I have OCD and this is probably a stupid question, but I’ve been trying to re-organize my bookshelf and wasn’t sure if stacking heavy books horizontally or leaning them vertically (such as on the bottom shelf) could cause any damage? With smaller / paperback books I figured it’s not a big deal, but I have some pretty large and heavy ones.

https://imgur.com/a/Cfd89Hg

This is what I’m working with if anyone has suggestions. I have some even bigger coffee table books that I’m trying to figure out what to do with but I was afraid stacking too many horizontally could compress the spines.

Sorry if this isn’t the most relevant place to ask, but r/books required community karma to make posts, and this was the only other literary focused subreddit I found when I searched. I didn’t really know where else would make sense.

hello!! first of all: to me, yes - I am a big fan. I read On the Road when I was 18 and loved it (but strangely have never reread in full) and since then I’ve always come back to his writing. I am currently reading Vanity of Duluoz and I’m really enjoying it. however, I’ve met MANY people who have tell me that they liked kerouac when they were younger, but definitely not anymore. I’m really curious about how people here feel about him - does his writing “age badly”? please know I mean no disrespect to him, he absolutely is one of my favorite writers ever

All, I have been stuck about halfway through this book. I have not decided to not finish because of one horrifying passage. It ranks with descriptions in Bloodlands and The Rape of Nanking for the unconscionable acts of mankind during the early mid 20th century.

The scene recalled in first person by a woman on a train to a concentration camp. People, mostly or all Jewish, were overloaded on a train, given no rest or reprieve began to pass out or die. When they dropped, they were avoided but eventually they were slowly discarded and trampled resulting in a description of blood and more dripping form beneath the rail car as they pulled into the camp. To me this is one of the cruelest description of grief and violence forced from one culture onto another I have experienced in literature. I have been reading the book so long that I hope my memory matches the description in the book as far as I remember my parlay is mild.

Slogging through Books of Jacob by Olga Tokarczuk and my copy has half of page 429-428 cleanly ripped out (almost as if someone took a bite out of it.)

Anyone happen to have a copy and want to dm me a pic of those pages? Random request I know lol.

Has anyone read "pilgramage " by Dorothy Richardson? From what i have read, she is one of the first writers who was credited with exploring "stream of consciousness" writing technique( although she detested the term) but now she is nearly forgotten.

Study for obedience

Obedience Pg num and quote: “With perfect obedience” pg 2 line: 12

Entirety of page 2 and 3 is obedience

“I came to stay in the house upon his request” page 5 line 10

“I left quietly” page 7 line 6

“Of course! I said, nearly shouting into the phone. When have i ever denied him.” Page 10 line 2

“I sat in silence, recalibrating my approach to my brother” page 14

“More subtle matters of the mind” page 14 / “i did not ask for these confessions, i did not welcome them, i merely sat in silence receiving them” page 15

“From a long way, I could identify a certain disposition, a slight lean to the left or something in the shoulder, i saw the annihilating confession approaching, and it fixed me in place” page 15

“I never knew what he did with the life i brought to him, And i did bit ask, just merely watched” page 22

“I had made an essential error when organizing my consciousness early on in my life, my brothers claims explained, and this was by entertaining the idea that it was reasonable for me to form my own judgments about the world” page 24

“In the skin of a sister… it became me… perhaps in time my brother too became scholarly” page 25

“One act of defiance” page 41

“My obedience had been rewarded” page 70

“Of a life of obedience” page 59

“First act of disobedience” page 77

Page 92

“Withdraw my obedience” page 104

“My obedience itself had taken on some…..” page 118

“How i had been obedient” page 130

Eradication Pg num and quote: Pg 1 line 1: “it was the year the sow eradicated the sow”

Page 20 about eradicating chores

“Eradicate my pride” page 26

“Stopped by total annihilation” page 70

“Extermination of the cows” page 129

“Self annihilation” page 175

“Surest and swiftest route to ones own eradication” page 175

“Wind blew” page 176 Wind Pg num and quote “East wind” page 1 line 5 “Fresh air” page 5 line 19

“Wet spring air” page 12

“Air suggesting ice”

“Trees swaying mutely”

