It's summer break which means I'm reading another classical book so ofc it got me thinking about the other books I've read. Also I'm 15 if that helps explain my views on some of these books and I usually prefer reading fantasies.
lord of the flies- I remember being so excited to read this book since one of my favorite movies is Battle Royale so I thought the book would be fast paced action with psychological drama. The book itself was slow and only got slightly interesting in the last three chapters. Also I had just turned 13 when I read it, so close to the characters ages I think, and honestly that made me judge them more harshly because I couldn't use age as an excuse. I should've just picked fahrenheit 451 instead...
Little Women-I found this randomly the summer before 5th grade I think and read it out of boredom. One of my best decisions because it ended up being so enjoyable. I'll admit that when I was reading it I don't think I fully understood the inner struggles of each sister, it was really in the movie by Greta Gerwig that I got a deeper appreciation for the characters. I do remember Beth being my favorite when I read it, mostly because of how accepting of death she was and how she was sort of a peacekeeper. In the movie, the dynamic between Jo and Amy was definitely my favorite part, but I will admit that I liked Amy a bit more because of her development. Also I love how the author saw the piles of mail begging for jo and laurie and did the exact opposite of what they wanted.
Flowers For Algernon-It started out interesting because of the concept but idk it just fell off halfway through. I don't know why but I developed a strong dislike for Charlie, maybe it was because of how long the book dragged. I had almost forgotten about the book until a classmate of mine talked about how much he liked Charlie, it was because of how nice he was (idk the trolley thing and assault say otherwise). But I will admit that the classmate and charlie are similar because of how they gain knowledge (called geniuses because of this) but have no experience with that topic, so they gain no wisdom on it (I just call it flashcard knowledge). I swear it makes sense if you meet them. Anyway that person did help make the book a bit memorable.
I did read some edgar allen poe books which were interesting but not enough to justify every english teacher being obsessed with him. also before I read the cask of amontillado i thought it was set in present day and something poe actually did, so I was always confused on why no one mentioned him being a murderer💀
**No Longer Human-**I read this last summer and It is the only classic besides little women that I personally picked to read but theres not much to say. Like the entire time all I thought reading it was " thats messed up...anyway" I did like how the author used his life as a basis for the story but fictionalized enough of it to not be an autobiography. Anyway I feel so bad for the women in this book. I read it after lord of the flies so it was better imo.(and yes I did read this because of bsd...not my best moment).
Scarlet Ibis-It's definitely not well known and might not even be a classic but i wanted to talk about it. This actually made me so sad because of how Doodle was treated, like he was just trying his best to make his older brother proud. It hit close to home as I'm a older sibling too and wished my younger sibling didn't exist (luckily I've grown out of that way of thinking). Anyway I reccommend givng it a read because I'm definitely not doing it justice and its a really short read too.
1984- I hated reading this book. My class spent nearly 5 months on it with two essays, with one being a Winston analysis which was painful to write but got me a 96 so I'll take it. Honestly Winston is what ruined the entire book for me, like i know hes supposed to represent the average person but did he really have to be that boring. I loved the worldbuilding the author did, it was so creative and had so much potential, but then Winston came with his ulcer. When I first heard of the book I was excited to read it and thought it was set in the future with Winston being part of a rebellion group and getting caught and killed on a mission. Unfortunately the book followed Winston's everyday life, which was interesting at first as you find out more about how te Party controls the people but it got old fast. The book became even more boring when Julia was added ( I actually don't hate her much tho except for associating with winston). When I read book 2 chapter 10 I actually felt some emotions but it was immediately crushed when book 3 started. I was expecting to love book 3 because we finally get to see the ministry of love but I got sick when my class was reading it and had to cram it the night before the test so I didn't really process what was happening. This book did introduce me to solipsism so it wasn't that bad ig. Anyway I do get why its praised so much because of its message but it just was not my thing. Also I can't explain why but I have a weird hatred for george orwell, like he didn't do anything except write some books but I just don't like him. EDIT: I forgot to mention that since we took so long to read this we couldn't read the Odyssey which I was looking forward to all year so 1984 does suffer from that too.
