The Most Overrated Books Showing 4,701-4,750 of 5,680

[Geoffrey]

Sorry, but I can't be part of that list. Now you must decide which I am.

[Grant500]

Damn. Every time I check this thread, it's going off in some weirder and weirder direction.

[Mark]

looking for a new discussion to hang out in.

suggestions?

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "If you're so against a book being "a classic just because it is old", at least show some guts, and try to come to us with a book that is hard to read and unbashable."

I'd also suggest that criticism is a perfectly valid thing to do, but if one can't back up a term like "over-rated" with some sort of meaningful analysis then it reveals a lot more about the critical skills of the person using the term than the work they are criticizing....

[Geoffrey]

Edward wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Sorry, but I can't be part of that list. Now you must decide which I am."

No, that's your choice. Deal with it."

For some reason this post of mine never included yours as its response although I went through the correct process. My posting was in response to yours 5190. And as your comments are somewhat convoluted with cut and paste sensibilities, I thought I would add this seemingly incoherent comment. So go figger if you can and the truth you shall bear out.Or do yourself a big favor and just disregard it completely, which is how many of us deal with yours.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Gregory wrote: ""The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Carl Sagan."

True enough, but it doesn't exactly bode well for your case."

First and foremost, I am a sceptic.

[Paul Martin]

Cemre wrote: "Another thing that must be said about "overrated books" is that some books can be overrated in some ways and underrated in others. I think CitR itself is a prime example of that ."

Yes, that's very true.

First thing that comes to my mind is Harry Potter. Massively overrated as a fantasy novel, but often underrated as a portrayal of adolescence and all that comes with it.

[Garima]

I'd say Divergent is extremely overrated. I didn't mind it - I actually liked it, but it wasn't anything special. In fact, I thought it was a bit cliche, if anything.

[Michael]

Mark wrote: "looking for a new discussion to hang out in.

suggestions?"

Not great for hanging out, but I've been amused with the discussion on a Mockingjay thread titled Why Did People Hate This Book?

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

My most recent post:

█▓▒░QʊɛɛռArtsy░▒▓█ 402 wrote: "I don't get why people hate this book. I loved it. The people who hate are just a little too sensitive and can't handle the truth."

Perhaps. But I'd like to offer an interpretation, QueenArtsy, that is the exact opposite of your premise:

Maybe some of you die-hard fans of Mockingjay claim to like the novel so much because you can't handle the fact that it was a wretched ending to what had started out as an excellent trilogy.

This might help explain why some people are so upset that EVERYONE doesn't love this friggin' book!

[Naz]

I would disagree about
The Great Gatsby
Ulysses
The Stranger

Mainly because there are certain things these books have to offer the reader. TGG for example, paints a nice portrait of the jazz age.
Ulysses makes a reader do mental gymnastics. Always good in my opinion.
The Stranger? Well that book is quite profound. If any book would qualify to be an accurate portrait of existentialism, Stranger is the one.

I would add the Game of Thrones series to the list of over rated books. I've read all 5 and was infatuated with them for sometime.
Looking back, they were subpar and was not worth my time.

[Mochaspresso]

Sorry to switch gears, but I have a question about NetGalley. I recently signed up for the service and was approved for an ARC (advanced reader copy) of two books. However, one of the publishers also requests that I not post any reviews of the book and email them first before doing so. I thought the request was a little weird, but I am a bit of a newbie to this. Is this common for NetGalley and for publishers?

[Geoffrey]

Probably unconstitutional. Infringement on freedom of speech. Ask a lawyer.

[Petergiaquinta]

Well, it's not "unconstitutional" because NetGalley is not the gubmint...I suppose when you "signed up for the service" you clicked off on some kind of agreement to abide by their terms. That's how they can make that sort of request. Whether they would really take action against you for breaking your agreement with them is another matter. They might, however, request that Amazon or GoodReads or whatever take down your review if they felt you had breached your agreement with them.

I'm not a lawyer...

