I’ve been steadily increasing the number of books I want to read per year. Last year I hit a high of 84; however, I noticed in talking to my reader friends that I wasn’t remembering the books I read as well as I used to. I’d planned on 90 books for the year, but after a few of those experiences I’ve dropped to a goal of 50–still an average of four per month. I find I take my time, I’m more selective, I stay in them longer, and I’m just a happier reader again. Have you had similar experiences?

Hoşgeldiniz readers,

This is our monthly discussion of the literature of the world! Every Wednesday, we'll post a new country or culture for you to recommend literature from, with the caveat that it must have been written by someone from that there (i.e. Shogun by James Clavell is a great book but wouldn't be included in Japanese literature).

May 19 is the Commemoration of Atatürk which honors the life of Turkish hero Kemal Atatürk and to celebrate we're discussing Turkish literature! Please use this thread to discuss your favorite Turkish literature and authors.

If you'd like to read our previous discussions of the literature of the world please visit the literature of the world section of our wiki.

Teşekkür ederim and enjoy!

Read from April 29 – May 04, 2024

1/5 stars I HATED THIS

NOTE: I started out with an open mind read the first chapter, and then this turned into a hate-read.

That being said, no hate to anyone who enjoyed this book, I would love to hear what your opinions are, both on the book and this review :)

Let’s start with my ‘favourite’ quote:

“but it is impossible for someone who was not abused to become an abuser.”

Theo Faber, Psychotherapist

I genuinely do not understand what the hype around this book is.

To be fair, the second I read the words ‘TikTok sensation’ in the advertising, I should have known better.

The thing that struck me is that Michaelides is a SCREENWRITER, and this very much reads like a script, it felt like it was written solely for the purpose of selling the movie rights.

TLDR: This book wants to be Gone Girl so bad.

So, save yourself, if this is on your TBR, forget about it, read something else, ANYTHING else, read a newspaper, just don’t read this.

Longer rant Review, including the writing, characters, setting, and my main issues with this novel.

The Writing:

Is mediocre, at best.  It’s very much in the style of ‘he said, she said’.

The best way I can describe it is that it reminds me of a middle-grade novel, where everything is stated clear cut and there isn’t much effort needed on the reader’s part.

There’s nothing wrong with that, for a KID’S book, but this is NOT written for a 10-year-old.

There’s long swaths of exposition, the chapters are between 2-5 pages long, we are constantly told who’s speaking, points are stated and then re-stated kind of like:

“Alicia Berenson has not spoken in 6 years” Diomedes said.

That’s right, from what I remember, she has not spoken since her husband was killed, 6 years ago.

So much needless repetition.

The reason I said that it reads like a script is because there is a lot of useless dialogue + endless descriptions.

Each character and setting is described in such needless detail, going on for entire paragraphs, for example:

Barbie was a Californian blonde in her mid-sixties, possibly older. She was drenched in Chanel No 5, and she’d had a considerable amount of plastic surgery. Her name suited her – she looked like a startled Barbie doll. She was obviously the kind of woman who was used to getting what she wanted – hence her loud protestations at the reception desk when she discovered she needed to make an appointment to visit a patient.

This character has been mentioned once or twice previously but she is relevant for MAYBE 15 pages out of 336.

Majority of the side characters are introduced like this, however, Theo isn’t really described in much detail beyond the ‘tall, dark and brooding’ trope and neither is Alicia, so the 2 protagonists are essentially blank slates.

The dialogue is so cringey, almost every chapter mentions the weather [this is set in the UK], like the weather is used as filler relentlessly.

There’s a bunch of continuity errors, the main one that comes to mind is that at the start of the book when Theo first enters The Grove [don’t even get me started on the name of the hospital, it sounds like the name of a cartoon villain’s layer, not a psych hospital] he is asked to give up his lighter and any other objects that could be used as weapons, yet he and majority of the side characters smoke CONSTANTLY INSIDE THE HOSPITAL.

The writing also reminded me A LOT of Colleen Hoover’s writing, and if that women has no haters, then I’m dead.

The Diary Entries:

Like I said, this book wants to be Gone Girl so bad.

The diary entries are written very weirdly, they don’t read like a journal, where you might get more of a stream of consciousness sort of style, they read like POV switches from 6 years in the past.

They don’t flow and amble like you would expect.

Examples:

Tears collected in my eyes as I walked up the hill. I wasn’t crying for my mother – or myself – or even that poor homeless man. I was crying for all of us. There’s so much pain everywhere, and we just close our eyes to it.

But I ruined the mood, stupidly, clumsily – by asking if he would sit for me. ‘I want to paint you,’ I said. ‘Again? You already did.’ ‘That was four years ago. I want to paint you again.’ ‘Uh-huh.’ He didn’t look enthusiastic. ‘What kind of thing do you have in mind?’ I hesitated – and then said it was for the Jesus picture. Gabriel sat up and gave a kind of strangled laugh. ‘Oh, come on, Alicia.’

