Most overrated books

[tomwaits]

Inspired by a similar thread...

"Stranger in a Strange Land" for reasons I have explained in the books thread.

After reading "Foucault's Pendulum" and absolutely loving it, I was recommended by many to "The Illuminatus! Trilogy", which I read all the way through and hated every minute. Not funny, not interesting, no reason to like it whatsoever.

"Ringworld" was a load of crap. There I said it.

[LibraryLady]

Well, of course the champion of this thread would have to be The Da Vinci Code.

[tomwaits]

Well, of course the champion of this thread would have to be The Da Vinci Code.

Of course. I was considering putting that, but since so many people on this board agree that it was bad, it would just be redundant.

[Piscivore]

After reading "Foucault's Pendulum" and absolutely loving it, I was recommended by many to "The Illuminatus! Trilogy", which I read all the way through and hated every minute. Not funny, not interesting, no reason to like it whatsoever.
I loved it. Of course, I'm insane, so that probably helps.

"Ringworld" was a load of crap. There I said it.
I remember enjoying this one too. maybe its time for a reread. I might have enjoyed the idea of the ringworld more than the actual story- although as an alien species the Piersons's Puppeteer is unique.

The lord and emperor of all overrated books is "Bridges of Madison County"- Of course, I've not read "Twilight" yet.

[cj.23]

I suspected someone would mention The Illuminatus Trilogy. I read it aged 13 and adored it - now I find it unreadable, but still fun. It introduced me to some very interesting ideas, and a passionate love of sixties counter culture and conspiracy theory, as i tried to grok the authors cultural millieu. :) For me it's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, which I read at the same age. :( The only Heinlein I ever enjoyed was Job: A comedy of justice. I think anything by Dickens after his wonderful Pickwick Papers disappointed me too, and I could never get in to Doestoevsky.

cj x

[Susan Gerbic]

The lord and emperor of all overrated books is "Bridges of Madison County"- Of course, I've not read "Twilight" yet.

I loved this movie (Bridges) probably won't ever watch it again in the near future. But I would suppose the book would be even better. The idea of old people falling in love, and having great sex. That is so wonderful (I'm not old yet so I want to think this can happen)

The idea that the children learn about their mom in a new way, like she is a real person, and then it changes their relationships. That was really moving, and it made me really rethink how I see the elderly.

Susan

[Piscivore]

I loved this movie (Bridges) probably won't ever watch it again in the near future. But I would suppose the book would be even better. The idea of old people falling in love, and having great sex. That is so wonderful (I'm not old yet so I want to think this can happen)

The idea that the children learn about their mom in a new way, like she is a real person, and then it changes their relationships. That was really moving, and it made me really rethink how I see the elderly.

Susan

I will confess I never got past the second chapter. The photographer character was such a transparent, egregious and outrageously flawless Mary Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue) author surrogate that I threw the book down and wondered why, amongst all the praise he'd already heaped upon the man, the author failed to mention the angels that had surely heralded his birth. Seriously, the dude was obviously the person Waller imagined himself to be in his dearest mastabatory fantasies.

Pardon my French.

[Miss_Kitt]

Most overrated book? I have two candidates:

The Great Gatsby -- Why are we forced to read this? It's not particularly interesting, well-written, or thought-provoking. I think perhaps that it became "the great American Novel" because it says wealth is bad, ambition is bad, America is bad, which worked well with the romantic attachment literati of the era had for Communism.

More recent vintage, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. (shudder)

I think neither Bridges nor Da Vinci qualify, because while they were / are wildly popular, they are also acknowledged to be devoid of any literary value.

Just my thoughts, MK

[Kariboo]

Dune....
I struggled through 4 books of it falling asleep after every 3 pages (I read in bed, it took me a while to get through them). Bo-ring to the nth degree.

My husband loves them though. so wrapped an waiting for Christmas is Paul of Dune. I am a good wife....

[Foolmewunz]

Ken Kesey's other book. You know. The one that wasn't One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It was right there in the bookstores, always next to OFOTCN, and believing that good authors continuously wrote good books*, I tried. Lawd knows I tried. I couldn't get past thirty pages - it just didn't seem to go anywhere.

And now, I can't re-read Cuckoo's Nest because Jack Nicholson just chewed up the scenery so much that he'll forever be the character, now. Thanks, Jack - ya frakkin' ham!

*A notion which 40 years later I still find difficult to disabuse myself from.

[tyr_13]

Ragtime. I'm sorry, perhaps I'm just too young, but it had nothing meaningful to say to me. In fact, I was let down by a lot of 'literary' books that were supposed to be amazing. To me, they boiled down to not flawed people making their ways through the world, but stupid, hateful people making their ways through the world.

Also, anything by Bukowski. Seriously, I've only read three of them, but still.

[JamesDillon]

I definitely agree with Illuminatus and Lord of the Rings. Also I'm not sure if this counts as a "book," but having just finished it and being sorely disappointed, I would add Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Kariboo-- I tell everyone to stop reading Dune after the first book, which I thought was brilliant. It's all downhill from there, unfortunately.

[Wowbagger]

Well, of course the champion of this thread would have to be The Da Vinci Code.
Well, I actually liked The Da Vinci Code. One of the few totally fictional consipracy stories I found compelling to enough to want to turn the pages.

[a_unique_person]

Most overrated book? I have two candidates:

The Great Gatsby -- Why are we forced to read this? It's not particularly interesting, well-written, or thought-provoking. I think perhaps that it became "the great American Novel" because it says wealth is bad, ambition is bad, America is bad, which worked well with the romantic attachment literati of the era had for Communism.

I just re-read it, and loved it. It's a great evocation of unrequited love, and a good comment on the "American Dream".

[a_unique_person]

I will confess I never got past the second chapter. The photographer character was such a transparent, egregious and outrageously flawless Mary Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue) author surrogate that I threw the book down and wondered why, amongst all the praise he'd already heaped upon the man, the author failed to mention the angels that had surely heralded his birth. Seriously, the dude was obviously the person Waller imagined himself to be in his dearest mastabatory fantasies.

Pardon my French.

Now I know what to describe the main character Chrichton created in "State of Fear". I don't know how badly rated "State of Fear" is. I just assumed most people would hate it, especially the repeated, laugh out loud escapes from certain death. All they did was remind me of "Austin Powers", when Dr Evil's son says "just let me shoot him, dad".

[Seanette]

I'd have to agree on Lord of the Rings. Tolkein's writing style makes a great soporific for me.

OTOH, I still like Heinlein.

There are several books I had to read in school that I might well have quite enjoyed had I read them on my own, but having to sit through class and have the teacher finding all sorts of "important" "deep" "symbolism" that the author probably didn't intend to put there in the first place ruined them for me. I'm now middle-aged and still have to suppress nausea at the prospect of re-reading Brave New World or Lord of the Flies, for example. Why can't one just enjoy the story without playing dissection games that amount to intellectual masturbation?

[Sefarst]

Kariboo-- I tell everyone to stop reading Dune after the first book, which I thought was brilliant. It's all downhill from there, unfortunately.

I vehemently disagree. God Emperor of Dune will always hold a special place in heart as one of my favorite books.

[gumboot]

Eragon. I had it sold to be as this amazing new fantasy work from a most phenomenally gifted young writer.

It's the worst book I ever read. Period.

A notable second place to The Handmaid's Tale which is allegedly a classic or something. Awful nonsense book. I don't think the author likes men very much... ;)

[Piscivore]

A notable second place to The Handmaid's Tale which is allegedly a classic or something. Awful nonsense book. I don't think the author likes men very much... ;)

I love that one too. I've read it three times now.

[Dunstan]

Moby Dick.