**Romeo and Juliet-**anyway the next thing we read was romeo and juliet which revived my love for reading after 1984 killed it. Shakespeare's so talented for tricking generations into thinking it was a story about the power of love when its more satire. Also how tf did he write in iambic pentameter for the entire thing and still make it so enjoyable. also only juliets age being mentioned is so interesting to me. Throughout the story we see how women were married much younger then her, while Juliets trying to take control of her own fate and decide who she marries, but shes only 13 so ofc she makes horrible decisions and still meets the terrible end she was trying to get away from. This was probably just an obvious observation but I still wanted to say it. People who genuineley ship those two are something...
To Kill A Mockingbird- I've been reading this book for the past four days and finished it today. Suprisingly I really liked it but then again my standards for classical books is at bedrock rn. Ik that its kinda controversial but it does help when you remember that it was written in the 50's, I think it was considered groundbreaking then. Also I've seen people say its THE book about racism which is so wrong💀 like the other option this year was New Jim Crow laws and next year theres Eyes Were Watching God which actually put black people has the major characters. I liked the book more because of how it explored growing up and realizing how unfair the world is and how complex the people you've known your whole life can be. It was a unique message and expanded the "the world isn't just black and white" idea. The thing that really got me tho is when Mrs. Maudie says that baby steps are being taken right after Tom is charged as guilty. It made me so mad that an innocent man had to die just for a bit of progress and it reminded me of how racism will never truly go away. Also the book sorta paralled my life because a few weeks ago there was a r**e case in my small suburban town BUT thats where the similarities end because it was about i***st(who tf would've expected this in NJ where the last most interesting case was a chain of walmart murders).Anway I do truly believe that a case like Tom's could still end similarly today in the states just a bit less likely. Also scout,jem,and atticus(good thing I didn't know him during my lawyer phase or I might've gotten serious about that career choice) weren't annoying which was a breath of fresh air. I was going to sparknote this book but I'm glad I read it.
Anyway The next book I'm reading for my summer assignments is "The Light we cannot see" which I heard was really good but I'm keeping my expectations low. I was going to read lovely bones but I don't want to read about the topics in the book because of the case I was talking about (mockingbird got away with it because I didn't know it was gonna have that and it ended up being a lie too). The next classical book on my list is Wuthering Heights which was recommended by a friend but I probably won't get to it for a while. after summer reading is done I can finally read my 800 page fantasy book (I always need to recharge with a personal book).
My opinions might've been horrible so sorry about that but I hope it wasn't that bad and if it was then sorry for wasting your time😓
First of all, I've thought I've found my favourite writer in Hemingway - now it is, without a second thought, Márquez.
When I started reading, two or three weeks ago, I was irritated by his writing style; new characteres are introduced incidentally, and fast overlooked, when the reader doesn't pay attention. I was anyoned by that, and the confusion Márquez causes with names of the Buendía bloodline.
I almost stopped reading, if I weren't so charmed by the things the gypsies brought to Macondo and the workshop of José Acarcadio Buendía. It felt like magic, when he showed the young colonel Buendía the ice the gypsies brought and always was recessed in his work and his studies.
The first most outstanding thing until now, where the failed suicide attemps from the colonel, followed by his slow death, that was caused by his iron habits, the served no more purpose. I felt so sorry for him, and wished that he died through his own hand, when trying to shoot himself.
The second most outstanding thing thing, was Úrsula turning blind, and started to see who the people, that surounded her really where.
I could sit here all day, and write about what I liked about the book, and would eventually end up rewriting it, so I have to make a cut right here.
Normally, I read pretty fast, and digest what I've read afterwards, but that isn't the case here. I still have, after two or three weeks, over 100 pages to go, and I'm pretty excited about them. I din't devour the book, the book devoured me; I became a citizen of Macondo. I was angry towards the americans, that came to the town and changed it so much, was happy about Petro Crespi, just because I liked him so much, and almost cried about his death. When I have a day off, I read one or two chapters, and go for a walk, while I cry, laugh and try to understand the characteres in the book and what caused their fates. Fortunately, I live near the woods, so no one can see me when I'm on my walks, lol.
Never have I been so fascinated or dragged so far from reality.
When I'm done reading, I'll start to read it again asap. Not just because I loved it so much, but also because I surley missed some of the symbolic messages, Márquez had put in his work.
Edit: I recommand to print out a family tree of the Buendía family, and just glue it into the book. Believe me, you'll be thankful for it.
And I don’t mean YA Dystopian Adventure series.
Last year my kids and I read The Graveyard Book as a family event and it was kind of interesting. Not a bad book.
