The Most Overrated Books Showing 4,151-4,200 of 5,680

[Michael]

My head hurts. I think I'll move over to the Goodnight Moon thread...

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "Then why have you felt angry? I was thinking the same thing as you did. Maybe ı've just misunderstood."

I was frustrated at what I thought to be a weak interpretation of the novel being promoted in a major literary publication. I should have been more considerate of someone else's opinion, although it doesn't change my position--that Mendelsons interpretation is not supported by the weight of the evidence on the page and must therefore be coming from within Mendelshon himself.

[Kallie]

Michael wrote: "My head hurts. I think I'll move over to the Goodnight Moon thread..."

Why? Just hijack this thread, like all the rest of us (except maybe Cemre and you).

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote;
"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."

I agree with this. I believe that economic hardship and suffering because of the death of a loved one are two different things. Suffering emotionally due to the death of someone loved is universal- and maybe people who are quick to dismiss Holden's find that subject too hard to think about.

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "He spends time thinking about other boys' phsyical appeareances and he is a bit homophobic which might be a sign. But then there is Jane, so I'm not sure. This is pure speculation of course."

Homophobia was not unusual for anyone in that time period. He may have thought and commented on other boys physical appearances, but not in a sexual way. I don't think the speculation has any validity, as we could do this with all male characters written in this time period.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "My head hurts. I think I'll move over to the Goodnight Moon thread..."

Hahahaha! Lol, that was funny.

[Kallie]

Karen wrote: "Cemre wrote: "He spends time thinking about other boys' phsyical appeareances and he is a bit homophobic which might be a sign. But then there is Jane, so I'm not sure. This is pure speculation of ..."

A friend of mine often refers to 'polymorphous perversity' as, perhaps, more sexually natural than our American conditioning. Who knows. But I think it's also natural for adolescents to compare themselves with others. Kids mature at such various rates.

[Petergiaquinta]

Re: Edward

By golly, I think you're right. I do, more often than not, "react" on these threads than bring something more "primal," as you call it. I'm not sure that's the right word, but I understand what you mean. And I'm guilty of that in real life, too.

You are an odd guy, but you've got some insight. I, for one, would never block you no matter how trying you might be. And you can be pretty damn trying...

[Michael]

And he's barely trying.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "And he's barely trying."

yep! Lol.

[Kallie]

I will block anyone who calls me names and tells me to shut up. I don't care what their effing story is. End of communication.

[Mochaspresso]

Monty J wrote: "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 w..."

Good luck on that. I keep getting stuck on the ashram section of eat pray love.

[Joyce]

hahahahahahahaha ---good one! Getting back to the purpose of this thread - how can anybody think the Great Gatsby is overrated?

[Paul Martin]

Edward wrote: As in sports, players can only be accurately seen in their own era. For me this literature may have been brilliant, but it stemmed from a time long before me. By 2014, it requires extensive update.

I find myself agreeing with Edward, now I have seen it all.

[Kallie]

Reading the work in question sometimes helps.

[Paul Martin]

Kallie wrote: "Reading the work in question sometimes helps."

Directed at me?

[Kallie]

I don't know about you and how you approach older novels. I think we have to take a novel on its own terms and reading is the way to begin that process of learning its terms. That's not always easy but so what? If we connect with the story and characters, what difference does when it was written make? There are contemporary novels I can't relate to at all, and novels written over a hundred years ago that have a lot of meaning for me, but I don't find that out unless I get into the flow by reading, and persist through the difficulties (differences in language, mainly).

[Paul Martin]

Sure, I don't disagree.

I'm not saying we should dismiss old novels simply because they are old, but some novels age better than others. I too find meaning in "old" novels, and some, of if not most, of my favourites would be considered "old" by most people.

I just don't think TGG is that relevant. Maybe in the US, but I'm not a US citizen and I don't see any point in pretending to be one. I'm absolutely not saying that it's a bad book, but I agree with Edward that it would ideally need an extensive update in order to live up to its hype.