“Whenever the wind blew smoke back down the chimney” page 30

“Crooked pines blow in the wind” page 32

“For one thing, there was the wind” page 45

“The spot was protected and after the sound of the wind” page 46 - 47

“That sound, that rushing, it is the wind,” Page 54

“In the wind” page 100

“What blood feeds a soil like that? Overhead, the leaves trembled in the breeze” page 125

Page 170

“The wind came across the moor” page 175

Interesting lines: “When i exited the automatic doors of the airport, the navigation of which took me some time since the sensors did not at first register my movement, however exaggerated” page 10 line 18

All of page 26 cause wtf

Page 29 Page 31

Page 33 LOL

Page 57: “I would do him proud” That familiar sense of “i owe it to him” despite them wronging you. Yes she is living in his big ahh house but not out of kindness, only as a trade deal. A house for a service. A maid. Before this and during this he wrongs her, in childhood, crushing her sense of self.

Page 105 “In in the world of creation nothing stayed still”

“Perfect obedience to gravity” Page 157

Page 127

Thoughts Page 30-33: She is traumatized by the events of her past and cannot belueve her current peaceful ideal life is permanent or real. Her mind molded into a piece of constant terror feels terror even in her new found peace

Page 45: Kinda confirms shes the type person who thinks way too much. Her new living environment changes this for sum reason

She is dizzied by all the changes in nature she observes day by day and that shows she was always stagnant

46 Although she walks in the forest daily she feels estranged from it, as though she is separated from it completely, an outsider looking in, as she has been throughout her life. This forest represents how shes gone through life. As an outsider, always looking in and thinking to herself, always believing or preparing for the worst

56-57

She rly likes organized things. She loves the town from a distance because of how organized she says. I interpret that as how predictable it is. She said she memorized the days of work, rests, feats, market days, etcetc, of that town. To her it must feel like a game of clash of clans ir campfire 2. Probably campfire 2. You know when ppl will come out, who, where theyll go, what job they’ll work, how they feel, what there good at. Its orderly. Even the occasional disorder when a stray wolf gets past the hunters and into the down is orderly because it is expected to happen here and there. Of course in campfire 2 i know all this because i set those villagers to do those things and ik there stats but she knows it from observation. This is another example of her looking outwards ig? Observing the town not in obedience like in childhood or for obedience, but out of curiosity and eventually love for its order

Page 59: She says there is so much people have to live up to in terms of doing good deeds. So many that you cant reasonably expect them to. And the failure to do these things becomes a metonymy, meaning to refer to something using a word tbat describes one of its qualities. The crown is the quality of a king/kingdom/royal family so swearing allegiance to the crown is a metonymy as you refer to the previously listed royal things as one of their qualities, the crown. The author is essentially telling us that the failures we have (either in terms of good deeds or jst in general) become a metonymy for us, we are see as our failures, it secretly defines us to an extent by those around us. The church, she says, is different. Though she may not be religious it is a place where these failures are assumed. Everyone in the church is christian and believes and activity admit that they themselves begin for sin or in this context failure. So while one is still defines by their failure the church is a place where this is almost a good thing, or is rather an accepted thing. You walk in the church and those around you EXPECT the failure and you expect theres because it is a place to take these failures and uproot them.

Page 60:

Brother told sister that she could perhaps for once involve herself in things around her. Again pointing to her being someone whos always inside her own head thinking too much be it about others or herself but never getting close no matter the interest she finds just as she handled her love for the down but her refusal to go down to it until needed

Page 62:

The rise of cafes, there fall, and there rise once again. This new rise coming from a craving of nostalgia according to our narrator. The yearning for a landline, the want for a video store smell, etc etc. She observes this inside herself and states she desperately wants to sit within it but doesn’t have the confidence. She explicitly states she doesn’t have the confidence. She says she views it from the outside appearing as a haven from the age of anxiety.

Page 66: She thinks she deserves to die over nothibg 🤣😭😭😭👽😭

Page 78: Big topic coming in swing full detail. RACSIM AGAINST JEWS. They all assumed she was good at money what in da family guy on gang

Page 82:

She isnt NOT the mc she says. She cant figure out how to live her own life. Not like living in other’s vicariously but just living by the STANDARDS of others

83-85

She details how when someone who shows her any level of kindness. Even the bare minimum. She becomes devoted to them. This probably shows how in her home life she was always “wrong” and in probably most her life in general she was “wrong” so to hear someone, anyone, say a positive about her to any level mustve been amazing.