The diary entries are not diary entries, they are memories.

People don’t write down entire conversations word for word like this when they journal, like “’

I had lunch with Martha’ he said”, you write it like “Gabriel had lunch with Martha today.”

I know why the diary entries feel so weird, they read like movie scenes, like a flashback.

Like the memory/subject of the diary entry should be playing in the background while someone narrates.

Again, this was a script, not a novel, I stand by this point.

The Characters:

Character development is frankly non-existent, the characters don’t exists as themselves, they exist to serve the plot.

They have no depth, and their motivations are lacking.

Theo faber: he was abused as a kid and is therefore damaged.

Chapter 3 was literally just an exposition dump of his entire childhood, just straight out of the blue.

It was like Chapter one: a report of the murder, chapter 2 further recollection, chapter 3: so my father beat throughout my childhood, I don’t know why.

Theo’s father was verbally and physically abuse, Theo attempted suicide when he was at uni, because the things his dad said made him feel like a failure.

But we are never told WHAT has been said, and therefore, we don’t see why exactly Theo would have doubts about himself.

Abuse shapes you as a person, if we got to hear his inner thoughts about what his father said, it would give greater insight into Theo’s identity as a character.

 Besides that, Theo has a RAGING saviour complex,

“Unable to come to terms with what she had done, Alicia stuttered and came to a halt, like a broken car. I wanted to help start her up again – help Alicia tell her story, to heal and get well. I wanted to fix her.”

The book is filled with passages like that.

And besides that, it’s just filled with loads of nonsense psychobabble.

Theo is also OBSESSED with Alicia, the book tells us it’s out of guilt, but I contest and say that he’s just a creep who very much treats Alicia like a failed version of a manic pixie dream girl.

Alicia Berenson: Alicia is a walking contradiction.

We are told that she is beautiful, charming, sophisticated, but she instead comes across as an anti-social, paranoid shut in with serious co-dependency issues.

She has no friends, no relationships outside of her husband Gabriel, no hobbies, or interests outside of painting and having sex with her husband.

All she does in her chapters is paint, have arguments with people, have sex, and walk around.

Side characters: only exist to serve the plot.

Professor Lazarus Diomedes: the name alone makes me cringe.

He’s Greek, he has a lot of instruments in his office including a piano and a harp [which are never brought up after the initial chapters he’s introduced and he never plays any of them], he’s “unorthodox” and shunned, and he basically exists to be Theo Faber’s ‘yes man’.

Christian: stereotypical work rival who has a habit of calling all the patients bitches.

Yuri: He’s a psych nurse who takes Theo to bar and tell him that he and his wife divorced, and he fell in love with someone else. Fine fair enough, but does he approach this woman like a normal person?

No, he pulls a Joe from YOU and stalks and harasses her.

Yet later on THEO SAYS THAT HE IS A GOOD MAN AND THAT HE IS SORRY DOUBTING YURI. DESPITE INITIALLY BEING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIS BEHAVIOUR.

Then again Theo himself is a stalker so go figure.

The Setting:

The Grove is supposed to be a mental hospital used to detain mentally ill criminals.

Firstly, all the patients are female. It is never stated that the hospital is an all-female facility.

Second, we never get an idea of the scope of this place, there’s only one therapy room for EVERYONE to use, only 2 psychiatrists on payroll, Diomedes and Christian, 2 therapists, Theo and a side character named Indira, one psychiatric nurse, Yuri and an admin assistant, Stephanie.

The layout and descriptions are confusing, one area is referred to as the ‘Fishbowl’ throughout the novel.

Racism:

I don’t know if Michaelides has some internalized racism going on but every single foreign character has a habit of erasing their cultural identity.

Examples:

Yuri, the psych nurse who is Latvian –

Yuri was good-looking, well built, and in his late thirties. He had dark hair and a tribal tattoo creeping up his neck, above his collar. He smelled of tobacco and too much sweet aftershave. And although he spoke with an accent, his English was perfect.

This sort of backhanded compliment is considered racist, as someone who is POC myself, I’ve gotten this plenty of times and it always gives me the ick.

Jean-Felix, the gallerist –

He spoke with an accent. I asked if he was French. ‘Originally – from Paris. But I’ve been here since I was a student – oh, twenty years at least. I think of myself more as British these days.’

There were more examples, but these are the main ones I found in my notes.

Misogyny:

Firstly, the patients are all female, like I said earlier, it is never stated that it is an all-female facility.

This book is dripping with it, every single female character is either described as a manic pixie dream girl, a maternal figure, or a psychotic bitch.

The DOCTORS refer to their patients as bitches multiple times.

Example:

“She was entirely consumed with herself and her art. All the empathy you have for her, all the kindness – she isn’t capable of giving it back. She’s a lost cause. A total bitch.’ Christian said this with a scornful expression-“

Rowena gave a derisive snort. ‘Because Alicia’s the least responsive, most uncommunicative bitch I’ve ever worked with.’

