who is the most overrated writer ever?

Well, I think that would be Paulo Coelho... Unlike Dan Brown and other best-seller-churners, he insists on being called a literary man...

But there are many more. Two seriously overrated authors in Latin America, in my opinion, are Isabel Allende and Ángeles Mastretta. In Spain, Rosa Regàs and Rosa Montero - they're highly popular but simply unintelligible. I think Rosa Regàs's prize-winning novel "Dorotea's Song" is probably the most awful book I've read in the last few years, unless you count Swedish Marianne Fredriksson's "Mother and daughter". However, these people sit on contest juries, write for magazines, in at least one case (Regàs) have held public office, and are generally considered "intellectuals"...

For me it'd be Walker Percy and more modern Anne Tyler I had to read a book of hers when I was in college--and I was infuriated that the professor--having the ability to choose any book to which to expose her student chose that piece of crapola!

I am also not a Jane Austen fan --technically brilliant-- but I always want to go into the book with an uzi and just shot it off for a little excitement and to get the characters to actually do something.

Oh- and taking into account it's intended audience--Harry Potter is totally fun!

To Kill A Mockingbird

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waryan

I think aside from the academics who want to teach its literary elements in college courses over other particular classic works Harry Potter fans that I know don't hold it up as any sort of Joyce or anything rather than just a fun and well done book, and personally I've not read any Potter so I couldn't say myself. Same for Twilight.

somehow i don't ever seem to get around to the really hyped books like THE KITE RUNNER or TWILIGHT or whatever else is on the front stand at B&N.

---

Strange, the Poterites where I live on release days were in full costume, lining up down the block. It was pathetic, sad, and even depressing to see grown men and women amongst the costumed. They clearly are a very active group (or were before the last book was released). She is clearly overrated, that is for sure, since we can clearly see she is slowly deteriorating as the realization that the series is over strikes home.

As for most overrated though, I would have to say Grisham, since he still enjoys mass sales, even though everyone realizes he has one skeleton of a book, and just keeps semi-fleshing it over and over. King is up there, but I hesitate to put Brown up there because I think his career is at an ebb. Nora Roberts for sure is up there too, as are the modern fantasy authors Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan (though the latter is dead now, so I guess he doesn't count).

Tolkien is highly overrated too, if you really think about it, but the Emperors New Clothes situation will hold for a while longer, until the CGI on the movies is no longer seen as brilliant, and is seen as old-fashioned (it will happen eventually, with the rate technology is advancing).

Every popular author eventually declines, it is inevitable. However some (the perfect example being Dickens) out-last the decline, and still enjoy some popularity.


I would also like to throw this out there: most versions of the bible are overrated, especially these new "accurate" translations that keep floating around. The KJV is the best-written version I have yet come across (I have read the text thoroughly in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament, though cannot read the original Greek), but the accurate translations used in most churches seem to a) still be completely inaccurate (it seems Christian translators neglect to realize that even Rabbinic scholars still dispute the definition of some terms completely) and b) just ugly. There are some great poetic passages in the books, but none seem to have made it into those translations, which aren't accurate anyway.

Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist. And after some thinking, I think that The Da Vinci Code was highly overrated, given to the fact that its prequel, Angels and Demons, was way better.

I heard the opposite, either way, judging from The Da Vinci Code, neither are very good.

I recently grabbed The Count of Monte Cristo from the library, and damn it was awful. I dunno, maybe I got a bad translation, but it seems like every version of the book begins with choppy sentences. And the dialogue, ugh...

This especially confuses me because I think Musketeers is fairly decent, maybe even good.

I'd also say Moby Dick = garbage, but I'm empathetic as to why some people might enjoy it. It just takes a certain type of person to like that story, and that person's not me.

Also, why does anyone like To Kill A Mockingbird? Do I need a special chip in my brain to decipher the good novel behind the cheesy Twainesque exposition?

It's maybe true that Dan Brown's books are not that good literature but I don't think that means they can't be good books (I hope you get what I mean, I don't really know how to say it in English...). And that's just a matter of opinion what's a good book and what's not. I think they were all good but as I said not the best literature.

Well that's weird, my last post showed up twice (the copy was here before I erased it).

Guess I should defame another book:

I almost contracted mental retardation from reading the first page of War and Peace. It turns out I'm allergic to infodumps.

Are we talking about best-sellers here, or proper books, 'Literature' with a capital L. I don't think Grisham would regard himself as a literary author and to castigate him for repetitious plots is to accuse him of failing to be something he isn't trying to be - he has a winning formula and makes a healthy living from producing stories people enjoy reading. (And you must admit there are some enjoyable variations on the theme and the stories are well written which is more than can be said of some 'best selling' authors.) I can't help feeling that the reason so many people make such a huge fuss over the likes of Dan Brown (and Rowling and Tolkein, for that matter) is that they rarely read books and are delighted to be able to say they have actually found a book they like and finished it - have you noticed that many of these run-away success books are often quite chunky tomes? That can only increase the sense of achievement for an infrequent reader. But - Great! They've finished a book! Don't let's pour (too much) scorn on them, let's quietly put other books in their way and hope they enjoy those too, and the next one, and the next one.

I suppose one needs to ask oneself who is rating this book so highly? If it is vox populi, I suspect the book can be safely treated with a certain amount of caution. If the opinion is that of a respected, well-read critic, perhaps the book should be treated with a degree more respect and effort. Ultimately your opinion of any book is down to you, your tastes and your critical abilities. If you find however that you cannot agree with serious critics, perhaps something is lacking in you as a reader, maybe critical acumen, maybe knowledge of the genre or period, or maybe just experience of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I heard the opposite, either way, judging from The Da Vinci Code, neither are very good.

---

I enjoyed Angels and Demons more, it was a good thriller. But I'm still not sure if any of Brown's books, and likes of them, can be called literature. I normally read these works, without the least intention of getting a certain literary value out of them.

I didn't say that his books are bad, but The Da Vinci Code just wasn't good, at least not to me.

I'd definitely agree with Tolkien being overrated.Also,in my opinion: Jean Racine,Balzac,Hemingway(I'm sure most of you don't agree about the last two,but please,spare me,it's just my opinion),Kerouac,Ayn Rand,and pretty much everyone who's popular these days - Coelho,Brown,Rowling,Houellebecq...

ayn rand's "atlas shrugged" is the winner by 5 lengths. it is accepted as classis literature unlike potter, brown and others books of that ilk which are "light reading"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cipherdecoy

I can't say for sure which is the most overrated book, but as far as what I've read is concerned, I would say The Catcher In The Rye, although it's a book I've enjoyed. I would consider myself too much of a rookie in the field of literature to pick one such author though. However, if we're talking about 21st century literature (if you can call it that), I would also be interested to know if you think Harry Potter and Twilight by Stephanie Meyer are vastly overrated (haven't read that one yet). ;)

---

cipher, almost everywhere its appropriate ive been taking the opportunity to condemn catcher in the rye as being vastly overrated (and i didnt like it either! smiles....)

and moby dick too.