Overrated books/authors

Hermy

Earthhorse wrote: »

Another I would agree with. Not as bad as the others, not even bad at all actually, just not a masterpiece, classic or other superlative.

Certainly not a bad book but just not as good as the hype that surrounds it might otherwise suggest.

Seonad

Notorious wrote: »

I think Heller's Catch-22 is massively overrated. I couldn't understand the hype behind it at all and it's one of the few books I started to read that I never finished. I thought it was boring and the odd characters didn't interest me in the slightest.

I think we need to talk...

DublinWriter

I'll go completely out on a limb here and say James Joyce's Finnegans Wake.

Now, I love everything Joyce up to that book, and I've even read Ulysses cover-to-cover, but I think FW is the greatest load of self-indulgence ever created by any author.

It's a feckin' crossword puzzle about 10 miles by 8 miles long in size. I suspect the only people who like FW do so out of the smug self-satisfaction they must feel from decoding the obscure and hidden references.

zenmonk

Anna Karenina - by Tolstoy ...yawn.

Saturday by Ian Mc Ewan...yawn yawn

Lollymcd

Alice Seabold
Mitch Albom

Holmer

Michel Houllebecq-platform
Dreariest book ever written by man or woman

L1984

Denerick wrote: »

I love Lord of the Rings with a passion only an anorak nerd can sympathise with (re-read the trilogy recently) but I do agree somewhat with your opinion of the hobbit. People have to remember that its a childrens book, and therefore rather limited.

Is it really for kids? I heard somewhere that Tolkein wrote it for his son/s but always thought it was a bit of an urban myth.

Just thought of another one, Prozac Nation. Not my thing at all. Maybe I'm being harsh but I thought it was self-righteous nonsense.

jaffa20

Lollymcd wrote: »

Alice Seabold

:eek:

The lovely bones is one of my favourite books.

FloatingVoter

jaffa20 wrote: »

:eek:

The lovely bones is one of my favourite books.

Then do yourself a favour and don't see the movie. How the hell you turn a dark story like that into a sugar and spice fairytale is beyond me but Peter Jackson manages it.

Eliot Rosewater

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'll go completely out on a limb here and say James Joyce's Finnegans Wake.

There can often a discrepancy between how good the reader thought the book was and how good it really is. You didn't think Finnegans Wake was good because (by your own admission) you didn't understand it. Scholars who have studied it think its amazing because they get it all. Clearly your perception of the novel, and a scholars perception of the novel, are quite different.

This causes problems in the overrated discussions because many of the books listed aren't included because they are bad; they are included because the reader couldn't see how they were good. The Great Gatsby is one such book. I didnt enjoy the book one bit. However I dont consider it overrated because having read articles and intros on it it clearly went right over my head.

That is why I always try to make a difference between "I think that book is bad" and "I didn't enjoy that book." They are two different statements, and I think one should reserve the former solely for books one has felt one completely understood. I think Dracula is bad; I didn't enjoy the Great Gatsby. A key difference (let us christen it The Rosewater Differential).


Lay readers of Ulysses are a classic example of readers (imo) who do not enjoy the book but feel compelled by society to pretend they thought it was great (I dont think DublinWriter is like that btw). I was talking to someone who said that they didnt understand the second half whatsoever but that its still great. Clearly they feel the need to praise it lest they be attacked for being stupid. However in that position I would say that "from what I hear the book is great but I personally didnt enjoy it." Theres nothing wrong with admitting you didnt understand a book.

not bakunin

Hermy wrote: »

I've read The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald once and I fail to see why it is so highly regarded.
Has anyone else thought so too only to change their mind on rereading it?

I had also wondered about Fitzgerald's reputation as a writer
after reading The Great Gatsby. I found it a great read, but not particularly lasting. Bear in mind that this is the book that Hunter S Thompson would type out on a typewriter over and over as a copyboy for Time magazine so as to learn the correct way to write.
But then I read Tender is the Night...a truly brilliant and beautiful book.

