Worst/Overrated books.

[waltwhitmanheadedbat]

am i the only one here that love Hemmingway?

I don't think so - I loved A Farewell to Arms. The setting especially was very vivid in my head.

Is there anything else by him that you'd recommend?

[Nullifidian]

As is 'Eats, Shoots, and Leaves'.

Thank Darwin someone has the guts to say this. I find that most books on grammar are praised over here in the U.S. merely because Americans get a deer-in-the-headlights look on anything to with the subject, and critics would rather praise bad books on grammar than risk looking unsophisticated. That said, I did get a kick out of the possessive-less "residents refuse to go in bins". It put me in mind of Monty Python: "I don't want to go in the bin!" "Oh, don't be such a big baby!"

Are you kidding me? How could you not love pure distilled pedantry?

When the pedantry is wrong or merely stupid, elevating personal preferences to the status of inflexible rules. Which brings me to my submission for the most overrated book, a work that did more to give Americans grammar-anxiety than anything else....

The Elements of Style by Strunk and White

This book (as amended by E.B. White — the original was published in 1920 and is now public domain) turned 50 in 2009, and there were celebrations all over academia, and yet it is a bad book. So that definitely qualifies it for the "overrated category".

I was taught this piece of shit in high school by a well-meaning teacher, just like millions of Americans, and I basically ignored everything I read. It ranges from the superfluous to the actively harmful. Most of the "style guides" are harmless, like "Omit needless words". Students who know which words those are don't need Strunk and White's help. Where the book truly does its damage is in its discussion of grammar, like the famous rule against the "passive voice". This misbegotten rule is responsible for so many wavy lines of green in Microsoft Word. And yet there's nothing wrong with the passive voice in principle. Their examples are deliberately contrived to sound bad, but equivalent ones are perfectly permissible.

Geoffrey Pullum eviscerates their rule against the passive voice and shows three examples where active voice sentences were misidentified, as well as pulling out other examples of them violating their own rules in their own book!

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-o ... mmar/25497

I'm sure someone else has picked out Ayn Rand's novels as the most overrated, so I'll pass over that subject in silence, except to say that Atlas Shrugged is to this day the worst novel I've ever read. While Stephanie Meyer may be worse, for all I know, nobody claims her books are examples of great American literature.

[Kendo_Bunny]

While Stephanie Meyer may be worse, for all I know, nobody claims her books are examples of great American literature.

You must not have met any of her fans....

[MotorToad]

all this twilight thing...overrated, overrated, overrated... that's all i can say.

It was recently reviewed by the MIT SciFi library. Here is their review in full.

[pooteeweet]

LOL @ MotorToad!

Nullifidian, that "passive voice" thing has always bugged me so freaking much! It is comforting to know I'm not the only one.

[El Spark]

Here is their review in full.

Win. I'm so posting that on the bulletin board in the staff room at our library.

[Omerprime]

all this twilight thing...overrated, overrated, overrated... that's all i can say.

It was recently reviewed by the MIT SciFi library. Here is their review in full.
[img]http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/reviews/Meyer-Twilight.jpg[img]

I love you Motor.

[Jumble]

As is 'Eats, Shoots, and Leaves'.

Are you kidding me? How could you not love pure distilled pedantry?

Always thought that 'book' would have been better named 'For God's sake, Truss, get a life'. It was pleasing to hear her interviewed and discover that she is every bit as conceited and unpleasant as you would imagine.

[RabbitWho]

i think the catcher in the rye is overrated, i liked it but i definetly dont think that its as good as everyone says it is, i think the plot kinda sucks

also, hench where is your signature thingy from?

I thought that I liked it.. but then I was talking to someone who loved it and realized we might as well have read completely different books.. I had missed the fact that the main character was lonely (or at least that that was in anyway important) I thought it was about an old man looking back on what it was like to be young.


I'm sure it's been mentioned but that book.. you know that book that reads like it was written by a drunk 4 year old about a renaissance artist and which stole all its ideas from a slightly older but less successful book? I forget what it was called.. it was overrated.

