Facebook: Most overrated book you've read?

From our Facebook page discussion: Name the most overrated book you've read.

Foucault's pendulum, I think. I gave up on The book thief after ten pages so I don't think that counts.

I misunderstood the subject line, and immediately leapt in to agree with the notion that Facebook is much more overrated than any book I’ve read...

>3 thorold:

I "like" your post.

>1 lorannen:

Catcher in the Rye
Lord of the Flies

And that has nothing to do with the fact that we were forced to read them in high school English class. There were a lot of books read for class that I did like, so it's not that.

Lilithcat, fan of Moby Dick, whatever anyone else says.

The alchemist and a lot of well-known books I read for school, long long ago, especially the Dutch ones.

So we have to have finished the book for it to qualify?

Oh. Um...

Robert Jordon's Wheel of Time, first three books.
The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu

My contribution is The Sun Also Rises. It was my third Hemingway, and I still don't get why he's a big deal.

Quite a few of the FB posts mention books that I would never have expected very much from (50 Shades of Grey...) so I wouldn't be surprised when they disappoint, but I really expected to understand why people love Hemingway.

>5 lilithcat: Yes! Those two!

Catcher in the Rye
Lord of the Flies

>8 Darth-Heather: Agree here, too.

If DNFs don't count I'll go with The Traveler (Fourth Realm Trilogy, Book 1) - it seemed intriguing at the time and got tons of great press, but it was ghastly. Wait, now I think back, it's a DNF, too. Hm...

Ok. How about Bowie by wendy Leigh. It was dreadful. Zero about his life as an artist and scads about how he'd screw anyone who got within arm's length. Oy.

For fiction I remember that Fates and Furies was President Obama's favorite book, but it was seriously underwhelming. Very glad I borrowed it from the library.

>10 Bookmarque: "Very glad I borrowed it from the library." I know that feeling well, too.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire *ducks to avoid incoming brickbats*

Actually I found the whole sequence overrated. They are a rehash of the tropes of the boarding school genre, nothing really special. But the first 3 were at least fun to read, whilst this was soooo repetitive. I didn't make it all the way through any subsequent volumes.

>9 MarthaJeanne:

Thanks for the touchstones!

(I'm on my iPad and for some reason touchstones don't work on it.)

>12 Guanhumara: The editor stopped paying attention around 4...

>12 Guanhumara:

No brickbats coming from my direction.

I read the first three, and thought the quality went down with each one. Never bothered to go further.

However, I'm nowhere near the age to which they were aimed, so my opinion is likely irrelevant!

>14 gilroy: Or was too overawed by her celebrity to dare take a sharp implement to the text...

>16 Guanhumara: I have a theory that says after an author gets so popular, or so much money for an editor, the only thing an editor checks is that text exists. They don't really dig in like they do in early books.

Other good examples: David Weber, Stephen King (Under the Dome is 1500 pages?!?), John Grisham.

>17 gilroy: And some of the later Heinleins.

The Goldfinch
It won prizes, I'd have given it brickbats.

Mine is Heart of Darkness, hands down. Had to read it for college and I hated every page of it.

ETA: Do I still have a copy of it in my library? Yes, but it's not mine. ;)

Moby Dick, Heart of Darkness, Master and Margarita. I can also go with Foucault's Pendulum from the list above.

>6 Ennas:, >7 gilroy: Surely nobody rates either Coelho or Robert Jordan highly? How can books which are generally looked down on be overrated?

I'm so utterly depressed that this thread got 10+ times the reach and engagement of other such posts. Negative emotion wins, every time.

#23 - I don't see why; there are always many threads on favourite or best books, so we need some balance. It's always interesting to see why some people dislike generally highly rated books (or indeed the other way round).

>23 timspalding: These are sad times in general. Perhaps it just guides us into pessimistic thoughts.

I agree with many of the choices so far (excepting Moby Dick, which I enjoyed, long ago). I have to add anything Heinlein from Stranger in a Strange Land, forward. I liked his juveniles best, and have also discovered that it's best not to re-read anything I liked long ago, by him, because I see things as an older adult that I don't much care for.

I never understood the Hemingway reputation; I did like Old Man and the Sea. I've read most of his works (I used to be more tolerant than I am now), but prefer other writers from his time.

lilithcat might agree that any book called 'The Great American Novel' is over-rated unless its title is 'Moby Dick'.