Denerick

Tender is the Night? Really? I thought it was a bit of a yawnfest (Though it had enough saving graces to keep me interested)

The Great Gatsby is a powerful satire, but is only as popular as it is because its a slim book. This might sound ridiculous, but I honest feel thats one of the main reasons why its so popular. Its like a stock satire (The satire is fairly obvious) and its small; hence its very popular (And in nearly every US secondary level curriculum)

I thought it was great, just for the record

Lollymcd

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Then do yourself a favour and don't see the movie. How the hell you turn a dark story like that into a sugar and spice fairytale is beyond me but Peter Jackson manages it.

Eeeek! I'm sorry! Too sentimental for me! Movie does look awful though

starn

Paulo Coelho
J. R. R. Tolkien
Terry Pratchett

Chinafoot

Ann Enright - The Gathering.

Greatest load of woe-is-me, self-indulgent twaddle I've ever read in my life. It was a chore to finish it.

mrsdewinter

Labyrinth, by Kate Mosse. The historical stuff is alright - much better than the completely forgettable contemporary subplot - but it has no more literary merit than the second-rate stuff I used to pick up as a teenager in the mobile library at home 20+ years ago.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That is why I always try to make a difference between "I think that book is bad" and "I didn't enjoy that book." They are two different statements, and I think one should reserve the former solely for books one has felt one completely understood. I think Dracula is bad; I didn't enjoy the Great Gatsby. A key difference (let us christen it The Rosewater Differential).

I disagree. For starters, how can one know, or "feel", whether one has completely understood a book or not? You can only really know when you haven't understood something.

This causes problems in the overrated discussions because many of the books listed aren't included because they are bad; they are included because the reader couldn't see how they were good.

No. They are included in the thread because they are overrated, or considered overrated by some contributors to the thread. A book doesn't have to be bad to be overrated, they're entirely different things.

The Great Gatsby is one such book. I didnt enjoy the book one bit. However I dont consider it overrated because having read articles and intros on it it clearly went right over my head.

Doesn't the fact that you had to read articles explaining to you why the book was so great say something about some deficiency in the work itself? Did reading these articles inspire you to reread it and, if so, did you then reevaluate your opinion of it?

I was talking to someone who said that they didnt understand the second half whatsoever but that its still great. Clearly they feel the need to praise it lest they be attacked for being stupid.

Not necessarily. I didn't understand most of David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. Not only for its aesthetics but in part because the narrative and theme is difficult to follow, which created an atmosphere of mystery in the piece. Indeed, it could be said that my lack of understanding contributed to my enjoyment of the work.

However in that position I would say that "from what I hear the book is great but I personally didnt enjoy it." Theres nothing wrong with admitting you didnt understand a book.

Nope. Nor is there anything wrong with criticising a book for being obtuse or opaque, for being purposefully difficult or for underplaying it's theme to the point where it goes unnoticed. These are valid criteria by which we can also judge a work.

Damian Duffy

sceptre wrote: »

Aside, McCarthy's The Road is horribly over-rated. I blame Oprah as she's a convenient scapegoat.

No, just no. That is a stunningly well written book and I'm not one of these people who know McCarthy from this book alone and the film adaptation of No Country For Old Men. I have read all ten of his books and his play The Sunset Limited and although this book is alot less dense compared to previous works like Suttree, it is nonetheless a fantastic book. Each to his own though and your perfectly entitled to your opinion.

I could not agree more about Cecilia Aherne et al and I'm delighted you told that woman in the book shop how you felt ( although it's a very very snobby thing to do!) but as you said, you can't convert those sort of people into big readers of literature, if those books (Dan Brown etc) didn't exist they just wouldn't read at all.

Have you ever just looked at the top ten in Easons etc at any given time? It's a disgrace!

Eliot Rosewater

Earthhorse wrote: »

I disagree. For starters, how can one know, or "feel", whether one has completely understood a book or not?

A very good question. Generally if a book was hailed as great by so many, and I found nothing in it, I would assume my interpretation skills weren't sharp enough. "Getting" a book can be a tough task, and it requires a bit of thought and reflection. We are usually trained to read books from start to finish, but the ideal way to read would be to pause at the end of every chapter and ask "why was that chapter included?"