[Mochaspresso]

Well, it's a free service and I voluntarily signed up for it. I don't think infringement of my freedom of speech rights apply because it's not a government entity. There is a "terms of service" agreement, but no money is being exchanged and there are no contractual obligations or guarantees on either side. They don't have to give me the book and I don't have to accept it and read it. I just thought it was weird because one publisher gave me a book and basically said "Here you go. Happy reading!" in their email, while another had extra stipulations that I not review it or post anything about it before it's release date and if I do, to contact them first. A friend of mine who is an aspiring author offered the possible explanation that the publisher just wants to collect some feedback about the book, but also doesn't want advance publicity that might counter whatever marketing plan they are developing for the book and/or story spoilers/details leaking before the book is officially released.

[Geoffrey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Well, it's not "unconstitutional" because NetGalley is not the gubmint...I suppose when you "signed up for the service" you clicked off on some kind of agreement to abide by their terms. That's how..."

Sorry my friend, but the constitution applies to private concerns, not only the government. These are rights guaranteed by the US constitutution, regardless of who violates them.

[Petergiaquinta]

No, you're wrong. There are no First Amendment rights in "private concerns." You don't know what you're talking about. You don't have rights to free speech at your place of work (unless you work for the government, and then be careful); you don't have rights to privacy or expression with your work email account. You don't have "free speech" in your family or at your place of worship. The First Amendment does not cover expression in the workplace or the business world.

You don't even have "free speech" on GoodReads; it's run by them and they set the standards for what is and what is not acceptable. The tempest in a teapot earlier this year about GR cracking down on what can and can't be posted was a spirited discussion, but nothing came of it. GoodReads can limit what you say on their website. You can't sue them in a court of law for blocking your content or banning you. You don't want to abide by their rules? You can go whistle up a tree.

You want to hold a protest? You can have it in public, if you follow the rules. You can't hold it on my private land. You can hold it on your own private land, but then it's not really a "protest," is it? You sure can't have it at your place of work.

I trust you covered all these basic laws in your civics class way back when...you seem to have forgotten them. I know you don't live in America anymore, but you seem to be rusty on the concepts here.

[Mochaspresso]

Edward wrote: "I'm not sure if I was misunderstood. My cynicism was not aimed at GR. It was aimed at the service companies who will make your book a hit and charge anywhere from $300-10,000. GR and its participants might be the wave of the literary future. The traditional publishers want celebrity bios and have purchased many of the marketing scammers.
"

Truthfully, I hadn't considered the service from the pov of an author (who would actually have to pay a subscription fee to have their book featured) and that I am only speaking from the pov as a reader. What you are saying makes all the more sense. I don't know if Netgalley can make a book a "hit"....but the $399 fee might be worth it to an author if it can make your book more "visible" to a larger number of potential readers than you would be able to reach on your own. Then again, you might be just paying the fee to list a book that no one ever requests or worse, people do request it and go on to post a slew of negative reviews about it before you even get the chance to officially release it.

Fwiw, the publisher that asked that I not post anything online about the book was a small indie publisher. The publisher that doesn't seem to care was a huge traditional publisher.

[Geoffrey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "No, you're wrong. There are no First Amendment rights in "private concerns." You don't know what you're talking about. You don't have rights to free speech at your place of work (unless you work fo..."

You don`t know what you are talking about. Yes, I can`t declaim the government on your property as it would be tresspassing. As for Goodreads, I have read quite a bit of libel and defamation of character and Goodreads has not censored it. So what`s your beef. Has Goodreads censored you? If so, give us the facts. I for one, want to know.

As for freedom of rights with email, again cite specific examples in which your right to the freedom of expression has been infringed upon. By whom? The government? Your employer? What did you write in your email? That you wished to kill a politician? If so, of course you don´t have that right.

And as long as we are on the subject, maintain your dignity and keep it civil. I am not interested in a flame war, but an honest discussion.

