Most over-rated book(s)

[Joshua Hendrickson]

To be fair, The Sword of Truth is great.

 

 

If you read only Wizard's First Rule and pretend that it all ends there.

 

Wizard's First Rule is great. But then Goodkind decided to basically just plagiarize Ayn Rand for the REST OF THE SERIES.

 

My most over-rated book is probably Eragon. I disagree with most of you and believe it has some merit, but there's no reason that a movie needs to be made of it.

 

I don't really understand the hate for Catcher. It's not the genius which English teachers make it out to be, but it certainly has literary merit.

 

Thanks for the tip about Goodkind. I've never read Goodkind, never really wanted to, but then I knew nothing about the author. Now that I know that it's essentially a rip-off of the worst writer and most pitiful philosopher of all time, Ayn Rand, I know who not to read.

 

 

So I suppose my own Most Overrated Book would be THE FOUNTAINHEAD, ATLAS SHRUGGED, WE THE LIVING, and everything else by Ayn Rand.

 

This isn't directed solely at whoever I'm quoting, just anybody with their crazy ideas about TG in general and I'm not attacking anyone so I don't mean anything I say to offend anyone. Though it is in defense of TG and tSoT, so I'm not expecting too much forgiveness. :]

It's really not essentially that at all. Is TG anywhere close the literary genius that is Robert Jordan? No, of course not. Is he the worst fantasy writer around for the past 20 years? Again, not even close. Yes, obviously TG likes Ayn Rand, obviously he incorporated certain beliefs of her philosophical approach of Objectivism. But if that's all it takes to be considered ripping someone off and making anything coming after it, by association crap, then oh noes, cause The Two Rivers is the Shire. And Moiraine is Gandalf. And Lan is Aragorn. And Fain is Gollum. Trollocs are orcs. The DO is Sauron....And I guess all the Forsaken would have to be saruman, just split into different facets. Which I guess would have to make Rand Frodo and Mat and Perrin Pippin and Merry and Thom Sam. Now obviously (I hope) I don't buy any of that. But that idea to me is just as ridiculous as yours towards TG and tSoT. So Mr. Joshua Hendrikson, I would advise not taking Chief91592 at their, I'm sure, very informed word and just trying to books out for yourself. You may or may not like them. But to discard them immediately based on a post by someone with an insubstantial (And very, very, very tired) accusation of plagiarism...Well I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice. Just my two cents. Maybe three cents, I don't know that works anymore. :]

 

Thanks. But it isn't a question of plagiarism. Everyone has influences, and some writers have greater skill at incorporating those influences than others: for instance, Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan both are heavily influenced by Tolkien, but Brooks is less skilled at digesting that influence and transforming it into his own unique work than is Jordan (though I don't think Jordan is particularly good at it either). As a great poet (whose name eludes me for the moment) once said, "Bad poets borrow; great poets steal." It's not about that at all. It is about the influence of Objectivism in particular, which you do confirm for me. To me, Ayn Rand is the Dark One. I don't want to have anything to do with any writer who is influenced by her, if I can help it.

[Ashaman Kovan]

Works for me. :]

[Quibby]

I'm going to take the controversial stand that The Lord of the Rings is overrated.

 

Before the lynch mob finds me, let me clarify.

 

The Lord of the Rings reads like a set of history books (understandable, as Tolkien was, basically, a literary historian). Thus, they feel slow and clunky, at times, and the dialogue suffers from the history book treatment, as well. It doesn't help that the series also seems to be an experiment in Tolkien's ability to create languages, thus creating odd moments of history coupled with devices to get the languages into the books.

 

All that being said, 'overrated' does not necessarily mean that it's a horrible series. I will be the first to say that I enjoy reading the series, and Tolkien's treatment of the ancient 'epic quest' trope is the one that has unquestionably had some influence on most (probably every) fantasy series that came after it. My sense of overrated-ness comes from the fact that I feel everybody treats the series like it's the picture of perfection, that it is a sacred work, and that it is above reproach, the way the Bible used to be.

