Overrated books

I think Moby Dick is a bit boring. I couldn't get past the first chapter. Just didn't interest me. Then again, it may have been a mood thing. I may try again someday.

catch 22
slaughterhouse five
all chuck books except fight club
another roadside attraction
ann raynd's books
nietzche

Hunger by Knut Hamsun didnt impress me and I was all set to love it.
The second half of Notes from Underground by Dostoyevsky disappointed but the first half made up for it.
1984 by Orwell
anything by Dickens

[QUOTE=kl0pper]catch 22
slaughterhouse five
all chuck books except fight club
another roadside attraction
ann raynd's books
nietzche[/QUOTE]
I agree on the ayn rand thing. authoritarian lit is not my thing.

Ferenheit 451 had a really dissapointing ending for me. It was very anti-climactic.

[QUOTE=qualitycontrolrep]I don't care what kind of slack I may get for this, but I was really sort of disappointed with the Catcher and the Rye. From the way people so often regard it, it's gained this status of being the Citizen Kane of books. If you only had one book to read you entire life, I wouldn't suggest you waste the opportunity on the Catcher and the Rye.

Are there any other books that you feel similarly about?[/QUOTE]

i totally back you up on the catcher in the rye. no editing in this book, at all. holden caufield is an asshole. sorry, he just is.

lullaby is way overrated. reads like airport trash.

"the perks of being a wallflower"; its insipidity enraged me so much i hurled it across the room.

i agree with the catcher in the rye one- that book was a waste of nature. i like lullabye but i hated diary. another wasted book would be slaughterhouse five and all quiet on the western front. maybe its jsut the whole war thing but--- eh... i didnt like either of them

[QUOTE=hoipolloi]I think Moby Dick is a bit boring. I couldn't get past the first chapter. Just didn't interest me. Then again, it may have been a mood thing. I may try again someday.[/QUOTE]
Do give it a shot. Each chapter is actually written in a completely different style - which _can_ make the book a bit difficult to get into at first, but I felt it was totally worth it.

For me:

[u]Catcher in the Rye[/u] was a big fat "So What?"
[u]On the Road[/u] was a bigger, fatter, "So What?!?"

Most books are truly dull when you get right down to it, best to stick with magazine articles or if you must, short stories!

[QUOTE=morey]Most books are truly dull when you get right down to it, best to stick with magazine articles or if you must, short stories![/QUOTE]

i imagine you reading truman capote on the pot.

[QUOTE=Tuffy the Dump Truck]Do give it a shot. Each chapter is actually written in a completely different style - which _can_ make the book a bit difficult to get into at first, but I felt it was totally worth it.

For me:

[u]Catcher in the Rye[/u] was a big fat "So What?"
[u]On the Road[/u] was a bigger, fatter, "So What?!?"[/QUOTE]

ok, so i wil oficially not read on the road. ever. thank you.

i don't think i even have to say it, but:

[IMG]http://www.mcpl.lib.wi.us/davinci%20code.jpg[/IMG]

is the biggest waste of paper in at least 20 years
maybe even since the mona lisa....

[QUOTE=TastesLikeChicken]i don't think i even have to say it, but:

[IMG]http://www.mcpl.lib.wi.us/davinci%20code.jpg[/IMG]

is the biggest waste of paper in at least 20 years
maybe even since the mona lisa....[/QUOTE]
you = predictable!!

bet you can't guess what my answer would be...

i came down rather cliche on lullaby. it's great in parts.

what about Tuedays with Morrie? blows.

I think "The Lord of the Rings" is overrated in my opinion. It reads like a cross between a history textbook and the bible. I got through half of "fellowship" and gave up. And don't give me that "tolkien invented a language for that book!" That is a huge accomplishment, but doesn't make up for the fact that everytime I try to read it I fall asleep.

[QUOTE=civ67]I think "The Lord of the Rings" is overrated in my opinion. It reads like a cross between a history textbook and the bible. I got through half of "fellowship" and gave up. And don't give me that "tolkien invented a language for that book!" That is a huge accomplishment, but doesn't make up for the fact that everytime I try to read it I fall asleep.[/QUOTE]

The first book is immensely boring. But the 2nd and 3rd books are much better, I can tell you that much.

It took me 4 weeks (my entire winter break) to get through the Fellowship cuz its so slow and tedius and so not like the movie, which I think spoilt the book for me.