We just started reading When You Trap a Tiger by Tae Keller and 30 pages in I’ve had to take 4 breaks to catch my breath. The writing is immersive and the depiction of family dynamics is written so simply but carrying such weight of truth that it has felt like a punch in the gut. Like by what right does this book, labeled as ages 8-12, have to make me get all up my feelings before even the halfway point?
What are some other young literature that impacts you?
What books do you have which are special but not because of the story?
I have an signed edition of The Anthropocene Reviewed by John Green sent to me by a good friend living half the world away (it's impossible to get signed copies of books where I lived) and I think very few books mean as much as this one does. What's yours?
Finished blitzing my way through everything Tamora Pierce has ever written and loved the hell out of all of it. Went searching online, found out the author many years after writing described Keladry of Mindelan as asexual and... she's super not. She's by far the horniest character she's ever written, we see her crush on and be physically attracted to pretty much every attractive male near her age who's a decent person.
Which is fine! Good even, she's a teenager and she acts like one, grumbling about periods and all which is so refreshing in a book about a female knight. But I feel like there's got to be a term for when the author, despite having been the one to write the books, is straight up wrong about something in them. No idea what to google, so here we are.
This is something I haven't been able to make sense of since I first read Ender's Game back when the movie came out when I was in middle school. To clarify, I've only read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, but it's baffling that Orson Scott Card is a bigot, yet those two books rely on empathy and acceptance of others, and speak to the horrors of alienating people who are different than you? It's always perplexed me
When it comes to directing a film, it is often advised to show rather than to tell. Instead of making a character say it has an eating disorder, show them struggling to eat their food or facing the health consequences of such a lifestyle.
What I notice with recent novels (written in the last thirty years) is that authors, even good ones, are leaning into a cinematographic approach of writing. Everything is minimalist, written like a script. The characters do a lot of things, but they never sit down to think about it. Long descriptions of emotional states are gone. No more reflection, no more slowing down, no more telling for the sake of telling. Everything paragraph must push the story forward. It is representative of our society since everything is about efficiency nowadays.
What makes me prefer books to films is that you can deep-dive into a character's psyche, that you can discover a time period, a city, a culture in so much details, and that you can as well explore the language you're reading in. I don't mind going through a long description of architecture if it's worded elegantly, and I certainly enjoy reading a character babble during multiple pages about how they're falling in love or grieving their mother...
What do you think about it? What does it mean to "show, don't tell" when it comes to writing, and is it really a good thing?
Of course, this is only my personal opinion, don't hesitate to tell me why I'm wrong or dumb for thinking this.
Personally I love it, it turns a book into a game. I'll read a murder mystery while having my tablet open to take notes on characters and key items, establish a timeline, move around or cross out details as more information comes to light, all with the end goal of figuring out the answer before the book tells me.
I've always read mystery novels this way, and from what I understand there's a rich history of people doing this, with books from Christie and her compatriots even being deliberately written to be solvable by the reader, but I've also had a couple of friends recently disagree with me and say that this ruins the pacing of the book and is taking away agency from the storyteller. It's a perspective I can understand, but not one I agree with.
What are your thoughts?
I recently read Death in her hands it's amazing.
I like how it's making anticipation for something but it just never comes. I noticed that the narrator is once again unreliable I'm not a huge fan of unreliable narrators but I can't help but be in awe of the character Vesta I hate her but I can't help but like her, she's so like me Cold Bagels only that part though.
What I hated the most in the book is the comment on fat people and the killing of an animal now I can't tolerate reading nor watching animated animals get killed I can never. So beware I guess.
Ottessa Moshfegh is such an amazing writer although I wasn't a big fan of my year of rest but enjoyed parts of it. I want to hear people's thoughts about her!
Lots of spoilers and I don’t post often so I don’t want to screw up so I’m just filling space so nothing important shows up in the preview.
The Arcon(if that’s how it’s spelled), is not a villain. I mean he’s one of the antagonists to The Gentleman Basterds and he was a bit of a dictator, but by the standards of this world he is positively benign.
His goals were to take control away from the people with money and bend his city to advancing human technology to challenge ridiculously powerful mages.
This isn’t even a hot take, I just like the way Scott Lynch creates characters and how we see them and wanted to tell people.