[Kallie]

Maybe not living in the U.S. makes a difference, if class and money don't matter much where you live. But there are a lot of older novels I like and some writers from other cultures, though their lives are very different from mine.

[Paul Martin]

I don't think there has ever been a place like that in the history of humankind. There's no disagreement, really. I value older novels, and so do you. We just don't value exactly the same ones.

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "I just don't think TGG is that relevant. Maybe in the US, but..."

The novel has more meaning to an American readership because it's about the Jazz Age, the Roaring Twenties, a significant period in our history representative of the boom-and-bust excesses of capitalism and greed. It is the period leading up the stock market crash of 1929, a cycle that has repeated itself in the '80s S&L Crisis, the '90s Energy Crisis, the '02 Dot-com boom and bust and then a crescendo in the Sub-prime Mortgage Collapse of 2008.

I agree that an updated version connecting these dots would make the picture more clear. But I would still go back to the Roaring Twenties for a starting point.

Wouldn't it be lovely if such a novel is among Salinger's shelf inventory of manuscripts slated for future release. Holden, his doppelganger, thought highly of TGG.


(My updated but unfinished TGG review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)

[Kallie]

Paul Martin wrote: "I don't think there has ever been a place like that in the history of humankind. There's no disagreement, really. I value older novels, and so do you. We just don't value exactly the same ones."

Exactly.

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "I just don't think TGG is that relevant. Maybe in the US, but..."

The novel has more meaning to an American readership because it's about the Jazz Age, the Roaring Twenties, a ..."

Yes, the boom and bust Monty refers to were unforgettable and there's also a romantic connection because the Twenties were our first openly free period in the U.S.: automobiles, jazz, short skirts and hair for women . . . Women like Edna St. Vincent Millay were Bohemian a while before that, and the Suffragettes (that -ette on the end still bugs me) but they were exceptions and the Twenties promised more freedom in general.

[Karen]

Some stories are timeless though, and I for one consider TGG to be just that. And why change the novel to satisfy something lacking in clarity? Fitzgerald wrote it that way. Isn't that like changing Faulkner to make his stories more linear and therefore more "readable?"
Some writers don't connect with certain readers, that's all. It's that simple, I think. Paul you're still my favorite young person on Goodreads.

[Karen]

Edward wrote: "Karen wrote: "Some stories are timeless though, and I for one consider TGG to be just that. And why change the novel to satisfy something lacking in clarity? Fitzgerald wrote it that way. Isn't tha..."

It's one of the great American novels- I don't think there can be just one.

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "Some stories are timeless though, and I for one consider TGG to be just that. And why change the novel to satisfy something lacking in clarity?"

Agreed. It seems to me that Fitzgerald had five thematic balls to juggle: romance, ambition, class distinction, Jazz Age and the East vs West theme. The link between romance, ambition and class distinction is timeless and borderless. The Jazz Age and East v West are unique to America. To fully understand the characters one must understand America. Fitzgerald took it for granted the reader understood certain terms like "Midwest" and references to the Dutch pioneers who founded New York (as New Amsterdam.) He was writing primarily for an American readership.

[Monty J]

Edward wrote: "Do you think TGG is a legitimate candidate for all time best American novel?"

Candidate, yes; winner, not when compared with Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men and East of Eden. My vote goes to GOW, then EE, then TGG and OMM tie.

I have to agree with Karen. It's in the top tier.

But I still have a lot of reading to do to speak intelligently on the subject.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "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 w..."

I, too, have found Eat, Pray, F....oops was a no goer for me. I couldn't understand why she left her husband in the first place. Did I miss something?

I recall in the late 70's the move AN UNMARRIED WOMAN and couldn't for the life of me understand why the protagonist didn't just take a month off and go with her new, sensitive lover on his art residency. She deemed the relationship over, despite his never more than dismay she wouldn't accompany him. She broke off with him before he did it to her but I never got the sense that he was about to do it.