97-100: Her job or volunteer job makes her very happy. It’s scooping up shit but yet it allows her to feel useful. It allows her to feel like the area shes living in, that she is enjoying throughly, wasnt just handed to her but given. If i need to expand more on this later, page 66 where she thinks she deserves to die for writing her name on the volunteer form explains her mentality here exactly I think?

108:

Confirms she believes she needs to kill her pride, kill her sense of self, kill her self love and respect. Ego death

Page 109-110

The author reflects on the limitations of modern progress, the hollowness of relying solely on knowledge, and the exploitation within societal systems. They contrast this with a more grounded, familial view of the world, suggesting that modernity's promises—choice, individuality, and progress—are often vain and superficial compared to deeper connections and truths.

109-112

It appeares she has had a break thru in her thinking. Near the end if 112 she literally says acquired the ability to think again. While she is a big thinker already i think this means her break thru from 109-111 has let her see that ego death is a bad thing

Page 118- 120

It finally kinda hit her that not everything has to do w her. Maybe the silence in the cafe predated her arrival. Kinda like how ppl w/ social anxiety seem to think every chuckle, every laugh, every whisper, is about then.

121:

She pointed to a moms drink and weirdly the mom cries. It felt like i missed like a billion chapters but i assume they all think she a witch or sum. Either way our mc didnt care. Character development. So far this whole book as been her journey. Validating, finding, and consolidating her ego, her sense of self. She finally asks. “What have i done wrong.” And to that no answer can be given but nothing.

Page 128:

Rmbr all that built up, what do you call it? Courage? Her newly born ego? Well it mightve just been smashed. It probably began when she had to leave the cafe, right after her new ego was finally complete, it began to be damaged. It was essentially confirmed that the townspeople fear her in a sense. And when they were throwing her dolls away? It confirmed it to her. They hated her. It did concern her, the silence was of her doing

Page 130:

Well yea she jst said she should always remain “outside” (outsider looking in). The cafe, the poip shovelling, the kindness to others, were all her attempts at going in. And she got rejected

Page 130:

Shes still going to the farm tho. Desperately wanting to prove to her brother that she got it alllll in control. She wants to prove to him thats shes quote “been obedient”. She definitely craves validation from big bro

135:

She is SO obedient to her brother wtf. As she said early in the story she KNOWS what he (they) need before they even say. Like she prepeared him food of his taste of his portion sizing with consideration to the fact he had jst been on a long travel

136:

She knows her brother. Anything time he is slightly suspicious that she has an ulterior motive. That she cant be THIS obedient still. She bows her head, softens her voice, and sweetens her looks

On a sad note at the end of this page she said she forgot about how the grass grows, the straw dolls she made. Basically she is saying with the return of her brother, she has reset. All the development she has undergone she claims has been forgotten. She says on quote “i tried to reach out, something I should have never done” she tried reaching out over history but realizes she shouldve stayed in. I dont think this regression will last

167: She has perfected obedience. Her brother, whatever illness had struck him, now was being cared for in excesses by her. Her perfect obedience. Her study completed. Adhering to his lack of will. But it doesnt feel like this to me. It feels like shes doing something twisted for herself. That she could not be happier at her brother’s state. Her routine and schedule built around him

181:

Taking his phone??? I get it now (i understand it now). She is intentionally or unintentionally trying to live her life through him.

Critique:

Hi guys! This is my first post here so im not too well versed in any rules, if I break one please lmk 🙏

Anyway, I just finished this book, a study for obedience, and im confused. Like really confused. Like, i enjoyed the book (i think) but, and this is coming from a grade 12 student so take this with a grain of salt, the actually writing, like the grammar, structure, flow, etc, were terrible. Super clunky sentences, I was FREQUENTLY (as in every few lines) counting sentences with 5 plus commas and wayyy too many words per comma. It felt like the author really wanted to be all mysterious, which is fine, but everything is bad in excess and it feels like a good 70% (and this is not an exaggerated figure) of the book I could not easily understand. And I dont mean like “oh i had to do an in depth analysis on a few sentances”. No, I mean like every few sentences and sometimes every other sentence the author shoved as many metaphors, symbols, overly complicated words that didnt add to the story or sentence, commas, sometimes bad grammar (I think), and more.