[Various Varieties]

Ohmygod! I just looked up Diana Wynne Jones on a whim after reading your comment and discovered that she is the author of that series of wizardy books I really liked as a kid but couldn't remember the name or any useful descriptors of. Chrestomanci! Fuck yeah! That's been bugging me for years. Now does anyone remember some similar obscure fantasy kid's books that involved... uh... whales, and talking to inanimate objects?

Perhaps Diane Duane's "Young Wizards" series? The first book was called So You Want to be a Wizard. One of the main characters was skilled at magic involving inanimate objects (and I think he had the ability to intuit stuff about those objects' history, if not exactly "talk to" them). The second book in the series, Deep Wizardry, was pretty heavily focussed on whales, dolphins and sharks.

[oagersnap]

I read The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, which is apparently a very popular book, but I was quite disappointed. The book didn't really keep me interested, I had to force myself to read through it, and the ending, which is pretty emotional, wasn't spectacular in my opinion.

I think the problem lies mainly in the descriptions of the characters, particularly the main character, Liesel Meminger: It's hard to identify with them, the book almost only describes their thoughts and feelings indirectly through actions and dialogue. This can work sometimes, but in this case, it didn't (for me) - perhaps because the book is quite uneventful, with a few exceptions. As mentioned, the ending is quite dramatic - I won't spoil it, although the book itself spoils it right at the beginning - but it has no connection with the events of the entire preceding story, and is sort of a reverse "Deus ex machina". To me, this lessens its emotional impact, and it also makes much of the preceding story seem pointless.

The story is narrated by Death, which is quite creative, but it doesn't serve much of a purpose for the story, I think - sometimes it distracts from the plot. Also, throughout the story, there are small "vignettes" - I don't know what else to call them, but they are small sections of a few lines written in bold and separated from the rest of the text. Often there are several of these per chapter, and they distract quite a lot without adding much to the reading experience.

In conclusion: The Book Thief tries too hard to be creative, but doesn't have enough substance or a strong enough plot to balance it out. To quote Bilbo Baggins, it feels like butter scraped over too much bread. (Butter = plot/substance, bread = creative devices that don't add to the plot)

[Zohar]

I would like to mention I have the complete opposite opinion of oagersnap and think The Book Thief is a wonderful, emotional, clever and important book.

[El Spark]

I read The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, which is apparently a very popular book, but I was quite disappointed. The book didn't really keep me interested

This.

On the other hand, I Am The Messenger, by the same author, was damn good.

[Jumble]

The Player of Games by Banks. Apparently this is a highly individual opinion as people with whom I usually agree on such matters like it. I've always been under the impression I would like Banks, but this is his only book that I've read, I suppose I should try something else.

Try some of his other stuff. I've never got on with Banks' SF stuff - just can't get into it - but I like some of his mainstream books. I was at a seminar that he gave last week and I didn't dare admit that I didn't like the "culture' books. The sci-fi buffs would have had me tarred and feathered.

One other thing with Banks - I asked him if he consciously tries to vary he writing style and he admitted that he does (as a form of showing off). So, if you don't like one of his books try a different one as they are all very different.

[Various Varieties]

I didn't dare admit that I didn't like the "culture' books. The sci-fi buffs would have had me tarred and feathered.

And I'd have joined in with them!

I read Excession last week, the fourth of Banks' books I've read (all of which have been "M" ones). Loved it - though probably not quite as much as The Player of Games, because although the Mind-to-Mind stuff was fantastic, the human-scale story wasn't as compelling as any of the other Culture books I've read.

I think the first time I ever heard of Iain Banks was browsing through a copy of The Complete Polysyllabic Spree in a bookshop, a collection of Nick Hornby's book reviews. Excession was the only sci-fi or fantasy novel reviewed in there. Hornby didn't make it far into the book, explaining that it was representative of all the reasons he Doesn't Read Sci-Fi. ("Nothing in the twenty-odd pages I managed of Excession was in any way bad; it’s just that I didn’t understand a word. I didn’t even understand the blurb on the back of the book.") From the sound of it, it seemed like having Excession as one's first point of contact with sci-fi was a bit like someone who's never played a videogame in their life asking whether Ninja Gaiden Black would be a good one to start with - brilliant, but just a little bit daunting for a newbie!