Although bowing to the pressure of commending books even if one didn't enjoy them is something I criticized, I suppose I suffer from it a bit myself.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that you had to read articles explaining to you why the book was so great say something about some deficiency in the work itself? Did reading these articles inspire you to reread it and, if so, did you then reevaluate your opinion of it?

Thats a question of accessibility, and accessibility is something I do commend. The Gatsby issue is solely mine though; I read it a month or two after starting to read "proper" books so I wasn't in a position to understand it. Yes, I will reread it (havent yet) as will I reread other books I felt I didnt get such as Huck Finn at a later date.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Nor is there anything wrong with criticising a book for being obtuse or opaque, for being purposefully difficult or for underplaying it's theme to the point where it goes unnoticed. These are valid criteria by which we can also judge a work.

I agree. I think though that one should be specific in ones criticism. I dont often hear people giving out about accessibility; usually they just criticize the book as a whole.

RonMexico

A.S. Byatt - Possession.

A self-indulgent heap of excrement. Awful smaltzy predictable tripe. Then they made it into a film with Gweneth Paltrow. Another reason to hate it.

Denerick

I think Elliot has a point here. We could, for example, be incapable of grasping some of the very finest works of literature in human history if we were completely ignorant of the cultural context or the political cradle in which the book was created. Sometimes interpretation relies on a high level of contextual understanding. Literature is all about concept, history is all about context. I think when the two combine something magical happens However, too often people complain about a book because they didn't get references that (Would have been obvious) if you were alive in the 1920s. The book isn't any weaker as a result of this. And neither does it reflect badly on the reader, because not everyone should be expected to be well versed in whatever period their literature comes from!

DarkRaven

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I've only read the Fountainhead, but I find it interesting you say she's does things you've been told not to do. Isn't that part of her point, that to be an individual means doing what you want, if you think thats what you need to do? So what if she breaks the rules someone's taught you, as long as the work stands on it's own merit?

I was taught not to do those for a reason. People don't like reading sixty pages of exposition or indepth views into character's morals and sexualities. It doesn't make for an interesting read.

So yes, generally if you fill your book with huge infodumps, be prepared for a low readership.

I don't think her views are insane either, just outdated and formed in a time when totalitarian forces were destroying her homeland and most of Europe. You have to remember what she would have experienced fleeing from St. Petersburg as a teenager to understand where she's coming from.

I actually agree with you there. At the same time I just didn't buy them.

buck65

Earthhorse wrote: »

But to make my own contribution to this thread I read John Kennedy Toole's "A Confederacy of Dunces" last year and spent the entire time wondering where this satirical masterpiece I'd been promised had vanished to. If I was a publisher and the manuscript had been submitted to me, I'd have rejected it too.

Now that is just wrong!
That was a great book , hilarious, nail on the head so often Duncan Stewart could have written it.

Amazotheamazing

DarkRaven wrote: »

I was taught not to do those for a reason. People don't like reading sixty pages of exposition or indepth views into character's morals and sexualities. It doesn't make for an interesting read.

So yes, generally if you fill your book with huge infodumps, be prepared for a low readership.

So what? You create the work you want to create, not the work that you think will sell, surely? If you want to sell loads then just copy and paste from Dan Brown or John Grisham, does anyone really consider their work "literature"?

Rand, like her not, had an ideal and followed it through, I doubt she was overly worried if her work was commercial or not.

Course, I don't mean all literature need be uncommercial, I mean you should write what you have to write as a writer, and not what someone told you write or told you will sell. All the better if it sells loads and makes you rich and famous, but that shouldn't be the driving force behind it.

DarkRaven

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

So what? You create the work you want to create, not the work that you think will sell, surely? If you want to sell loads then just copy and paste from Dan Brown or John Grisham, does anyone really consider their work "literature"?

Rand, like her not, had an ideal and followed it through, I doubt she was overly worried if her work was commercial or not.

Course, I don't mean all literature need be uncommercial, I mean you should write what you have to write as a writer, and not what someone told you write or told you will sell. All the better if it sells loads and makes you rich and famous, but that shouldn't be the driving force behind it.

Hey wait up a second. I'm not a commercial writer at all. I only write webnovels for fun to pass time when I'm in college. That said, despite the fact that I'm a webnovel author, I want to make my work legible.