Could not get through whichever chapter it was that expounded on 501 uses for whale oil. Perhaps there was something useful after that, but I figure any author who wasted my time with that crap didn't have much respect for his readers.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Most overrated book? I have two candidates:

The Great Gatsby -- Why are we forced to read this? It's not particularly interesting, well-written, or thought-provoking. I think perhaps that it became "the great American Novel" because it says wealth is bad, ambition is bad, America is bad, which worked well with the romantic attachment literati of the era had for Communism.

More recent vintage, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. (shudder)

I think neither Bridges nor Da Vinci qualify, because while they were / are wildly popular, they are also acknowledged to be devoid of any literary value.

Just my thoughts, MK

You are speaking blasphemy.

Not well-written?! Fitzgerald is a master of the written word. The last time I read it, I found myself reading sentences time and time again for their sheer wonderfulness. It's poetry, the way he can spin something so beautiful out of a description of something as mundane as a garden party.

It's an amazing book. I like it more and more every time I read it and find something entirely new in it in every reading.

The last time, what I found most affecting was the portrait of a good and very decent person among a group of empty people. Nick Carraway must have been quite alot like Fitzgerald himself: enormously intelligent, perceptive and sensitive young man from the Mid-West stranded among party animals, airheads and some very strange characters. Part of their world and a guest at their dances and parties but the only person at the bar or the cocktail party with irony, wit, perspective and the ability to see things as they actually are.

At the moment, I cannot think of any overrated books. Besides The DaVinci Code, which is terrible but somehow got a glowing review from The NY Times and the opinion that it was a great novel from everyone in world but me and Roger Ebert.

I shall report back as soon as I can think of an overrated book. :D

[hgc]

I'd have to agree on Lord of the Rings. Tolkein's writing style makes a great soporific for me.

OTOH, I still like Heinlein.

There are several books I had to read in school that I might well have quite enjoyed had I read them on my own, but having to sit through class and have the teacher finding all sorts of "important" "deep" "symbolism" that the author probably didn't intend to put there in the first place ruined them for me. I'm now middle-aged and still have to suppress nausea at the prospect of re-reading Brave New World or Lord of the Flies, for example. Why can't one just enjoy the story without playing dissection games that amount to intellectual masturbation?


I'm re-reading Brave New World right now. It is quite good, and not overrated. It may seem a little dated and cliched, but that's mostly because you've been bombarded with copycat stories in books and movies all your life.

[a_unique_person]

Can this thread include least deserving Pulitzer Prize Winners? I have to nominate "Tales of the South Pacific". The writing is poor, the characters two dimensional.

[Madouc]

I guess the "Da Vinci Code" would qualify as vastly overrated because there are folk out there that think it's a literary masterpiece and iconoclastic expose of the Church. It's neither of these things, but it's a jolly good thriller and airport novel - fast moving, punchy, short chapters that always end on a cliffhanger, a fairly original plotline for the genre...

The book I hold up as my standard for Overrated Literature is "Zorba the Greek". I purchased this on holiday on a Greek beach. My travelling companion had raved about its genius and life changing perspective and I was terribly excited to be reading it actually in the country of its inspiration. It took me nearly a year to crawl through it - horrible misogynistic pile of poorly paced crap that glorifies intellectual masturbation and apathy. HATE.

[Normal Dude]

Wrath of God by Gleason.

OK, it isn't so much over-rated critically, though it received many favorable author endorsements that it didn't deserve.

It is set in a post-apocalyptic United States where a modern Genghis Khan is sweeping over the country. So a Native American shaman travels back in time to bring Stonewall Jackson, George Patton, Amelia Earhart, and a triceratops together to defeat him.

I'll let that sink in a bit.

As an Amazon reviewer put it, it's like a serious version of Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure. All of the characters are 2D cutouts, and more time is spent describing torture and rape than is spent describing the scenery and the characters reactions to being suddenly sucked into another reality with people from different centuries.

[Wowbagger]

Eragon. I had it sold to be as this amazing new fantasy work from a most phenomenally gifted young writer.

It's the worst book I ever read. Period.What... you don't like Star Wars?!!

[quarky]

Silas Marner, because I was forced to read it in 9th grade.

and, The Bible. (Too long)

[Bikewer]

All those "classics" we were required to read in school were tedious. Silas Marner, The Scarlet Letter, Heart of Darkness.... Hand me my H.G. Wells, please. (or Robert E. Howard)

For the most part, I simply don't read the current stuff they define as "literature". Who wants another "coming of age" story? We all did that...

I will argue for Ringworld; I've always liked Niven's stuff. Ringworld was quite clever. I liked at least the first 3 Dune novels; after that I thought he was stretching. The first one was very good. (though Herbert"s writing style is a bit odd)
Likewise LOTR. First read that sitting on a mountainside in Norway. Have re-read the entire trilogy many times since. (that was 1965)
Never looses it's charm.
Since I read mostly science-fiction, I'd have two in the over-rated category.
1. Dhalgren by Samuel Delaney. I read that and said, "what?"

2. Androids. Dick has written some nice stuff, but I've chewed my way through this twice and it continues to elude me.

[Piscivore]

The book I hold up as my standard for Overrated Literature is "Zorba the Greek". I purchased this on holiday on a Greek beach. My travelling companion had raved about its genius and life changing perspective and I was terribly excited to be reading it actually in the country of its inspiration. It took me nearly a year to crawl through it - horrible misogynistic pile of poorly paced crap that glorifies intellectual masturbation and apathy. HATE.

Wow, I've read it a couple of time, albeit not recently, but I'd say that the entire point of the book is condemning intellectual masturbation and apathy. As for the misogyny, at first blush Zorba is overtly the most patriarchal, but who is it that tendery cares for the old widow as she's dying and who is it that treats the women in his life like human beings- compared to the POV character, who puts them on a pedestal?

[tyr_13]

I'd have to agree on Lord of the Rings. Tolkein's writing style makes a great soporific for me.

OTOH, I still like Heinlein.

There are several books I had to read in school that I might well have quite enjoyed had I read them on my own, but having to sit through class and have the teacher finding all sorts of "important" "deep" "symbolism" that the author probably didn't intend to put there in the first place ruined them for me. I'm now middle-aged and still have to suppress nausea at the prospect of re-reading Brave New World or Lord of the Flies, for example. Why can't one just enjoy the story without playing dissection games that amount to intellectual masturbation?

I HATED Lord of the Flies. It was so, hamfisted and transparent.

The Left Hand of Darkness was supposed to be 'good sci-fi' but it wasn't at all. Sure there were some deep character interactions, but it was more like magical realism than sci-fi.

Speaking of magical realism, has anyone else read Like Water For Chocolate? I'll have to say I enjoyed the ending because I read it as a satirical slap in the face for people who bought too much into the rest of the silly girl-fantasy piece.

On the topic of dumb coming of age stories, A Separate Peace. *shudder*

[gdnp]

Dune....
I struggled through 4 books of it falling asleep after every 3 pages (I read in bed, it took me a while to get through them). Bo-ring to the nth degree.

My husband loves them though. so wrapped an waiting for Christmas is Paul of Dune. I am a good wife....
I thought the first book was decent, but it was down hill from there. I gave up at God-Emperor of Dune, which I could barely finish.

I vehemently disagree. God Emperor of Dune will always hold a special place in heart as one of my favorite books.

This line from the Wikipedia entry sums it up for me:

Stylistically, the novel is permeated by quotations from, and speeches by its main character, Leto, to a degree unseen in any of the other Dune novels.
It was 25+ years ago, but I just remember thinking "Isn't anything ever going to happen in this book?

The other science fiction author that has rarely failed to disappoint is Ann McCaffrey. Dragonriders of Pern was a decent story, but as she milked the premise the books got worse and worse.

Her book Dinosaur Planet was the low point (not of the dragonriders series). It was really half a book: the main characters are left frozen in suspended animation at the end, forcing you to buy Dinosaur Planet Survivors if you want to find out how it ends. I really didn't care, it was so poorly written.

