The Most Overrated Books Showing 4,901-4,950 of 5,680

[Karen]

Stephen wrote: "There's more to literature than Fitzgerald, Salinger, Hemingway, Morrison, Orwell, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Angelou, Oliver, Poe, Hawthorne, Austen, Burroughs, (the reading list for undergraduate literat..."

Yes, there's Faulkner.

[Mochaspresso]

I like Octavia Butler's "Kindred", but I think she technically may fall under the "sci-fi" genre as a speculative fiction writer.

[Mochaspresso]

I recently sold some extremely reluctant HSers on their "Alas, Babylon" assignment by comparing it to "The Walking Dead". Not a particularly original thought, but it actually worked. Hoo-rah!!

[Stephen]

Renee wrote: "Throw out your picks, then, Stephen."

Sure!

Evie Wyld, Annie Dillard, Georges Bataille, Zola, Ted Hughes, Castenada, Calvino, Saroyan, William Stafford, Paul Auster, Julio Cortazar, Martin Amis, James Baldwin, Jean Cocteau, Muriel Spark, W.G. Sebald, Denis Johnson, Krzhizhanovsky, Wm. Gass, Dos Passos, Bruce Chatwin, Alice Munro, Queneau, Thomas Merton,

[Stephen]

Karen wrote: "Stephen wrote: "There's more to literature than Fitzgerald, Salinger, Hemingway, Morrison, Orwell, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Angelou, Oliver, Poe, Hawthorne, Austen, Burroughs, (the reading list for under..."

I like very much 'The Bear' in "Go Down Moses", but 'The Sound & The Fury' I detested.

[Mochaspresso]

One more random babbling for the evening. I think that movie and Oscar nomination is going to go down in history as making Chris Kyle's "American Sniper" the modern equivalent of what Tim O'brien's "The Things They Carried" became for the Vietnam War.

[Stephen]

Mochaspresso wrote: "I like Octavia Butler's "Kindred", but I think she technically may fall under the "sci-fi" genre as a speculative fiction writer."

Butler has been recommended to me, but haven't read her yet. I read China Mieville's 'Embassytown' and I'm in the middle of Vernor Vinge's 'A Fire Upon the Deep'. I do enjoy sci-fi, but for me it must be, I think the term is 'hard sci-fi'? But, I tried a Stanislaw Lem novel and it was over my head. '2001' is a childhood fav as is 'Ringworld'.

[Stephen]

Mochaspresso wrote: "One more random babbling for the evening. I think that movie and Oscar nomination is going to go down in history as making Chris Kyle's "American Sniper" the modern equivalent of what Tim O'brien'..."


I feel O'Brien's writing is very good, but I have no interest in 'American Sniper'.

[Mochaspresso]

Stephen wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I like Octavia Butler's "Kindred", but I think she technically may fall under the "sci-fi" genre as a speculative fiction writer."

Butler has been recommended to me, but have..."

I absolutely loved her, but I definitely would not classify "Kindred" as hard sci-fi by any stretch. I think the "speculative fiction" label is more applicable for that one. The only sci-fi in "Kindred" is the time traveling. The book is really about the brutality and legacy of slavery, imo. Not about the science fiction aspects of time travel.

[Stephen]

Very Qool. Okay, speculative fiction. 'Kindred' sounds familiar as the novel rec'd to me. I read a Neil Gaiman which I thought was childish. Wasn't impressed with Philip Jose Farmer's 'RiverWorld' either. And Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land' was sexist towards women, which I didn't like.

[Monty J]

Stephen wrote: "There's more to literature than Fitzgerald, Salinger, Hemingway, Morrison, Orwell, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Angelou, Oliver, Poe, Hawthorne, Austen, Burroughs, (the reading list for undergraduate literat..."

John O'Hara: Appointment in Samarra, Pal Joey, From the Terrace, Butterfield 8 and a host of short stories. He published more short stories in The New Yorker than anyone in history by far, some 200 according to Wikipedia.

[Karen]

Stephen wrote: "Karen wrote: "Stephen wrote: "There's more to literature than Fitzgerald, Salinger, Hemingway, Morrison, Orwell, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Angelou, Oliver, Poe, Hawthorne, Austen, Burroughs, (the reading ..."

