Overrated Novels

[WhiteQueen]

OK, this is random.

I read some book by Nelson Demille when I was about 19. I was at my parent's and some shit was laying around and I was bored. So i picked this up. He's like some bestseller right? God it was shit.

We are all idiots for not being millionaire best-selling authors like DeMille.

So while I would assume everyone's reaction on this board is "Overrated? Who ever said he was good?" I agree...to an extent....millions of middle-aged women who want to read in their down time say he's great.

Never thought he was great, but I do like his dry sarcastic sense of humor. He does not know how to finish his books though. And he is not any worse than GRRM.

[WhiteQueen]

Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth. Can't believe how many people like this book. I found it laughable.

Simone de Beauvoir "The Second Sex" - just lost its relevance completely. I am sure that back in the day it was eye-opening, now it reads as "Duh".

[Fenny]

I keep on meaning to have a crack a D.H. Lawrence, but my heart sinks every time I reach for a copy of one of his books. All the extracts of his work that I've seen involve po-faced pseudo-psychological discussions of sex, which just makes me want to laugh. I don't know. Perhaps Lawrence is one of those authors you grow into.

My tastes seem quite conservative. I love Shakespeare and Dickens, like Austen very much, like Emily Bronte - with reservations, think Charlotte is rather overrated, especially as regards Jane Eyre. I prefer Villette, despite all the horrible coincidences, and the sentimentality that you have to develop something of a tolerance for in any case if you're going to enjoy Victorian fiction.

[WhiteQueen]

I love D.H. Lawrence. We share a birthday, too. Dickens, on the other hand, much loved by me in my teens, gets on my nerves in my old age.

[Arthmail]

The Bible. Highly overrated, inconsistant, and taken as the word of god, rather than what it has been...2000 years of control by the Catholic Church. Some good things in it, but i sit on the fence if it makes up for the bad.

[Ormond]

The Bible. Highly overrated, inconsistant, and taken as the word of god, rather than what it has been...2000 years of control by the Catholic Church. Some good things in it, but i sit on the fence if it makes up for the bad.

Huh? Cool if you don't like it or accept it as the word of God, but everything in the Bible was written BEFORE there was a Catholic church, so it certainly doesn't describe 2000 years of control by that institution.

[Ser Barry]

Given the recent love on the board I have to say The Shadow of the Wind. It was setting itself up to be a decent book and then the wind gets ripped out of its' sails by the letter fiasco. Grrrr. Rubbish.

[Isis]

Oh, I forgot to mention The Catcher in the Rye. I think it's one of the worst books I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

I don't actually think it's rubbish but it's way, WAY, up there as a truly overrated book. So many people claim it is their favourite book, that it's a work of genius... Whatevs.

[Werthead]

Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth. Can't believe how many people like this book. I found it laughable.

I did enjoy it, but it was nothing like I was expecting. I was expecting a serious, literary heavyweight work about realistically depicting life in 12th Century England and the building of a cathedral. Instead, they don't actually start building the cathedral until about halfway through the book and there have to be lengthy interruptions to the plot to focus on the evil bad guy killing or raping people for no reason or a lingering assessment of the main female character's breasts. Once I realised the book was actually going to be be a pile of cheesecorn, I was able to appreciate it on that level. But there is a strong undercurrent of unintended near-John-Ringo levels of comedy running through that book.

[Brude]

Despite my lukewarm reactions, I've decided to give him another go this summer - this time on my own. So far I've made my way through The Turn of the Screw, Washington Square and The Jolly Corner.

Interesting little story, a friend of mine once had her bedroom in the room, in the townhouse on Washington Square where Henry James wrote "Washington Square;" apparently the desk he wrote it at was in her room too. The sickest part is that she didn't even have to pay rent because her rich friend owned the place and didn't need the money.

Thus far, this is what I can tell you: too much substance, not enough style. James is a master, it's plain to see. His language is well-used, his plots intricate, and his characters very well-thought out and developed. But I'm bored stiff. There's just no flair and no fun. His language is polished, but neither fun to read nor transparent. The actions of his characters always make sense, but I can never envision these characters as real people. Just to mention two other prominent American authors:

Pretty damn good summary of my reaction, as well. Yes, the language was perfect and precise, etc., etc., but who cares when the guy takes eight pages to describe how the specific way someone inclines their head during tea destroys their reputation in New York society forever (that's not even really hyperbole, either).

Please be careful with spoilers

Seriously, that's about the most egregious case I have ever seen...like ever in the history of spoilers.

[etcetera]

Interesting little story, a friend of mine once had her bedroom in the room, in the townhouse on Washington Square where Henry James wrote "Washington Square;" apparently the desk he wrote it at was in her room too. The sickest part is that she didn't even have to pay rent because her rich friend owned the place and didn't need the money.

Pretty damn good summary of my reaction, as well. Yes, the language was perfect and precise, etc., etc., but who cares when the guy takes eight pages to describe how the specific way someone inclines their head during tea destroys their reputation in New York society forever (that's not even really hyperbole, either).