As for overrated "great literature", I read the abridged Moby Dick and it was still way too long. I also pretty much hated everything I was forced to read by Thomas Hardy. Not so much poorly written as depressing as hell. Lighten up, dude. Does everything have to end badly?

Vanity Fair was so despised by my high school class we actually talked the teacher out of making us finish reading it.

[Cavemonster]

Put me down for Don Quixote.

It seemed to be written as a satire of it's time, and felt about as relevant as a Saturday Night Live sketch about Britney Spears will feel if watched 100 years from now.

[HistoryGal]

Can this thread include least deserving Pulitzer Prize Winners? I have to nominate "Tales of the South Pacific". The writing is poor, the characters two dimensional.

I liked Tales of the South Pacific, but, then, I like most of James Michener's books.

I'd nominate Confederacy of Dunces as the most overrated Pulitzer Prize winning book.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I admire Vanity Fair very much. Absolutely stinging and merciless satire of its times that's just as razor sharp today. I recommend reading something more cheerful afterwards, though, because the vision it has is so bleak and is so uncompromising about all its awful characters, it may make you despair for humankind.

Sense and Sensibility is an overrated novel by a great author. Not that it is bad; it's just that it's not as good as Pride and Prejudice and kinda falls apart past the second act. Doesn't measure up to the premise.

[Fiona]

Ken Kesey's other book. You know. The one that wasn't One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It was right there in the bookstores, always next to OFOTCN, and believing that good authors continuously wrote good books*, I tried. Lawd knows I tried. I couldn't get past thirty pages - it just didn't seem to go anywhere.

And now, I can't re-read Cuckoo's Nest because Jack Nicholson just chewed up the scenery so much that he'll forever be the character, now. Thanks, Jack - ya frakkin' ham!

*A notion which 40 years later I still find difficult to disabuse myself from.

I have to say that I think Sometimes a Great Notion is one of the best american books I have ever read. I think it a really great read

[Damien Evans]

The Hobbit.

I love LOTR, but The Hobbit is just too childish for me.

[Susan Gerbic]

Speaking of magical realism, has anyone else read Like Water For Chocolate? I'll have to say I enjoyed the ending because I read it as a satirical slap in the face for people who bought too much into the rest of the silly girl-fantasy piece.

Loved Like Water for Chocolate! Stupid story, stupid family, but well written, chocolate and erotic.

My family (my boys and I) love the Dune series, though the first book is the best and the rest fall off but are still good.

We also love the LOTR and The Hobbit. I have an illustrated book of the Hobbit with amazing drawings, I read that to my boys when they were young and have very good memories of doing it. Wish I had pictures of them sitting with me while we read it, I would like to remember how small they were at the time.

Hated ¨Mirror Mirror¨ and ¨Titus Alone¨ Both books are by successful authors who continued to write when they should have stopped.

Susan

[shadron]

I will confess I never got past the second chapter. The photographer character was such a transparent, egregious and outrageously flawless Mary Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue) author surrogate that I threw the book down and wondered why, amongst all the praise he'd already heaped upon the man, the author failed to mention the angels that had surely heralded his birth. Seriously, the dude was obviously the person Waller imagined himself to be in his dearest mastabatory fantasies.

Pardon my French.

You really liked it. You would have adored Love Story.

[Piscivore]

You really liked it. You would have adored Love Story.

Heh, I actually read that, many many years ago. Pure American cheese is all I remember.

[MostlyHarmless]

Ethan Frome, Ugghh! Had to read it in High School. Pure torture between two covers.

[billw]

Dickens Great Expectations. Absolutely deadly for the junior high school audience, except for a few cool things like the old wedding cake infested with spiders, beetles and fungus.

Dickens WAS reportedly paid by the word...

[Sefarst]

I thought the first book was decent, but it was down hill from there. I gave up at God-Emperor of Dune, which I could barely finish.

This line from the Wikipedia entry sums it up for me:

It was 25+ years ago, but I just remember thinking "Isn't anything ever going to happen in this book?

I was entranced by the idea of a VERY old, VERY wise being that was basically invulnerable to harm. Those sorts of characters appear in books all the time, but only interspersed as a means of guiding the main characters. I like the fact that it was told from his perspective and we really get an idea of the monotony and misery accompanied with being all-powerful and living forever (to an extent. He was basically the closest thing to a God in existence even if he wasn't truly all-powerful and eternal). The whole book is kind of a meditation on humanity from the perspective of someone who is no longer a part of it.

[Sefarst]

For me, I always thought Jane Austen was ridiculously overrated. What always bothered me about high school and college literature classes is that there's too much of a focus on older writings and sometimes it's as if they think nothing interesting or important could be contemporary. In the case of Jane Austen, I just couldn't get into the basic atmosphere of most of her book of stuffy Victorian England, going to balls, and gossipy people with inherited wealth sitting around their manors piddling their time away.

Edited for Austen.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Jane Austen is delightful. You don't know what you're missing.

Sadly, I never had to read her in high school.

We did have to read The Scarlet Letter, which no one but me liked.

[Madouc]

Argh, Recency England, not Victorian!

Piscivore - Maybe I need to reread "Zorba". I got the impression of endless reflections on Zorba's vivacity and lust for life, only for the narrator to go back to his old ways of sitting around with his thumb up his arse pretending to be a Buddha.

Oh, until he sleeps with the hot widow, who gets brutally murdered by some village redneck, but it's OK and they all become pals because they're embracing life, baby! Just, y'know, not the life of the brutally murdered widow.

[arthwollipot]

Moby Dick.

Could not get through whichever chapter it was that expounded on 501 uses for whale oil. Perhaps there was something useful after that, but I figure any author who wasted my time with that crap didn't have much respect for his readers.I was going to suggest Moby Dick too. And I also liked The Da Vinci Code. I thought it was good - not great but good. It wasn't as good as some of his other books (which vary widely in quality, by the way). And I loved Lord of the Rings from a very early age.

My dad always wanted me to read Wuthering Heights, but I think I got about a page into it.

I think that what we can all take away from this thread, like the music threads and the art threads, is that different people all like different things. We shouldn't judge the quality of something purely on our own reactions to it. You may or may not enjoy reading Lord of the Rings but you cannot deny its position as an icon of the epic fantasy genre. Things have merit even if you do not personally enjoy them.

[Piscivore]

Argh, Recency England, not Victorian!

Piscivore - Maybe I need to reread "Zorba". I got the impression of endless reflections on Zorba's vivacity and lust for life, only for the narrator to go back to his old ways of sitting around with his thumb up his arse pretending to be a Buddha.
Out of fear, was my general impression. There's a passage explicitly about it, as I recall. Might be time for a reread of this too.

Oh, until he sleeps with the hot widow, who gets brutally murdered by some village redneck, but it's OK and they all become pals because they're embracing life, baby! Just, y'know, not the life of the brutally murdered widow.
That poor woman is a victim of narrative expediency, I'm thinking. It's not the sort of story where the guy lives happily ever after with the nice widow woman.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

This is not overrated in today's world but I'm astonished that The Godfather by Mario Puzo was a best-seller in its time. It was the trashiest potboiler I had ever read in my life until The DaVinci Code was unleashed on the world.

As awful as it is, you read it and you think "What a great idea for a movie!". Francis Ford Coppola must have felt like a miracle worker crossed with a gold miner as he was writing the script; here he was shifting through mud to extract gold and then spinning it into something extraordinary.

What an artist.

From among children's books, the Artemis Fowl series. Absolute junk.

[Aitch]

Just a few that I consider vastly over-rated...

Ulysses - James Joyce
Roads to Freedom trilogy - JP Sartre
Pride and Prejudice - J. Austen
Most Dickens (Sketches by Boz is quite readable)

I think the main problem with most 19th century literature is that it was written for people with a LOT of time on their hands. Another problem is that if it wasn't considered 'classic' a lot of academics would be out of jobs. IMHO

BTW there is a book by Richard Armour called The Classics Re-Classified. It summarises several works mentioned in this thread (Moby Dick, Silas Marner and The Scarlet Letter in quite an amusing way. Again, IMHO.;)

[Dave Rogers]

Kariboo-- I tell everyone to stop reading Dune after the first book, which I thought was brilliant. It's all downhill from there, unfortunately.