The Sound And The Fury is my favorite- I understand it's not for everyone- the book requires work, but it is definately a matter of taste.

[Kallie]

Stephen wrote: "Renee wrote: "Throw out your picks, then, Stephen."

Sure!

Evie Wyld, Annie Dillard, Georges Bataille, Zola, Ted Hughes, Castenada, Calvino, Saroyan, William Stafford, Paul Auster, Julio Cortazar,..."

A lot of good ones. But you know, this thread is about writers who appeared on some 'overrated' list, and that's why the same ones have been discussed and argued about here. Which does not mean you can't start a discussion about any of the writers you name. Do you consider any of them overrated or are these all writers you admire? I'm guessing the latter.

[Stephen]

Monty J wrote: "Stephen wrote: "There's more to literature than Fitzgerald, Salinger, Hemingway, Morrison, Orwell, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Angelou, Oliver, Poe, Hawthorne, Austen, Burroughs, (the reading list for under..."

O'Hara. I hadn't heard of him but I do recognize three of those titles. Another author I'll add to my list.

[Stephen]

Kallie wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Renee wrote: "Throw out your picks, then, Stephen."

Sure!

Evie Wyld, Annie Dillard, Georges Bataille, Zola, Ted Hughes, Castenada, Calvino, Saroyan, William Stafford, Paul Auster,..."

Kallie, you're right. This is a thread about over-rated authors/titles. My post was not apropos. I am sorry about that. I was lazy in not digging deeper into the other book discussion threads.

[Kallie]

Stephen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Renee wrote: "Throw out your picks, then, Stephen."

Sure!

Evie Wyld, Annie Dillard, Georges Bataille, Zola, Ted Hughes, Castenada, Calvino, Saroyan, William Staffor..."

Oh, but I didn't intend at all to quash your discussion idea; just to explain why you see so much about those particular writers you mentioned. I would also like to talk about other writers, and not just the ones we think overrated. We have done the overrated thing for quite a while and maybe it's time to turn to our underrated choices. I like many of the writers you listed and some I know nothing about so as far as I'm concerned, you should feel free to say more about any of them.

[Stephen]

Kallie wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Renee wrote: "Throw out your picks, then, Stephen."

Sure!

Evie Wyld, Annie Dillard, Georges Bataille, Zola, Ted Hughes, Castenada, Calvino, Saroyan,..."



Kallie, no worries.

[Monty J]

Stephen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Stephen wrote: "There's more to literature than Fitzgerald, Salinger, Hemingway, Morrison, Orwell, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Angelou, Oliver, Poe, Hawthorne, Austen, Burroughs, (the readin..."

Check out my review of Butterfield 8: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "... intend at all to quash your discussion idea..."

Beware, Kallie the thread quasher. Wahhh-hhahhh!
:)

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "... intend at all to quash your discussion idea..."

Beware, Kallie the thread quasher. Wahhh-hhahhh!
:)"

:/

[Stephen]

Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "... intend at all to quash your discussion idea..."

Beware, Kallie the thread quasher. Wahhh-hhahhh!
:)"

Hey!Hey!Hey!
Kallie said to me,after my apology, that perhaps the thread needed to be changed.

[Monty J]

Stephen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "... intend at all to quash your discussion idea..."

Beware, Kallie the thread quasher. Wahhh-hhahhh!
:)"

Hey!Hey!Hey!
Kallie said to me,after my apology, that perha..."

I was kidding, of course.

[Stephen]

Monty J wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "... intend at all to quash your discussion idea..."

Beware, Kallie the thread quasher. Wahhh-hhahhh!
:)"

Hey!Hey!Hey!
Kallie said to me,after my apo..."



:)

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "... intend at all to quash your discussion idea..."

Beware, Kallie the thread quasher. Wahhh-hhahhh!
:)"

Hey!Hey!Hey!
Kallie said to me,after my apo..."

I knew that. Monty is a gentleman.

[Stephen]

Edward wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "... intend at all to quash your discussion idea..."

Beware, Kallie the thread quasher. Wahhh-hhahhh!
:)"

Hey!Hey!Hey!..."


'Truth is a conspiracy' writes Thom Gunn.