This all combined to make even attempting to read this a challenge for me. To add on, not only was the grammatical structure seemingly bad for me, the stories structure was weird too. For the most part it was alright, but too often was a given point in the story riddled with side tangents and flashbacks. I understand that is an intrinsic part of the main characters Personality but coupled with the grammar discussed above and I had even more trouble reading. To give you a very-generous example of what issues were like, sentences like this were painfully frequent:

“my dog, despite it being well taken care of and looked after frequently, something I did not have the luxury of receiving frequently as a child, instead often being met with a sort of fearful distance from all those around me, perhaps due to my quiet nature, often preferring to stay inside myself rather then dare to venture outwards. I mean, it’s safer to simply observe and learn what others want, to live in complete servitude of others. Was often hungry, always looking at the food I was given.”

Now I dont know if I expressed what I was reading correctly in the paragraph I threw up. But the writer kept doing what I did above, having the main point (we’ll call A) in a sentence and having every letter in the alphabet in between A and the conclusion of the main point (B). Couple that with metaphors and symbols which are 100% used in excess. An amount I could never hope to replicate in the paragraph above, so I just opted to omit them. And words which I didnt even know existed. Like I like to think I have a decent vocabulary, more intuitive then anything, but these words the author threw around, again, in excess, made it impossible for me to read.

I did actually finish the book just now and, side note, it’s 6 am and im on my 2nd cup of coffee so forgive any grammar mistakes I make in this post.

For anyone thats read the book, PLEASE help me understand what I read. I know the book has ties to antisemitism but from what I see other people online saying the ties to antisemitism are wayy more then I was able to pick up on. I understand most of it is implicitly stated with how the townsfolk treat the MC but for me, in the context of the story, the main thing the author was trying to showcase with the dislike for the MC was her personality, her beliefs. What she thought and how it affected others. And how her thought process could be completely wrong. How her personality wasnt a deterrent and it was simply her imagination. This part of the story I liked. It was really interesting. I like how for a VERY brief period, the MC seemed to be recovering from what I’ll call her “ego death”. The death of her sense of self which occurred early into childhood it seems. She seemed to have faced a realization (one which for the reasons previously mentioned I could not fully interpret), which put her in a mindset of “maybe the silence when I walk into a cafe existed before me”. Only then to be shattered when she found this wasn’t the truth (it was cause she’s jewish right?). She then regrets ever tryna be “open” and comes to the conclusion she can only exist “closed” from everyone, away, outside looking in. I did like this part, her personality and beliefs were very fun to see and I was able to understand I think around 70% of her. Again for the rest of the story, 🤷‍♂️.

Some of the things I didnt understand off the top of my head

• she mentioned for a period of time in her life she wanted to help ppl, I didnt understand if she was like a suicide hotline type person or something?

• that bit about the 14 year old on a hospital bed right after, which is then followed by her hating on men. Felt like I missed a page. Did these men, or this one guy she was describing, do something to this 14 year old. Was it simply a like imagination thing she made us see for the sake of explaining her mind at the time?

• wtf happened to the brother. He got sick, then the sister basically took over his life in a really creepy way. Surprisingly it was creepy enough to give me a bit of that horror thrill though it was unintended I believe. Something about how she pretend to be obedient in my mind but this is exactly how she wants to live her life. A perfect schedule around someone else. Getting to talk to and interact with the dog. Putting all her energy in someone who doesnt speak back. Part of me thinks she poisoned him??

• whatttt was that church scene. The little pig heads??? Like okay. So she is on a walk for wtv reason, reaches the top of a hill (?) if I remember. Is then approached by 2 ppl from the town wearing white. For some reason, unless I missed a page of a paragraph, she starts leading THEM to the church as if they’re lost??? Like how did she know where they wanted to go no words were or could be exchanged. And then even though shes leading them it feels like the author meant to say they led her? Then she is presented with her little straw men she made (ik its not straw but oh well) and other things of significance like the sows dead children, why??? The ewes dead lamb too for some reason. It felt like a dream segment.