Besides that, they are often compared to birds:

“I remember Mum and those colourful tops she’d wear, with the yellow stringy straps, so flimsy and delicate – just like her. She was so thin, like a little bird.”

“Alicia was sitting alone, I noticed, at the back of the room. She was picking at a meagre bit of fish like an anorexic bird;”

Alicia is also very much painted as a manic pixie dream girl in her diary entries, almost every page of her POV mentions sex, and it has no effect on the plot.

It was mentioned so often that I ended up keeping track out of boredom [I should have also tracked how often the weather was mentioned].

I think I have 15 tabs in 300 pages by the end of it for just sex scenes.

I don't have an issue with sex, but just like in movies when it gets thrown in for no reason, that's when it irritates me.

And of course the mentally ill woman with possible psychosis and BPD has to be shown as hot and a nymphomaniac.

Every one of her POVs reads like:

“Gabriel and I had an argument and then we had sex.”

“I went for a walk and fantasized about Gabriel.”

“I was trying to paint Gabriel but then we had sex.”

“I had an argument with someone and came home to wake up Gabriel and we had sex.”

I can see why this atrocity is a BookTok favourite.

Oh, and this line: [Warning NSFW]

!“It’s still populated by sixteen-year-olds, embracing the sunshine, sprawled on either side of the canal, a jumble of bodies – boys in rolled-up shorts with bare chests, girls in bikinis or bras – skin everywhere, burning, reddening flesh. The sexual energy was palpable – their hungry, impatient thirst for life. I felt a sudden desire for Gabriel – for his body and his strong legs, his thick thighs lain over mine. When we have sex, I always feel an insatiable hunger for him – for a kind of union between us – something that’s bigger than me, bigger than us, beyond words – something holy.”!<

She’s out on a walk and salivating over 16-year-olds. Enough said.

Medical Malpractice:

Not only is a lot of the psychology in this book outdated, but in general, there is so much misinformation.

The psychology is so outdated, and it's mostly centered around Freud.

The biggest example I can think of is Alicia’s initial treatment, she has been put on Risperidone, which is an anti-psychotic prescribed to schizophrenic patients [Also prescribed for autism, BPD, etc. but that's on a case by case basis]

In the book, Alicia is shown to be completely out if it, she’s drooling on the floor, and practically comatose.

Risperidone is NOT a sedative [it can have sedative EFFECTS, but sedation is not the function] it acts on dopamine and serotine receptors and is used to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia, i.e. prevent hallucinations and help stabilize mood.

It should not be causing Alicia to be unresponsive.

[Disclaimer, this is just coming from my basic knowledge as a med student and a few quick google searches, if I'm wrong, please correct me.]

Moving on, Theo wants to treat Alicia but she’s on 16 mg of Risperidone, which is the highest safe dose possible.

He asks Christian to lower the dose, what does Christian do?

He stops giving Alicia 16 mg and switches her to 5 mg. 

An 11 mg decrease. IN ONE DAY.

There is no gradual decrease, no safety precautions, NOTHING.

For context, Risperidone is prescribed in 0.5 – 1 mg increments.

This means that an 11 mg decrease is incredibly dramatic and DANGEROUS, it can send a patient into a psychotic episode, cause them to relapse and lead to withdrawal.

Christian being a psychiatrist should know this.

Patients are allowed access to a pool table without supervision, all the doctors smoke and offer their patients cigarettes,

Yuri deals drugs, Theo seemingly does no ither work besides talk to Alicia and play detective. 

Depiction of mentally ill patients:

Throughout the book the patients are often referred to as animals, monstrous or zombies.

Examples:

“Her [Elif, a patient] face was pressed up against it, squashing her nose, distorting her features, making her almost monstrous.”

“It took four nurses to hold Alicia down. She writhed and kicked and fought like a creature possessed. She didn’t seem human, more like a wild animal; something monstrous.”

[Alicia is painting, Theo is watching]

“I felt like I was present at an intimate moment, watching a wild animal give birth. And although Alicia was aware of my presence, she didn’t seem to mind.”

On top of that, the word borderline gets thrown out A LOT, but it is never explained and is often derogatory.

Example:

[This is Christian the psychiatrist speaking, warning Theo about Alicia]

‘I’m just saying. Borderlines are seductive. That’s what’s going on here. I don’t think you fully get that.’

I am not against problematic writing, as long as it serves a purpose, but Michaelides is not talented enough to do something like this intentionally, and showing patients in this light serves no purpose.

Theo makes it very clear that he thinks that Elif, a Turkish woman, is ugly and rude, it is mentioned every time she is on the page.

This sort of depiction is harmful, mental health gets a bad enough rep as it is, again, I take no issue with problematic writing, but this is not problematic or controversial, this is ignorance.

The depiction of mental illness, coupled with the use of Risperidone, indicates, to me, that Michaelides did not do his research whatsoever.

He just thought of a cool idea and ran with it.

Oh, and lastly, let’s not forget:

“but it is impossible for someone who was not abused to become an abuser.”