 

However, there are two kinds of overrated. There's the "yes, it's amazing, but it's not perfect" overrated; in my opinion, there's no such thing as a perfect book. But I digress. Anyway, there's a second sort of overrated. That overrated is the one that says, "You call this steaming pile of liquid bovine excrement literature?!"

 

Yes, this is where I invoke Twilight. Now, I will be fair and say that I never read the whole series. Hell, I didn't actually finish the first book. I literally became disgusted when Bella began acting like an abused spouse. After the car incident, it just felt like Bella should be saying, "I know, he seems rough, but it's just his way. He really does love me. This only happens when I make him angry; it's my fault." Yet, somehow, people seem to find this romantic. It's actually kind of scary.

[Ashaman Kovan]

I much more likely to be destroyed for defending tSoT (It's happened..A LOT) than you are for not liking LotR. I think you're safe. ;]

[Joshua Hendrickson]

I'm going to take the controversial stand that The Lord of the Rings is overrated.

 

Before the lynch mob finds me, let me clarify.

 

The Lord of the Rings reads like a set of history books (understandable, as Tolkien was, basically, a literary historian). Thus, they feel slow and clunky, at times, and the dialogue suffers from the history book treatment, as well. It doesn't help that the series also seems to be an experiment in Tolkien's ability to create languages, thus creating odd moments of history coupled with devices to get the languages into the books.

 

All that being said, 'overrated' does not necessarily mean that it's a horrible series. I will be the first to say that I enjoy reading the series, and Tolkien's treatment of the ancient 'epic quest' trope is the one that has unquestionably had some influence on most (probably every) fantasy series that came after it. My sense of overrated-ness comes from the fact that I feel everybody treats the series like it's the picture of perfection, that it is a sacred work, and that it is above reproach, the way the Bible used to be.

 

However, there are two kinds of overrated. There's the "yes, it's amazing, but it's not perfect" overrated; in my opinion, there's no such thing as a perfect book. But I digress. Anyway, there's a second sort of overrated. That overrated is the one that says, "You call this steaming pile of liquid bovine excrement literature?!"

 

Yes, this is where I invoke Twilight. Now, I will be fair and say that I never read the whole series. Hell, I didn't actually finish the first book. I literally became disgusted when Bella began acting like an abused spouse. After the car incident, it just felt like Bella should be saying, "I know, he seems rough, but it's just his way. He really does love me. This only happens when I make him angry; it's my fault." Yet, somehow, people seem to find this romantic. It's actually kind of scary.

 

I won't be in that lynch mob. I think THE LORD OF THE RINGS is impressive, iconic, and unquestionably influential; Tolkien definitely created the fantasy mold of the 20th century. But you know, I don't love it either. I tried reading it once and got bogged down in the dull parts of THE TWO TOWERS. Years later I tried again and got through all of it, and enjoyed it, but I must say I have never felt any desire to read it again. THE HOBBIT, on the other hand, I read first as a kid and several times since, and have always found it charming. I have read parts of THE SILMARILLION but have no desire to read all of it.

 

As for TWILIGHT, I wrote a research paper last year about the deeply conservative, prudish antifeminism contained in it. It is, IMO, the most pernicious piece of popular fiction around these days. It is definitely scary; no "kind of" about it.

[Quibby]

As for TWILIGHT, I wrote a research paper last year about the deeply conservative, prudish antifeminism contained in it. It is, IMO, the most pernicious piece of popular fiction around these days. It is definitely scary; no "kind of" about it.

 

I would be interested in reading something like this, actually.

 

Again, as I have not read the entire series, I am hesitant to condemn the whole thing.

[Basel Gill]

I'm going to take the controversial stand that The Lord of the Rings is overrated.

 

Before the lynch mob finds me, let me clarify.

 

The Lord of the Rings reads like a set of history books (understandable, as Tolkien was, basically, a literary historian). Thus, they feel slow and clunky, at times, and the dialogue suffers from the history book treatment, as well. It doesn't help that the series also seems to be an experiment in Tolkien's ability to create languages, thus creating odd moments of history coupled with devices to get the languages into the books.