[Noah]

Cherylcali "turn the page" wrote: "Twilight has to be some of the worst writing. The editor should be fired for letting so many problems with writing. Catcher I did like. What annoys me is the book "Perks of Being a Wallflower" whi..."

But wasn't Catcher in the Rye itself for teens? I mean it's about a teenage boy's "experiences" or whatever.

[Monty J]

Nikolai wrote: "But wasn't Catcher in the Rye itself for teens? I mean it's about a teenage boy's "experiences" or whatever."

I doubt it was ever Salinger's intention to write a book strictly for teens of the 1950s era in which it was published. The book is heavily marketed to teens because of the main character's age, but the book is too sophisticated to be fully appreciated by teens, who are too engaged in their own transition into adulthood to observe the process with much clarity. Loss of innocence, compassion and mental illness are not typical teenage themes, and the cursing and sexual content continue to get the book banned from school libraries.

More detailed thoughts on the subject are expressed in my review: http://jdsalinger-heying.blogspot.com...

[libby]

I definitely agree with Catcher in the Rye. I thought that there was no plot in it and bad symbolism. However, after doing research, I found that the recommended age for reading Catcher in the Rye was 30+. I read it this past year for a school assignment. I feel like people of the recommended age like it more because they have lived through adolescence and know what Holden is struggling through. On the other hand, I am living my adolescence right now, so I have not processed, analyzed, and learned from this period of my life.

[Petergiaquinta]

Nikolai wrote: "But wasn't Catcher in the Rye itself for teens? I mean it's about a teenage boy's "experiences" or whatever. "

Catcher grows out of a number of short stories written by Salinger before the novel, several of which were published in the New Yorker, not exactly a magazine read by teens.

Hemingway writes about Nick Adams; Twain tells the story of Huck Finn. Writing about teens isn't the same thing as writing for teens.

[Karen]

Libby wrote: "I definitely agree with Catcher in the Rye. I thought that there was no plot in it and bad symbolism. However, after doing research, I found that the recommended age for reading Catcher in the Rye..."

Good insight. I suggest reading it again when you are in your 20's or 30's, keeping an open mind is a good thing- it's worth a re-read.

[Kallie]

Libby wrote: "I found that the recommended age for reading Catcher in the Rye was 30+. I read it this past year for a school assignment. I feel like people of the recommended age like it more because they have lived through adolescence and know what Holden is struggling through. On the other hand, I am living my adolescence right now, so I have not processed, analyzed, and learned from this period of my life. ..."

That's a good observation. I hope you also have fun.

[Monty J]

Libby wrote: "I thought that there was no plot in it..."

It was a stealth plot: a smart boy's brother (representing innocent youth) dies, triggering abnormal behavior in the survivor, Holden, who flunks out repeatedly & keeps screwing up, can't get along with anyone, doesn't know why. Getting sick too, but he's afraid to go home and face his parents so he kills a couple of days practicing being an adult 'til he carelessly runs out of money. He plans to run away and borrows from his little sis, who convinces him to come home where he is loved and can get the help he needs to function again. Theme: reunification with loved ones.

Ordinary People has a similar plot. A sibling (representing innocent youth) dies, triggering psychological problems in the surviving teenage brother, Conrad Jarrett, who actually attempts suicide, whereas Holden only contemplated it repeatedly. In both cases, the hero is thrown into turmoil and is rescued/redeemed by a girl's love. In Holden's case, a sibling. In Conrad's case, it's a new girlfriend, and Conrad reunites with his loving father.

Rebel Without a Cause is similar except it's a schoolmate who dies--instead of a sibling--triggering a cascade of trouble culminating in the death of innocent youth John "Plato" Crawford (Sal Mineo). Jim Stark (James Dean), redeemed by the love of Judy (Natalie Wood), reunites with his loving father after a heroic effort to protect Plato (representing innocent youth.)

In all three cases, the innocence of youth is sacrificed on the alter of the relentless approach of adulthood.

The Outsiders is similar in that three innocent boys die, but the plot is significantly different.


It may be hard for teenagers to see these plot relationships because the great majority of them haven't even seen a dead person "up close." They can't see "innocent youth" because they are living examples of it.


Romeo and Juliet, when properly taught, is a good illustration of the concept of the tragic loss of innocence.