No, just no. ANYONE can be abusive.

Correlation does not equal causation.

This is blatant misinformation and a very harmful message to send and I was actually so angry when I read that.

The Twist [spoilers]

The twist is the most ridiculous thing, and it hangs on by a thread.

I had already guessed that Gabriel was the one who Kathy’s affair partner was, and the entire thing falls apart when you realize that if any of Theo’s chapters were dated, you would figure it out immediately.

That’s a very loose basis for a dramatic reveal.

Yes, Theo is an unreliable narrator and I usually enjoy such stories, but this was just lazy.

I’m sorry, Theo followed Gabriel all over London and never ONCE saw his face, never heard Kathy moan his name when he was spying on them, not ONCE.

It’s poor when your twist relies on my suspension of disbelief.

Conclusion

-      Poorly written, reads like a middle-grade novel. Michaelides is a screenwriter, and this very much reads like a script, designed to be easy to follow and direct.

-      Horrible depiction mental health, both as a patient and in practice.

-      Hollow, 2D characters.

-      Misogynistic.

-      Overall waste of time, save yourself.

I want to read the best selling books from each year but I'm finding it next to impossible to find lists that sort the books by the year published.

The best seller lists all list the books that sold well that year, regardless of what year they were published. And so, It Ends With Us is on 2022's best seller list in spite of being published in 2016.

Does anyone know of a list that shows which books published each year sold the most copies? I was only able to find one for 2023.

Oh, for sure! "Lord of the Flies" is like, totally out there with its take on kids stranded on an island. First off, the idea that they'd go from civilized to savage in a hot minute is pretty extreme. Kids are resilient, you know? They're not just going to forget all about their upbringing and turn wild. Plus, the whole 'conch shell' government system they set up is super idealistic – I mean, who actually believes a bunch of young kids would stick to such order without an adult around? And don't get me started on the 'beast' thing. It's a huge metaphor, yeah, but the way they all just buy into it? That's the stuff of nightmares, not real life. It's like saying, "Watch out, or the boogeyman's gonna get ya!" Totally brutal take on human nature, if you ask me. The whole setup is like a bad B-movie plot. These kids are stranded without a single adult, and not one of them is trying to build a signal fire right off the bat? Come on, even the youngest Cub Scout knows the 411 on rescue priorities. And where's the teamwork? Instead of banding together, they split faster than a vinyl record in the sun. It's like the author never met a real kid in his life. Sure, kids can be mean, but this story cranks it up to eleven with zero chill. It's all drama, no logic – like a soap opera with a tropical backdrop. Oh, and don't even get me started on the pig's head, the "Lord of the Flies" itself. It's like the symbol for chaos and evil, but the way it's just plopped down there? It's a bit too on-the-nose, don't you think? Plus, the way these kids just flip the switch and become hunters and killers is just too much. There's no gradual descent into madness; it's like zero to a hundred real quick. And where are the elements of survival like finding food and clean water? It's all about the drama and none of the real struggle. It's more like watching a reality show than a survival scenario. And let's talk about Piggy for a second – the voice of reason who gets totally sidelined! In any real group dynamic, there’s always that one person who keeps a clear head, and Piggy's that guy. But does anyone listen? No way! It's as if common sense has left the island on a jet ski. Plus, the way these kids just throw away their humanity like last year's iPhone model? Unrealistic. Kids are tough, but they're also super adaptable and inventive. They'd be figuring out ways to get by, not just diving into anarchy. It's like the book is saying civilization is a thin veneer, and that's a pretty grim view to have. It's all doom and gloom with no room for the hope and ingenuity real kids would show. It's a wild ride, but not the believable kind. For real, the character development, or lack thereof, is kinda wack. Like, these kids are complex human beings, not just one-dimensional archetypes ready to snap. In the real world, there's a whole spectrum of reactions to stress and danger – some step up, some freak out, some shut down. But in "Lord of the Flies," it's like everyone's personality is dialed up to create maximum conflict. And the ending? Too neat and tidy, like someone just hit the reset button and all the horror and chaos didn't even matter. Life doesn't work that way; there are always consequences and scars. The book's got some intense scenes, but the way it all goes down? It's more Hollywood than real life. The escalation is off the charts! These kids go from playground politics to full-on tribal warfare with hardly any buildup. It's like missing the middle of a song and jumping straight to the bridge. And Simon – the kid with a heart of gold who gets the short end of the stick – his storyline is straight-up tragic. But it's also kind of predictable, right? The good guy gets it while the bullies run the show. It's the classic trope, but it doesn't leave much room for nuance. The book paints in broad strokes when life is all about the details. It's a stark picture of humanity that forgets the shades of gray we live in. Savage doesn't even begin to cover it! The jump to violence is just totally unreasonable. In real life, there's usually a ton more talking and trying to figure things out before things would ever get that extreme. Kids especially are super resilient and inventive – they'd be way more likely to band together than turn on each other. The whole 'kill or be killed' vibe in the book is just too much. It's like skipping over all the human emotions and negotiations that would really happen. It's drama dialed up to eleven when the truth is, most people, kids included, want to keep the peace, not tear each other apart. It's brutal, and not in the cool way. "Lord of the Flies" presents a rather pessimistic view of human nature, especially in contrast to the real-life saga of the Tongan boys. Their experience underscores the capacity for cooperation, ingenuity, and resilience among youths in survival situations. The narrative of the Tongan boys serves as a compelling counterargument to the fictional descent into savagery depicted by Golding. It's a testament to the strength of the human spirit and the power of unity in the face of adversity.