 

All that being said, 'overrated' does not necessarily mean that it's a horrible series. I will be the first to say that I enjoy reading the series, and Tolkien's treatment of the ancient 'epic quest' trope is the one that has unquestionably had some influence on most (probably every) fantasy series that came after it. My sense of overrated-ness comes from the fact that I feel everybody treats the series like it's the picture of perfection, that it is a sacred work, and that it is above reproach, the way the Bible used to be.

 

I won't be in that lynch mob. I think THE LORD OF THE RINGS is impressive, iconic, and unquestionably influential; Tolkien definitely created the fantasy mold of the 20th century. But you know, I don't love it either. I tried reading it once and got bogged down in the dull parts of THE TWO TOWERS. Years later I tried again and got through all of it, and enjoyed it, but I must say I have never felt any desire to read it again. THE HOBBIT, on the other hand, I read first as a kid and several times since, and have always found it charming. I have read parts of THE SILMARILLION but have no desire to read all of it.

 

I would also go with LOTR being overrated in that it isn't as perfect as everyone makes it out to be. While it has been enormously influential, Tolkien at times seems confused as to whether he is writing a fairy-tale or an adventure. One chapter has exceitment, swordfights, and battles, then after the violent stuff is done, the characters will break into a song which takes up most of a page. The movie trilogy left out the little musical interludes altogether, and made things much more interesting. One of my guildmates on an RPG I used to play referred to Tolkien as prissy, and I think this describes it quite well. I also read The Hobbit as a kid and loved it, but then tried reading LOTR and couldn't make it halfway through Fellowship before getting bored with it. I would try again a couple of other times as a teenager, and got the same results. This had the effect of putting me off the whole fantasy genre for years, until I decided to give the films a fair chance at the urging of folk I knew online and really enjoyed them. From there, I tried the books again and got all the way through, and found them to be good, but not great. It was enough to allow me to take an interest in fantasy again, though.

[Guest sokttocs]

Hello everyone, I've been lurking here for years. first time i have seen something that made me want to register and post.

 

Overrated fantasy series. hmmmm. Top of my list has to be LOTR, for many of the same reasons that have already been said. While i respect Tolkien for his influence on the genre of fantasy, i simply dont think he was that great at telling stories. Tolkien was a good writer who knew what he was doing, but his work is certainly not the perfect example of literature. I find LOTR to be too dense- he describes in one paragraph what many people would take several pages to do. Now this is an incredible skill. But for me it makes it very hard to read. You have to tunnel vision on every sentence to really get what he is saying. The first time i read The Two Towers i had no idea that Helm's Deep was a fortress or that there was a massive battle going on. Granted, this is a number of years ago before the movie came out, and i was only like 13 at the time, but still. And don't even get me started on Tom Bombadil.....

 

My other contribution to this list would be Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series. I read the first two books, put it down and vowed never to return. I know lots of people like it and think its great. I found it repulsive. The only character that i thought was remotely interesting was Akka. Kelhus is about as interesting as Superman. And every single bloody female character seems to be little more than a sex toy and/or slave. Bakker has some stuff i think could be great, i thought his magic (what little you here of it) potentially could be really cool. And the Holy war idea is a nice take, as is the post-apocalyptic setting.

 

Also Dune. going to reread it, see if it makes better sense and is better the second time.

Man, i have too many books to get to and not enough time to read them......

[Basel Gill]

Also Dune. going to reread it, see if it makes better sense and is better the second time.

 

Dune can be a very hard novel to get into. The first time I tried reading it, I couldn't make any sense of it and gave up after about ten pages, and was so unimpressed that I threw the paperback in the garbage. Several of my classmates at high school were shocked that I would throw Dune out. I know everyone likes to trash the David Lynch movie, but I actually needed the movie to make sense of the book. I suppose it may have been a good thing that it was the expanded version of the movie that Lynch himself wants nothing to do with. I have yet to see Lynch's theatrical version.

