Show Library: Pseudointellectual Books That, in Fact, Suck

[Madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time". It takes all of about two chapters to lose most readers - yet it is supposed to be *the* book to explain astrophysics to the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

I found it pretty straightforward. I can understand Brian Greene's books losing people, but A Brief History of Time was... not that complex a book. I guess it's been about a year since I read it, so maybe I'm wrong.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I promote David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest" as my own candidate for overrated. I realize it's possible that I'm just not intelligent enough to fully comprehend the book, but to me it seems like he's just trying too hard to be clever, and his characters strike me as completely unrealistic. (And I actually like writers such as Umberto Eco and Neal Stephenson)

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from their love of digressions, I think Wallace and Stephenson are quite different. I'm not sure that I'd compare Eco and Wallace, either. I'm a big Stephenson fan, and I think Wallace is a really good writer; Infinite Jest was flawed but good, particularly in the halfway house sections. The tennis academy stuff is far less satisfying.

[RichC.]

I nominate:

(not sure it belogs here) Clauswitz, On War.

While a great book about warfare by yet another dead German, this book is dreadfully boring.

[cjmewett]

I thought Infinite Jest was hilarious and really enjoyable, but there's probably something to be said for the "pseudo-intellectual" flaws of basically the entire "postmodernist encyclopedic fiction" genre. I think the whole point is to mock pretension, but I've talked to a number of people who find the Pynchons and DFWs and Eggerses absolutely unbearable.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the whole point is to mock pretension, but I've talked to a number of people who find the Pynchons and DFWs and Eggerses absolutely unbearable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow. There were definitely some interesting, memorable scenes (I'm a big fan of "paper -- toilet paper, banknote stock, newsprint -- a medium or ground for [censored], money, and the Word.") but the book as a whole left me disappointed.

[miajag]

Crying of Lot 49 was the only Pynchon I could stomach. Gravity's Rainbow and V, ugh.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, there are some lousy picks in here.

However, the Great Gatsby is a complete load of old bollocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Speak English plz.

And Fight Club was a great book. Chuck Pahlunik (sp?) is a very talented and unconventional writer.

I can't think of any that are overrated off the top of my head, but Frank Herbert is very UNDERrated.

And Great Gatsby indeed blew. It was the cheesy romance novel of it's day. Only difference is there wasn't an oil painting of fabio on the cover.

[EYEWHITES]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the whole point is to mock pretension, but I've talked to a number of people who find the Pynchons and DFWs and Eggerses absolutely unbearable.

[/ QUOTE ]


i agree, espically with eggers, his books always make me think from reading about them...this will be the one i like...then i read half of it and hate it...not because he sucks tho


quote:I am going to get destroyed for this but,
catch-22?
I found it intolerable to read.

i absoluetly hated this book but i finished it cause so many people like it...i think it was the worst book i have ever read

i loved gatsby....but it is pale in comparision to beautiful and the damned, which is a very balla book about living do do very little but be lazy.

i also thought catcher in the rye was way overratted

the best writen book i think i have read is potriat of dorian gray,

[TheMainEvent]

I think a lot of people are confusing this thread with "Literary classics that I don't like"

[cking]

The scarrlet letter made me want to cut myself....


crime and punishment succeeded...