Books you think are overated.

I'm going to have to agree with this. I really loved the first book, it was an interesting idea and while I won't re-read it I can tell you what happened in it. But the trilogy just seemed to lose steam as it went on. The second book was decent enough and I only finished the last book because I had read the first two.

 

I've also heard that the first book was the best, and that the later two basically devolved into "Twilight", but with fewer vampires. Is there any truth to this? I'd kind of like to read the series, but if two out of three of the books read like Twilight, no thank you.

 

I've never actually read Twilight to do a good comparison; there is a love triangle but it's not usually a main aspect. And other than vampires and werewolves and glitter, that's about all I know about Twilight.

I honestly don't remember having any issue with the sub plot of the growing romance... until that last book. And I would honestly recommend reading the first two, it's just that last one that makes you want to throw your book (or kindle in my case) due to characterization and just... I honestly don't know how to put it without giving anything away. It's my belief that it is a good story that just starts falling apart majorly.

 

It's not. The romance is not the main focus, though I can't guarantee you that will be a good read. It's entertaining, yes -- but I, personally, didn't see much depth... It's not like those books you read again and understand things differently and think: "Wow, how I've never understood this before?"
For me, it was more: "Cool, they are killing each other." It gets boring.
However, I can't say anything about the last book, since I didn't read because Katniss really annoyed me.

 

I hope I don't sound aggressive but The Magician's Apprentice by Trudi Canavan really pissed me off. I was intrigued to read it by the massive amount of good reviews about the series but when I actually read it, sorry for being harsh but I HATED IT!!!

There wasn't much depth and the MC was a dislike for me from page 10. To me it read as a cliche story that had no deep meaning. haven't started with the other three books in the series, the first one is really not calling me to finish it and I usually can't let a book down until it's finished.

 

Eragon by Christopher Paolini. I read about half way through the book and just couldn't take it anymore. I had heard a lot of people say the first book was good and the other three were pretty bad, so I decided to try the first book. It didn't help that I simply hated the main character because he had no personality, and I thought the whole "I'm getting revenge!" plot to be completely unbelievable.

 

Personally I think that Dan Brown is overrated, not for his ability to craft a compelling story though. I truly have yet to read a book of his besides the latest that did not wow me a good portion of the time. He writes quickly and is very unrelenting in how fast you are hit with the next bit of crucial information; he's very concise in his methods. The problem I have with him is, and you will see me say this many times if you converse with me on the subject in the future, I see the death of the English language in everything he writes. When I said he is concise in his methods I really mean that it's to the point of near oversimplification of the actual words and sentences on the page. Rarely do I look at a sentence and say aloud, that could use about 5 more words.

 

Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time Books

I'll probably give him another chance again in the future, but the first two times I tried I simply could not force myself past about a third of the first book.
I got stuck where the hobbits travel out of the Shire and get chased by the orcs and the ring wraiths.
Oops. I meant, where Rand, Mat and Thom travel out of Two Rivers and get chased by Trollocs and the Myrddraal. My bad.

 

Yes. I've only read The Da Vinci Code so I'm probably over-generalizing, but what I found terrible were his characterizations. I didn't believe his characters for a minute. Especially the woman (don't remember her name). The dialogue made me cringe. Plot-Schmot... however compelling the plot may be if I don't believe in the characters, you've lost me. I hated that book.

 

Oh, I thought about other one. The last song, by Nicholas Sparks... Not that I've read more than 10 pages of the book, I might be really wrong about it, but Ronnie seems to me like the average annoying teenage girl -- I'm 15, but at least I think I am not annoying.

 

Okay, Overrated. Note, I actually enjoyed these books/authors the first time I read them.

Tolkien. ANYTHING Tolkien. Seriously, I do not get why this is the standard against which all fantasy is measured. IMO, if you need pages upon pages of Appendicies, then you haven't done a good enough job writing your book. I get that he created a world, but it's not deep, it's just extensive. And he doesn't know when to shut up.

Raymond E. Feist. This is another one who doesn't know when to shut up. Magician could have been half the length it is and it still would have been boring. He got better IMO with the Serpent Wars Saga, but with this garbage he's pushing out now, it reads like a World of Warcraft Fanfic. Apparently he doesn't know the meaning of Trim the Fat.