[SingleMort]

I thought Dune was pretty good though it is tough to get into. But the 1st sequel is awful.

[Hadilmir]

Anything written by Stephen King. As an author in the literary perspective he is quite talented, but his plots, characters, settings, and themes are all quite pathetic to read. People mistake his uniqueness for brilliance when really it is simply an inability to tell a story that remotely makes sense.

 

Yes, this is opinion. No, I don't think I'm too harsh.

[Joshua Hendrickson]

Anything written by Stephen King. As an author in the literary perspective he is quite talented, but his plots, characters, settings, and themes are all quite pathetic to read. People mistake his uniqueness for brilliance when really it is simply an inability to tell a story that remotely makes sense.

 

Yes, this is opinion. No, I don't think I'm too harsh.

 

Your opinion is valid, and quite a few people share it--and it's not as harsh as, say, Harold Bloom's opinion of King. I do not share your opinion, and it seems to me that consensus (for all that matters, if at all) holds that King's chief quality is as a storyteller. What I wonder is how, when you deride his "plots, characters, settings, and themes" as "quite pathetic," you can also claim that "as an author in the literary perspective he is quite talented"--all in the same breath. Are you saying that his prose style (which King himself has dismissed as "the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries") is first-rate, but his subjects aren't worth writing about? Just not sure how you get there.

 

For myself, I like King a lot--in fact, IT is probably my favorite novel of all time--certainly not the best one I've read, but my favorite all the same, for personal reasons. I don't think his characters, settings, plots, etc. are always particularly original, though his themes can get surprisingly deep, and his stories are involving. I just think your assessment of King sounds ass-backwards.

 

My opinion. And I don't think I'm too harsh.

[Vambram]

I do not believe that Stephen King is overrated. To me, he is one of the very best horror writers of all time. Yes, he has written several books that are below average, at best. However, when I consider that King has written well over 30 novels, then it is to be expected that some of those novels and books ain't worth reading.

My favorite Stephen King novels are the Stand: the Unabridged edition, IT, and also Needful Things.

[Hadilmir]

Your opinion is valid, and quite a few people share it--and it's not as harsh as, say, Harold Bloom's opinion of King. I do not share your opinion, and it seems to me that consensus (for all that matters, if at all) holds that King's chief quality is as a storyteller. What I wonder is how, when you deride his "plots, characters, settings, and themes" as "quite pathetic," you can also claim that "as an author in the literary perspective he is quite talented"--all in the same breath. Are you saying that his prose style (which King himself has dismissed as "the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries") is first-rate, but his subjects aren't worth writing about? Just not sure how you get there.

 

For myself, I like King a lot--in fact, IT is probably my favorite novel of all time--certainly not the best one I've read, but my favorite all the same, for personal reasons. I don't think his characters, settings, plots, etc. are always particularly original, though his themes can get surprisingly deep, and his stories are involving. I just think your assessment of King sounds ass-backwards.

 

My opinion. And I don't think I'm too harsh.

 

The thing is, reading a page of one of King's books goes smoothly. His writing technique is, to me, very easily read, probably because I'm quite a fan of fries (literally and in the sense King meant). It's the content I take issue with. I'll admit, several times I've been drawn into the book but he always finds things to ruin the story for me, most of which stems from his characters. He obviously views the human mind in a way that's very unfamiliar to me. Though I suppose I didn't specifically dislike his writing until I read "The Dome" which really brought out all the things that had annoyed me in some of his other books like The Dark Tower series and The Green Mile, both of which I had already put aside as 'alright books'.

 

I'll throw this out right now, IT is one I haven't had the chance to read. However I don't think you'll convince me to give it a chance. I gave "The Dome" a chance after reading "Riding the Bullet" and it was probably the worst book I've ever read cover to cover.