So, I've just started the third chapter of Franzen's The Corrections, and I've noticed that the books it structured like a novella collection. (I also heard in an interview Franzen himself called the structure something like "interlocking novellas.") I find this to be a rather unique but fragmented/disorienting way to tell the story? I can't quit word it correctly, but the story doesn't feel like one "whole" story, but rather seven (I think that's how many chapters there are) stories collected into one book. I'm sure Franzen has a good reason for structuring the novel like he does, but I feel like the story would be more powerfully told if we were introduced to all the character's at once and then have a sort of revolving chapter pattern where we juggle their stories all at once instead of having a big chunk of their story told separately. As I previously said, I've only just started the third chapter and I'm loving the book so far, but I just wanted to know if any of you had any answers/theories as to why the book is structured the way it is? Does it pull of in the end?
Thanks!
Just finished reading the book and I cannot get that ending out of my mind.
It is so achingly beautiful. Stephen King has managed to create this real, tender love story in middle of a time travel adventure. The Sadie-Jake romance is an improbably love story yet feels so real and authentic. Dancing was a core part of their romance and dancing is how they choose to close their incredible story. The past harmonizes.
It feels like I have been hit by a wave of emotions - what a deliciously crafted book!
So I've been in a reader's block for months now and that is so maddening because I thought about how many books I'll read once I'm done with my exams. I've DNFed more books these past couple of months than ever. First I picked up Piranesi but didn't vibe with it so I picked up Sputnik Sweetheart and got through it because it was really short. Then I went ahead to read Wuthering Heights but just couldn't get into it and then Book Lovers which I know I'm never getting back to because the writing is just that lame, now I'm trying to read The Silent Patient but I'm not super excited about the writing either.
So please help me out here, is something wrong with the books I picked up or is it just me?
There are some books out there that seem to be loved by many, goodreads will have 4 or 5 star gushing reviews. Sometimes the books we hate, make us the minority voice. Name a book that was popular, and well received, but you just couldn't stand.
I hated A Gentleman in Moscow by Amor Towles
Why? I thought I was getting a book about Russia set during the Soviet times. That's what I wanted to read about. And this book could have been set in London or Paris, there was nothing really Russian about it. So I was bored and DNF about 30%
All of us may have been guilty of it at some point. At what point did you break out of it?
For the unversed, I've pasted it here -
Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.
Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men – friends, coworkers, strangers – giddy over these awful pretender women, and I’d want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them. I’d want to grab the poor guy by his lapels or messenger bag and say: The bitch doesn’t really love chili dogs that much – no one loves chili dogs that much! And the Cool Girls are even more pathetic: They’re not even pretending to be the woman they want to be, they’re pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be. Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version – maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every fucking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like: “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point fuck someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”)
It's an important question, I think, at least. I like to read for a variety of reasons. Sometimes a book is useful to me (or at least I anticipate it is when I start it) and I'll (I'm sorry) dog ear pages I want to come back to when reflecting. I also love to read fiction, particularly fantasy that hails back to medieval or Roman Empire days (or even classical works like the Illiad and such). But another reason I read is to study (aside from school) a writing style of an author I like. I'd like to think I'm a good writer, but often I am not. So what I recently resolved to do is to take a book/author I really like (I have to already have read the book first w/o taking notes) and study how they make things interesting. For example, I started a reread of The Lord of the Rings and keep notes in a separate journal with page numbers and quotes so I can refer back to it later if I need an example of how to write a sunset or a character walking home.
I’m about to finish Pillars… again and I’m bothered how unromantic and matter of fact and just rigidly plain his writing style is…
Am I alone in thinking this? He has a very…. unattractive prose.
Maybe I’ve read too many epic fantasy books set in a medieval Europe style setting, usually I’d expect somewhat flowery writing.
This book reads like a Wikipedia article.
Maybe I’m missing something or just need to continue the series.
What’s your opinion of this author?
In Part II of "Last Exit to Brooklyn" - "The Queen is Dead", does Georgette pay Vinnie in the end? Is it supposed to be ambiguous?
Throughout the story Vinnie seems to be saying he'll only go with her if she pays him, while she wants him to want her (because she loves him.) But I can't figure out from their conversation in the final few pages whether she does pay him.
Before he finally does "allow" her to get him off he reminds her it will cost her money but I think he's just saying what he usually says but does relent and she doesn't pay him. Thoughts??
Edit: I've just read on a summary that she actually goes with Harry and pretends it's Vinnie and I flat out disagree with that, unless I'm missing something. She's trying to convince herself it's Harry that had sex with Lee immediately prior, and that Vinnie didn't (even though he did.)