James was sometimes accused of badgering the nuance (an expression I rather like and find useful on a surprising number of occasions).

I'm nodding my head in agreement about Pillars of the Earth. I found it formulaic and the villains horribly one dimensional, and the history was undermined by jarringly modern behavior and mores. I quit after 250 pages. There were too many other better books in my pile to spend any more time with it.

[add-on]

The Bible. Highly overrated, inconsistant, and taken as the word of god, rather than what it has been...2000 years of control by the Catholic Church. Some good things in it, but i sit on the fence if it makes up for the bad.

Man, you're edgy!

I keep on meaning to have a crack a D.H. Lawrence, but my heart sinks every time I reach for a copy of one of his books. All the extracts of his work that I've seen involve po-faced pseudo-psychological discussions of sex, which just makes me want to laugh. I don't know. Perhaps Lawrence is one of those authors you grow into.

Sons and Lovers is a decent story. Give it a go.

re: your likes and dislikes,

Well, since you say you like Emily Bronte, I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done for you. I think they may have a pill for that.

Interesting little story, a friend of mine once had her bedroom in the room, in the townhouse on Washington Square where Henry James wrote "Washington Square;" apparently the desk he wrote it at was in her room too. The sickest part is that she didn't even have to pay rent because her rich friend owned the place and didn't need the money.

That is indeed quite sick.

Pretty damn good summary of my reaction, as well. Yes, the language was perfect and precise, etc., etc., but who cares when the guy takes eight pages to describe how the specific way someone inclines their head during tea destroys their reputation in New York society forever (that's not even really hyperbole, either).

Hehe. I've actually decided to give up on Henry James (again) for the time being. There's only so much I can take. Maybe I'll come back to him later.

[McCloskey]

I did enjoy it, but it was nothing like I was expecting. I was expecting a serious, literary heavyweight work about realistically depicting life in 12th Century England and the building of a cathedral. Instead, they don't actually start building the cathedral until about halfway through the book and there have to be lengthy interruptions to the plot to focus on the evil bad guy killing or raping people for no reason or a lingering assessment of the main female character's breasts. Once I realised the book was actually going to be be a pile of cheesecorn, I was able to appreciate it on that level. But there is a strong undercurrent of unintended near-John-Ringo levels of comedy running through that book.

I enjoyed Pillars when I read it, but that was 14 years ago when I was in 8th grade. I've been thinking about a re-read but maybe not now.

John Ringo is probably the worst writer I've ever come across. Utter garbage. Thats probably why you can read his books for free on the internet.

[Xalinor]

I must admit, The Lord of the Rings was amazingly hard to get through. Tolkien's writing style could put the most hardcore fantasy fan to sleep.

[Guest Raidne]

From books that are often recommended on this board? The Prince of Nothing, hands down. I didn't really like Perdido Street Station or the The Scar either, but I'm more willing to say that Mieville is a great writer who's style that I'm just not that into all the time than I am about Bakker.

In popular fiction, I think The Da Vinci code has to win hands down. It could only be rivaled by the Harry Potter series, and I haven't read those, so I couldn't say.

I also agree about Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The latter has the least compelling characters, but the former is lacking a plot.

On the whole, though, I have to say that this thread reads more like a collection of some of my favorite books than it does books I would avoid.

[Brude]

Regarding Dan Brown. I picked up a cheap, used copy of "Angels & Demons" and put it down about 20 pages into it. I can't even believe the thing got published, it was simply childishly bad. After that I haven't bothered trying to crack "Da Vinci Code." I figure I've long since done better having read "The Illuminatus! Trilogy," "Foucault's Pendulum" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (the allegedly non-fiction book where Brown got most of his ideas).

[Joanna vander Poele]

That is indeed quite sick.

Please tell me why this is sick...

[Guest Raidne]

Regarding Dan Brown. I picked up a cheap, used copy of "Angels & Demons" and put it down about 20 pages into it. I can't even believe the thing got published, it was simply childishly bad. After that I haven't bothered trying to crack "Da Vinci Code." I figure I've long since done better having read "The Illuminatus! Trilogy," "Foucault's Pendulum" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (the allegedly non-fiction book where Brown got most of his ideas).

Indeed, there's really not a single idea that's in The Da Vinci Code that's not in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it loses all the good bits about the Priory of Sion.

[automne]

Perhaps Lawrence is one of those authors you grow into.

No, he isn't. He is incredibly boring.

As for Dan Brown, let's be fair. I don't think he is that bad, provided you read his books in a train station or some place similar, where there's too much noise for you to concentrate on what you're reading.

[Humble Asskicker]

The works of Shakespeare, Dante, Hardy, Luo Guanzhong, Sun Tsu, Byron and Shelly and that other Shelly, all of the Bronte sisters, The Bible and Koran (naturally) and all the other classic works that are beloved because of their quality and significance to history and mankind and which I'll just throw a stinging swipe at from the supercilious heights of my well-cushioned seat. Oh that feels good.