Printable View
The Great Gatsby is a great novel, plenty of irony about the rich and mundane. The Last Tycoon, although he never finished it would probably have been even better. I haven't read his other work but so many authors are unable to write even one decent novel.
Jane Austen and James Joyce overrated??? :sick: :sick:
Jane Austen was one of the first women who wrote "in favour" of women! She criticized her society of being sexist. I think she was "brave" because in XIX Century was not easy, women writers were not well-seen.
If and once I ever recover from This Side of Paradise, I'll try to give The Great Gatsby a swing. That novel put me in the literary ICU, barely made it out alive with my sanity intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark F.
I'm not that sure about that. While Austen wrote from a women's perspective, and that would naturally lead to sympatheize with their problems, I have never read anything from Austen to catagorize her a passioante feminist. In Emma, the female character settles to be married to a strong man. Where in Austen do you see her be so femnist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Dalloway
Pride and Prejudice, where the woman ends up calling all the shots and not the man. Other than that I am not sure with Austen, though the female characters in the books tend to do what they want rather than what the men want, and the men are responsible for getting them to say "yes".Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
This Side Of Paradise. Exactly! Rich kid with rich mother traveling doing rich people things. Jumbled writing. Not engaging at all. Great Gatsby is about the rich, or at least people who are a lot more well off then my impoverished being. If you don't think it is then you must obviously have more money than I. I just don't think he's a good writer. Franz Kafka is also very overrated in my opinion. Maybe I'm not deep enough to follow his "plots" if you casn call them that. I tried reading the Metamorphosis because people told me it would be more cohesive, which it was, in a way, but it was incredibly dull too me. It just didn't interest me for some reason. I guess everyone has those authors. Kafka and Fitzgerald would have to be my picks for authors that I find overrated. I guess I'd throw in Bukowski as well. Also,aside from Junky, I'd say William Burroughs. Once you've read Naked Lunch you've pretty much read all his other works.
Must admit that I started This side of Paradise but never finished it. Am planning to though. I suppose the other thing about some of them seeming overrated is that you build them up before you've read them and sometimes it seems like a disappointment from what you were expecting...
STEIG - would also recommend The beautiful and Damned if you are going to read Fitzgerald. Although I guess I've kind of given away some of the plot...
ROBERT JORDAN - Yes, he does tend to write about rich people but that is because that is what he knew and probably felt could write accurately about. I'm far from rich as it happens but don't see why a character's financial position should deter me from enjoying a story. At the end of the day, it's about people, they sometimes just happen to have some money. If you don't like his writing, fair enough, but I don't see what his characters' affluence have to do with him being a bad writer. Sort of agree with you about Kafka and Bukowski.
VIRGIL - I think Austen's character's are considered feminist for her times. As in they had a mind of their own, and often spoke it too.
Also think Hunter S. Thompson and Jack Kerouac are overrated. Or perhaps I just don't like the beat generation style.
Bret Easton Ellis. As much as I enjoy his work, I think it's a case of right place at the right time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adudaewen
well i just finished studying 'Catcher in the Rye' in one of my modules at university and despite approaching it from various different angles (freudian aspects, buddhism comparisons etc) i remain unswayed about disliking the book. i'm beginning to think it may be because i just cannot relate to or accept liking Holden himself.
needless to say i was the only one in my class of 30 who admitted to disliking the text :p strange.
Nora Roberts......Bah!
aydin, I will make it my priority to give Fitzgerald a second shot, the one I had read probably was one of the author's lesser works, very aimless and vacuous.
I must disagree with many of your points regarding Shakespeare's works. The man was a craftsmen of the language (modern English by the by, Chaucer was middle). Shakespeare is and has be continuously relevant to the cultures and societies which have adopted his theory and produced his plays. If the culture as a whole decided that this was not the case, he would simply disappear into the literary cannon of the past. Although we cannot relate to the setting or the Idiosyncrasies, and nuances of the cultures projected in the plays, the themes of love, war, death, paranoia etc. are always relatable and indeleble to the human spirit that transcends the never ending march of time over culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
Shakespeare's use of "repetition" allows him to fully express and explore the themes of the play in a variety of depths. If a concise expression of ideas is what you're looking for than an essay may be better suited for your tastes. Fictional writing is an artistic endeavor that marries entertainment with ideas and knowledge. The complexity of the style create an ocean rather than a pool in regards to depth and this is what allows Shakespeare to be continually relevant in the ever-changing cultures of the world.