I'd say stop reading about three-quarters of the way through the first book. Herbert's good at setting up situations, but useless at resolving them.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

The other science fiction author that has rarely failed to disappoint is Ann McCaffrey. Dragonriders of Pern was a decent story, but as she milked the premise the books got worse and worse.

Her book Dinosaur Planet was the low point (not of the dragonriders series). It was really half a book: the main characters are left frozen in suspended animation at the end, forcing you to buy Dinosaur Planet Survivors if you want to find out how it ends. I really didn't care, it was so poorly written.

To be fair, the sequel is even worse. It combines the awful writing of the first book with an unusually vapid plot.

Dave

[joobie]

Ken Kesey's other book. You know. The one that wasn't One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It was right there in the bookstores, always next to OFOTCN, and believing that good authors continuously wrote good books*, I tried. Lawd knows I tried. I couldn't get past thirty pages - it just didn't seem to go anywhere.

sometimes a great notion or sailor song?

[GreyICE]

Tolkein - To be fair, I rather love The Hobbit, but The Lord of the Rings bores the hell out of me.

Ayn Rand - everything she ever wrote. No idea why she's popular. Just... none.

Ulysses - A character in a book I enjoyed once commented that her school's copy of Ulysses must have been defectively proof-read, because it was filled with dreadful run on sentences and one entire chapter was punctuation free. She went on to hope the author had sued the publishing firm.

If you've actually punched the brick wall that is Ulysses, you'll know what I mean.

[Darth Rotor]

If you've actually punched the brick wall that is Ulysses, you'll know what I mean.
Painful, it was. Agreed on this legendary book being somewhat overly lauded.

DR

[Mark6]

The Hobbit.

I love LOTR, but "The Hobbit" is just too childish for me.

Umm... The Hobbit is a children's book, and Tolkien intended it as such. I never heard anyone claim otherwise.
"Ringworld" was a load of crap. There I said it.

"Ringworld" has almost no plot -- it's a travelogue. Or, I do not remember where I heard this line: "The location IS the protagonist." Niven's "Integral Trees" is a similar example. Seems like either you like that sort of thing, or not -- and if not then they are all equally unpalatable. Personally, I loved both "Ringworld" and "Integral Trees" when I first read them; not sure I would particularly care to re-read.

Oh and to answer OP -- "Lord of the Rings" is way overrated.

[Mick Houlahan]

LOTR. I try; really I do, but I always wind up throwing the thing across the room around the time Tom Bombadil and Goldberry show up. Blecccchhhh.

Dune - I love the first 6 books while agreeing that some of them are less readable than others. But the seemingly endless series of crappy cash-ins with Brian Herbert's name on the cover (above the name of the guy who actually writes 'em) don't deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the original series. Except for just now.

The Secret Life of Houdini - Bill Kalush and Larry Sloman. I know it's not rated as a classic or anything, but it makes me mad so I mention it here. What a load of baloney. If I wanted to read the same old apocryphal BS I'd go back and reread the Kellock biography. For a good Houdini bio check the Silverman book.

The Holy Bible. Dang it, those pages are just too thin, and the font too small. Appreciate the built-in bookmark though. And a lot of the jokes still hold up.

[Soapy Sam]

Humans live. We also change. Sometimes, we even mature.

Books, don't. They are frozen in time. Old SF for instance.

So some books seem very out of date, or out of step, or dull or boring or stupid, depending how old they are and how mature we are.

And some , of course, were just bad to begin with.

I loved John Buchan, when I was ten. At Twenty I found him quaint. At thirty, rather awful. At fifty, I rather enjoy him again.

Others I have yet to learn to like.

I'm not mature enough for Dickens yet. I hope never to be.
Heinlein- well, I enjoyed Starship Troopers. Then.

[gdnp]

Ayn Rand - everything she ever wrote. No idea why she's popular. Just... none.

How could I have left out Atlas Shrugged? The worlds longest straw man argument.

[Flashman]

Hated ¨Mirror Mirror¨ and ¨Titus Alone¨ Both books are by successful authors who continued to write when they should have stopped.


'Titus alone' - certainly the most disappointing book I've ever tried to read. I've re-read 'Titus Groan' and Gormenghast' a few times and I intend to start again tonight, now I have it in mind (thanks!) Wonderful, wonderful books. 'Titus Alone' was binned about thirty pages before the end - I refuse to finish it.

@ Arthwollipot - Listen to your Dad. He knows of which he speaks.:biggrin:

I could never understand the fuss and kerfuffle over 'Catcher in the rye.' I may have been a little too long in the tooth before trying, though.

[Jungle Jim]

My daughter, a sophomore in high school, just fininished reading "Catcher in the Rye." When I asked what she thought of it she replied that it was the most boring book she had ever read and added "why should I, or anyone else, care about a private school student who smokes cigarettes." (She's straight edge). I really couldn't give her a good reason.

[rhtufts]

Agree 100% with LOTR... first for me that a movie was far better then the book it was based on. Dune was awful...

Eragon was beyond bad, I lost a lot of respect for the guy that recommended that book to me.

[Flashman]

Agree 100% with LOTR... first for me that a movie was far better then the book it was based on. Dune was awful...


The only example I can think of, too. I loved the book - aged 16 or thereabouts, but I don't think I could bear it again. Ditto...

[Jontg]

At least half the works of Shakespeare could easily be mistaken for episodes of a modern-day sitcom--and not just because the basic plots have been recycled for several centuries. For all that the incurably self-impressed hold them up to be sophisticated works of timeless intellectual merit, there are maybe half a dozen characters in his entire oeuvre with any real depth to them; Hamlet, Shylock, and Lady Macbeth come to mind immediately. I mean, the Bard wasn't exactly a highbrow writer in the first place; he just wrote trashy blood n' thunder dramas before his talents started to attract a classier crowd, and when you actually understand the prose, it all sounds a lot less refined...

[Flashman]

At least half the works of Shakespeare could easily be mistaken for episodes of a modern-day sitcom--and not just because the basic plots have been recycled for several centuries. For all that the incurably self-impressed hold them up to be sophisticated works of timeless intellectual merit, there are maybe half a dozen characters in his entire oeuvre with any real depth to them; Hamlet, Shylock, and Lady Macbeth come to mind immediately. I mean, the Bard wasn't exactly a highbrow writer in the first place; he just wrote trashy blood n' thunder dramas before his talents started to attract a classier crowd, and when you actually understand the prose, it all sounds a lot less refined...

Millions of incurably self-impressed, unsophisticated philistines disagree.

Come on, Jontg, let's compile a list of superior writers - we'll show 'em.

You start...

#1.. ?

[Mark6]

Eragon. I had it sold to be as this amazing new fantasy work from a most phenomenally gifted young writer.

It's the worst book I ever read. Period.

I don't think anybody ever "overrates" Eragon. People ooh and aah over it only because it was written by a home-schooled teenager. If Eragon were written by an adult it would not even get published, and they know it. It's like a bear dancing -- the amazing part is not that it is done well, but that it is done at all.

[Susan Gerbic]

I think that what we can all take away from this thread, like the music threads and the art threads, is that different people all like different things. We shouldn't judge the quality of something purely on our own reactions to it. You may or may not enjoy reading Lord of the Rings but you cannot deny its position as an icon of the epic fantasy genre. Things have merit even if you do not personally enjoy them.

I was thinking along the lines as you. I haven't read this thread in days and a lot has accumulated. They seem to be a lot of I don't like it, but you like it. I think it is also a lot of growing older and so do the books.