Her gallery was a silly one with crappy upscale art and her approach to it was so overly pretentious that I completely lost any sympathy for her. And when after divorcing her husband, she had the affair with the sadistic artist, she refused to admit to her friends the psychic damage.

In Eat Pray F....ooops we watch this self indulgent hedonistic woman on a quest she doesn't know diddly squat is about, with no real self insight, wisdom or whatever....

[SSteppenwolFF]

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..."
Infinite Jest

[H Anthony]

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Infinite Jest being overrated, because I loved it, but can very much understand why it would annoy or frustrate others - hence their bewilderment at the way it's cherished by those who did enjoy it.

But in some ways it's more of a cult novel (whether you think it should be or not), in the sense that it is beloved by a significant minority of readers.

I'd argue that a book which is genuinely overrated - particularly on this site - is Mario Puzo's The Godfather. I read it probably 20 years ago, and would say it's a middling book, at best. The writing's nothing special, and it's held up by its plot (though I recall being very bemused by the odd digression about the woman with the large vagina - writing that now makes it sound more interesting than it actually is).

But it's overrated because it was responsible for two excellent and one decent film, high quality, intelligent and popular movies which have stood the test of time, at least in the case of the first two. And it seems to me like the book has an inordinately high rating because either people are conflating the films with the book while they're reading it, or they're really rating the story - which the films told in a much more lyrical, visceral, memorable way.

I don't think it's a terrible book - it was perhaps significant for its portrayal of the mafia at the time it was first published - but with its clunky prose I can't really see how it merits more than three stars.

Of course, as with almost any book, it's going to connect with some people more than others - but at the moment it has five star ratings from 95,000 people, or 52% of everyone who has rated it on here. And 83% of those 180,000 ratings are four or five stars. Which seems quite high, to me.

Obviously this is all subjective in that it's filtered through my opinion of the book. But it seems to me that if you were looking for a widely popular novel that is overrated by a broad spectrum of readers of all ages and wide tastes, The Godfather would be a decent candidate.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "greed. It seems to me that Fitzgerald had five thematic balls to juggle: romance, ambition, class distinction, Jazz Age and the East vs West theme. The link between romance, ambition and class distinction is timeless and borderless. The Jazz Age and East v West are unique to America. To fully understand the characters one must understand America. Fitzgerald took it for granted the reader understood certain terms like "Midwest" and references to the Dutch pioneers who founded New York (as New Amsterdam.) He was writing primarily for an American readership"

Absolutely! It is strictly an American novel, and written in a fascinating time period. I love when young people read it and discover that the 1920's was full of risqué behavior!

[Petergiaquinta]

Monty J wrote: "Edward wrote: "Do you think TGG is a legitimate candidate for all time best American novel?"

Candidate, yes; winner, not when compared with Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men and Eas..."

A little heavy on Steinbeck there, wouldn't you say? Faulkner is the greatest American writer. He's better than both Fitzgerald and Steinbeck. I won't argue about what's the best American novel, but as far as writing, he outshines both. If you are going to compile a list, put The Sound and the Fury and Absalom Absalom somewhere near the top with those titles.

[Karen]

Monty wrote;
"But I still have a lot of reading to do to speak intelligently on the subject."

I have not read many American authors yet, so I am certainly not an authority on the subject myself. But TGG is one of my favorite novels.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "A little heavy on Steinbeck there, wouldn't you say? Faulkner is the greatest American writer. He's better than both Fitzgerald and Steinbeck. I won't argue about what's the best American novel, but as far as writing, he outshines both. If you are going to compile a list, put The Sound and the Fury and Absalom Absalom somewhere near the top with those titles."

Oh my goodness, of course!! My beloved Faulkner- yes, The Sound and the Fury my other favorite novel, I adore Faulkner- one of our most important American writers. I am re-reading TSATF in a couple of weeks- Peter,would you like to join me?