 

Vambram, I'm aware that I could've read some of his poorer work and none of his good, but I see The Green Mile and Dark Tower series often getting praised and to me, they were middling at best, so I doubt it's simply me choosing the wrong books of his selection.

[Rufae]

My problem with King is that he puts out 2-3 books a year. ANyone who writes that fast has to be using formulas and not plotting unique stories. Every once in a while, he puts out something memorable, but it is more a matter of odds than high skill level.

[Jon Paul]

I won't be in that lynch mob.

 

I will be!

 

The Lord of the Rings is in no way overrated. I honestly believe The Lord of the Rings is the pinnacle of its style of story-telling. Not everyone enjoys it but to say that it is overrated simply doesn't fly.

[Turin Turambar]

I enjoyed all of Tolkien's Middle Earth Series and do not consider it over-rated. It was the series that I re-read the most before Wot caught my attention. To each their own I suppose.

 

Also, like Logain's Pet I feel The Silmarillion is even better than LotR, The Hobbit not as much.

 

What I found over-rated were probably the Thomas Covenant books.

[Suttree]

Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks.

 

As fantasy editor Lin Carter put it:

 

"the single most cold-blooded, complete rip-off of another book that I have ever read". Elaborating on his disapproval of the book, Carter wrote that "Terry Brooks wasn't trying to imitate Tolkien's prose, just steal his story line and complete cast of characters, and [brooks] did it with such clumsiness and so heavy-handedly, that he virtually rubbed your nose in it."

[Thorum]

Vambram, I'm aware that I could've read some of his poorer work and none of his good, but I see The Green Mile and Dark Tower series often getting praised and to me, they were middling at best, so I doubt it's simply me choosing the wrong books of his selection.

 

Surprising. I've made the exact same conclusion (I hate Stephen King), having read the same two books (only the Gunslinger from DT).

[NetSlider]

Let's see, might be a long list:

 

The Sword of Truth (of course, no brainer there. HATE LIVES ON!)

Star Wars (not just the books, but the movies as well. I know, great for it's time but the "philosophy" and the universe are not that deep)

SOIF (don't even get me started on that one)

Catcher in the Ray (have to agree, not as deep as they say IMO)

Potter (a given here)

Twilight (I can't believe I even typed that word)

LOTR (Probably will bring down a lot of hate for this one)

Drizzt later books (complete freaking garbage though I grew up on earlier releases and they were def by far better)

Anything OS Card, excluding Ender and related (man, that man can preach)

Hitch 22 (not that best of his works by far, and def boring, which is not usually him at all)

Left Behind ('nough said)

 

well, I'll add more when whey come to mind.

 

 

[coolpool]

:O i can't believe how many people hate eragon!!! you all just trashed my favourite child/teenage hood series! you should all be ashamed but fair play, the movie was awful and it is similar to star wars :P (oh and it gets worse as in very star wars like in books two *spoiler alert if anyway cares*, the darth vador character (not galbatorix..galbatorix isn't the darth vador character but is the evil lightning guy; the emperor :P)anyway eragon finds out that the darth vador character is his dad :P but dont worry, in book 3, he actually isn't it was a miss interpretation by his evil half brother (who thought that eragon was his full bro) and obi one kanobi figure is his dad :P

 

i dont deny its faults at all but the guy started writing when he was 14 (and so had his ideas from a 14 year old perspective) and finished and self published his book by 15.. 16..? He probably didn't even realise how similar it was to starwars... oh and how many of YOU could write a full scale book at 14!!! Give the man some leeway...

 

if eragon wasn't written.. i wud NEVER have been such a book worm that i am now, it was instrumental in me picking up fantasy (WoT) and action books... and i can't wait for the last book to come out in November... except from WoT, and rick books :P, the inheritance cycle is the only series i could really go back and read and almost enjoy it as much as the first read.., tho WoT is still better than eragon, i'm not denying that, i just don't think eragon is as bad as everyone thinks... like the twilight books should be the most hated here, not a teenage fantasy book that is an important book into introducing epic fantasy to teenagers.