Robert Jordan. The best thing to happen to the wheel of time series was Brandon Sanderson. I'm glad it's nearly over. I love it, and it's intricate but jeez, he waffles on for about 7 books of stuff that just doesn't matter. WHY TO THESE PEOPLE NOT KNOW WHEN TO PUT DOWN THE PEN?

J.K. Rowling. Okay, IMO, Harry Potter 1,2 and 3 are excellent childrens literature. I get that increasing the age of the target audience probably allowed the series to continue making the buckets of money that it has done, but really, their quality drops significantly. Also, Deathly Hallows proved to me that JK had no idea what she was doing with the series.

Isaac Asimov. I recently read The Complete Robot. I've heard people ranting about how amazing Asimov is, but his stories just come off as quaint to me. Now, I'm aware that that's probably because I live in a completely different era to when he was writing about these, and also that I know more about computers and robots than he did. (Does?) Which probably plays a large role, but still, 50 years ago, brilliant. Now? Irrelevant.

 

I am a huge potterhead, and I agree with you on that... The series is not perfect, and don't even get me started with DH *bangs head* I heard somewhere that JK didn't read her novels after publishing them, and I guess that was the main problem. I still like it just because of Snape's arc -- guilty -- but the more I think about the series, I start to find much more problems, flaws and things that don't make any sense that I really don't know how everyone think JK is perfect and the series is flawless. But... Okay. I just have to keep away from forums discussing Harry Potter.

 

The Left Behind Series.

Not only did it shove its right-wing conservative ideologies down my throat, but all save for three characters were two dimensional and bland. The concept could've been done justice by a better writer, there was a lot of unnecessary crap and the near constant recitation of scripture had me skipping dozens of pages. I rooted for the Antichrist throughout its course, the guy I know is going to lose. He was hilarious to the point where I continued reading for him and only him.

 

A Dance of Dragons.

Useless exposition, even more characters that are going to die pointlessly while the plot continues to move at the speed of treacle. Booooring.

 

That's what I keep hearing To the point that I'm iffy on picking up the preceding books. Are the first books decent or just as slow?

 

I liked the first one. Started getting annoyed midway through the second.

The TV show adaption is SO MUCH better.

 

I'm not sure if this falls under the category of overrated because many, including myself, rate it poorly.

On the Road by Kerouac.

 

I fail to understand the Tolkien standard as well. When I read the "how-to" books about writing, they say that your first few pages, usually just the first, should sell it, because people will generally pick up a book and read the first page to see if they like it. I read ten pages of Tolkien, and I have to say I didn't even read anything that sounded like the beginning of a story. So, I stand by that there is such a thing as too much description. I'd hate to say it, but I think the movies were great for people who couldn't put up with the books. (myself included)

 

The first three books are a lot faster, but tbh I still think 4 and 5 are very good books compared to most out there, just not so good in relation to the rest of the series. I wouldn't rule them out.

 

The Help - Kathryn Stockett -- It just hardly kept my interest. She wrote well and I loved her use of slang to capture voice, but it was boring as all get out.

Infinite Jest - David Foster Wallace -- First, no book should be this long. It's about 1,000 pages. Second, fiction should never have endnotes. This book had 388 endnotes. It's a paperweight. It was in 2005 Time magazine's best 100 English language novels from 1923 too present.

Anything by Dickens. I find him tedious and overly descriptive.

I'm sure there are others, but these are the two that stick out most in my mind.

 

Wow wow... back up a second there. Are you saying ALL of SK is overrated? Have you read any of the dark tower books? Almost anyone I know whom read regularly regards SK having some of the best fiction that have read with at least 1 or 2 of his books.

 

Serious question - have you read it or a significant portion of it?

 

The Great Gatsby. Was forced to read it at school and just thought it was dull as shite. Pretentious to boot. Bah.

Dickens I liked, despite being a hard slog. But the effort was worth the reward, and I loved his satire and use of metaphor.

 

the hunger games. they're not that great. theyre pretty good, but not twilight!

 

Sophie's Choice, Anna Karenina and Moby Dick. Three most boring books I've ever tried to read.