The Big Chill is another version, albeit with an older ensemble cast with no hero, who are thrown into confusion when one of their group commits suicide because he (apparently--no note was left) couldn't make the transition to face the often brutal realities of adulthood. Again, youth sacrificed on the alter of adulthood.

From Breakfast Club: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sxdm...

"When you grow up, your heart dies" (Allison)
"Who cares?" (Bender)
"I care" (Allison)

Bender, who never had a childhood and thus represents "adult" vlaues, doesn't care.
Allison announces her innocence by saying, "I care."






... and bad symbolism."

I'm curious what symbolism you're disappointed by. Pls share.

[libby]

I did not like the symbolism with his hat or the names of characters. And obviously you are older than 30 so you are proving my point when I say people my age tend to not like this book because we have not lived out that period in our lives yet.

[Monty J]

Libby wrote: "I did not like the symbolism with his hat or the names of characters."

Actually, I feel the same way. I don't see the slightest symbolism in the red hat. It's just a way to have fun with something as functional as head protection during cold weather. It's probably something Salinger actually did as a kid at Valley Forge Military Academy, a gesture of defiance and independence or a way to get attention. It also serves as a gesture of intimacy when he and Phoebe swap it back and forth. There may be some significance to her slapping it back on him at the end, perhaps signifying he's been claimed as Phoebe's trophy for being rescued, but other than that, meh.

The only name of any significance to me is Ed Bankey, who could be named after WWII hero Ernest Bankey who became Ace-in-a-day during the Battle of the Bulge in which Salinger fought. Holden could mean anything you want it to mean.

Phoebe's just a name. As is Sunny. Allie, etc.

Most of this symbolism stuff is made up by reviewers.

I think the ducks are significant, but that's covered under a separate topic already.

[Petergiaquinta]

Monty J wrote: "Phoebe's just a name. As is Sunny..."

Ah, but Phoebe and Sunny are the same name, aren't they? Here's some genius, innit? The young prostitute is just another example of the tarnished innocence that Holden would like to protect, and seeing her with a variant name of his own precious sister makes it even more awful for him.

[Lee]

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..."

Catcher in the Rye. Tried to read it again and ugh. Maybe you have to be the right age.

[Mochaspresso]

Monty J wrote: "Actually, I feel the same way. I don't see the slightest symbolism in the red hat. It's just a way to have fun with something as functional as head protection during cold weather. It's probably something Salinger actually did as a kid at Valley Forge Military Academy, a gesture of defiance and independence or a way to get attention. It also serves as a gesture of intimacy when he and Phoebe swap it back and forth. There may be some significance to her slapping it back on him at the end, perhaps signifying he's been claimed as Phoebe's trophy for being rescued, but other than that, meh.


Personally, I saw the hat as sort of a "security blanket". I don't know if it has absolutely no meaning. It comes up quite a bit.

Speaking of the hat and out of curiosity, have you seen "Six Degrees of Separation"? Do you feel that any of the infamous monologue about Holden's hat has any merit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arPhz...

[Petergiaquinta]

The hat's all full of signficance. Perhaps it gets tiring to kids to have boring teachers going over it again and again and again, but christ, if they paid attention the first time teachers wouldn't have to repeat themselves so much.

It's red. It's backwards. It's a people hunting hat...

Mocha's right; it's a security blanket of sorts. It's also a reminder of Allie and his red hair. And Holden wears it as a sort of talisman.

It's red and backwards. Both are signs of rebellion, revolt.

But none of that matters as much to me as the connection to Holden being a "catcher." He's got the glove. And he's got the hat. And the catcher is the only one on the team who wears it backwards.

Me, I like that kind of stuff...

[Monty J]

Lee wrote: "Catcher in the Rye. Tried to read it again and ugh. Maybe you have to be the right age."

This may help: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "The hat's all full of signficance. Perhaps it gets tiring to kids to have boring teachers going over it again and again and again, but christ, if they paid attention the first time teachers wouldn'..."


Thanks. This is good stuff. I shared some of it in my Salinger blog for the others in Web-land:
http://jdsalinger-heying.blogspot.com...

[Monty J]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Speaking of the hat and out of curiosity, have you seen "Six Degrees of Separation"? Do you feel that any of the infamous monologue about Holden's hat has any merit?"


