Books you think are overated.

Pride and Prejudice is ok. It's not great. I enjoyed it when I read it but have since distanced myself from it.

 

So you read all four?

Twilight isn't that bad, and as far as general storytelling goes it is obvious that Meyer was on target.

Funny thing is that because it isn't my thing, I didn't read past they first book. And yet here you are hating the series, and you read all four.

I wish someone would hate my work enough to by every book I publish

 

...You know when you have to get to the end of a series, no matter how terrible it is? That's probably the cause. At least, that's what I keep hearing. Have a friend that read all four books and hates the series.

 

No, I don't know that because when I start reading a book that is terrible I stop reading it

My guess is these people are secretly enjoying it on some level, but at the same time view it as cool to be contrary and to bash it, so that poses a dilemma....

 

Have to disagree about Meyer being a good story teller. IMO her prose drags on forever and the only actual story progression happens in the last few chapters of every book. She could've done with studying the format of a good novel before writing one, to be honest. I think the results would've been a lot more concise.

P.S I read the books by loaning them from the library. Don't assume everybody buys her books, and don't assume that because someone reads them all it means they can't legitimately dislike the series for a number of reasons. Stephen King read them and formed a negative opinion - do you think he secretly supports team Edward?

 

^ I bet he does. Liking vampires and such, he's never done a story about Werewolves because that might give Edward the wrong impression.

 

And that is the power of marketing and popularity. Make a series popular enough and even people who hate it will read the entire thing. It's the ultimate marker of success.

 

Lol to secretly enjoying it. I'm guessing we're going Freudian now?

To a certain extent, I do agree that people are finding the whole Twilight-bashing to be trendy because I've seen some pretty dumb comments coming from the hatedom. Those people are the people who will bring Twilight into something completely irrelevant and rant about how bad it is. I know people like this. I find myself doing it at times, but only because I'm jealous that a book about a girl with little personality and her fantasy vampire boyfriend got so big ;_; Well, jealous and appalled, really. However, I can't doubt their hate for the book because it really isn't the best piece of literature and its influence on the up and coming generation of girls is, frankly, annoying and disconcerting.

 

I've noticed that a lot of 'hate' over Twilight comes from people who are fans of Harry Potter.

 

Yeah, but again, I'll go back to my point about libraries. It might count for something record-wise but I didn't spend a penny on them.

I think the Twilight arguements are really boring and repetitive, including my own (which I blogged about). We know it's very mormon-influenced and a bit mysoginistic and all that stuff. We also know that the haters are "entitled to their opinions". But honestly, I just yawn whenever I come across another "Why I dislike Twilight" video, or a "NuttyMadam dub-over". I think if anything's overrated, it's the boring arguments being tossed around.

I think the book was marketed well, but it's silly to pretend that's the only reason it has been so successful. Loads of people fell in love with it regardless of the crappy story telling. It's just one of those things. As for Harry Potter, I think it's some natural defence thing epic-lovers of the saga have...Somehow I don't think J.K needs much defending.

 

In all honestly, my opinion of J.K. has risen a good bit lately. But still not enough for me to take the people who call her a 'genius' seriously.

 

Honestly, I can't see why anybody dislikes a lot of books. I mean sure there are grammar mistakes, and other little flaws, but I feel like I am weird because a LOT of the books that people are listing are books/series I enjoy... Like Jay here says Harry Potter and Twilight? I love both of those series/books. I didn't see it, but I am sure somebody has put Maximum Ride (which I also enjoy) and a lot of other James Patterson books (Which I just can't get enough of). I find some series take things too far, but some don't take it far enough. I never was one of the cool people growing up, so I didn't know what was popular in everybody else's world, I just knew that if I liked it, it was a good book. I kinda had very little friends, instead I had books. I just can't understand why ALL of these books are overrated... A book is not overrated just because there is so much hype and because of how popular it is, it's more that the book isn't very good and nit's so popular... So go ahead, time for you all to start bashing on me right now, lol.

 

I've never even read Harry Potter. I've read a few chapters of the first book, but it never really sucks me in. I can't tell if I'm too old to get drawn into the "magic" of it, or if the fantasy genre just doesn't appeal to me enough in this case.

I'd love to get into them, to experience what everyone else seems to, but if the films are anything to go by then I can't say I'm that fussed. J. K. Rowling, as an author and a person, really fascinates me though. I just love her life story. Same as Stephenie Meyer, actually. I could watch endless interviews of both of them, even though Rowling is quite a bit more interesting. They're living my dream, after all. Alot of people's dreams, actually. /sigh.

P.S Cadillac, I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying. I happen to have noticed that a lot of writers are the ones who say Twilight is a big marketing scam...Personally I would call that jealousy. I think it's hard for some people to face facts about the true nature of fiction.