[Petergiaquinta]

Don't change the topic...you were claiming the First Amendment applied to "private concerns." Have you bothered to check the Constitution yet?

And don't be an idiot. Why should we keep a discussion civil when you're talking out your ass? Post something that makes sense.

[Mark]

I can't figure out where all of this First Amendment brouhaha began? Did someone post something incorrect and then delete it. Just curious.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: "I can't figure out where all of this First Amendment brouhaha began? Did someone post something incorrect and then delete it. Just curious."

Post 5216 held together with post 5222, as far as I can see.

[Karen]

Mark wrote: "I can't figure out where all of this First Amendment brouhaha began? Did someone post something incorrect and then delete it. Just curious."

It started with Geoffrey post 5216, and Peter is quite correct.

[Mark]

Thanks, Paul and Karen.

First Amendment Rights are widely misunderstood ... there was some ruckus about a media person being canned and that doofus Sarah Palin, among others, were carrying on about the violation of First Amendment rights. I cannot for the life of me remember what the event was now, though.

[Karen]

Mark wrote: "Thanks, Paul and Karen.

First Amendment Rights are widely misunderstood ... there was some ruckus about a media person being canned and that doofus Sarah Palin, among others, were carrying on abo..."

Oh that's how doofus is spelled- definately a dufus.

[E.D.]

I recall a case where an avowed Maoist publicly protesting the first Gulf War was beat on by fellow citizens who disagreed with her. The police arrived and arrested her for inciting violence, and made no arrests for assault by the beaters. Charges were dropped.

We're free to speak. The consequences for doing so are open to debate. Publicly or privately.

[Lydia]

You have an excellent list. I might have crated it myself.

[Nan]

deleted user wrote: "Which books do you think are overrated?
Angela's Ashes - yuck!

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..."

[Donald]

Here's a thought: just because you have an opinion about a book doesn't make it right. If a novel has been revered for decades and by millions of readers, perhaps you're the one who doesn't "get it". If so, your criticism about a book you don't understand might say more about you than the book.

[Trish]

I hated the catcher in the rye that first time I read it (14 years old), but when we read it in high school and actually talked about it, I absolutely loved it (17 years old). So I believe it is a book you have to read at a certain age.

[Julia]

The DaVinci Code and Twilight are incongruous on this list, they cannot be "overrated" because they haven't been around long enough to receive the kind of critical acclaim that the others have - are college students being forced to read them and think about them seriously?

Waiting for Godot is a play, so it shouldn't be on this list. You are not meant to read it - you are meant to see two actors (at the top of their game) perform it for you - if you can't get to a stage, rent one of the the many filmed productions, and you may change your mind about it.

A "most overated" list should not just be the books you didn't like that got some hype or made the bestseller list. Or maybe it should, and all the classics (and plays) belong on a completely different list - let's at least compare apples to apples.

As far as Catcher in the Rye, it was a book that stood the test of time for awhile - it was relevant and game changing in the late 20th Century. Now it has become dated and irrelevant. Now that minorities and their history have found some voice and purchase on the cliffs of popular culture, the idea of reading about a whiny white prep school kid seems ridiculous. But, at the time, Salinger's message was shocking enough. It had to come from an upper class white voice, or it would have been derided and then ignored.

Canon and what belongs on it, what should be removed, and what should be added is a subject debated by Writers and Teachers every year. Why are upper class white male authors so over-represented? How do we justify the continued tyranny of the "masculine" story? There are countless larger issues here than whether one simply enjoyed a tale more than another.

[Geoffrey]

Julia wrote: "The DaVinci Code and Twilight are incongruous on this list, they cannot be "overrated" because they haven't been around long enough to receive the kind of critical acclaim that the others have - ar..."

And yet, Julia, we do read plays in literature classes. I read WFG when I was sixteen and thought it brilliant. I still do. Like you said, some people just don't get it.