Thanks for reminding me of this clip. I had seen it a couple of years ago. Now it seems much more meaningful for some reason. It's quite deep. I think it has merit, but it's a question of interpretation. I'll have to study it more depth. Will Smith was great.

(I've added it to my growing Salinger blog.)

[Donna]

iTHINK MOBY DICK NEEDED SOME EDITING.The message is lost in all the "how to process a whale and rigging information" in most of the book. The ending is great though!

[Karen]

Donna wrote: "iTHINK MOBY DICK NEEDED SOME EDITING.The message is lost in all the "how to process a whale and rigging information" in most of the book. The ending is great though!"

But isn't that how the author intended it to be? I haven't read it, it's a big investment to read I think- I am just familiar with it because it's my husbands favorite.

[Gary]

Karen wrote: "But isn't that how the author intended it to be? I haven't read it, it's a big investment to read I think- I am just familiar with it because it's my husbands favorite."

Absolutely right... but a lot of folks find it hard to digest these days. For a long time novels "painted a picture" for the reader, and that was one of Melville's strengths. Writing in general was meant to be definitive. If we consider the size and breadth of 18-19th century books (not just novels) a lot of the appeal came with length and detail. Novels have moved on since then. Books can be of the same length or even longer, but it's all about action, action, action now.

So, when reading Moby Dick and encountering Chapter 32: Cetology in which the author gives us more than 5,000 words on why whales are really fish not mammals, a reader is meant to realize that this is funny, and it is--if one recognizes it for what it is. However, it doesn't move the plot along in any way. It gives us some characterization about Ishmael's intellectual processes and a bit of nice irony, but the story actually stops dead in that chapter.

And it's 5,000+ words! That's an awful long joke. It needs to be in there to get a sense of the time in which it was written, but I don't think it would survive a blue pencil these days. One has to have a sense of the period as much as the characters to get it--and that's increasingly rare.

[Gary]

Karen wrote: "It is rare, but why I wonder- I love to know about the time periods in books- how can one read effectively if this isn't done? Our knowledge of history isn't as important any more."

At a certain point, I think English Literature and History blend together into one process. Of course, I was a double major in college, English and History, so I'm probably suffering from a bit of perspective bias. Some folks might just call that Art/Literary History, or a branch of the Humanities, but I think it's independent of any existing field.

If I were to outline it as a course of study, I'd probably do it with a set of courses that mirrored History and English Lit classes, but the reading list would start with a history book and then progress to a novel or two on the same period. So, a class would start with a history text on a subject and then a novel or two; one from that period, another a contemporary historical novel set in that period.

But a reading of history is vital. I don't think one has to be an expert on the Age of Sail to read Patrick O'Brian, but one has to have some sort of background in the period to fully appreciate his work.

[Renee E]

History tells us what was happening.

Literature allows us a window into what people thought and felt. And maybe what really happened sometimes. There are times when you can tell the truth with any hope of impunity only through fiction.

[Kallie]

Karen wrote: "Gary wrote;
"And it's 5,000+ words! That's an awful long joke. It needs to be in there to get a sense of the time in which it was written, but I don't think it would survive a blue pencil these day..."

I agree. Narrative is not such a fragile form; it can include history, then we go back to story. I am speaking as a reader who generally reads a number of books at one time, dipping here and there unless some narrative or other compels me to finish it first (I don't think that means it's the best book of the lot). That may not be the optimum way to read, but who decides?

[Monty J]

Renee wrote: "There are times when you can tell the truth with any hope of impunity only through fiction."


Bravo!

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Renee wrote: "There are times when you can tell the truth with any hope of impunity only through fiction."


Bravo!"

I hope we always have that hope. It did not exist in Stalinist Russia. All Mandelstam had to do to be on the wanted list was read an unflattering poem out loud. They destroyed him.

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Renee wrote: "There are times when you can tell the truth with any hope of impunity only through fiction."


Bravo!"

I hope we always have that hope. It did not exist in Stalinist ..."

Curiously, Khrushchev allowed Solzhenitsyn to publish One Day in the Live of Ivan Dennisovich. Why? Because it shows how work/labor lifts the spirit in the worst conditions. What a book! What a testament to human endurance. Truth no history book dared dispute!