[QUOTE=Tuffy the Dump Truck]Do give it a shot. Each chapter is actually written in a completely different style - which _can_ make the book a bit difficult to get into at first, but I felt it was totally worth it.

For me:

[u]Catcher in the Rye[/u] was a big fat "So What?"
[u]On the Road[/u] was a bigger, fatter, "So What?!?"[/QUOTE]

I see. In light of this, I do believe I will try agian. Could be a while though, I'm still on a Chuck/minimalism kick.

[QUOTE=Manderley]The first book is immensely boring. But the 2nd and 3rd books are much better, I can tell you that much.

It took me 4 weeks (my entire winter break) to get through the Fellowship cuz its so slow and tedius and so not like the movie, which I think spoilt the book for me.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it took me over a year to finish book one, but the other two I finished in just over a week I think. Though it's sort of funny, once I read Lord Of The Rings, I read the Hobbit again, and it almost seemed dull, and more like a childrens book. . .

[QUOTE=Manderley]The first book is immensely boring. But the 2nd and 3rd books are much better, I can tell you that much.

It took me 4 weeks (my entire winter break) to get through the Fellowship cuz its so slow and tedius and so not like the movie, which I think spoilt the book for me.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm a slow reader to begin with, I don't like skipping anything, like I'm reading out loud. And that is funny cuz Fellowship is my favorite of the movies. I might pick it back up later, but right now I'm caught up in the dark tower series, I'm on Waste Lands, does anyone think the tower series is overrated? Am I wasting my time?

[QUOTE=hoipolloi]Yeah, it took me over a year to finish book one, but the other two I finished in just over a week I think. Though it's sort of funny, once I read Lord Of The Rings, I read the Hobbit again, and it almost seemed dull, and more like a childrens book. . .[/QUOTE]

Ditto. There are some gems in the LOR series, and you can fall in love with some of the characters, but the books are way overwritten, and Tolkein puts far too much stock in character at the expense of moving the plot forward. There are a lot of static scenes where basically nothing happens.

I am sure I will get a few people pissed off by saying it, but I am going to say it anyway.

The Time Machine.

I have read it twice, once on my own and once for a class. Neither times did I really enjoy the book. I can give it credit for being the first of it time and setting a standard, but the book itself didn't do much for me.

[QUOTE=snuffy]i totally back you up on the catcher in the rye. no editing in this book, at all. holden caufield is an asshole. sorry, he just is.

lullaby is way overrated. reads like airport trash.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean no editing? You do know it is from the point of view of a high school kid from the 50's right? He is an asshole but that's why its funny. It is hilarious when that pimp punches him in the gut.

As far as lullaby goes, maybe people will like it more when it becomes a moive.

-K

[QUOTE=moe.ron]you = predictable!!

bet you can't guess what my answer would be...[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://www.thereader.com/images/upload/graphics/Graphic_1165.28.book.jpg[/IMG] ?????????????????????????

nah...more like
[IMG]http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/27/da/0316921173-resized200.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=hoipolloi]Yeah, it took me over a year to finish book one, but the other two I finished in just over a week I think. Though it's sort of funny, once I read Lord Of The Rings, I read the Hobbit again, and it almost seemed dull, and more like a childrens book. . .[/QUOTE]

If I understand my Tolkien history properly, it's not a suprise that you find The Hobbit to be like a children's book; it was primarily an oral story he told to his kids at night. They convinced him he should write it down. So it really is more of a children's story, moreso than the LOtR series, for sure.

LOTR [B]IS[/B] quite boring, specialy the 1st one, and it would be great if there was maby a little less description of the sights, for example, but still, i dont think its overrated, i mean tolkien made up not only a language, but the whole culture and mythology of a magical world. That deserves some aprecation, at least for me...

Jude the Obscure, by Thomas Hardy. When I read this in 11th grade, I would have sworn the title was Jude the Boring You to Death.

And I'd say Tennessee Williams' stuff gets a little more heat than it deserves.

Yeah, I finished the 2nd book of LOTR in like 3 days and I was half way done with the 3rd book, but I had to pause and put it back on my bookshelf b/c i was seriously falling behind in my classes.

Diary - Palahniuk. The first of Chuck's books I wanted to give up on. Difficult to read, underwhelming, uninvolving. Hated the writing style. I would love Chuck to do a completely 3rd person novel, and not the mishmash he tried in this. Probably his least interesting characters in all. This seemed an exercise in technique.