If you don't know who the Tongan boys are, here is who they were:

In 1965, a group of six Tongan boys, students at a boarding school, found themselves stranded on the remote island of 'Ata after their makeshift raft went adrift. Contrary to the grim narrative often expected in such situations, these young men demonstrated remarkable cooperation and resourcefulness. Over the course of 15 months, they established a communal system for the division of labor, food distribution, and water collection. They managed to survive by fishing, cultivating gardens, and even setting broken bones with rudimentary medical knowledge. Their experience stands as a profound example of human resilience and the natural inclination towards societal structure and mutual support, rather than descending into chaos or savagery. It's an inspiring account that speaks to the better angels of our nature when faced with extreme circumstances.

It’s dragged out and vague “after what happened” heavy, a lot of tell not show, the main character makes ridiculously poor decisions just to move the plot along, and its graphic-yet-cliché depictions of child abuse are making it unbearable to me.

Can someone just spoil the ending for me? I can’t do it / can’t get through it because of the graphic child abuse and poor dragged out writing. I got halfway through it before I came to this conclusion. Has anyone else felt this way about this supposedly great thriller?

T.W: Some extremely sensitive themes are going to be discussed here, including r@pe, abuse, torture and murder, CSA.

So when I finished Less Than Zero and posted about it, I got a multitude of comments recommending me to read its sequel, Imperial Bedrooms. Honestly? I wasn't up for it. I felt like it sounded like a pointless sequel that only served mostly as a cash grab.

Now, you're still welcome to believe it is, but it is my honest opinion that after reading it, this book feels essential.

LTZ just suddenly feels pointless without this edition. IB really feels like the missing piece to a puzzle I thought was finished. I actually can't imagine that LTZ would work without it.

Let's start with the basic things that I liked:

Clay. Clay is a great great character in IB. He wasn't that much of a character in LTZ but here he's much more engaging in the plot. Psychologically, he's fascinating. He's a brutal, piece of shit narcissistic sociopath who doesn't care about anyone. The fact that he previously beat up a pregnant woman for no reason whatsoever shows this. He's spontaneous.

Yet I also get the sense that he's deeply traumatised. When he rapes Rain (which was honestly the most upsetting scene of the novel because of how realistic it was, fuck you Ellis) he forces her mouth to smile because I believe he wants to convince himself that she's enjoying it and she does love him. Towards the end, he laments about how dead inside he is and he says he doesn't care about anyone, but more importantly, "I'm afraid of people."

He's afraid of opening up and caring for other people. It's a thought that terrifies the shit out of him because he doesn't want to get hurt.

I don't feel bad for Clay, which is weird because I happen to feel bad for Patrick Bateman lmao. I feel more pity on Clay, like watching a rat try and escape a trap. Honestly when he had Julian killed, I had nothing but contempt for the asshole.

The other characters were interesting as well. Rip was such an effective sociopath that he actually had me think he was a good dude. Honestly, he made me for get for a second that he had kidnapped, tortured and raped and presumably killed a 12 year old girl in the first book because he was THAT smooth talking.

I found the meta bits at the beginning really cool because of how it was written. I like how Clay literally has no idea who wrote about him. Like Bret Easton Ellis is some God in this universe lol.

Things I didn't like were a few actually. I didn't like Trent. Not at all. He gets one (?) scene and it's him suddenly being this moral voice of the book. This is the only bit where I felt like it was forgetting the previous events of other books. Trent paid for a snuff film in LTZ and Trent raped a 12 year old girl in LTZ. Now he's suddenly all, "DO YOU REMEMBER THAT ONE PREGNANT WOMAN?"

Idk, Trent could've been replaced with anyone. I just legitimately couldn't take it seriously.

The "boy/girl" segment was purely shock value with the exception of the small paragraph where the girl talks about how the Devil lives in the mountains. That could have been one paragraph. I get it. Clay did fucked up shit to some people. The book is fucked up. Whoop-tee-doo.

That's about it for my review. I think this book is incredibly well written and IMO, superior to LTZ. It digs much deeper into the themes of the previous book and leaves you like Clay towards the end-- Hollow.

9.3/10.

I'm a little over a third of the way into "Lonesome Dove" and for the most part i'm loving it. The story got off to a bit of a slow start, but the prose, the setting, the characters, everything else is so rich that for the most part i didn't mind. And i could also see hints of the narrative tension foreshadowing being slowly crafted in those early pages, so it's not like that space was being wasted.