Of DNF's, War and Peace: from what I remember tedious and plodding and ordinary. Otherwise, perhaps The Great Gatsby: it's perfectly fine but I see nothing strikingly original or insightful let alone outstanding in it. Most likely few novels that won Booker, NBA, Pulitzer wouldn't seem over-rated to me.--For some reason it's much easier to think of over-rated authors than books.

Another sometimes dangerously over-rated one has just occurred to me. It puts too heavy a reliance on the verb 'begat' for my taste.

>24 john257hopper: Tim means on Facebook - not here. This thread had been a lot more active than anything else LT had posted lately.

>25 Lyndatrue: Last year I reread a lot of the Sci Fi classics I had loved. Ah, well. I don't really regret rereading them, but I find that I prefer books with real women in them. Not that the male characters are that realistic, but at least they try not to be cardboard cutouts.

>26 bluepiano:

lilithcat might agree that any book called 'The Great American Novel' is over-rated unless its title is 'Moby Dick'.

Oh, I don't know about that. Here's what's been tagged on LT with "the great American novel": http://www.librarything.com/tag/the+great+American+novel

Now, I don't necessarily agree that any of those are, but I loved Cold Mountain, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.

I didn't care much for The Great Gatsby, and The American Gods is high up on my "most overrated" list.

>30 lilithcat: The American Gods is high up on my 'wtf? people think that if an author uses "American" in their title they must be American?' list.

>31 bluepiano:

Well, they might be confused because he lives in Wisconsin. But still . . .

>30 lilithcat:

So the "great American novel" can be written by an Englishman ? :-P

(see 4th book from left on http://www.librarything.com/tag/the+great+American+novel )

>31 bluepiano: &>32 lilithcat: Sorry. Simultaneous posting.

> Well, now that the Booker can be won by an American...

>33 Guanhumara:

"from the left"?

Fourth book down, I think. Or third from the bottom. Or sixth from the top. All depends on your point of view.

;-)

>30 lilithcat: Thank Goddess! I'm not the only one who finds the man overrated! I have librarians looking at me like I've grown a horn or something when I say I can't stand his writing,.

Another foucault's pendulum
Shadow of the torturer
left hand of darkness

Left Hand of Darkness I love. I see it's been 6 years since my last reread. Time to pull it out again.

>23 timspalding: Negative emotion wins, every time.

I've got a knee-jerk hostility to the terms "over-rated" and "over-hyped." I think they are a criticism of the reader, not the book.

>23 timspalding: and >40 southernbooklady: Of course we all have different reactions to books, and because any one person doesn't like a book, or doesn't understand why others did, doesn't mean the book is poor. I wouldn't want to see every post be negative (FB is famous for that), but sometimes it's nice to know that one is not alone in having a negative reaction to a work which is supposed to be "wonderful." Is that petty? I don't know, but I think it is human.

I thought the Harry Potter books were glorified beyond what their writing deserved, but I can see why. Sometimes a fantasy world is fun to fall into because the reader's mind makes it so much more than what a reading critic would make of the work. I've seen critics tear Tolkien's writing apart, and perhaps it deserves it, but for me, that is a living world and always will be.

>41 MrsLee: Much more succinctly put than I could work out myself. Thank you!

>41 MrsLee: My sisters and I have loved Tolkien since we were first introduced to his work, but my mother never took to him. She tried several times because, 'Once or twice a year some kid will come into school and be all excited about the wonderful book s/he has discovered and just has to tell me how good it is. And it's always the brightest kids. But I just can't get into it and I don't know what's wrong with me.'

I've read the first Harry Potter book - I had a boy learning to read about then, and got him into it. But I have never understood the hype either way. Same thing with the sparkling vampires. Read one. Don't get the raves positive or negative. But neither is ever claimed to be great undying literature.

On the other hand, at school the books we were forced to read were either picked as being 'relevant' to us as young people. (To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, or Lord of the Flies) Or else was 'great literature' that we had to know, but probably weren't ready for. Hemingway and Dickens come to mind. I will never go back to any of these. I loved almost everything else I got my hands on during those years. And I enjoyed the literature I read for college classes.

>41 MrsLee: sometimes it's nice to know that one is not alone in having a negative reaction to a work which is supposed to be "wonderful."

So, my classic example of this sort of thing is Charles Dickens. Intellectually, I know his work is powerful and moving, not to mention addictive. But more often than not, his sentimentality grates on me, and his overly-emphasized dialect and in-your-face word plays and puns irritate and distract me. "Dickensian" is not a word I consider a compliment when applied to writing (or home decor, for that matter.)

But I put this down to matters of personal taste. I'm not about to say A Christmas Carol is "over-hyped."