It was pointed out that these books are frozen in time, true. The LOTR is a great example of something you read as a teen (how many years ago, 30 for me) and a lot has happened since. You have to remember it was one of the first science fiction of its type, all that came later may be better but because we already had Tolkien.

I loved "The Godfather" and also his other book, "Fools Die" what a world he made for us, that is something I could never fathom.

I read "Catcher in the Rye" when my son had to read it for high school. He hated it, stupid book. I didn't really care for him either, a d that was the problem. As Jungle Jim (welcome BTW) mentions we don't like the character. Once I went on-line (I love the Internet) and looked at what other people thought, then I understood what was going on better. The character is going through depression after the death of his brother and once you realize that you can see the story in a different light, even sympathize with the character more.

I was the average student all through school, I really regret not having a group of people to read with, and discuss books with. That would have been such a help.

I couldn't believe what I read in Titus Alone, so I looked it up. Turns out that the author was nuts by the time he wrote this book. They only published it because of who he was. I assume that someone who knows something about mental illnesses would be the only one who would enjoy Titus Alone.

Why do people say that Rand's books changed their lives? I never read them, but can't imagine that their is something that important in them. Can someone enlighten me?

Susan

[alfaniner]

My sister-in-law was going on and on about how great Eragon was, and how amazing that it was written by a 17-year-old. I had to strongly restrain myself as it was at her house, the beginning of the family gathering, and I wasn't drunk yet.

[Denver]

How could I have left out Atlas Shrugged? The worlds longest straw man argument.

While some of the suggestions made so far I haven't necessarily agreed with, Atlas Shrugged is near the top of my list of most overrated.

Also, several years ago I was looking for a good fiction series, preferably horror, and more than one person recommended The Dark Tower series by Stephen King. So it seemd to come highly rated.:confused:

Well, the series began ok, but really fell apart, and the ending (which I won't spoil), and even the last couple books leading to it, was terrible.

(Fortunately, I discovered HP Lovecraft shortly thereafter).

[GreyICE]

My sister-in-law was going on and on about how great Eragon was, and how amazing that it was written by a 17-year-old. I had to strongly restrain myself as it was at her house, the beginning of the family gathering, and I wasn't drunk yet.

Well now we can both sit content that Twilight is not only receiving a thousand times the rave reviews, it reads much worse. Much, much worse.

And I don't think the author has the excuse of being 17.

[Susan Gerbic]

Well now we can both sit content that Twilight is not only receiving a thousand times the rave reviews, it reads much worse. Much, much worse.

And I don't think the author has the excuse of being 17.

Well I haven't read the series or the single book.

I think that if it makes teens read, then so be it!

Susan

[moopet]

I liked The Hobbit but struggled with LOTR as a child. I still read it a couple of times. And I thought then and think now that they are great children's stories.

Ringworld is great. Suck it up.

A Handmaid's Tale and that Lessing book mentioned a page ago that I can't be bothered to click to remember the title of but it wasn't Descent or Marriage or Terrorist I think deserve their praise. They're not outstanding, and so could be called over-rated, but they're certainly good books.

Agree with anything by Dan Brown. Ridiculously bad. Mind-blowingly bad. bbqeleventyone-bad.

Can't understand why Harry Potter and the Bottom of the Barrel Again and Again is so popular. Seriously. All the books I read as a child were better than this. Except maybe Madelaine L'engle's A Wrinkle In Time, which is so bad it gets the speed of light wrong on about page 4. And still gets recommended at school.

Iain M Banks - Consider Phlebas. Took me ages to get round to read, everyone I know who's read it recommended it highly. Had about two good ideas, both expressed near the end of the story. Otherwise, dross. Omgwtfbbg-dross.

Still, Consider Phlebas was better than Pride and Prejudice. If P&P had a spaceship in it, maybe I wouldn't have tried to saw down the sign by my hometown that said "welcome to Jane Austen country" and would have simply cut off my own head.

[ElMondoHummus]

Eragon. I had it sold to be as this amazing new fantasy work from a most phenomenally gifted young writer.

It's the worst book I ever read. Period.

Amen. I made the mistake of trusting the NYTimes overly laudatory (bordering on hagiographic) piece on the author. After reading the book, I'm astounded that he was 17 years old when he wrote it; he comes off as much, much younger. Dick and Jane books are more literate.

The stupid NYTimes got off on the fact that the author was a teenaged, home-schooled author and neglected the fact that all the background in the world can't make up for a lousy book.

At least half the works of Shakespeare could easily be mistaken for episodes of a modern-day sitcom--and not just because the basic plots have been recycled for several centuries. For all that the incurably self-impressed hold them up to be sophisticated works of timeless intellectual merit, there are maybe half a dozen characters in his entire oeuvre with any real depth to them; Hamlet, Shylock, and Lady Macbeth come to mind immediately. I mean, the Bard wasn't exactly a highbrow writer in the first place; he just wrote trashy blood n' thunder dramas before his talents started to attract a classier crowd, and when you actually understand the prose, it all sounds a lot less refined...

Again, agreed. And gawd... I know this is heresy to some, but I've always wondered why both opera and Shakespeare is supposed to be highbrow. Have half the people contributing to that notion actually read (or otherwise experienced) the works in question? Half of opera comes off as a cross between Jerry Springer and what passes for "teen drama" (i.e. 90210, Twilight, etc...) nowadays; ditto much of Shakespeare. Many operas and the Shakespeare plays I've seen are much - forgive the term - more base than what people think. I've always told people that, if someone could appreciate professional wrestling, they can appreciate opera, and I'm actually serious when I say that. From Orpheus in the Underworld, to Verdi's Falstaff, and passing works like Don Giovanni (and anyone else here classify Candide as an opera, or a musical? If the former, include it here), you don't exactly get nuanced musings on the state of humanity; you get full-on, larger-than-life, near charicatures of such. Keep in mind that I'm not ripping on opera when I say this - I loved the production of Don Giovanni when I worked for my university's opera house - and in fact, I love operas in general, but I just fall over flabbergasted when people treat it like some high-culture affair. Some of the same parts of my psyche that get turned on during, say, a good football game (US variant, thank you) are the ones turned on by a good opera. Much characterization in opera is actually caricaturization, very broad, and at times very manipulative in the same sense that WWE storylines lead you by the nose and so colorfully identify who you're supposed to cheer for and boo at.

And now I realize that I need to shut off my stream-of-consciousness typing here and let the thread re-rail back to it's topic. Opera and Shakespeare is not being judged as bad when I say the above. It's merely being presented honestly. I think people can still enjoy it fully when they keep in mind just how un-highbrow it all really is.

-----

Can I throw in an overrated author? If this ends up splitting the thread, so be it. Anyway: Kevin J. Anderson. Co-author of the biggest letdown in recent sci-fi history, which are the Dune prequels. And of some of the worst of the worst pulp fiction in the Star Wars book universe (*shudder*). I once again cite Dick and Jane: If Anderson would aspire to that level of creativity and phrasing, his books would vastly improve.

[alfaniner]

Well now we can both sit content that Twilight is not only receiving a thousand times the rave reviews, it reads much worse. Much, much worse.

And I don't think the author has the excuse of being 17.

The Twilight series came up in the same conversation. My sister wasn't shy about her critcism of the books (good for her!). I had not heard a thing about them nor did I know that the recently released movie was a part of that machine. From the description I said it holds exactly zero interest for me.

A Wrinkle In Time[/I], which is so bad it gets the speed of light wrong on about page 4. And still gets recommended at school.

That one actually begins with the line "It was a dark and stormy night." I had read it a few times in school and found it to be very interesting. Recently I found there were more in the series so I reread it along with the rest. Hmmm, maybe not so good... And the followups were incomprehensible and forgettable. The same characters but no reference whatsoever to the events that had happened in the prevous books.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Have any of the people who dislike Shakespeare actually read him?