 

oh and i read harry potter and eragon close together and i will say that eragon was better written..

 

most over rated books i wud say is American Gods.. it was so bad that it put me of reading for 6 weeks (i had 50 odd books to read in that time aswell!) cos i wouldn’t read another book while reading that and i just cudn't read anymore of it, tho TFoH saved me cos i stared reading that cos of reading withdraw symptoms :P

 

umm.. LoTR is bad.. if i enjoyed ot i cud have got through it in 4 days but i had to force myself to read it and so took my 9 days.. it was a seriously dull book.. like the books are way better than the films, but i preferred the films way more..

 

um oh yeah the twilight saga! people like it because bella is a plain character so girls and women put themselves into bellas shoes and since Edward is supposedly to most girls.. the dream man (hes really not hes a peodo stalker who wants to drink ur oops :P bellas blood more than anyone else’s.. how can girls want that!), they get drawn into the story on a more personal level and get addicted to the series..

 

edit: needed to sort out my spelling.. it was well bad

[Ashaman Kovan]

Let's see, might be a long list:

 

The Sword of Truth (of course, no brainer there. HATE LIVES ON!)

Star Wars (not just the books, but the movies as well. I know, great for it's time but the "philosophy" and the universe are not that deep)

SOIF (don't even get me started on that one)

Catcher in the Ray (have to agree, not as deep as they say IMO)

Potter (a given here)

Twilight (I can't believe I even typed that word)

LOTR (Probably will bring down a lot of hate for this one)

Drizzt later books (complete freaking garbage though I grew up on earlier releases and they were def by far better)

Anything OS Card, excluding Ender and related (man, that man can preach)

Hitch 22 (not that best of his works by far, and def boring, which is not usually him at all)

Left Behind ('nough said)

 

well, I'll add more when whey come to mind.

 

I'd be interested in seeing your list of underrated books...

[NetSlider]

The only thing that comes to mind at this time is KoD and The Last Werewolf for some reason. Btw, with an exception of couple titles that I've mentioned, I'm not saying that they completely suck, but that they are over rated, and some by A LOT (like Star Wars is very over rated but still not bad, where SOIF, Sword, Potter, and Twilight are complete crap).

Let's see, might be a long list:

 

The Sword of Truth (of course, no brainer there. HATE LIVES ON!)

Star Wars (not just the books, but the movies as well. I know, great for it's time but the "philosophy" and the universe are not that deep)

SOIF (don't even get me started on that one)

Catcher in the Ray (have to agree, not as deep as they say IMO)

Potter (a given here)

Twilight (I can't believe I even typed that word)

LOTR (Probably will bring down a lot of hate for this one)

Drizzt later books (complete freaking garbage though I grew up on earlier releases and they were def by far better)

Anything OS Card, excluding Ender and related (man, that man can preach)

Hitch 22 (not that best of his works by far, and def boring, which is not usually him at all)

Left Behind ('nough said)

 

well, I'll add more when whey come to mind.

 

I'd be interested in seeing your list of underrated books...

[Dewairah]

The Two Rivers is the Shire. And Moiraine is Gandalf. And Lan is Aragorn. And Fain is Gollum. Trollocs are orcs. The DO is Sauron....And I guess all the Forsaken would have to be saruman, just split into different facets. Which I guess would have to make Rand Frodo and Mat and Perrin Pippin and Merry and Thom Sam.

 

F@#$ me.

 

You just ruined WoT for me.

 

Thanks.

[Ashaman Kovan]

The Two Rivers is the Shire. And Moiraine is Gandalf. And Lan is Aragorn. And Fain is Gollum. Trollocs are orcs. The DO is Sauron....And I guess all the Forsaken would have to be saruman, just split into different facets. Which I guess would have to make Rand Frodo and Mat and Perrin Pippin and Merry and Thom Sam.

 

F@#$ me.

 

You just ruined WoT for me.

 

Thanks.

 

My bad. Luckily I was (mostly) bullshitting though, so it's all good lol.