[melladh]

I have to second 1984 (third, fourth, I couldn't be arsed to read the entire thread) simply because it's in my genre, ruining my love for it. The concept is great, and it's really a good story, but problem is... I just WANT the characters to get punished and die. I hate them all. I care about the world they're in, but I couldn't care less about the characters. The actual story is ruining the book. I can't say I blame the publishers for turning it down a handful of times before giving in. (at least that's what the jacket of my book says happened)

For a dystopian future I'll reread Fahrenheit 451 any day, but I don't think I'll ever manage to finish 1984, even though I know it has a "happy ending".

[pooteeweet]

Ohmygod! I just looked up Diana Wynne Jones on a whim after reading your comment and discovered that she is the author of that series of wizardy books I really liked as a kid but couldn't remember the name or any useful descriptors of. Chrestomanci! Fuck yeah! That's been bugging me for years. Now does anyone remember some similar obscure fantasy kid's books that involved... uh... whales, and talking to inanimate objects?

Perhaps Diane Duane's "Young Wizards" series? The first book was called So You Want to be a Wizard. One of the main characters was skilled at magic involving inanimate objects (and I think he had the ability to intuit stuff about those objects' history, if not exactly "talk to" them). The second book in the series, Deep Wizardry, was pretty heavily focussed on whales, dolphins and sharks.

Yup! Sweet. I have no idea if these are actually objectively any good, but 11-year-old-pooteeweet was a fan.

[Apteryx]

Someone who "Doesn't Read Science Fiction" reads "Excession" then says he doesn't understand anything in the first 20 pages?.

Well, of course he didn't. It is like me picking up one of the Physics works of , . . . well, to be honest, anyone who can actually do Maths. I wouldn't understand a single thing, and it would be the worst kind of filthy hubris for me to imply that was anything other than my own weakness, my own failing.

I hope Hornsby didn't go on to trash the book. He had no business writing a review in the first place, unless he was honest and said "I can not review this book, due to my own lack of comprehension". I admit that there is grounds for him to say "My long time readers know my skills and likes, and if they share them, I can say honestly, you won't enjoy "Excession" at all". But that is the only right he has in the case.

For the reader who didn't like one of Banks Sci Fi works, I can suggest they might really like his "The Crow Road" instead.

Edit to add, TEN POINTS, MotorToad.

[theGoldenCalf;]

Brave New World.

Sort of, yea.

I mean, it isn't bad, but not exceptionally good either, at least not classic-and-timeless-warning-of-things-to-come good. To me, the strengths of the book lie mainly with the mirror put up to the dystopian society by the 'savage' John - pointing out the horrible, fascistic side of a society bent on a life of entertainment, sex and drugs, the inhuman side of the brainwashed individuals having their lives stripped of any depth of human experience, and the overall incapacitating idea of happiness-uber-alles.
Buuuuuuuut, the way this technocratic regime is detailed in the book just doesn't sell. Manufacturing babies in an assembly-line was maybe a reliable scenario in the eugenics-era of the 1930s, today it sounds too much like early-sci-fi tiresome bullshit. The whole concept of an infantile society only caring for immediate satisfaction and acting, by duty, like babies - while each having to be reliable and productive during working hours - also doesn't cut it, not after the hippie revolution is over 40 years old and was proven to be mostly juvenile mindless jimjam (fun, though. I've had my days of it), and a far stretch from the way things actually work. Overall, Huxley skims on details, focuses mostly on the messages and ideas he's trying to convey, and rushes too quickly to consummation without allowing for more satisfying character and plot growth.

Contributing:

I've already made an angry tirade about "Being There" by Jerzy Kosinsky in another thread, it's also applicable here.

Girl with Pearl Earring. I could barely make it alive past the first couple dozen pages. So badly written, so whiny, so... ugh. BAD.