[Petergiaquinta]

I don't have time to finish the half dozen books I'm in the middle of right now, but I'm happy to discuss it with you as you're reading. I re-read it about four years ago.

Here's something quintessentially American, though, about all three authors: in America we have this idea that we can accomplish great things, that there is this promised land waiting for us if we work hard enough, that there is a guaranteed happiness built into the very fabric of the land that we settled long ago. We can carve out a place for ourselves here in the American continent, and we can be successful and happy.

That of course is the dream, and all three authors explore it on one level or another. And the reality of our experience too often falls woefully short of that promise.

Is this uniquely American? I dunno. I assume there is something similar in many countries of the Americas...but here we have clearly embraced an identity and a dream that we tell ourselves is different from the way things were and are in the Old World.

Faulkner explores these ideas more subtly, but Sutpen's Hunnert is really just the same story of those Dutch sailors looking at the fresh green breast of America. But Faulkner really does some interesting things in his writing, far more sophisticated than anything Steinbeck and Fitzgerald do. Steinbeck is the most accessible, and so maybe he gets to wear the crown. Gatsby may do it best in a single work. But Faulkner is the master of it all.

[Kallie]

Melville's 'The Confidence Man.' Faulkner is the best writer but in TCM Melville nails the timeless American tendency to promote and buy into the bullshit.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote;
"Faulkner explores these ideas more subtly, but Sutpen's Hunnert is really just the same story of those Dutch sailors looking at the fresh green breast of America. But Faulkner really does some interesting things in his writing, far more sophisticated than anything Steinbeck and Fitzgerald do. Steinbeck is the most accessible, and so maybe he gets to wear the crown. Gatsby may do it best in a single work. But Faulkner is the master of it all."

I love him for that subtlety, and I did not think of Sutpen in that way- interesting. Faulkner forces me to think hard, and go back and re-read. His reputation for difficulty turns some off, it did me, until I read him and got hooked.

[Anne Hawn]

Karen wrote: "Some stories are timeless though, and I for one consider TGG to be just that. And why change the novel to satisfy something lacking in clarity? Fitzgerald wrote it that way. Isn't that like changin..."

I agree. I think all great novels embody the ancient archetypes and the very fact that a novel is set in a different time allows the reader to recognize things in his/her own culture or person that can't be seen because it is too familiar.

While people will take the ancient myths and remake them in modern dress, the ancient truth is there. No one says that someone HAS to update the story of Icarus or Oedipus in order for it to have any value. The story of Pygmalion has a clear meaning today even without George Bernard Shaw.

It seems to me that this is the difference in the aim of most literature as opposed to genre fiction. Genre fiction aims at entertainment. I think the best literature explores archetypes and ancient stories. That is why we can come back to them again and again. If you read a Tom Clancy novel five years ago, you probably won't read it again because you know how it turns out. (Well, not unless you are looking for a nice bit of distraction.) Most of us in this discussion group talk about books we have read multiple times because we are discussing literature and not popular fiction.

[Anne Hawn]

Monty J wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "I just don't think TGG is that relevant. Maybe in the US, but..."

The novel has more meaning to an American readership because it's about the Jazz Age, the Roaring Twenties, a ..."

I agree, it was a fascinating age for a lot of reasons, but I also think TGG is relevant because it deals with a person who stakes his whole life on a goal that turned to dust when it was achieved. It involves a man who desired what he thought he saw in a class of people, and one person specifically, but he only saw the superficial. It reminds us that traits and behaviors have more than just one side. Joan Baez line "a savior's a nuisance to live with at home" makes a similar point.

When I taught this novel, I tried to make these points and help students understand the tragedy of Gatsby can be anyone's tragedy in many different guises. I think about the students who are beginning to get into gangs because they want power and status, or kids who are using drugs to solve the problems of adolescent angst. It's easy to relate Gatsby to that.

You can tell people that things are not always as they seem, but in Gatsby, you live it. Look at the part where Gatsby's father talks about him when he was young. You can see what he could have done if he hadn't been determined to live in Daisy's world.