White Noise - Delillo. I did like it, but the praise it receives is too strong for what you get in the end. Something like Libra is much more deserving of the praise.

Tail of Two Cities - Dickens. Once I finally finished this, I realised I would never read Dickens again. Now that I am older, maybe I should try again.

1984 - Orwell.

I have a feeling that Lullaby will become recognised as an underrated book in years to come, esp. if Chuck keeps writing stuff like Diary. Lullaby has some sections which made me cringe - the whole stamping of a wounded foot on models of houses, sounding like teen angst poetry - there was still a lot I liked in it, even if it is well below Survivor and Fight Club on my order of merit list.

Wuthering Heights. I hate Emily Bronte.

[QUOTE=SnowWhite]Wuthering Heights. I hate Emily Bronte.[/QUOTE]

I'd take that novel over Jane Eyre any day.

[QUOTE=NoMercuryAdded]I'd take that novel over Jane Eyre any day.[/QUOTE]
Most people say the contrary of that.
The characters in WH are so detestable.

[QUOTE=NoMercuryAdded]I'd take that novel over Jane Eyre any day.[/QUOTE]

I second that.

Here's one: the [I]Left Behind[/I] series. I'm talking about children's books, and someone recommended it to me :confused: so I looked it up later. Well, she was just some acquaintance, maybe it was supposed to be a joke, but I had never heard of the books.

[QUOTE=NoMercuryAdded]Diary - Palahniuk. The first of Chuck's books I wanted to give up on. Difficult to read, underwhelming, uninvolving. Hated the writing style. I would love Chuck to do a completely 3rd person novel, and not the mishmash he tried in this. Probably his least interesting characters in all. This seemed an exercise in technique.[/QUOTE]
did you just describe a PEALBNIUK book as "difficult to read"? haha oh shit...

i agree with you white noise
what a stinker.

[QUOTE=qualitycontrolrep]I don't care what kind of slack I may get for this, but I was really sort of disappointed with the Catcher and the Rye. From the way people so often regard it, it's gained this status of being the Citizen Kane of books. If you only had one book to read you entire life, I wouldn't suggest you waste the opportunity on the Catcher and the Rye.

Are there any other books that you feel similarly about?[/QUOTE]

I had Catcher as my book to read on a bus trip from Kansas City to Dallas. The alternative was to watch Speed, someone had cleverly thought to bring along for the charter's VCRs.

I'd seen the movie, so I read the book. Holden Caufield is miserable company for a ten hour bus ride. I hated that kid more and more as the book went on.

I forced my way through Moby Dick in 8th grade, and was so traumatized that I did my best to avoid "classics" for over a decade after that.

But I think I read those books at the wrong age. When I was 16, I would have thought Caufield was cool. I bet if I read Moby Dick now, at 34, I could at least hang with it, though the Romantics are generally not my favorites.

For that matter, Pat Conroy (kind of a neo-Romantic) has probably one of the most over-rated books in Prince of Tides. It's not terrible, but The Water Is Wide was better, so was The Lords of Discipline. For that matter, Conroy's has a tendency to be self-derivative, have his own cliche's. Seems like there's always a suicide, always an abusive father, always a close friend who commits an act of total betrayal, always a tragic character who can't help tilting against windmills.

But hey, Salinger, Melville, and even Pat Conroy have all done something I haven't done: they've published novels that people have read and talked about.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I forced my way through Moby Dick in 8th grade, and was so traumatized that I did my best to avoid "classics" for over a decade after that.

[/QUOTE]

My God! Moby Dick in 8th grade? I had a hard time making it through that novel the summer between 11th and 12th grades! (Though my fear of whales might have contributed to that.) I don't know if you'd enjoy Moby Dick anymore now, especially the technical chapters on whaling, and when I reread it at 22, it was still long and Ahab was still an obsessed nut. Better reading Typee or Israel Potter if you want Melville.

American Psycho

It was the most boring book I ever read,
but compared to the movie it's a masterpiece.

also - Lullaby

I remember it took me only two days to read, but the only reason I kept on reading was the silent hope I had that the story would suddenly (within the next chapter, or the next) change to the better, but it didn't.