Jumping on bandwagons:

Catcher in the Rye. I couldn't stop chanting "cheer up you sorry douchebag" the whole time I've read it, and I was myself an angsty teen who hated nearly everyone at the time. Just goes to show what a message-overkill this book is.

Harry Potter. It's children-to-preteen literature. Get over it. If you like fluff for its fluffiness then enjoy yourself, just don't pretend it's rib steak.

Defending:

Lord of the Rings. Yea, I see what you're tolkien about (sorry. had to). I too skipped some pages, angrily muttering "IT'S A C-S-ING M-F-ING TREE FOR FUCK SAKE". It's a hard read and can be tiring and boring occasionally. On the other hand, for absorbing, enchanting fantasy - if you're into that sort of thing - this is superior to any other. It builds up such a rich world around a solid, captivating story, to extents I haven't seen in any other fantasy novel.

The Satanic Verses. There are two things making it less than accessible - Rushdie's unique style and symbolism, and a heavy presence of muslim, arab and indian (both language and culture) references. Many people hate the former, and not that many in the western world are fluent in the latter. As someone who loves Rushdie, speaks arabic, has studied Islam and been to India twice, I can say this book rocks, and see why it bores the hell out of many other readers. It just requires of the reader to be into various separate things (lyrical prose, intense symbolism, muslim mythology, arabic and arab culture, indian language and movie-culture) that it's enough to not be a Rushdie fan or not knowing muslim lore to probably making the reader uninterested rather quickly.

[Mother Superior]

Because I need to mention it by an obsessive compulsion, though I am sure it has been mentioned before: The Da Vinci code. Waste of shelf space and a good week of my life.

Other than that, well... as a fan of Thomas Harris, obviously I was saddened (but not surprised) to discover that Hannibal Rising was horrid. Not saying all three previous books in the Hannibal Lecter-series were great, but I at least enjoyed reading Hannibal. And Red Dragon I think is just brilliant.

I've still only gotten a hundred pages or so into the Lord of the Rings, couldn't take any more. Have been told recently to read A Hobbit's Tale, however, as it's supposed to be a lot better. Might give it a go.

[Apteryx]

Second you with the Da Vinci Code distress. VERY POOR WRITING.

Maybe give LotR a few years mate, peoples tastes change as they grow up. His writing can get a bit dense, and it is very correct grammar, very proper English, very accurate use of punctuation . . . not what people are used to any more.

It would be a shame if you missed them many excellent stirring episodes the books contain.

Is "A Hobbits Tale" the US title of the book the UK calls "The Hobbit" , do you think?. I am sure you would prefer it as a starting point.

[Belial]

LotR is the prototype of modern fantasy, and, like most prototypes, it's clunky, it doesn't work quite right, it has a lot of pieces it doesn't need and would work better without, and you're probably better off just getting one of the newer versions with the kinks worked out.

[Mother Superior]

Maybe give LotR a few years mate, peoples tastes change as they grow up. His writing can get a bit dense, and it is very correct grammar, very proper English, very accurate use of punctuation . . . not what people are used to any more.

Ermm... thank you, but I don't think it's an issue of maturity...

[melladh]

Maybe give LotR a few years mate, peoples tastes change as they grow up. His writing can get a bit dense, and it is very correct grammar, very proper English, very accurate use of punctuation . . . not what people are used to any more.

How old are you supposed to be to read it? I certainly don't have a problem with things being accurately formed, but the way everyone keep sitting around and talking about things... it feels like it takes an eternity to get anywhere at all. And I don't mean action-wise, I'm fond of very quiet books as well. I think I simply have to agree with the prototype statement. It's a wonderful story, but the way it's written renders large segments uninteresting.

And it's not to do with at-what-time-it-was-written either, there are many books both of that time and older that are more pleasant to read. It just feels a little like it's written the same way you'd write a dissertation.

I still think the books are okay, but I wouldn't expect just anyone to enjoy it, unless I know they're the type to plow through classics simply because they like plowing through classics.