But then i got into Book 2 in which we start following July and Roscoe and Elmira and it was like the narrative engine ran the book straight into a brick wall. I initially gave the side-story the benefit of the doubt because it seemed like it might be a sort of Inspector Javert situation where the story could become a game of cat and mouse between July and Jake or whatever, but instead it's just been chapters and chapters of July being indecisive and in denial about his wife, Roscoe bumbling around having wacky pointless adventures, and Elmira making bad decisions. And excepting when - very rarely - July remembers what his job is in between spells of dwelling on Elmira, and asks a random passerby if they've seen Jake Spoon, it seems to have almost nothing to do with the main story.

Worse, McClure seems to be intentionally undermining the pace of the rest of the book in favor of the side-story - i recently got to the bit with Blue Duck and Gus going all Super Saiyen and it's legitimately the most exciting and compelling and suspenseful the book has ever been, and right as the situation is reaching a climax - womp womp - we drop it in favor of two chapters about July poking along the trail feeling shitty about his wife, one chapter about Roscoe continuing to be incompetent, another chapter about Elmira... i won't lie, i'm starting to skim, and pretty aggressively, which is not something i would have thought about the book when i started it.

Without spoiling it, does the side-story stuff get better? Does it at least tie back into the main story in a meaningful way? Or did McClure just want to write about many different old west archetypes and spun off these stories to do so and i can kind of ignore them if i don't care about anything outside the Hat Creek stuff?

Before The Road the only other McCarthy book that I had read was Blood Meridian, which was one of the most challenging and violent books I've read in recent memory. I really struggled following the conversations in Blood Meridian, who was saying what and so forth. The Road was easy mode comparatively. Anybody could read this without any difficulty at all, I feel. There were no sections that I had to go back and read again to figure out what just happened in this scene. This is definitely a much, much easier jumping-on-point for somebody unfamiliar with McCarthy's style and body of work.

What surprised me the most was that, at its heart, The Road is a love story. Not a romantic love story, but the deep love of a father for his son. Yes, there are some elements of something akin to horror and definitely suspense, but that's just the window dressing. REALLY this story is about a man who is willing to do absolutely anything to protect his child in a world that is fraught with danger and uncertainty everywhere you turn. I saw my own father in the man, and my memories of being a child and that sense of security and safety that I had with my dad in those days really resonated with what I saw in the child. It felt very nostalgic to me even though I've obviously never been through anything remotely close to this.

This wasn't a book that was "scary" to me. This book was uplifting. Inspirational even. I came away feeling very emotional at the end, which I wasn't expecting. If you've hesitated reading this book because you're not feeling the whole post-apocalyptic thing then please give it a chance. It was an easy, quick read that I finished over a weekend and left me feeling proud of my dad and reminded me of how much I love him.

Was it better than Blood Meridian? I can't even compare the two. They're so different it almost feels like they were written by separate people. If you're looking for a book that will challenge you and demand all that you have to give as a reader then Blood Meridian is probably what you're looking for. If you are looking for a book to relax with and enjoy and make you reflect on the idea of a loving parent then it's definitely The Road.

I snagged this book as part of swap with a friend. I know it's some people's favorite, there was talk of adapting it for TV, and, hell, the author even won a Edit: Pulitzer Nobel Prize for it, so I figured I'd give it a go.

I'm having an incredibly hard time getting through it. I usually read a book every 1-3 weeks, and I'm only about 2/3 of the way through two months in (I've taken breaks to read other things).

It feels like the book (so far) is a story of barely-connected anecdotes and I am legitimately baffled by the (numerous!) people who say this is their favorite book. I find the main characters at best hard to get invested in and at worst noxious.

I won't pretend I'm some mental giant, so it's entirely possible the book is simply more highbrow "literature" than I'm used to.

Maybe it's just not a story "for" me?

Please help me find the magic in this book.

Edit: It is a bit encouraging to see a bunch of people saying this was a DNF for them, and the consensus seems to be "maybe you just don't like it," which is a little unsatisfying but something I can accept.

Welcome readers,

Have you ever wanted to ask something but you didn't feel like it deserved its own post but it isn't covered by one of our other scheduled posts? Allow us to introduce you to our new Simple Questions thread! Twice a week, every Tuesday and Saturday, a new Simple Questions thread will be posted for you to ask anything you'd like. And please look for other questions in this thread that you could also answer! A reminder that this is not the thread to ask for book recommendations. All book recommendations should be asked in /r/suggestmeabook or our Weekly Recommendation Thread.

Thank you and enjoy!

I will admit that when I first picked up this book I didn't know it was the last installment of a 3 part series. I just wanted to shut off my brain and read a light cozy thriller. In hindsight reading the first 2 books might have made me appreciate the book more because a lot of characters and storyline where established in the earlier installments. But I have to say , I absolutely dispise this book. Holly Jackson's writing is so cringy and repetitive. For example the blood on the hands motif is so 'on the nose' and used again and again and again. The characters all felt bland, expecially Ravi whose entire personality was that he was written to be a perfect boyfriend to a teenage girl. Even the storyline was ok, the writing made it really hard for me to get through this book. I know the Good girls guide to murder series is very popular and I just want to know if anyone else feels this way.