>44 southernbooklady: Dickens has puns? Guess I never got deep enough into any of his stories to find them.

I'm not sure about Dickens, but I've always thought that part of the massive popularity of both Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald was due as much to the personality of the man as it was to their works. I never cared much for Hemingway, but was spellbound by some of Fitzgerald's works (but remember my admonition about reading things again that were read in youth).

I loved (and still love) "Bernice Bobs Her Hair" and Gatsby really was wonderful when I read it, more than fifty years ago. Reading it again reminded me of how much I loved it, then, but if it had been a first encounter, I doubt I'd have even finished it.

Some authors (and some works) are of an era, and not everyone remains wonderful.

I can still read Sir Walter Scott, and love every precious word.

Thanks to everyone who mentioned Hemingway. I've always thought that the popularity of his work might have been a trend thing.

It was the time when literature was very flowery, with lengthy descriptions, and lots of symbolism (think James Joyce or Proust) and onto the scene charges Hemingway with his pared-down, cut-to-the-chase style. I think it was probably refreshing at the time, but by today's standards, I think it's too bare bones. The accusations that he never stopped being a journalist are quite justified.

I would also add "The Hobbit" by J.R.R. Tolkien. It was Tolkien's first attempt at writing a novel and quite frankly, it shows. People rave about it because they love anything to do with Middle Earth and the world that Tolkien created, not because it's actually a well-written novel.

>47 Gail.C.Bull: People rave about it because they love anything to do with Middle Earth and the world that Tolkien created, not because it's actually a well-written novel.

But it's a rockin' good story. :)

The Hobbit isn't the same sort of thing as Lord of the Rings. If you try to judge it as a prequel, it won't come out well. But if you take it on its own terms it is a very good book, much better than the earlier things he wrote for his children, and I suspect still aimed at that audience. I remember our boys at a very young age sitting fascinated as my husband read it to us.

MarthaJeanne: I don't think Tolkien really hit his stride as a writer until half-way through The Two Towers. That's actually what I find so fascinating about reading The Lord of the Rings: you get to witness a writer developing his talent; and finding his voice and style. The Return of the King is Tolkien at his full powers as a writer, and I've always thought it was a tragedy that he stopped writing after that book.

>50 Gail.C.Bull: I agree. He was completely focused on the matter behind the book, the fictional world. I wish he had been more focused on the actual telling of stories. Of course, his focus was where his interest lay, so that would probably not have been possible.

The Night Circus sounded like it would be a magical read, but I found nothing especially magical in it. Compare Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, which I appreciated.

Shoot me now. I think two Nobel Prize-winners' "greatest" novels were highly overrated by the Committee. Both happen to be Asian writers. I appreciate many Asian writers (as my LT library attests), but not these two:

Soul Mountain by Gao Xingjian (didn't finish this door stop)
A Personal Matter by Kenzaburō Ōe (my unhappy review)

And I get tired of Salman Rushdie's novels at the half way point of too many of them. Although I admire his talent tremendously and keep attempting whatever he writes. For me, all he had to write to attain immortality in my Hall of Beloved Authors, was The Satanic Verses.

Finally, I'll mention this work which I couldn't get interested in even after slogging through 100 pp or so of this YUGE novel. We, the Drowned by Carsten Jensen. I wanted to like it, I tried to like it, but it drowned my interest long before I got to p 100.

Like I said, "Shoot me now."

>53 Limelite:, I had a great deal of trouble with appreciating Rushdie's Midnight's Children, the "Booker of Bookers". I was far more impressed with The God of Small Things, a later Booker winner also with an India setting, and an earlier Booker-winning India book, Staying On.

>53 Limelite: "I get tired of Salman Rushdie's novels at the half way point of too many of them."

That happened to me with Midnight's Children and I haven't given another of his a chance. I was absorbed, then I wasn't.

>54 Crypto-Willobie: LoL! Good thing for me no LTers have confessed to owning or reading it!

>55 Cecrow: I understand he's an experimental novelist and avant-garde and all that. I guess my problem is he's writing the same experiment over and over. I'd like to see him handle a work of fiction with fewer elements in it, like no magical realism, or tighter plotting. Just straight story telling would win me over again.

>56 MrsLee: Agreed. "Midnight's" started off in an interesting manner but the prodigious number of characters seemed to lead Rushdie to have to sacrifice plot. Also, unfortunately, I know few -- if any -- details of Indian history and I realized because of my ignorance that there was a hell of a lot of symbolism that went over my head.