I dunno, it comes down to taste and opinion, if literary criticism has proven anything, it is that the aesthetic value of a given literary piece can never be completely decided upon. I hope I didn't come off as condescending or attacking, it was not my intention, I am just an antagonistic with a love of old Shakespeare.
A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y!
I'm quite mad at you! I have just now joined this forum and I wanted my very first post to be "Is it just me or Jane Austen is incredibly overrated?"
Heh, it's good that someone shares my opinion :)
I think he is a bit underrated by the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guzmán
I enjoy making lists of authors you don't like much as much as the next man, but isn't this "overrated", "underrated" thing kind of pointless and trite? First of all, who determines what authors have what rating? the ratings you are saying are too low or too high? isn't it entirely and impossibly and inanely relative and subjective? And it really takes no basis, no knowledge of the author to say he or she is too high or too low on some mysterious list.
Charles Dickens is SO overrated in my opinion. I mean yes he wrote good stuff..but not THAT good...I don't remember ever really enjoying any of his works..they're so gloomy and always leave me with bitterness and a strange feeling of wanting to hang myself!
Lots of us folks up here in Maine look up to Stephen King. I really liked "The Stand". But, lately, I've really grown tired of the rehashing an a lot of going on and on ... kind of a pulp science-fiction pump. Seeing characters resurface in other books, while legit I suppose, seems somewhat distracting for me, anyway.
Whenever I read something that seems hard to follow, I have this thought that maybe other people would see it more clearly, that it is just my weakened perception, rather than outright, intentional obliqueness. But then, I wonder still.
Well, now that you ask, I definitely think George RR Martin is overrated. People are all excited that he writes about sex. I don't know, maybe including sex in fantasy is new and people get excited about it. Maybe adding a lot of realism and family intrigue is new and people get excited about it. I just didn't like, and a lot of people seems to praise is a lot that I just had to write his name here.
To me, his "Game of Thrones" (the book that seem to have made him really popular) appear so close to realism that I frankly preferred reading an actual historical book than that.
Uh, also, Dan Brown. He just took a taboo subject and popularize it, so no matter what he wrote, people were interested having a bite ofi t.
Taboo subject? That there was a fictional grail?
That Jesus and Mary were a couple and that she had his child.
I'd rather believe Jesus was involved in a sordid affair with Judas. Now that would make a great Hollywood blockbuster. Brokeback Mountain in Jerusalem.
I think writing off Jane Austen is a mistake. I read all of "Sense and Sensibility", only because it was referred to in the Jimmy Stewart movie Harvey. Elwood P. Dodd goes into his study finds his hidden liquor bottle and gets out Jane Austen's book and begins to read. I went out and got the book just to see if that was how it started.
"The family of Dashwood had been long settled in Sussex.", see, I still remember -- I love that movie. And the book seemed a little dry. But 75 years ago this was a great unintended satire on the aristocracy, possibly?
See, this is a book that other people could see the great value of. My own lack of depth is the overrated part.
That's not taboo. It's bizarre.
Taboo means something other than that.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Stephen King, too. I only started reading his stuff in March - I wanted to see how "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" compared to the movie and then read the rest of the books in that short story compilation and then read a couple other of his books.
I think why he's so popular is because he's such an easy read - just about anyone can read his stuff, that's it's appeal. Sure, his books are a million pages long, but they're not difficult at all and they borderline on simplistic. Did anyone read "The Library Policeman"? I mean, King seems like a rad badass dude and all and I'd like to meet him, but I'd swear a twelve-year-old had written that. And I was not impressed with 'salem's Lot at all.
Strangely enough, "Apt Pupil" is my favorite piece of his work, I really liked it alot.
I finished Four Past Midnight not too long ago and I think that'll do me for King books for the next couple years.
Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.
Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.