[Donna]

Into the Wild should definitely be on that list; Catcher and the Rye should stay up there for all of eternity; however, I don't believe Great Gatsby is a bad book, perhaps a bit over rated but not the most. And lastly, ALL FOUR OF THE TWILIGHT BOOKS SHOULD BE PLASTERED ONTO THAT LIST FOREVER.

[Donald]

In a hundred years, people will still read classics. They will also say, "Twilight"? What's "Twilight"?

[Donald]

In a hundred years, people will still read classics. They will also say, "Twilight"? What's "Twilight"?

[Petergiaquinta]

The less we talk about Twilight today, the sooner that moment will come...the tweener population seems to have already moved on to other titles.

[Donald]

It just defies logic that any intelligent person... Ah... Forget it.

[Donald]

It just defies logic that any intelligent person... Ah... Forget it.

[Sue]

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've read Catcher, am reading Gatsby because the younger members of my family read and loved it, Godot, Da Vinci and Twilight. Definitely, IMO, Da Vinci Code, which I found very silly for a number of reasons, including everything happening in 24 hours, during which time nobody eats, sleeps or visits the bathroom, and believe it might have sold about 30,000 copies if the Church hadn't made a fuss. I mean, yes, perfectly okay action adventure, airport reading, but not worth the hype. Twilight: my students loved it and it caused excitement about books among them, which made me decide to buy two sets of the series for the library. Hardly anyone asks for it in my library now. They've found other toys. Not for me. I found the first book boring, with nothing much happening till near the end. I couldn't read the rest, I'm afraid. Catcher, Godot, classics, not overrated.

[Karen]

Julia wrote;
"As far as Catcher in the Rye, it was a book that stood the test of time for awhile - it was relevant and game changing in the late 20th Century. Now it has become dated and irrelevant. Now that minorities and their history have found some voice and purchase on the cliffs of popular culture, the idea of reading about a whiny white prep school kid seems ridiculous. But, at the time, Salinger's message was shocking enough. It had to come from an upper class white voice, or it would have been derided and then ignored."

Maybe you should have read the book more closely-upper middle class (more middle class, I think), people like Holden, who have tragedies in their families (Holden's brother died) should not be relevant? And because he was white also? That's ridiculous.


"

[Sue]

Chava wrote: "Whenever I see a person slam, or call The Catcher In the Rye an overrated, my heart breaks a little more. It is beyond my comprehension how someone can hate this book. In my mind, if you hated it, ..."
The problem is, this and - in the US - Moby Dick tend to be on school book lists. When you HAVE to read something for school, unless you have the world's best teacher, or sometimes even if you do, you're likely to hate it.

I had to read this for school, but liked it anyway, being a passionate reader. But I suspect I'm in a minority. I think Literature Circles works better than a class text because you have a choice and the chance to read something you'll enjoy.

I should note that this has been listed as the very first YA novel. How times have changed, eh?

[Geoffrey]

An unabashed truism about vampire stories. They truly suck.

[Michael]

Geoffrey wrote: "An unabashed truism about vampire stories. They truly suck."

Moby Dick blows.

[Geoffrey]

hahahahaha

[E.D.]

The Da Vinci Code is puzzling.

[E.D.]

Edward wrote: "E.D. wrote: "The Da Vinci Code is puzzling."

Waiting for Godot is tedious."

Heh heh. :}

[Heidi]

Don wrote: "In a hundred years, people will still read classics. They will also say, "Twilight"? What's "Twilight"?"

I think that Twilight will be remembered as a pop culture phenomenon, but not as anything of literary worth. While I hate Twilight with a passion, the effects it had on the book industry and culture was shocking, to say the least.

[Mochaspresso]

While discussing whether or not Twilight will be "remembered", should we be considering the fact that the first of the Twilight books is almost 10 years old now?

[Donald]

And almost a footnote after 10 years. After 50, the vaguest of memories. After 100, thankfully gone.

[Donald]

I wish people would understand the difference between a fad and a classic.

[Renee E]

And yet, there are those who tell those who write that they should strive to write more like Meyer, use her as a guide, in essence . . . /facepalm