[Mother Superior]

And I don't mean action-wise, I'm fond of very quiet books as well. I think I simply have to agree with the prototype statement. It's a wonderful story, but the way it's written renders large segments uninteresting.

And it's not to do with at-what-time-it-was-written either, there are many books both of that time and older that are more pleasant to read. It just feels a little like it's written the same way you'd write a dissertation.

Same here. For example I think To the Lighthouse is a wonderful read, though many of my friends thinks it's too slow and nothing happens in it.

[Apteryx]

Maybe give LotR a few years mate, peoples tastes change as they grow up. His writing can get a bit dense, and it is very correct grammar, very proper English, very accurate use of punctuation . . . not what people are used to any more.

Ermm... thank you, but I don't think it's an issue of maturity...

Umm, well, maybe up was the wrong choice, how about old then?. My point was peoples tastes change as they age. And if you think you are mature now, imagine what you will think when you have doubled your present age. Every candid 30 year old thinks "My god, wasn't I smug when I was 20" and of course, every 50 year old says it many times again.
Don't take this as me talking down to you from my endless age , because that wasn't my intent, my hope was that one day you might just try LotRs again, because I am sure there is much in there that you will love.

[gmalivuk]

it is very correct grammar, very proper English, very accurate use of punctuation . . . not what people are used to any more.

Yeah, that must be why someone doesn't like LotR. The grammar and punctuation...

(You misused the ellipsis there, by the way.)

[theGoldenCalf;]

it is very correct grammar, very proper English, very accurate use of punctuation . . . not what people are used to any more.

Yeah, that must be why someone doesn't like LotR. The grammar and punctuation...

(You misused the ellipsis there, by the way.)

To Apteryx's defense I can say that archaic language can be a turn-off when reading a book, and it's something LoTR is not really deprived of. I really enjoyed reading Ulysses for example, but the language was one of the main things that made it difficult, exhausting and ultimately a fuck-this-I'm-going-to-read-Amber-now.

[gmalivuk]

I'll grant you archaic language, sure. But that's radically different from being "very correct", "very proper", or "very accurate" language.

(Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm more bothered by the patronizing tone of that whole post, or by the OHNOES MY LANGUAGE IS BEING RUINED BY TEENAGERS AND ALSO THE SKY IS FALLING nonsense...)

[melladh]

(Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm more bothered by the patronizing tone of that whole post, or by the OHNOES MY LANGUAGE IS BEING RUINED BY TEENAGERS AND ALSO THE SKY IS FALLING nonsense...)

Mind you, not everyone can express themselves as perfectly as Tolkien when writing a forum post about the perfection of Tolkien (That sentence can very well also sound as a sarcastic attack on *looks up name* Apteryx, and my quotee, but I assure you it's only my lame attempt at humor. Ah-ha-ha. How we laugh.)

I don't mean to say that what Apteryx says is completely without point. Except the "growing up" thing... if anything I was less picky with smoothness as a pre-teen, and found it easier to read Faust then than I would now. But then again, I was also a grammar nazi back then, which teh interwebz has ruined completely. It might be true for a lot of people out in the world, who don't look further than what's expected by their age group, but how many of them would come here?

A lot of people have difficulties reading things outside their comfortzone in way of writing alone, gods know it took me years and years to begin to understand immigrants speaking my language only slightly poorly, or my heavily dyslectic (not really, but in behaviour) friends who I got to know through chat, who'd replace all sorts of letters, skip some altogether, and only write half the words in a sentence... But once you learn to understand one of them, it's easier to understand the next as well.

But my point is that that isn't the problem in LotR. I know well the want to defend something you love, and I know that for some people the "later in life" might be true re:Tolkien. Hell, it might be true for me. But linguistics was never a part of it, or at least a very minor part.

[Mother Superior]

(Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm more bothered by the patronizing tone of that whole post, or by the OHNOES MY LANGUAGE IS BEING RUINED BY TEENAGERS AND ALSO THE SKY IS FALLING nonsense...)

Personally? Definitely the former.