William Faulkner. I still shudder at the _Sound and the Fury_
I am going to be reading The Sound and the Fury this year. What was it that you didn't like? Without giving anything away.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by _JadeRain_
Chuck Palahniuk. Good movie, bad book.:sick:
I read the first three books and I enjoyed them I guess but the GRRM gushers that make their rounds on various literary boards need to get a grip. GRRM needs to tone down that big fish swallowed by a bigger fish story structure. I flipped through A Feast For Crows at the bookstore and think I found a bunch more psycho feudal freaks in chainmail. And yes, I just love reading dwarf smut every 20-50 pages. Pull-leeze!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fango
I quite enjoy the Song of Ice and Fire books. And I appreciate them for what they are - good, fun, reads that are engrossing and an easy way to disappear into another world. There are plenty of books that can do that, and plenty of books that can do that a lot better than Martin. But it works for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stieg
grrrrrrrr!Quote:
Originally Posted by masterlibrarian
They're alright, nice flowery prose blended with gritty fantasy and medievel court soap opera nothing deep however. Personally, I liked Fevre Dream more. Much more. Not sure I can get back into world of Westeros if the flawed trends I spoke about in my post above continue. How many characters are going to die before GRRM realizes he has thinned the quality of the saga overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by kratsayra
yes, I suppose killing off characters can get old. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stieg
I'll have to look into his other stuff like Fevre Dream.
Definitely, I mean how many new freaks did GRRM introduce in the last novel to dull me with. Greater character investment for readers would have given the novels a greater backbone. Probably should have let many of these characters live through two or three books at least not only would their deaths have more significance but also GRRM could invent less characters with greater originality but probably didn't because the plot is stretched pretty thin already. Easier to kill them than create more subplots.Quote:
Originally Posted by kratsayra
Fevre Dream is an excellent horror fantasy!
I read The Zahir...it was very very lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark F.
Although I have tried on several occasions to adopt a slight liking, if not just a general respect for the numerous generic line of literary products by Stephen King my efforts have been in vain. I deplore short sentence structures incessantly cut with hyphens and involving dialogue which although parallel to a lesser educated audience's diction leaves much to be desired in realism. His writing style sickens me although I do find appeal in the labrynth of twists in his thriller series and novels. When all has been said and done, the literary merit of Stephen King's works leave much to be desired--even more when he is categorized with the "greats" such as J.D. Salinger and Harper Lee. His 'The Green Mile' has also been identified with Harriet Beacher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, which very few may object, conveys a profound message that Mr. King could never dream of displaying
TO EACH HIS OWN
This day and age, if you like a good simple story without deep thoughts then read all these famous authors of today. But I like all the existentialist and absurdest. I wouldn't consider any of them over-rated, atleast not the famous ones, maybe Ionesco just a hair?
I am not going to bother to make a new post because I don't feel there are many GRRM fans on this forum but it does have them.
Question, is George R R Martin the new Robert Jordan?
Aside from a smashing debut of his A Song of Ice And Fire saga, A Game of Thrones. A dark fantasy wonderland for adults. But since then, the series has grown progressively sophomoric and convoluted.
With each succeeding series entry, each book introducing a absurb new cast of uber-killers vying for the title of most bizarre and Iron Throne usurpers and general freaks galore lacking plenty originality.
In the second book, readers had to bear too much GRRM's fixation on Tyrion. So much so we were introduced to his most naked personal anatomy and sex life and his temporary transformation into Ubermensch.
The third book, brought the death of many main characters. And now with their absence brought in an encyclopedia full of new players and powers in the fourth volume. Ahem sound familiar? See question above.
And also similarly to Jordan, GRRM can't make up his mind which characters will remain dead and which ones will return. For readers of the series I have heard Gregor Clegane "The Mountain who Rides" has returned under the alchemy and sorceries of maester Qyburn. He is now a Frankenstein monster rebuilt from various body parts???
O.O
Why bother killing off the likes of Rob Stark, Catylin, Joffrey, Tywin, etc when you are going to write more of the same into the series again.
Did the saga simply grow too overwhelming and complex for GRRM to handle and he lost grip of his original visions and designs?
My criticism is that the plot just crawls most of the time. It takes a character nearly a whole book to move from one city to the next. And ironically that character often turns around and ends up going right back where they started.Quote:
Originally Posted by kratsayra
Saul Bellow....When he passed away last year, I re-read Herzog and a few of his other books....I had read them in college and found them full of the fussy self-analysis and uninteresting somewhat elitist charcters that I associate with the worst New York intellectual literature (Yes I know Bellow was a Canadian who lived in Chicago).
Turns out I was right the first time....I should admit I don't like Woody Allen movies either
In two words... Dan Brown!!!
Philip Roth.
I'm a twenty-something WASP female, so I'm sure I don't fit the profile of his intended readers, but I really resent the few days I devoted to Portnoy's Complaint. I appreciate that many people find something worthwhile in his writing, but if I want weirdly self-congratulatory tales of frenzied adolescent masturbation and indulgent neuroses I'll...well...I just never want those things.
Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.
(I'll add another vote to the anti-Dan Brown cause as well.)