The fact that we all have a lot to say about all these candidates for "Best Book" is because they ARE all these things. They are complex and compelling. They embody an astute understanding of human nature and the ability to communicate that understanding with the power of their characterization and their words. They are not just a story, but a journey.

[Renee E]

The best books should leave an intelligent reader with just as many new questions as they do answers.

[Monty J]

Anne Hawn wrote: "TGG is relevant because it deals with a person who stakes his whole life on a goal that turned to dust when it was achieved."

There is also a Faustian irony to Gatsby in that he "sold his soul" (corrupted himself) in order to gain what he wanted, Daisy's love, and that corruption made her unattainable.

As for Faulkner, other than The Sound and the Fury decades ago in college, I've only read a few short stories lately. I found him hard to read but could get into him if I tried. I have had Absolom, Absolom on my Nook for three years. Still, I intend spending more time with Faulkner. He's too important.

Steinbeck, I never tire of. Two films were made of East of Eden (one a blockbuster), three of Of Mice and Men. Films were made of The Grapes of Wrath, Viva Zapata, Cannery Row, Sweet Thursday and Lifeboat. How many authors have honored to this extent (ten films) by the film industry? Also the theater, especially OMM. Because of this ripple effect, I suspect he has more characters imbeded in American psyche than any other.

If communism and unions weren't such political lightening rods, a film would certainly have been made of In Dubious Battle. From the outset, Steinbeck courageously tackled tabu topics.

In EE, He pushed the envelope with the novel form by incorporating his own memoir. He pushed the envelope of sexual content by incorporating female genitalia in a torture scene. With refrigerated transportation and the automobile, he incorporated changing technology. In GOW he courageously and heroically tackled material that had powerful interests threatening his life and J. Edgar Hoover harassing him by having his tax returns audited every year. In Log From the Sea of Cortez he made science accessible. In OMM he pushed the envelope into gender tension, racial discrimination, mental health and prison reform.

What writer from any country can match Steinbeck's depth and breadth of characters, themes and social impact? Certainly not Hemingway or Fitzgerald. Maybe Dickens. Maybe. Tolstoy? I've only read Anna Karenina and The Death of Ivan Ilych, not enough.

So many books; so little time.

But one book as representative of THE American novel? It's almost a rhetorical question. What weight is given what criteria? Archetypal characters? Themes? Socio-cultural impact? What era? Geographic/social footprint? Length? Copies sold? Ratings and word count on Goodreads of reviews and discussions? (NO! God, 50 Shades of Vampire Dildos would win.)

John O'Hara, a candidate for the Nobel, has some meaty novels and a massive number of short stories, more that double any other author in The New Yorker.

Still, TGG stands out because of its throbbing echo of naive American idealistic optimism in the grip of the relentless corrupting force of unregulated capitalism which has become so evident today with the Citizens United decision, the hyper-concentration of wealth and the ever-tightening grip of the KOCHtopus on our lives.

Fitzgerald was every bit as critical of capitalism as Steinbeck, but the satire is so subtle that most readers won't get it.

[Colleen]

Edward wrote: "Joyce wrote: "hahahahahahahaha ---good one! Getting back to the purpose of this thread - how can anybody think the Great Gatsby is overrated?"

I don't know; a customary response of mine. On one l..."

Maybe this is too much of the teacher coming out in me but isn't reading literature from a different era and learning to decipher it's meaning part of the process? If you decide to read nothing but that which has been written recently, you are depriving yourself of a large part of the purpose of reading.

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "What writer from any country can match Steinbeck's depth and breadth of characters and themes and social impact? Maybe Dickens. Maybe. Tolstoy? I've only read Anna Karenina and The Death of Ivan Ilych, not enough to judge. ..."