No one is claiming the plots are realistic. Or that Shakespeare doesn't make bawdy jokes, puns, use slapstick comedy and make sexual innuendos. Or that the characters are all intellectuals.

That does not make it "low brow".

It's true that the genius comes from the beauty, power and poetry of the language, just as the genius of opera comes from the music.

That does not mean that it is not art.

[tyr_13]

I think it bears stating, but something doesn't have to be bad to be over-rated. I think Macs are extremely over-rated, but I don't think they are bad.

This came up in two discussions I had recently about Twilight, one with a 25 year old woman and one with a 13 year old girl. That is the only difference as they both said the same things anyway. I said that I thought the plot was weak and it was over-rated. No, I haven't read it, but I've read enough critiques and pieces of the book to be reasonably sure of my opinion on it. I also said it seemed well written, light and fun. Somehow, they think I hate the book. I never said the book was bad!

Some of my favorite things are overrated!

[Damien Evans]

Umm... The Hobbit is a children's book, and Tolkien intended it as such. I never heard anyone claim otherwise.


"Ringworld" has almost no plot -- it's a travelogue. Or, I do not remember where I heard this line: "The location IS the protagonist." Niven's "Integral Trees" is a similar example. Seems like either you like that sort of thing, or not -- and if not then they are all equally unpalatable. Personally, I loved both "Ringworld" and "Integral Trees" when I first read them; not sure I would particularly care to re-read.

Oh and to answer OP -- "Lord of the Rings" is way overrated.

Yes I know that. That doesn't mean I can't think it's overrated. It was too childish when I was 12.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

The literary value of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is overrated. It's a very amusing and well-written short story but it does not deserve to be called a "classic". It's also pretty thin for the time Washington Irving takes to tell it.

The novel The Phantom of the Opera is actually pretty bad.

[Denver]

Put me down for Don Quixote.

It seemed to be written as a satire of it's time, and felt about as relevant as a Saturday Night Live sketch about Britney Spears will feel if watched 100 years from now.

Wikipedia says of it "Published in two volumes a decade apart, Don Quixote is the most influential work of literature to emerge from the Spanish Golden Age and perhaps the entire Spanish literary canon. "

But, wow, is it ever hard to make it through.

[Silentknight]

Eragon. I had it sold to be as this amazing new fantasy work from a most phenomenally gifted young writer.

It's the worst book I ever read. Period.
Amen. I made the mistake of trusting the NYTimes overly laudatory (bordering on hagiographic) piece on the author. After reading the book, I'm astounded that he was 17 years old when he wrote it; he comes off as much, much younger. Dick and Jane books are more literate.

The stupid NYTimes got off on the fact that the author was a teenaged, home-schooled author and neglected the fact that all the background in the world can't make up for a lousy book.
Thirded. Christopher Paolini was only 15 years old when the book was published, and the author bio in the back boasts that it was when he graduated high school. When you factor in his homeschooling, now I know why his dialogue is clunky and completely unrealistic-- because he never actually got out and spoke to real people! Eragon is a complete Gary Stu, the story (while admittedly derivative) ripped off things that were written a lot better, and the prose reeks of amateurishness in that he tries too hard to sound poetic. The author is nothing more than an egotistical hack who bought into his own "child genius" delusion.

Well now we can both sit content that Twilight is not only receiving a thousand times the rave reviews, it reads much worse. Much, much worse.

And I don't think the author has the excuse of being 17.
Seconded. Bella is a shallow Mary Sue, Edward "Sparklepants" has a board stiff personality and demonstrates creepy stalker tendencies (what girl wouldn't want that?) and Meyers's interpretation of the vampire mythos is frivolous at best. She even admitted to not doing any research into the genre. The worst part has got to be certain parts of the Twilight fandom though. People who admitted to not liking the books or movie in front of rabid fans have reported being threatened, harassed, and brutally assaulted in some cases.

Another highly overrated vampire erotica series is Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter by Laurell K. Hamilton. I need not point out the squick factor in fantasizing about sexing up undead creatures with no pulse or blood pressure. Anita Blake is yet another Mary Sue; a blatant author insert, perfect in every way. Her ex-husband, whom the werewolf represents, gets turned into the whipping boy of the series.

Why do none of these authors ever try to add anything original to the supernatural genres they're writing in?

[GreyICE]

Another highly overrated vampire erotica series is Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter by Laurell K. Hamilton. I need not point out the squick factor in fantasizing about sexing up undead creatures with no pulse or blood pressure. Anita Blake is yet another Mary Sue; a blatant author insert, perfect in every way. Her ex-husband, whom the werewolf represents, gets turned into the whipping boy of the series.

Why do none of these authors ever try to add anything original to the supernatural genres they're writing in?

Please read the first five books of the series then tell me this. You johnny come latelies to the entire urban fantasy genre really should understand the origins of the entire thing.

Yes, the latest ones are derivative trash that the author clearly barely cares about and is tossing out to make money, but the early books were interesting, fun, and reasonably classic (at least for an admittedly trashy genre).

Also Richard used to be a lot less useless...

[Susan Gerbic]

Thirded. Christopher Paolini was only 15 years old when the book was published, and the author bio in the back boasts that it was when he graduated high school. When you factor in his homeschooling, now I know why his dialogue is clunky and completely unrealistic-- because he never actually got out and spoke to real people! Eragon is a complete Gary Stu, the story (while admittedly derivative) ripped off things that were written a lot better, and the prose reeks of amateurishness in that he tries too hard to sound poetic. The author is nothing more than an egotistical hack who bought into his own "child genius" delusion.

Yes, but his bank account isn't delusional! The books aren't great, the story line we have heard many times before but it just struck a chord with people. Maybe these are people who don't normally read much, so they don't know that there is much better out there? Maybe it was all marketing?

These vampire books have also got a whole generation turned on to reading. And from as sexy as I hear the books are I do mean "turned on". I talked to a book store owner on the Amazing Adventure to Alaska and asked him what section in bookstores have grown the biggest. And he said this one, sexy vampires (he had a name for the theme, I can't remember it right now), sure enough my son and I started looking at this section at book stores and sure enough they are encroaching on the Western and Romance sections.

Scientists should take note, to get a generation of people interested in reading about science we need to market it like Eragon, and add sexy vampires, or and a emo or two. And we might just be able to get kids interested in science and start beating Asia's math and science scores. Maybe get that Moon Base. Hope someone out there lurking is taking notes.

Susan

[tyr_13]

Yes, but his bank account isn't delusional! The books aren't great, the story line we have heard many times before but it just struck a chord with people. Maybe these are people who don't normally read much, so they don't know that there is much better out there? Maybe it was all marketing?

These vampire books have also got a whole generation turned on to reading. And from as sexy as I hear the books are I do mean "turned on". I talked to a book store owner on the Amazing Adventure to Alaska and asked him what section in bookstores have grown the biggest. And he said this one, sexy vampires (he had a name for the theme, I can't remember it right now), sure enough my son and I started looking at this section at book stores and sure enough they are encroaching on the Western and Romance sections.

Scientists should take note, to get a generation of people interested in reading about science we need to market it like Eragon, and add sexy vampires, or and a emo or two. And we might just be able to get kids interested in science and start beating Asia's math and science scores. Maybe get that Moon Base. Hope someone out there lurking is taking notes.

Susan

I'm not lurking, but I am taking notes. My next manga gets all those things! Wait...you wanted American kids more interested in science. Crap.

[Cavemonster]

Yes, but his bank account isn't delusional! The books aren't great, the story line we have heard many times before but it just struck a chord with people. Maybe these are people who don't normally read much, so they don't know that there is much better out there? Maybe it was all marketing?

These vampire books have also got a whole generation turned on to reading. And from as sexy as I hear the books are I do mean "turned on". I talked to a book store owner on the Amazing Adventure to Alaska and asked him what section in bookstores have grown the biggest. And he said this one, sexy vampires (he had a name for the theme, I can't remember it right now), sure enough my son and I started looking at this section at book stores and sure enough they are encroaching on the Western and Romance sections.