[QUOTE=SnowWhite]Most people say the contrary of that.
The characters in WH are so detestable.[/QUOTE]

By critical or popular vote? Most people I know have preferred WH or JE, but it seems JE receives greater literary/academic notice perhaps.
One thing though, seems someone is often either exclusively a WH fan, or a JE fan.
Actually its been years since I read it (at school like most people probably), but I remember Heathcliffe (sp) being quite interesting, a dark anti-hero style character, full of madness.

[QUOTE=YogSothoth]If I understand my Tolkien history properly, it's not a suprise that you find The Hobbit to be like a children's book; it was primarily an oral story he told to his kids at night. They convinced him he should write it down. So it really is more of a children's story, moreso than the LOtR series, for sure.[/QUOTE]
I see. Well, that could explain it, eh? I still like The Hobbit, at any rate.

[QUOTE=kl0pper]did you just describe a PEALBNIUK book as "difficult to read"? haha oh shit...
[/QUOTE]

Not difficult in a Finnegans Wake way - difficult in the switches of viewpoint and repetition, the way the words just felt like typing and cataloging to me, and if I find it hard to attach any feeling or involvement with characters and their stories, then yeah, that's difficult in my books.

[QUOTE=ketamineman] What do you mean no editing?
[/QUOTE]

I believe that J.D. Salinger could have used a better editor to help him write stronger sentences and make parts of the plot flow together better, and not feel as disconnected. Even if it is the POV of a high school kid from the 50's.

[QUOTE=ketamineman]
He is an asshole but that's why its funny.
[/QUOTE]

Caufield isn't supposed to be funny. He's supposed to be a hero to angsty teenagers. Not to say I wasn't angsty at 15 or 16.

[QUOTE=ketamineman]It is hilarious when that pimp punches him in the gut.[/QUOTE]

I believe the whole pimp/prostitute scene is what caused this book to be banned. I'm not sure about this, but I thought so. but, whatever the reason, i believe it was in part the banning of the book that allowed it to become so successful. hippy teachers made it required reading. and they still do.

though, it is fun to read at that age. It is very easy to identify with when a person is a pimply, hormone-enrages asshole teen. does this make it good, overall? not to me.

[QUOTE=MIRROR MIRROR]American Psycho

It was the most boring book I ever read,
but compared to the movie it's a masterpiece.

also - Lullaby

I remember it took me only two days to read, but the only reason I kept on reading was the silent hope I had that the story would suddenly (within the next chapter, or the next) change to the better, but it didn't.[/QUOTE]
American Psycho [I]is[/I] kind of boring, with entire paragraphs devoted to what everyone was wearing...man. But parts of it are good, at least so far. I'm only about halfway through.

I know it's a play, but how about Hamlet? I always found Macbeth to be a much more profound play with a deeper protagonist.

Nothing that Shakespeare wrote is overrated. Nothing.

romeo and juliet. overrated

[QUOTE=Sycron]Nothing that Shakespeare wrote is overrated. Nothing.[/QUOTE]

...

[QUOTE=hoipolloi]American Psycho [I]is[/I] kind of boring, with entire paragraphs devoted to what everyone was wearing...man. [/QUOTE]
I find Ellis unreadable on the whole.

[QUOTE=owenwarland]I know it's a play, but how about Hamlet? I always found Macbeth to be a much more profound play with a deeper protagonist.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I have to agree with others that Shakespeare isn't overrated, but I agree about Macbeth, which is probably the play of his I enjoyed the most.

[QUOTE=hoipolloi]American Psycho [I]is[/I] kind of boring, with entire paragraphs devoted to what everyone was wearing...man. But parts of it are good, at least so far. I'm only about halfway through.[/QUOTE]
Keep reading! You are about to get to the good shit. I can understand where you are coming from with being bored by all the descriptions about clothing or huey lewis or genesis or his daily routine. I felt the same way the first time I read it back in high school. But it depends how you read it. You gotta read deeper than the words i guess. A quickie, all the descriptions with clothing is setting up whats important to this yuppie asshole. And all the conversations about nohting, this is becasue bateman isn't capable of anything deeper. Ellis is a satirist. His characters are the kind of people he hates, and he writes as they would think (yeah, the first person thing) and you have to take the book as that. I would also recommend reading Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho: A Reader's Guide , this will make the book make a lot more sense.

As far as ellis being unreadable--that's crazy talk.

-K