[Woopate]

I read through them when I was seventeen. Took a bit of work to get over the archaic writing style, and I'm not sure I'll do it again, but I definitly think that it was worthwhile to do it just once. At least to see why the movie-haters are movie-haters.

[gmalivuk]

(Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm more bothered by the patronizing tone of that whole post, or by the OHNOES MY LANGUAGE IS BEING RUINED BY TEENAGERS AND ALSO THE SKY IS FALLING nonsense...)

Personally? Definitely the former.

Piss off, kid. Adults are talking here.

[Belial]

Getting older definitely makes you like LotR more.

I mean, Michael Moorcock is seventy, and he just loves it.

[Apteryx]

(Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm more bothered by the patronizing tone of that whole post, or by the OHNOES MY LANGUAGE IS BEING RUINED BY TEENAGERS AND ALSO THE SKY IS FALLING nonsense...)

Personally? Definitely the former.

Well, I am sorry you read what I wrote as if it were patronising, that wasn't my intent at all. As I tried to make clear in my subsequent reply to you.

If you WANT to be patronised to of course, then you will read it where it isn't intended I think. You know, in a post where someone SPECIFICALLY says they didn't mean to.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

If you WANT to be patronised to of course, then you will read it where it isn't intended I think. You know, in a post where someone SPECIFICALLY says they didn't mean to.

Saying "with all due respect" doesn't give you license to say whatever you like, but in any case, assuming we're all talking about the same post, you didn't say anything about not meaning to be patronizing. You did say, later, that "maybe up was the wrong choice [of words]," so it's also not just a case of deliberately reading patronization into it.

And Xbox-class flames in my inbox aren't going to keep me from engaging in discussion, dig?

[pollywog]

I liked LotR when I was younger. Then I started reading Sci-Fi, and thought, wow, for long books, Dune is so so much better than LotR. Then I read books that were easier to read, like Discworld, or Hugh Cook's books (forget what they are called, Kiwi author I think, first one was called the Wizards and the Warriors, hilarious), and found myself getting into them so much more. The the LotR movies came out, and I tried to reread the books, to enjoy the movies more, and they were crap. I don't think I could get halfway through the first, if that. And then I saw the movies, and they were insane. I like big flashy blockbuster types, Transformers and all that.

The books were slow, and I didn't like the characters, and for someone who went through WW2 and supposedly didn't like it, JRR sure loves to have his characters love killing orcs. Must be a racial enemy thing. They're just a bit too old for me. The writing style, the words he uses, are just a little strange. And the story itself I found too boring. Good guys --> insurmountable odds and a terrible enemy --> fuckloads of "glory" --> Oh we won. Has anyone seen or read Twilight Eclipse? They spend half the story preparing for an epic battle agaisnt a super dooper strong and powerful army, and none of the good guys die! One gets some bones broken, but that's ok because he heals completely in a day and one of the other good guys has been a doctor for 400 years. Now that is a bad and overrated book.

tGB, with all due respect, I don't mean to make you a patron, but you must dine at my restaurant. Diglet?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Eww, no. I'm a vegetarian. Maybe a Bellsprout.

[pollywog]

I'll make YOUR Bell sprout.

[Apteryx]

If you WANT to be patronised to of course, then you will read it where it isn't intended I think. You know, in a post where someone SPECIFICALLY says they didn't mean to.

Saying "with all due respect" doesn't give you license to say whatever you like, but in any case, assuming we're all talking about the same post, you didn't say anything about not meaning to be patronizing. You did say, later, that "maybe up was the wrong choice [of words]," so it's also not just a case of deliberately reading patronization into it.

And Xbox-class flames in my inbox aren't going to keep me from engaging in discussion, dig?

Do treat yourself, by all means, but it wasn't a direction for you not to post, it was a request for you not to PM me. Dig?. And is that XboX 360 or the lesser quality?. no, seriously, what could you mean by Xbox class?.

I have to ask why you have taken it on yourself to answer for someone else though. Are you telling me what Mother Superior thinks, or what you want them to think, or what YOU think they think?.