middle class arguably heterosexual white boys living in the U.S. and their undoubtedly much easier lives than most people...

Adolescence is tough all over, and I don't think race or class mitigates any of those difficulties. And death of a loved one? That's a social equalizer if I've ever seen one."

Ditto.

The green chip on my shoulder about Holden's economic status prevented me from appreciating him when I first read the book at age 19.

I think class envy is to be expected, and will get worse in this day and time when wealth redistribution has become so skewed toward the rich.

Only after I witnessed a death of a loved one firsthand was I able to sympathize with Holden's life. At the end, he's still a bit of an arrogant prick, but he's a kinder and gentler one.

Arrogant pricks bleed the same as the rest of us.

Someone needs to write a novel about a poor kid who comes to realize rich kids don't always have it so good. Hmmm, I wonder who might be doing that?

(S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders touched on this theme, but lightly.)

[Petergiaquinta]

Edward wrote: "Small point. I really don't dislike rich people at all. "

Sorry, Edward...I sensed a kindred spirit somewhere there in and amongst all the bitter nonsensical rambling.

My bad.

Now Duane's going to post that he's actually a retired millionaire sitting on a beach somewhere in the Caribbean.

[Renee E]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Now Duane's going to post that he's actually a retired millionaire sitting on a beach somewhere in the Caribbean. "

Well, the truth is that he's actually the distant ancestor of Zaphod Beeblebrox. The genes kinda got watered down by the time they got to Zaphod though.

[Petergiaquinta]

Cemre wrote: "@Petergiaquinta
I really didn't understand your agressive response to my post. If you had truly read my post, you would see that ı agree with you on this subject."

Stand down, Cemre and don't get your panties in a bunch.

Now that's aggressive.

You need to adjust your sensitivity meter.

That, on the other hand, is just good advice for someone who inhabits the world of online discussion threads.

I truly read your post. But instead of feeling terribly offended at your implication that I'm a poor reader, I understand the dynamics of online discussion, and I'm feeling okay about it.

In fact, I'm not even responding to you personally, here or above, so don't take it so hard.

[Petergiaquinta]

Edward wrote: "What's your excuse, oh you without the balls to make a direct statement? "

My excuse for what?

You get odder and odder. What direct statement have I so cravenly failed to make?

[Monty J]

Edward wrote: "...the misunderstandings of TCITR..."

Let me clarify that I should not have implied that there is only one valid interpretation of this or any book. An interpretation is valid for each individual reader. (I shall go back and amend my posts.)

I find some popular interpretations curious and difficult to defend though, and they are useful in weeding through to the author's intent.