 

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to people commenting in this thread, but in general, there is a still a level of snobbery surrounding books. If you haven't read several peices of classical, "cannonised" literature, you don't really read "proper books", do you? I think it comes down to a literature (and you see it in other art forms) snobbery - if it is popular and widely read, or if it hasn't been masterfully written, it isn't proper literature and is over-rated.

Like I said, I am not saying this in relation to this thread in particular, but just the way people can still view literature.

 

I used to have a quiet contempt for Twilight fans. Then I met a really, really good writer who, at fifteen, is writing stuff that could be published in The New Yorker, and loves Twilight and gave a defense of it. Ehn.

 

That's what I am talking about! Thank you, I just couldn't find the words to say that! I totally agree, 100%. I will admit, that if a book gets too popular, too fast, and I don't like it I call it overrated. I will also admit that I am just jelous of the fact that their first published book became a huge success. I will want to have that happen to me, but I doubt it will. It doesn't happen often enough for me to be one of those lucky few who get a big break. I just don't really care about what other people think, I care that if I enjoy the book, I enjoy it. I don't try to push it off onto my friends (Unless they are into the same genre) because I know that if they have a bad experience, then I'm to blame, so I don't suggest/recommend books to people (Well, except my own, but only to my friends, because they give support, critisism, and good reviews.)

 

Hey to me time is more important than money. And the fact that people are investing time in a series they dislike says something. And that's my point, not that marketing is the reason twilight is popular. How many authors can say I have people who hated my first book but still made it through my entire series? Not many. And THAT is why I think Mrs Meyer is a writing god. Anybody who can do that has reached the pinnacle of popularity, and I respect her, despite my personal opinion on her books.

 

I was adult by a margin when I started reading the Harry Potter books. I guess the rich imagery appealed to me - there are so many imaginative details in the books, from the train station with platform 9 3/4 to the staircases that move to the dementors and patronuses. The characters are also imaginatively crafted and feel real, even if many of them are caricatures. There's also a lot of humour in the books - I can't believe Rowling intended us to take things like the sorting hat, Moaning Myrtle and the books that bite the students seriously. Maybe that's why the books appeal to so many ages - a lot of things in the books can be exciting to the kids and funny to the adults at the same time.

The plots themselves never interested me that much - I often thought they were contrived and far-fetched. I thought the main plot (Voldemort and the death-eaters vs. the rest of the world) worked fairly well, probably because of the character descriptions. I think Rowling got really good at characterisation after a while. The portrait of Voldemort as a child feels very real, people's reactions to being part of a war feel real, and so on.

 

Twilight is a very, very good series, but it's overrated.

I rate Twilight 3.5 stars, but let's face it, it doesn't deserve a 5.

Also, I've heard bad things about Eragon, and the Inheritance Cycle in general. Da Vinci Code has been mentioned regularly, and some are pointing fingers at Percy Jackson as well.

 

I've read the series but that was purely out of curiosity (same reason I read Twilight). There was so much hype about it and my sister was interested in it so I decided to read them. At first, I couldn't get into them. I had to listen to the first three books on tape and then later I read them. They were alright but I'm not a big fan or anything.

I have to somewhat agree with this. I'm a bit of a hypocrit though. I feel as if I should be reading more classics, when in all honesty I've barely read any. I do want to read them, partially because I do actually find them interesting, but also because I'm a writer so I should've read classics in literature, shouldn't I? And with bestsellers, I'll read them if I'm interested in the book or it's so hyped about I want to know what the fuss is about. But there's always been an element where I've wanted to read books that no one else has discovered, you know? I want to read something that no one else has.

 

I disagree. It's popular to label fans of Literature (whatever that means, but I'll just use the common meaning for sake of argument) and of the Classics as snobs, especially when they make legitimate criticism. Often people say this, and I don't know where they get it from.

 

This. This, this this.

Precisely how I feel. It's one of the reasons I decided to do a full Creative Writing BA rather than teaming it with English literature. I enjoyed the discussions in the first year of doing the sandwich degree, but to be honest, I was all too aware that we were just regurgitating common opinions. It's all been said before.

I know it was supposed to lead us on to have our own arguments, but let's face it - interpretations do have a limit, unless you're making up something totally obscure and are very clever with references. But even then, what substance is there really?

I find the discussion of classics fascinating, but I also can't help but feel it all gets a little juvenile. I'm a contemporary writer, so I feel I should be studying modern novels just as much as the classics. More, actually.

 

^ Agreed. That's partially why I chose just BA Creative Writing too.

 

^ You guys missed out on talks about Marxism, the forming of sentences, and the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Aeschylus, and Sophocles. English BA RULES!

 

^ Darn, I so chose the wrong degree.

Actually, that does sound interesting but I'm not sure I'd like having a course on it.