The most overrated books of all time?

[Siddhartha]

Have any English majors posted in this thread?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus
Catcher is an awesome book.

I cannot stand anything by Steinbeck however.

Scarlet Letter sucks beyond what words can properly define... not sure how this is considered a classic by any stretch of the imagination.

spoken like a true Emo

Steinbeck is your daddy, you're just too afraid to admit it.

The only thing Steinbeck fathered was an immutable boredome deep within me. His writing is drawn out and it takes him 100 pages to explain what a child could in a stream of gibberish and the child would still make a more cogent sentence. The only writer who was worse at taking 100 pages to explain that a man walked down the street was Dickens, an overrated 'paid by the page' hack.

...so I take it you're not a fan of Faulkner, either?

Steinbeck is actually rather precise compared to many American writers. ...so how much Melville have you read?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Have any English majors posted in this thread?

*raises hand

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Jonathan Livingston Seagull FTL! Followed by,
The Great Gatsby and,
The Three Musketeers.

 

[StageLeft]

I liked Catcher, but I'd not fellate the author. I abhor anybody who puts any book on a pedestal unless maybe it's their religious reference, but a fiction book as if it's a fvcking defining work for a century or something? Get real. I hated that about English class, which is why to this very day I'm functionally illiterate.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus
Catcher is an awesome book.

I cannot stand anything by Steinbeck however.

Scarlet Letter sucks beyond what words can properly define... not sure how this is considered a classic by any stretch of the imagination.

spoken like a true Emo

Steinbeck is your daddy, you're just too afraid to admit it.

The only thing Steinbeck fathered was an immutable boredome deep within me. His writing is drawn out and it takes him 100 pages to explain what a child could in a stream of gibberish and the child would still make a more cogent sentence. The only writer who was worse at taking 100 pages to explain that a man walked down the street was Dickens, an overrated 'paid by the page' hack.

...so I take it you're not a fan of Faulkner, either?

Steinbeck is actually rather precise compared to many American writers. ...so how much Melville have you read?

Ironically I actually really enjoy William Faulkner. He's verbose but his words have a purpose unlike the aformentioned author... at least to me anyway. Melville I don't have much of an opinion on, I've read Billy Budd and Moby Dick. Other than having an unhealthy obsession with symbolism I can't fault him too much. Moby Dick did bore the shit out of me though except for a few moments.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus
Catcher is an awesome book.

...sniped out...

...so how much Melville have you read?

Now Moby Dick... wow was that an amazing book! Interesting Melville never produced much else of great note.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
well, the thing about grapes of wrath was that the author did a terrific job imo to describe the scenery and backdrop. Steinbeck (sp?) is by no means a horrible writer/storyteller. I liked the story, but of course it's by no means the best book in the universe. I enjoy most everything I read. I thought Catcher in the Rye was very well paced. Of course the character was some whiny douchebag (and of course, I also related a bit to him), but it was great that people of about 1-2 generations ago were really no different from teens from the modern era.

both books were good in their own right, and explained their backdrop flawlessly. Their stories might of been overrated, but to me, the descriptions of the scenery and backdrop of each scene is VERY important. Some authors like Dan Simmons are HORRIBLE at that, and I always have to read a good classic literature so I can create clear pictures in my head. I'd like to be very involved with the book....

Anyways..that's my 2 cents...

Tolkein was very good at that. And that's why I hate him. I don't want to read two and a half pages of how the fuckin' meadows looked in the afternoon sun. Just get to the part where Gandolf shoots fuckin' eyelasers.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Adventures of Huck Finn.

I loved Grapes of Wrath. His portrayal of the family was fantastic.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
well, the thing about grapes of wrath was that the author did a terrific job imo to describe the scenery and backdrop. Steinbeck (sp?) is by no means a horrible writer/storyteller. I liked the story, but of course it's by no means the best book in the universe. I enjoy most everything I read. I thought Catcher in the Rye was very well paced. Of course the character was some whiny douchebag (and of course, I also related a bit to him), but it was great that people of about 1-2 generations ago were really no different from teens from the modern era.

both books were good in their own right, and explained their backdrop flawlessly. Their stories might of been overrated, but to me, the descriptions of the scenery and backdrop of each scene is VERY important. Some authors like Dan Simmons are HORRIBLE at that, and I always have to read a good classic literature so I can create clear pictures in my head. I'd like to be very involved with the book....

Anyways..that's my 2 cents...

Tolkein was very good at that. And that's why I hate him. I don't want to read two and a half pages of how the fuckin' meadows looked in the afternoon sun. Just get to the part where Gandolf shoots fuckin' eyelasers.

Then you don't like literature you like "stories". Not that I would rate Tolkein as literature either mind you.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I liked Catcher, but I'd not fellate the author. I abhor anybody who puts any book on a pedestal unless maybe it's their religious reference, but a fiction book as if it's a fvcking defining work for a century or something? Get real. I hated that about English class, which is why to this very day I'm functionally illiterate.

What the hell has English class got to do with being literate? I never went to English class in HS and still read a boat load of the classics.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Anything by James Joyce.

QFT, If he wasn't dead I would give him a swift kick in his Victorian era balls.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Have any English majors posted in this thread?

Yes, but I didn't graduate. The senior seminar in Faulkner burned me out.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
well, the thing about grapes of wrath was that the author did a terrific job imo to describe the scenery and backdrop. Steinbeck (sp?) is by no means a horrible writer/storyteller. I liked the story, but of course it's by no means the best book in the universe. I enjoy most everything I read. I thought Catcher in the Rye was very well paced. Of course the character was some whiny douchebag (and of course, I also related a bit to him), but it was great that people of about 1-2 generations ago were really no different from teens from the modern era.

both books were good in their own right, and explained their backdrop flawlessly. Their stories might of been overrated, but to me, the descriptions of the scenery and backdrop of each scene is VERY important. Some authors like Dan Simmons are HORRIBLE at that, and I always have to read a good classic literature so I can create clear pictures in my head. I'd like to be very involved with the book....