For those who read multiple books in parallel, how does that usually go for you? In a given day, do you read a little of all your books? How much do you read in one book at a time before switching? How many do you read at once?

I’ve tended to end up just focusing on a single book when I’ve tried parallel reading in the past, so I’m curious how it goes for others.

Rereading Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park and I just love it so much. The movie has always been a favorite too but it feels more like 'wow dinosaurs, and if not for this one dastardly character they would have succeeded.' I don't know if they would have been able to explain in a movie the same way as the book just how much the entire system from the start was doomed to fail and was crumbling already from many angles due to their own money hungry push. I really enjoy the small details that on further rereads shows where things are going wrong. I know it's not high literature but it's entertaining to read in between more serious books and the style reminds me of The Martian where the science is explained but not dumbed down.

My favorite bit has to be the computer counting error discovery that it had put a limit on how many animals to count. Least favorite is everything having to do with Lex (even worse when you listen to the audio version).

I know since it's been written there are have been discoveries in the paleontology world that show details about the dinosaurs were wrong but my reading of the book has always been that they never were real. They were created to be what people thought dinosaurs were at the time, a product not the real thing. Did others read it that way too?

Let me preface this by saying I’ve only read the first ACOTAR book, so no spoilers please. I’m also very aware that the two series are different genres, which contributes significantly to the sense of whiplash I’m describing.

I am a mid-30s woman who grew up reading lots of high fantasy. Wheel of Time is one of my favourite series and as a teenager I read it multiple times. I haven’t read it since the last book came out but after watching the TV series (which I loved) I started listening to the audiobooks and now I’m deep in the slog. At the same time, my husband gave me the ACOTAR box set for my birthday last month on the advice of a friend. It’s not quite what I usually read but I read the first book and enjoyed it.

What I wanted to comment on was the absolute whiplash of going back and forth between those two. I might upset some people here, but as a teenager I never quite grasped how misogynistic the characterisation of the women in WoT is. Women basically fall into 3 archetypes: “fun police”, “basically a man” or “slut”. And all the women hate each other and constantly want to slap, kick or scratch each other. I know it’s a product of its time, and you could argue that there are some overall feminist themes (for example the heavy featuring of strong and powerful women) but oh man they are not fun characters to read. On top of that they are quite prudish, particularly for a book where the protagonist has three girlfriends sharing him (but in a sister wives kind of way, rather than a polyamorous kind of way). Any time any character even thinks about being attracted to another character it’s painted as shameful and disgusting, and any woman who gives the slightest indication of enjoying the company of men is a fool and a harlot and is hated by every female character she encounters.

Cut to ACOTAR (which, again, I appreciate is a different genre) and it is quite the gear shift. A high fantasy book with a female protagonist and a sex positive attitude is a very different vibe. And I know it’s a romance novel so that’s to be expected, but tbh I was quite surprised at home much plot there was (and how dark it ended up going) having not read much in this genre before.

I don’t really know what the point of this was except to comment on the reading experience I’m currently having but I guess as a female fantasy reader it is quite nice to see more female driven fantasy books coming into the mainstream after so many years of “16 country/peasant/orphan/etc boy discovers he’s the chosen one and goes off to find his destiny”.

I've never been a fast reader, but I never had a problem with it. Until a few years ago, when I noticed a sudden and dramatic decrease in my reading speed.

I think it somewhat coincided with starting uni, though it might have been around the time when I started my 4th semester and had to go back on campus, which was somewhat stressful initially (I started uni in 2020). I can't pinpoint the exact time, though.

Also, I did a literature degree, which permanently altered how I read any text. That might have slowed down my reading, but not by that much.

The thing is, I don't feel like I read slowly, but I timed myself a few times over the past 3 years, and I average at around 135-140 wpm, which is ridiculously slow compared to the average. I used to joke that covid fried my brain, but I don't know anymore.

It's not that I wish I could read faster. I'm not interested in learning new techniques or anything like that. I just don't understand why I'm reading slower when I'm supposed to be at the peak of my cognitive abilities (I'm 22). Anyone else went through something similar? Should I be concerned?

I started reading The Divine Comedy a few days ago and love it so far! I'm currently on Canto 34.

I didn't do any kind of background reseach, so I was just really shocked at how much greek mythology was mixed in there. I saw a few names from Roman mythology as well, but I don't know nearly as much about it as I do Greek mythology.

I can't help but wonder why he included figures from mythology, though.

I just finished reading American Wolf by Nate Blakeslee and it was really good. I am surprised it is not talked about that much here. This book covers the history of wolf reintroduction and politics surrounding them. The author does a good job explaining both sides without being too particularly bias.