• she briefly mentioned a ruined carved above their door. Never brought up again

• wtf was up with the women and her dog? So our MC decides the best course of action is to just lie and agree with the women that her dog was impregnated by the castrated bert, this makes sense with our MC’s personality and thoughts at the time but why did this make the women and dog stop talking. Completely ignoring our MC’s presence. Our MC who then goes on feeling bad that she destroyed this womens world view, or infringed upon it, or something like that?? How?? It doesnt make sense i genuinely think I read it wrong

Anyway yea confusing book. Needed to rant. I like talking about stuff I read, I did actually enjoy this all things aside. I really liked 2 things in particular. Early in the book the love she has for the village and its order from afar. I can only imagine it felt like Clash of Clans or any other similar simulation type of game. Being able to observe a town from afar. Maybe sims? Being but with less control. Knowing exactly when work starts, when it ends, feats, celebrations, etc. i also LOVED her thoughts on the church. I am in no ways religious but the perspective was so cool to me. People are associated with their failures all too often. It Becomes a metonymy (my favourite new word picked up from the book) for that person. In church however, this is all expected and accepted and wanted. It is a place where the ground assumption is that your very first moments of existence are failure (sin) and this is a place to be cleansed of that failure. Thats why everyone is there. And therefor it is not a thing to be shamed Of.

Thanks for reading my ted talk. Lmk if my thoughts on the book are mine alone. And if possible please try helping in the clarification of wtv I just read

Hi guys! This is my first post here so im not too well versed in any rules, if I break one please lmk 🙏

Anyway, I just finished this book, a study for obedience, and im confused. Like really confused. Like, i enjoyed the book (i think) but, and this is coming from a grade 12 student so take this with a grain of salt, the actually writing, like the grammar, structure, flow, etc, were terrible. Super clunky sentences, I was FREQUENTLY (as in every few lines) counting sentences with 5 plus commas and wayyy too many words per comma. It felt like the author really wanted to be all mysterious, which is fine, but everything is bad in excess and it feels like a good 70% (and this is not an exaggerated figure) of the book I could not easily understand. And I dont mean like “oh i had to do an in depth analysis on a few sentances”. No, I mean like every few sentences and sometimes every other sentence the author shoved as many metaphors, symbols, overly complicated words that didnt add to the story or sentence, commas, sometimes bad grammar (I think), and more.

This all combined to make even attempting to read this a challenge for me. To add on, not only was the grammatical structure seemingly bad for me, the stories structure was weird too. For the most part it was alright, but too often was a given point in the story riddled with side tangents and flashbacks. I understand that is an intrinsic part of the main characters Personality but coupled with the grammar discussed above and I had even more trouble reading. To give you a very-generous example of what issues were like, sentences like this were painfully frequent:

“my dog, despite it being well taken care of and looked after frequently, something I did not have the luxury of receiving frequently as a child, instead often being met with a sort of fearful distance from all those around me, perhaps due to my quiet nature, often preferring to stay inside myself rather then dare to venture outwards. I mean, it’s safer to simply observe and learn what others want, to live in complete servitude of others. Was often hungry, always looking at the food I was given.”

Now I dont know if I expressed what I was reading correctly in the paragraph I threw up. But the writer kept doing what I did above, having the main point (we’ll call A) in a sentence and having every letter in the alphabet in between A and the conclusion of the main point (B). Couple that with metaphors and symbols which are 100% used in excess. An amount I could never hope to replicate in the paragraph above, so I just opted to omit them. And words which I didnt even know existed. Like I like to think I have a decent vocabulary, more intuitive then anything, but these words the author threw around, again, in excess, made it impossible for me to read.

I did actually finish the book just now and, side note, it’s 6 am and im on my 2nd cup of coffee so forgive any grammar mistakes I make in this post.