Anyways..that's my 2 cents...

Tolkein was very good at that. And that's why I hate him. I don't want to read two and a half pages of how the fuckin' meadows looked in the afternoon sun. Just get to the part where Gandolf shoots fuckin' eyelasers.

I change my first one. Tolkein = overrated drivel. Fine before puberty, quite silly after that.

 

[Mrvile]

I thought Catcher was a great book for what it was. I think most people are disappointed by it because they expect something different than what they get. Catcher isn't about the content as much as it's about how it's presented. Also I think Catcher needs to be read at a certain time in life to be effective (high school).

Pride and Prejudice would get my vote.

EDIT: I would actually add Catcher to one of the most underrated books of all time. Too many people seem to hate it.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus
Catcher is an awesome book.

I cannot stand anything by Steinbeck however.

Scarlet Letter sucks beyond what words can properly define... not sure how this is considered a classic by any stretch of the imagination.

spoken like a true Emo

Steinbeck is your daddy, you're just too afraid to admit it.

The only thing Steinbeck fathered was an immutable boredome deep within me. His writing is drawn out and it takes him 100 pages to explain what a child could in a stream of gibberish and the child would still make a more cogent sentence. The only writer who was worse at taking 100 pages to explain that a man walked down the street was Dickens, an overrated 'paid by the page' hack.

...so I take it you're not a fan of Faulkner, either?

Steinbeck is actually rather precise compared to many American writers. ...so how much Melville have you read?

Ironically I actually really enjoy William Faulkner. He's verbose but his words have a purpose unlike the aformentioned author... at least to me anyway. Melville I don't have much of an opinion on, I've read Billy Budd and Moby Dick. Other than having an unhealthy obsession with symbolism I can't fault him too much. Moby Dick did bore the shit out of me though except for a few moments.

Faulkner is 10x more verbose than Steinbeck. You do realize that he will go out of his way to talk about the history of a rocking chair's cross leg, don't you? And you admit to being a whore for symbolism and yet you trash Hawthorne? Scarlett Letter is nothing but bold, rich, and sometimes subtle symbolism (yeah, it wasn't until the 3rd time through that I actually dug it )

 

[Anubis]

Catcher in the Rye honestly is prob the worst book i have ever read, ive read it 3 times 2x for school and 1 time personally, read it the 3rd time to see if i would like it not being forced to read it and no it still sucked, it has no redeming value, fuck its like reading a whoel book full of YAGTs Holden is the 2nd mosth pathetic chra in any book ive ever read, right behind Piggy from LOTF, man they should have just killed him right from the start and gotten it over with

 

[K1052]

I light my grill with first editions of the Scarlet Letter.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Steve

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Have any English majors posted in this thread?

Yes, but I didn't graduate. The senior seminar in Faulkner burned me out.

you should have tried the grad-level Donne class that I took :shocked:

I hope to God I never see another micro fiche, let alone words like, "hookes"

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: K1052
I light my grill with first editions of the Scarlet Letter.

you were just jealous of Hester's whoring ways

 

[IronWing]

Death of a Salesman. The book would have been great had Willy committed suicide on page three, taking the whole pathetic lot with him.

The Metamorphosis. Whine, whine, whine.

Any and everything Ibsen ever put to paper.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Scarlett Letter is nothing but bold, rich, and sometimes subtle symbolism

If you define someone hitting you in the forehead with a blackjack repeatedly for 5 hours as "subtle" maybe.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Platypus
Catcher is an awesome book.

I cannot stand anything by Steinbeck however.

Scarlet Letter sucks beyond what words can properly define... not sure how this is considered a classic by any stretch of the imagination.

spoken like a true Emo

Steinbeck is your daddy, you're just too afraid to admit it.

The only thing Steinbeck fathered was an immutable boredome deep within me. His writing is drawn out and it takes him 100 pages to explain what a child could in a stream of gibberish and the child would still make a more cogent sentence. The only writer who was worse at taking 100 pages to explain that a man walked down the street was Dickens, an overrated 'paid by the page' hack.

...so I take it you're not a fan of Faulkner, either?

Steinbeck is actually rather precise compared to many American writers. ...so how much Melville have you read?

Ironically I actually really enjoy William Faulkner. He's verbose but his words have a purpose unlike the aformentioned author... at least to me anyway. Melville I don't have much of an opinion on, I've read Billy Budd and Moby Dick. Other than having an unhealthy obsession with symbolism I can't fault him too much. Moby Dick did bore the shit out of me though except for a few moments.

Faulkner is 10x more verbose than Steinbeck. You do realize that he will go out of his way to talk about the history of a rocking chair's cross leg, don't you? And you admit to being a whore for symbolism and yet you trash Hawthorne? Scarlett Letter is nothing but bold, rich, and sometimes subtle symbolism (yeah, it wasn't until the 3rd time through that I actually dug it )

I guess that's what makes him a great author, I don't notice the verbosity if I'm not looking for it whereas with Steinbeck it's just painfully apparent despite my attempts.

I can't help but laugh when you mention the words subtle and symbolism in referrence to the Scarlet Letter.. more like absurd, thinly veiled vitriolic hate and contempt towards the Puritans and their culture. You could sum up that book with one word: guilt.

WE GET IT HAWTHORNE, NO REALLY, WE FUCKING GET IT.

 

[oboeguy]

"Wuthering Heights" was a total POS, a waste of time, yet I read the whole thing for some reason. As an adult, on my own. Bleah!

 

[homercles337]

All science books. Science should be outlawed like the right wants.