Scientists should take note, to get a generation of people interested in reading about science we need to market it like Eragon, and add sexy vampires, or and a emo or two. And we might just be able to get kids interested in science and start beating Asia's math and science scores. Maybe get that Moon Base. Hope someone out there lurking is taking notes.

Susan

That would still be pushing woo, even though it may be in the service of getting kids excited about science.

What about a book about pale scientists who never go out in the sun, are afraid to enter a church (because it would be very boring) and have the power to manipulate bat DNA.

Is that close enough?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Although I adore Jane Austen and think she is quite rightly highly rated, I admit there are elements in her work which I find problematic. Enspecially by modern standards.

For instance, that the Wrong Fiance and the Wrong Fiancee in Mansfield Park are shallow and faithless because they are "modern", meaning they are not embarrassed by controversial plays and are relatively liberal about matters like extramarital affairs.

I'm all for traditional values myself but really, Jane, is this needed? Couldn't he just be an amoral fair-weather friend and a shallow cad? And couldn't she just be spoiled and flighty as well as greedy and vain? Why bring conservative vs. liberal values into it?

Also, if you really consider the situation of the heroine, you could come to the conclusion that in a modern rewrite, this would be a story about child abuse. Abuse and criminal neglect that wouldn't be out of place in a Dickens novel.

Family of ten children headed by unemployed alcocholic of a father sends child to a loveless and toxic enviornment consisting of an aunt who treats her like a servant, another aunt who is an opium addict and an uncle who wants to marry her to her cousin and then to his boarder- and this is a social satire and comedy of manners?

If this family lived in today's world, the police and social workers would be banging down the doors.

[jenspen]

While I try to think of a book that is overrated, I'd like to take the opportunity of saying that the first time I saw Hamlet I was excited about it for days. Love Shakespeare's language - Full fathom five thy father lies *shiver*

Also like to say that, when I feel that I have 'read all the books' I turn eagerly to Dickens - such invention, such a fertility of imagination, such warmth and humour.

Jane Austen I find so nearly perfect that I feel she hardly needs any defence from me - the most enduringly *popular* and well-regarded novelist in the English language.

There have been lots of novels I haven't enjoyed despite their reputations but widely read and discerning people rate them highly - don't much care for Nabokov or Martin Amis because those of their works which I have tried seem to me so lacking in...humanity, feeling for their characters....that I have no feeling for their characters either. Oh, Emma Bovary is another book that is callous to a degree that leaves me bored and it's pretty much regarded by the litterati as *the* Great Novel.

[tomwaits]

I'm sad that many here have suggested LOTR. :( I loved this series so much I slogged through The Silmarillion just to learn more about the universe, which was more a book of history/mythos rather than readable fiction.

[Susan Gerbic]

That would still be pushing woo, even though it may be in the service of getting kids excited about science.

What about a book about pale scientists who never go out in the sun, are afraid to enter a church (because it would be very boring) and have the power to manipulate bat DNA.

Is that close enough?

Sexy scientists! Cool they can kinda look emo, better yet they can have a emo child who has to help out the scientist parent in all kinds of crazy situations. Kinda like Johnny Quest (a cartoon I loved). They can investigate vampires and paranormal and find them all fake but with a fun ending. Now like Johnny Quest meets X-files. (also a favorite) Throw in some Mythbusters and Bill Nye and you've got your first million.

Okay, someone else run with it. I just want my name in the credits (and a vacation home in Virginia) pm me and I'll give you the correct spelling of my name.

Susan

[Silentknight]

Please read the first five books of the series then tell me this. You johnny come latelies to the entire urban fantasy genre really should understand the origins of the entire thing.

Yes, the latest ones are derivative trash that the author clearly barely cares about and is tossing out to make money, but the early books were interesting, fun, and reasonably classic (at least for an admittedly trashy genre).

Also Richard used to be a lot less useless...

I was referring more to vampire erotica than to urban fantasy, and treating it as a standing (although fairly recent) genre. Everywhere you look nowadays, it seems every modern fantasy author is doing this, turning supernatural creatures into objects of sexual fantasy. This specifically is what I was taking issue with. It's true that it started out as a subversion of the classic horror cliché: The female lead is no longer the hapless victim who trips, falls, and gets eaten, but is now instead the "slayer" or the sexually dominant figure in a relationship. However they copied the classic horror vampire wholesale for this purpose, which is going to cause problems down the line. It absolutely does not help that so many other authors are writing derivative works based on this. What was once an innovative and original idea is now the mainstream. This is what I meant when I complained that they never seem to add anything new. There's no reason for the genre to stop evolving or for authors to stop innovating. If you're going to deconstruct, then be sincere about it.

Also, there's a point to be made that if writers are truly competent, they'll be able to effectively recap the previous events and relevant details. In other words, they should be able to provide some background information so that newcomers aren't left hanging, as a way of broadening their fanbase. Yes, I'm reading the latest book in the Anita Blake series, but I assumed that it wouldn't be a problem if Hamilton knew what she was doing. So-- obviously she'll fill me in on everything I need to know in order to understand what's going on (as opposed to leaving out details in a cynical ploy to get me to read the other 14 books in the series) right? :)

[GreyICE]

I was referring more to vampire erotica than to urban fantasy, and treating it as a standing (although fairly recent) genre. Everywhere you look nowadays, it seems every modern fantasy author is doing this, turning supernatural creatures into objects of sexual fantasy. This specifically is what I was taking issue with. It's true that it started out as a subversion of the classic horror cliché: The female lead is no longer the hapless victim who trips, falls, and gets eaten, but is now instead the "slayer" or the sexually dominant figure in a relationship. However they copied the classic horror vampire wholesale for this purpose, which is going to cause problems down the line. It absolutely does not help that so many other authors are writing derivative works based on this. What was once an innovative and original idea is now the mainstream. This is what I meant when I complained that they never seem to add anything new. There's no reason for the genre to stop evolving or for authors to stop innovating. If you're going to deconstruct, then be sincere about it. In that case we should specifically identify The Killing Dance
as the turning point in the series where erotica started to play a larger and larger part. In the case of Anita Blake, the series began to evolve into erotica largely because of the author I believe, who simply evolved the series in that direction. The wild success of the series is what has spawned so many imitators. However, to identify Guilty Pleasures to Bloody Bones as erotica is completely incorrect in every respect.


Also, there's a point to be made that if writers are truly competent, they'll be able to effectively recap the previous events and relevant details. In other words, they should be able to provide some background information so that newcomers aren't left hanging, as a way of broadening their fanbase. Yes, I'm reading the latest book in the Anita Blake series, but I assumed that it wouldn't be a problem if Hamilton knew what she was doing. So-- obviously she'll fill me in on everything I need to know in order to understand what's going on (as opposed to leaving out details in a cynical ploy to get me to read the other 14 books in the series) right? :) Hamilton essentially has no idea what she is doing at this point. There were several massive derails, but essentially IMHO the series ended with Obsidian Butterfly (not to say that that was the high point, but Narcissus in Chains is so very bad that we can't really consider it the same series). But grab Bloody Bones or Guilty Pleasures if you want to know why we really liked her books.

[Damien Evans]

I'm sad that many here have suggested LOTR. :( I loved this series so much I slogged through The Silmarillion just to learn more about the universe, which was more a book of history/mythos rather than readable fiction.

Same here, though it seems I enjoyed the silmarrilion more than you did.

[ranson]

GreyICE, I'll second your interpretation of the Anita series -- I gave up on them when Hamilton obviously went around the bend. However, I've found the Rachel Morgan series by Kim Harrison to be a decent substitute, Or even better, the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. Both do a far better job of maintaining their respective universes.