I think there are a number of novelists equal to Steinbeck, Monty. Tolstoy and Dickens, yes. Charlotte Bronte and Hardy wrote great novels about class inequity. I already suggested Melville. Faulkner, Nathanael West, Russell Banks, Mary Lee Settle on early American expansionism and slavery. Flannery O'Connor and Marilynne Robinson write on a smaller scale but their work carries a lot of metaphorical heft.

[Cheyenne]

I loved The Great Gatsby!! We just read it in English class and it was a speedy read. I also have read Catcher in the Rye and I thought it was very underwhelming.

[Anne Hawn]

I think you are right, Kallie. I like the older writers better than the "lost generation." Dickens, Hugo and Harding are my favorites, but I also enjoy Willa Cather and Steinbeck. I think that is where personal taste comes in. I want to be well read, so I try to read as many on the "100 Best" lists as I can and I enjoy what I learn from them. Some styles just suit me more than others.

[Geoffrey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Edward wrote: "Do you think TGG is a legitimate candidate for all time best American novel?"

Candidate, yes; winner, not when compared with Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice..."

Yes, but JS was the more socially significant and had the guts to take on more controversial subjects.

As for the two titles you mention I would add a third...AS I LAY DYING.

And Monty, I would add THE PEARL to the list of stories adapted to the silver screen. Yes, Faulkner was the more sophisticated author and willing to engage in a more cutting edge writing style that occasionally missed the mark, but SF was truly stupendous.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Edward wrote: "Do you think TGG is a legitimate candidate for all time best American novel?"

Candidate, yes; winner, not when compared with Steinbeck's The G..."

For my taste, Steinbeck's canon is superior to any other American novelist I have read, which is why I have read and studied so much more of his work than the others. He's certainly the most courageous by far.

TGG has begun to stand out for its relevancy right now, today, by spotlighting runaway capitalism. The love triangle is a potent delivery mechanism for the more powerful subtext of social critique.

[Monty J]

Edward wrote: "Ah, three stars ain't all that bad. Consider a possible value judgment; Gatsby is all about money; Holden is not."

Good point. CiTR is more universal, Darwinistic in its subtext of personality development.

Every human being must go through the critical transition from juvenile to adult, and the quality of their adult life is determined by the success of that transition. Holden's crisis dramatizes that vital transition.

What makes CiTR quintessentially American? Setting alone isn't enough. He does analyze and criticize American society and the arts: museum exhibits, graffiti, literature, theater, music, and our obsession with football. Okay, so it's American.

Next we have to consider social impact. Now the needle begins to swing toward CiTR. Criminy, look at the number of copies sold, and still selling. The thing is, people don't know what message they're getting because it's so subtle as to be subliminal.

I'm a teenager, wresting with adulthood. Here's this guy Holden, doing the same thing. I can't stand the sumbitch because he's so spoiled and arrogant. I can't see his struggle through the fog of his arrogance. I can't wait to get through this reading assignment and scarf something off the Internet to fill out my book report assignment and be done with him.

But adults buy more books than teens, and within every adult is the teenager they once were (and may still be, emotionally.) Every clear-headed mature adult who has grieved for a loved one can see through Holden's arrogance to the crisis he was struggling with and relate. Maybe they need some guidance, but they have the perspective to get there.

Readers who do this are likely to be changed by the book. But change can be subtle and take a while.

Its hard to choose because TGG's critique of capitalism is so subtle but highly relevant vs CiTR's enormous sales volume and more universal impact, subliminal though it may be.

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote;
"Yes, but JS was the more socially significant and had the guts to take on more controversial subjects."

Faulkner was just as socially significant- writing about post-slavery, it's profound effects, ingrained racism in such a provocative way. And there he was, in Mississippi, criticizing the south.

[Karen]

Cheyenne wrote: "I loved The Great Gatsby!! We just read it in English class and it was a speedy read. I also have read Catcher in the Rye and I thought it was very underwhelming."

I'm glad you loved the Great Gatsby, but it shouldn't be a speedy read, although it's a short book.