Books you think are overated.

^ LOL. Too true. It's one of those sagas that demands an opinion of some form whenever it's brought up. I didn't rate the first book at all, but I can see why it became so popular amongst its age group.

I think Jodi Picoult is over-rated. She's a very good writer, but a poor story teller, IMO. I enjoyed Nineteen Minutes at the time, but in hindsight, it was just a description of the themes and concepts she was supposed to be exploring. She never seems to say anything original. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets: people are drowning, but she's just describing the water.

 

Gigi,

I enjoy the Bronte sisters more, as well. And, I do not call them over-rated (I do not really like that word any way), but I will admit they still do not give me what I am looking for in novels, which is probably just entirely a personal thing.


This should probably be a new thread, but I was looking over Amazon reviews, and I decided that I do not think there would ever be a reason to give a novel a one star review, especially something that is considered a "classic." Any thoughts?

I feel like I would not read something that bad, and most things that bad would not even get published. Honest work is usually capable of at least moving you or enlightening you in some way, but maybe I'll rethink this.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, but I think that all vampire-romance novels in general are COMPLETELY overrated. You'd think that not a single copy would be sold, but yet they somehow sell way more than they should. Since when would someone like Dracula turn down an easy meal? (HINT: He wouldn't)

 

Sorry to disappoint, but it has to be said.

 

Haha yeah, that was kind of my point. It's been said...over...and over...and over...

 

Have to say that I love the "Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war" quote on your signature, Griffin. I had to teach Julius Caesar this year, and I couldn't stop saying it because it's so dramatic and visual.

 

Yeah, that scene was hilarious. I agree.

 

I liked the Hunger Games, but Katniss definitely was a problematic character for me as well. She kept playing her two boy toys off of each other. While some of it was understandable earlier on for survival purposes, she just kept going back and forth and really just couldn't make up her mind. I started to really hate her for it, thinking about what she was putting them through. I really felt as though she didn't really deserve most of the loyalty she was getting...

 

I thought I would hate Oliver Twist because it just seemed so cliche--orphan boy turns wealthy kind of deal. But it was actually a more interesting and entertaining read than Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities or Hard Times. I started to get really annoyed with the poor little orphan children acting like unselfish martyrs, though. In my opinion, A Tale of Two Cities didn't really get interesting until Part 2 when we actually got to the French Revolution. There were entire dialogues in Part 1 where there were not enough tags to tell you who was talking, and sometimes it wasn't clear at all. Made the first reading really difficult to follow.

 

Well, and partly due to the fact that her plots eventually all start to run together in the same direction.

I will say that any English teacher at least looks upon Jane Austen with respect because she was subtle in her criticisms of society and women's roles within it. She very gently pointed out a few things that provided food for thought. Also, I enjoyed the sense of humor in her characterization. Some of her characters DEFINITELY were unique and made me laugh out loud at their blundering and neurotic behavior. Hilarious stuff. Her humor, also, is quite subtle. It took me a couple of readings before I fully discovered all of the humorous implications of Emma, for example.

 

I actually really liked Katniss, whole handling of romance aside. If anything, that made her a little more believable. She wasn't accustomed to the situation she found herself in, so she made stupid mistakes. Happens to most people in love triangles, right (this is me guessing because I know of no one who's been in a love triangle before)?

I'd say Twilight is overrated, but it's already been said a million times by everyone else.

Another book that I thought was overrated for a while now was Tunnels which was, I believe, considered the "next Harry Potter" and an international best-seller. Can't say I enjoyed it very much, it bored me to death. I read through the first book and didn't pick up the rest in the series.

 

I think Harry Potter is overrated. It started great, but got more and more stupid as she went along. I blame the movies. If she hadn't had a movie deal, she would have written shorter books, and that's a fact. If the books didn't start turning into movies before she was even finished with them, she could have taken her time and only written the interesting part, and even made the stories better. But becauuse she was in a hurry, she wrote down everything she thought was of the slightest importance and ended up writing far too much. What happened in book six anyway? Other than the ending? And books seven? Half the book is Harry, Hermine and Ron sitting in a tent whing about stuff. And people find that interesting?