However, to add to the "overrated" pile, the only book I've ever destroyed when I was done was Profiles in Courage. JFK's Pulitzer was as bought and paid for as his elections.

[Silentknight]

In that case we should specifically identify The Killing Dance
as the turning point in the series where erotica started to play a larger and larger part. In the case of Anita Blake, the series began to evolve into erotica largely because of the author I believe, who simply evolved the series in that direction. The wild success of the series is what has spawned so many imitators. However, to identify Guilty Pleasures to Bloody Bones as erotica is completely incorrect in every respect.
That may be, but I was categorizing the "slayer" genre as part of the same trend, since the metaphor is practically identical. I should have been more explicit. After all, both are about role-reversal and domination. My criticism of erotica stemmed from the direct borrowing of vampire conventions which, in that context, make absolutely no sense for reasons I mentioned previously. In other words, this goes a bit beyond my distaste for the shallowness in smut.

Hamilton essentially has no idea what she is doing at this point. There were several massive derails, but essentially IMHO the series ended with Obsidian Butterfly (not to say that that was the high point, but Narcissus in Chains is so very bad that we can't really consider it the same series). But grab Bloody Bones or Guilty Pleasures if you want to know why we really liked her books.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not incapable of appreciating the early works in a series that has undergone decay. I just made a really bad assumption this time in going for the latest available book. It was on the recommendation of someone I knew who is a huge fan of the series, who wrote a review (based on Blood Noir) involving said themes.

ETA: And I'll amend my initial comments in this thread to apply only to Hamilton's books post-shark-jumping, until I've checked out her earlier works.

[Aitch]

If you want an author who's gone downhill, a good example is Robert B. Parker. The first few Spenser novels were OK. Then they got formulaic. Then he started recycling plots. When that became too obvious, he started recycling plots and characters in the Jesse Stone and Sunny Randall novels.

[DC]

Most overrated book?

1. Bible
2. Koran (still not finished reading :s)

[Wudang]

Most overrated book?

1. Bible
2. Koran (still not finished reading :s)

To save you the trouble
God did it.

[DC]

To save you the trouble
God did it.

:D

[tomwaits]

Same here, though it seems I enjoyed the silmarrilion more than you did.

I enjoyed it...sort of. I loved learning about the entire history and mythology of Eä. Tolkien must have been insane to think all of this up. However, it was pretty dense. Compare "The Odyssey" with a school text book on Greek mythology. That's what LOTR was to the Silmarillion.

[Damien Evans]

I enjoyed it...sort of. I loved learning about the entire history and mythology of Eä. Tolkien must have been insane to think all of this up. However, it was pretty dense. Compare "The Odyssey" with a school text book on Greek mythology. That's what LOTR was to the Silmarillion.

True enough, he says while clutching his Iliad

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I wouldn't say this counts as being "overrated" but I'm surprised at how much less there is to enjoy of The Chronicles of Narnia as an adult.

For children it's delightful and it's fun to be able to re-read them as an adult but now you find a dozen flaws, unaddressed question and inconsistencies in the books.

There's alot less to snack on.

[Tony Inchpractice]

Regarding Lord of the Rings; personally I think it's great up until they've defeated Sauron, but the celebrations drag on something awful. It reminds me of the preparations for using the Holy Hand-Grenade in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
"and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals..." etc

[Mark6]

I wouldn't say this counts as being "overrated" but I'm surprised at how much less there is to enjoy of The Chronicles of Narnia as an adult.

For children it's delightful and it's fun to be able to re-read them as an adult but now you find a dozen flaws, unaddressed question and inconsistencies in the books.

Much like Harry Potter.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I lived and breathed Harry Potter as a child. Loved it, knew every word in every book, could recite passages from memory.

I find it depressing to return to that world now, even though I admire the literary value, humor and imagination of the books. It's not a phenomenon that lasts past the generation that discovered it.

A.O.Scott put it very well with his review of the third movie: "The kids may also, at this point, be feeling a bit blasé about Harry himself. He will no doubt remain a beloved and profitable fixture of juvenile popular culture for years to come, but the mania that greeted the publication of the two latest Potter books (and the release of the first two movies) seems, at least for the moment, to have subsided. The first generation of Potterphiles has moved on to other forms of fantasy -- Philip Pullman's ''Dark Materials'' cycle, J. R. R. Tolkien's perennial ''Rings,'' the study manuals of Stanley Kaplan -- while their younger siblings now encounter the Potter series as a hand-me-down, rather than as their own special discovery."

[tomwaits]

Regarding Lord of the Rings; personally I think it's great up until they've defeated Sauron, but the celebrations drag on something awful. It reminds me of the preparations for using the Holy Hand-Grenade in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
"and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals..." etc


The Scouring of the Shire does seem a bit superfluous after Sauron is defeated, but it's an enjoyable diversion and it reinforces the "nothing will ever be the same" theme throughout the trilogy.

However, I love The Grey Havens. The final curtain call of the characters leaving forever to Valinor again displays that constant theme: this is the end of an age. I find it even more poignant after reading the Silmarillion.

[sackett]

Ask the Dust, John Fante. Writing without a plot: very poor way to hold a reader.

Somebody earlier in the thread disparaged Bukowski. Yeah, well, Buke LOVED John Fante! 'S the only reason I checked ATD out of the libe.

(PS: It's perfectly all right not to like Charles Bukowski. It's just another way of being normal. When kids tease you at school, simply ignore them.)

[tyr_13]

When a postal worker get's laid that much, how can you take it seriously? :D

I've had to endure not only Bukowski novels, but interviews. Over-rated is when you talk about the hot German women who showed up at your door, and when you asked them why, they said, "to **** you!".

Still, to each their own. Plus, I haven't read Buke LOVED John Fante!

[arthwollipot]

I lived and breathed Harry Potter as a child. Loved it, knew every word in every book, could recite passages from memory.Huh? Wasn't the first Potter book published, like, last week?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Hehehe, it was first published in 1997.

I felt the same way when I saw signs in delis saying that cigarettes would be sold only to people born after 1990: "1990?! Wasn't that yesterday?!"

[arthwollipot]

Ten years, eh?

Dragonriders of Pern was the Harry Potter of the 1980s.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

For me, I always thought Jane Austen was ridiculously overrated. What always bothered me about high school and college literature classes is that there's too much of a focus on older writings and sometimes it's as if they think nothing interesting or important could be contemporary. In the case of Jane Austen, I just couldn't get into the basic atmosphere of most of her book of stuffy Victorian England, going to balls, and gossipy people with inherited wealth sitting around their manors piddling their time away.

Edited for Austen.

You know, that's true only on the surface. I see all of her stories as being about confined and sheltered women, assigned the life-long roles of housewives, prohibited from real life and dependent for their fortunes on men and marriage, struggling to breathe free.

They gossip and go to balls because that is the only thing allowed to them for recreation and they are bored and exhausted by it under the surface- how else to explain Lizzie Bennet's sudden and amazingly unladylike miles long trek by foot to the neighboring estate of a family of aristocrats?

There are some dark subtexts in it, too, when shameful and scandalous facts of life usually kept from the ears of maidens are revealed. For instance, in Sense and Sensibility, it is eventually revealed that the former fiance of one of the girls once took a 15-year-old from her school and abandoned her when she became pregnant , something that must have been very much pushing the envelope in that time.

Or the alcocholism, poverty, child abuse and neglect, extramarital affairs and premarital sex in Mansfield Park. Nothing genteel about that and proof Jane Austen was very much aware of the world outside the living room of a manor.

[pastime]

I have to say that I think Sometimes a Great Notion is one of the best american books I have ever read. I think it a really great read
Fiona, I have to agree with your assessment of Kesey's "other" book. I would certainly rank it in my top 5. BTW, Moby Dick also makes my top 5.
As far as overrated, I nominate anything by Tom Robbins after Another Roadside Attraction. It's too bad he started taking himself seriously.