The first chapter opens with a hunter’s perspective on wolves but then the rest of book mostly focuses on the wolf’s perspective. The book follows one Yellowstone wolf in particular known as O-Six. It goes into great detail about the life history of O-Six such as how she became an alpha, how she formed her pack, and so on. I enjoyed learning about the lives of these wolves.

The meat of the controversy surrounding wolves is that despite compensation to farmers and the killing wolves that target cattle, this is not enough to satisfy the farmers. They want wolves to be completely eradicated. Red states particularly want to drastically reduce the populations of wolves within their states. So with wolves there is the danger of history repeating itself. That is why wolves have taken on and off the endangered species list over the years.

Overall it is a great read and I would recommend it. I actually going on a trip to Montana and Yellowstone next month so I am hoping to see some wolves there.

I just came across this essay in the Washington Post from author Anne Lamott (but the quote was form George Saunders) and though it was worth sharing. The essay is Lifelong lessons in coping with fear and humiliation: https://wapo.st/3wmw7Dg and I didn't know of a better place to share this but I hope that since it comes from an author this community will appreciate it :)

Most of us probably have an example of a book that we found challenging, either to our intellect or our attention span (or even emotionally). Often we’ll DNF these books, but sometimes we push through and finish them, and either regret this or not.

For me, I found the first two thirds of Stephen King’s The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon quite boring, and I was close to DNFing at multiple points. But everything built to a very good sequence near the end of the book and I eventually gave it a 5 star review.

What are your examples of books you loved that almost got away?

I loved the book, I had my finals the next day but I chose to read this book. I read it at a stretch in 4-5 hours in 2 sittings. THis was such a nice book, a definite page turner.

This is what I think about criticism that Theo is too villany all of the sudden.

It was not sudden. These are my reasons to why Theo visits Alicia and why he didn't end the relationship like a sane person.

• He never healed/grew his trauma. He just used Kathryn to feel happy, he tells this multiple times. He can't be happy he just emulates happiness through her, that's why he stopped therapy after they became an item.
• Theo and Alicia are equally damaged if not one is more damaged than other. They both chose a life partner to feel better about themselves. If you read about the way Alicia has sex with Gabriel and what her thought processes are during the act, you can feel how lonely/afraid of rejection.
• Both wanted someone who will make them forget about their past instead of confronting it. Infact, I would even aruge that,Theo had the same mental breakdown Alicia had when she knew that Gabirel was ready to let her die when Kathryn was cheating on him. It wasn't sudden like Alice but it burnt on him slowly.
• He himself is broken and genuinely believes that his patients will cure him. He literally says this at the first, a good doctor doesn't say that. That's the start of his villain arc.
• He never had a protective figure, so he doesn't know what protection looks like so he assumed the role of the protective guardian of Alicia no matter how fucked up it was.

Now there are 2 criticisms I can agree to

• Why divert the police's attention towards attempt murder just to frame Christian? It would have been easily fixed if some other detective saw it.
• Other thing is how Alicia was able to write a huge journal entry after getting morphined. It would have also been easily fixed if the author thought about it

Another criticism is about parallel timelines. I don't want to justify it but I feel it was executed perfectly. I loved it, but I get how readers don't like to be deceived. So yeah, I would rate this a 9/10 book mainly because of the plotholes at the end.

I am open to your opinions but this is what I feel.

Midway review with no spoilers.

This is the first book I'm reading in years, so I needed something gripping but easy going too. Something I can pick up and put down frequently as I'm snatching moments to read for rarely more than 30 mins at a go.

Reminds me more of low fantasy than sci-fi if I'm honest. It's based in a world you would recognise but with some sci-fi twists, and because of this the author is able to create a world clearly without being too wordy. The storyline wastes no time in introducing characters as well as moral dillemas that shine a light on our own society.

There are several twists I'd not seem coming, which I've enjoyed. It's a novel world with believable but wonderfully flawed characters. It is the kind of writing that'll have you coming back for more, page after page, chapter after chapter. I've found myself snatching a few moments to read whenever I can. If you want a fantastical epic this is not it. It is however a great page turner.

I'm hoping to keep up the habit of reading more often as well as seeking out and supporting smaller authors.

It’s still as engrossing and enjoyable as the first time I listened to it – actually one of the first audiobooks I ever listened to (besides kid books, played on long road trips). I’ve also read it in hardback book form several times.

I love her style of writing in this book, and the inner musings of Jackson Brodie. I’ve seen some people complain that there are too many coincidences in her novels, but that’s one of the things that I find really enjoyable, seeing how people and situations are connected.

I am very much looking forward to “Death at the Sign of The Rook”, being released this fall! At one point, she said she was uncertain if she would continue writing Jackson Brodie novels. I’m a little worried that the new novel might fall into too many tropes and stereotypes - the plot is described as a murder mystery game set in an inescapable mansion while a real life murder mystery is happening - but only a little bit worried, as her deftness of character and ability to weave a compelling story is typically outstanding. If it happens to be full of tropes, going by her other books, they will be handled in unique & interesting ways.