And you are wrong to suppose that all authors that don't use massive infodumps are quality authors. In fact, the majority of the worst authors are guilty of this. Most of my favourite authors - George Orwell John McGahern George R.R. Martin to name but were extremely cautious when using exposition.

Dan Brown's Da Vinci code was atrociously researched, written and ultimately boring. He was also guilty of the exact same crime, infodumping, though to a lesser extent. I did find that he lost track of what story he was telling from time to time. One minute he was in a car chase in Paris, another he was lecturing in the US.

There is no point in telling a story if it's not going to be read. It does not have to be for profit - in my case I write webnovels for free - but if you don't want people to read it then why write it?

Dan Brown is a bad author. But Martin, Orwell and McGahern all are. What is your point?

Amazotheamazing

DarkRaven wrote: »

Hey wait up a second. I'm not a commercial writer at all. I only write webnovels for fun to pass time when I'm in college. That said, despite the fact that I'm a webnovel author, I want to make my work legible.

And you are wrong to suppose that all authors that don't use massive infodumps are quality authors. In fact, the majority of the worst authors are guilty of this. Most of my favourite authors - George Orwell John McGahern George R.R. Martin to name but were extremely cautious when using exposition.

Dan Brown's Da Vinci code was atrociously researched, written and ultimately boring. He was also guilty of the exact same crime, infodumping, though to a lesser extent. I did find that he lost track of what story he was telling from time to time. One minute he was in a car chase in Paris, another he was lecturing in the US.

There is no point in telling a story if it's not going to be read. It does not have to be for profit - in my case I write webnovels for free - but if you don't want people to read it then why write it?

Dan Brown is a bad author. But Martin, Orwell and McGahern all are. What is your point?

You're missing my point, I'm saying you shouldn't follow a set number of rules if you're a writer. You should write what you have to write and don't worry if it breaks the conventions.

Were I to write, it wouldn't be because I'm desperate to be read, it would be because i simply had to write something. if people wanted to publish it and it was read, great, but my only drive would be to write what i had to write. Or, i would consciously copy and paste off Browne and hope to make millions under a false name...

All these terms like "info-dumps" mean nothing. if, in your opinion, it's important to the writing put it in and let the reader use their own discernment about whether you're worth reading or not.

Eliot Rosewater

Of course you can write how you want. However thats not saying its going to be good or well written. These rules and conventions are there for a reason. Certain tactics in writing work, others don't.

Ayn Rand is, in my opinion, just self-indulgent. The Fountainheads like, 650 pages? And its basically the same thing over and over again. I am a liberal so I was looking for something that I could connect with. But being honest there were only a handful of passages that were anyway "profound". The rest was just repeating the point over and over again, literary fluff.

Contrast that to other books which have said a lot more in a lot less words.

Rand's not a good author. Shes just popular because there are a lot of people who agree with her views, especially on the Internet.

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

you should write what you have to write as a writer, and not what someone told you write or told you will sell.

Basic literary techniques such as conciseness and avoiding repetition aren't there to sell anything. Those rules are there to make the work better.

Hrududu

I disagree with the OP about McEwan. He gets inside people's heads like nobody I've read in ages. There were parts of Atonement where he absolutely nailed things about childhood that I had felt as a child and had never been able to put into words.

I think J.D. Sallinger is very overrated. Catcher in the Rye just did not do it for me. I read it as a teenager and years later I decided to give it another go, just to see if the years did anything for me. I came away disliking it more than I had the first time. I just don't see the appeal.

I haven't read Posession, but The Children's Book by A.S. Byatt was unbelievably self indulgent.

diddlybit

Holmer wrote: »

Michel Houllebecq-platform
Dreariest book ever written by man or woman

You think? I don't think it was his worst, but then I have a particular fondness for Atomised. "The Possibility of an Island" is a car wreck of a novel...

Must agree with everyone's view of "On the Road". I couldn't even finish it. And along the same lines of Kerouac's self-indulgent masculinist twaddle, one of the most over rated authors has to be...

...Phillip Roth.

If I wanted an insight into a crisis of masculinity, all I need to do is go to the pub on a Saturday night