For anyone thats read the book, PLEASE help me understand what I read. I know the book has ties to antisemitism but from what I see other people online saying the ties to antisemitism are wayy more then I was able to pick up on. I understand most of it is implicitly stated with how the townsfolk treat the MC but for me, in the context of the story, the main thing the author was trying to showcase with the dislike for the MC was her personality, her beliefs. What she thought and how it affected others. And how her thought process could be completely wrong. How her personality wasnt a deterrent and it was simply her imagination. This part of the story I liked. It was really interesting. I like how for a VERY brief period, the MC seemed to be recovering from what I’ll call her “ego death”. The death of her sense of self which occurred early into childhood it seems. She seemed to have faced a realization (one which for the reasons previously mentioned I could not fully interpret), which put her in a mindset of “maybe the silence when I walk into a cafe existed before me”. Only then to be shattered when she found this wasn’t the truth (it was cause she’s jewish right?). She then regrets ever tryna be “open” and comes to the conclusion she can only exist “closed” from everyone, away, outside looking in. I did like this part, her personality and beliefs were very fun to see and I was able to understand I think around 70% of her. Again for the rest of the story, 🤷‍♂️.

Some of the things I didnt understand off the top of my head

• she mentioned for a period of time in her life she wanted to help ppl, I didnt understand if she was like a suicide hotline type person or something?

• that bit about the 14 year old on a hospital bed right after, which is then followed by her hating on men. Felt like I missed a page. Did these men, or this one guy she was describing, do something to this 14 year old. Was it simply a like imagination thing she made us see for the sake of explaining her mind at the time?

• wtf happened to the brother. He got sick, then the sister basically took over his life in a really creepy way. Surprisingly it was creepy enough to give me a bit of that horror thrill though it was unintended I believe. Something about how she pretend to be obedient in my mind but this is exactly how she wants to live her life. A perfect schedule around someone else. Getting to talk to and interact with the dog. Putting all her energy in someone who doesnt speak back. Part of me thinks she poisoned him??

• whatttt was that church scene. The little pig heads??? Like okay. So she is on a walk for wtv reason, reaches the top of a hill (?) if I remember. Is then approached by 2 ppl from the town wearing white. For some reason, unless I missed a page of a paragraph, she starts leading THEM to the church as if they’re lost??? Like how did she know where they wanted to go no words were or could be exchanged. And then even though shes leading them it feels like the author meant to say they led her? Then she is presented with her little straw men she made (ik its not straw but oh well) and other things of significance like the sows dead children, why??? The ewes dead lamb too for some reason. It felt like a dream segment.

• she briefly mentioned a ruined carved above their door. Never brought up again

• wtf was up with the women and her dog? So our MC decides the best course of action is to just lie and agree with the women that her dog was impregnated by the castrated bert, this makes sense with our MC’s personality and thoughts at the time but why did this make the women and dog stop talking. Completely ignoring our MC’s presence. Our MC who then goes on feeling bad that she destroyed this womens world view, or infringed upon it, or something like that?? How?? It doesnt make sense i genuinely think I read it wrong

Anyway yea confusing book. Needed to rant. I like talking about stuff I read, I did actually enjoy this all things aside. I really liked 2 things in particular. Early in the book the love she has for the village and its order from afar. I can only imagine it felt like Clash of Clans or any other similar simulation type of game. Being able to observe a town from afar. Maybe sims? Being but with less control. Knowing exactly when work starts, when it ends, feats, celebrations, etc. i also LOVED her thoughts on the church. I am in no ways religious but the perspective was so cool to me. People are associated with their failures all too often. It Becomes a metonymy (my favourite new word picked up from the book) for that person. In church however, this is all expected and accepted and wanted. It is a place where the ground assumption is that your very first moments of existence are failure (sin) and this is a place to be cleansed of that failure. Thats why everyone is there. And therefor it is not a thing to be shamed Of.

Thanks for reading my ted talk. Lmk if my thoughts on the book are mine alone. And if possible please try helping in the clarification of wtv I just read

Few books pierce the human psyche with the precision and pain of Osamu Dazai’s No Longer Human. It is a novel that doesn’t merely tell a story but instead unveils the raw, often grotesque underbelly of existence—the kind we all instinctively recognize but rarely confront. When I first encountered the confessional narrative of Oba Yozo, the protagonist whose life spirals into despair and disconnection, I felt as though I were looking into a distorted, yet eerily familiar mirror. The book resonated with me so deeply that it felt terrifying.