 

The later books were released far further apart than the first books, so I'm not sure I follow your logic there...personally, if she'd taken any longer on them, I would have lost my mind. It definitely felt like she was taking her time to me.

 

I'll mention this title based on the fact that it seems to be a pretty popular best seller (redundant?) Thirteen Reason Why by Jay Asher. It had very bad characterization (people doing unlikely things), but an interesting premise. The book was about teenage suicide and these books seem to be "important," so they become bestsellers. But I swear is all teen fiction written for 10-13 year-olds who have no idea what high school is like? Because that's what this book and Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson do. It's high school, but high school for those who haven't been there yet.

 

I hate books like that, the ones that portray high school a certain way to middle schoolers. I remember reading books about high school in middle school and getting to high school and thinking, "What were those authors thinking?"

 

I wanted to read some teen fiction to help me with the novel I'm writing, but I'm better off reading A Game of thrones. No high school, but plenty of teens. Surprisingly, Twilight is a more accurate portrayal of high school than either Speak or Thirteen Reasons Why.

 

I was never as blown away by Memories of a Geisha as everyone else seemed to be. Somehow I never connected with the main character and found myself thinking that I couldn't care less what happened to her. I forced myself to keep reading it hoping it would get better. It never did.

 

Twilight is the top on my list, also some other modern teen vampire romance like the Vampire Diaries and so on; Eragon, Da Vinci Code wasn't as good as what I expected.

Harry Potter is overrated a bit, I agree - her last few books was going downhill, in my opinion - but I like her first and third book. I admire the amount of effort she put in on researching and whatnot, creating a setting where I was swept into Harry's life and adventure easily. (Mind you, not many books can do that to me.)

Percy Jackson is somewhat overrated too. It wasn't exactly as exciting as those "critics" have said...but the concept is fun in a way, still.

Lord of the Rings would be a pretty good read - if it wasn't so tediously wordy.

I've never a fan of romance, but I actually agree with that. I can't stand all those mushy love story that equates romance with kissing and sex. Love is a lot MORE than just skin contact. And maybe because I'm a sadist. I have this weird liking for tragic endings. >D

 

Death Comes for the Archbishop. NOTHING. HAPPENS.

 

Lord of the Rings. Good story in general but totally stuffed up the climax and too complicated and difficult to read enjoyably. I liked the movie though.

 

R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt books. When I was younger I loved them and decided to go back and reread them. Now I hate them. The writing is bland and elementary to me now, since I have read really good works of fiction.

 

Everything James Patterson has done in the past 5 years. Can the chapters possibly get any shorter???? Half the book is blank space!!!

All new age guru self help books.

 

The Assistant by Bernard Malamud. Yet another book in which nothing really happens, at all.

 

I loved them the first time I read them then when I went to re-read it was just like... and here's a battle... and he wins. And another battle... and he wins. Now he's fighting something else... Seriously, those books were nothing but novelised D&D campaigns, I swear it! Fight, fight, a little plot and another fight!

 

The Artemis Fowl series by Eoin Colfer. I only read one and a half books, but they were nowhere near what I expected them to be. I had heard that Artemis Fowl (the first book) was supposed to be one of the most exciting books out there. I had read reviews where it was stated that it would be so fun that you couldn't put it away. I had to force myself through 90% of the book.


The Golden Compass/Northern Lights by Philip Pullman. I have only read the first book, but I found it incredibly stereotypical and silly. The whole "Lyra's uncle actually being her father" was creepy. Maybe because I didn't really enjoy the book. If you are going to make a fictional universe, why make it 95% similar to the real world and only change the names on various things???


The Last 2 Harry Potter books. The books went downhill after The Order Of The Phoenix. I need not say more.


I don't know why so many people say that LOTR are overrated. They are extremely good reading, most of the time. But you need to strain a little bit to get through those books. They are actually quite funny and interesting, but the stupid thing is that you have to read through all of the pages of unimportant information before you can know what happens next.