Dazai’s exploration of alienation, shame, and self-destruction taps into universal anxieties, but for some, it strikes a personal chord. Yozo’s desperate attempts to belong—his masks of humor, his cycles of self-sabotage—mirrored moments in my own life when I felt like an impostor in human relationships. His descent into nihilism echoed a fear I have often wrestled with: that beneath the surface of my persona lies an unfathomable void. What frightened me most was not Yozo's suffering but the recognition of his thoughts as ones I have entertained myself.

No Longer Human forces its readers to ask uncomfortable questions: How much of ourselves is a facade? What is left when we strip away the pretense? Reading this book is not merely an intellectual exercise but an emotional unraveling. Its haunting resonance lies in its ability to expose the fragility of identity and the human condition. For me, Dazai’s work serves both as a warning and a comfort—a brutal reminder of isolation but also an affirmation that such feelings, however suffocating, are not uniquely mine.

Discussing this book is like opening a wound, yet it is also a way to heal. To me, No Longer Human is not just a book but a confrontation with the parts of myself I am most afraid to acknowledge. Does it resonate with me? Absolutely. Does that resonance scare me? Without a doubt.

Have you ever encountered a book that felt like it reflected your own fears, flaws, or inner struggles so vividly that it unsettled you? What do you think makes such a connection simultaneously compelling and frightening?

I read Wolfe's first novel – The Bonfire of the Vanities – back in 1987 when it first appeared in book form (it had been serialized, a la Charles Dickens, in "Rolling Stone" magazine starting in 1984) – and spent 27-plus hours of the last two weeks listening to an excellent Audible version of the book. It is a nineteenth century novel for the twentieth century, a vast canvas that depicted all of New York City, from the upper reaches of the Wall Street/Park Avenue/WASP coterie to the mean streets of the Bronx, and captures so much of the ethos of the 1980s: Wall Street bigwigs accorded quasi-rock star status, conspicuous consumption was lauded, the city's racial tensions were erupting, to name a few.

I'm reasonably sure it's not capital-L literature, but its epic, Dickensian scope and conception, its devotion to the idea of plot, and the sheer excellence and exuberance of the prose (which Wolfe had demonstrated many, many time before in his nonfiction) place The Bonfire of the Vanities at the high-water mark of popular fiction. Frankly, I wish more of today's literary writers had some of Wolfe's commitment to storytelling. (And I will add that the Audible version features an incredible narrator named Joe Barrett. What a performance!)

Hey guys, just a quick question about Jane Eyre’s ending. Is the ending intended to be interpreted as Brontë’s own confirmation of a omnipresent God that is very much influencing the fate of humans? Considering how the novel concludes with Jane hearing her name and how this acts as a catalyst for her return to Rochester, while we also find out that this action coincides with Rochester’s own prayer after he finds his way back to God as he believes that he is being punished for his past sins, it very much seems that Brontë is suggesting that this supernatural moment is God rewarding Rochester for finding his way back to faith. And if that’s not the case, it at least seems that there is some supernatural, omnipresent force determining the fate of Jane and Rochester.

Is that the intention?

Hey everyone! I’ve noticed a lot of people discussing their Reading plans — using tools like Trello boards or calendars to organize what they’ll read next. Personally, I prefer a more spontaneous approach. I just buy books, add them to my shelves, and when I finish one, I browse my collection like I’m in a library and pick whatever catches my eye.

I’m curious—how do you choose your next read? Do you stick to a schedule, or do you go with the flow like I do?

Hello everyone and excuse my English since it’s my secondary language.

I recently finished reading Blood Meridian after a really long time of wanting to do so. I had really high expectations. And to be completely honest I didn’t expect the book to ACTUALLY meet those expectations. And hell it doesn’t just meet those expectations, it wildly exceeds them.

I’ve never read a book so dark and so beautiful in the same time. I can’t really put into words the feeling it evoked to me. Loved every single word of it, the atmosphere was haunting, the story so random and unexpected at times, the prose amazing.

To anyone looking forward to reading BM, I’d suggest that you do it very slowly to really appreciate the small things that make the novel so great. I took me about 2 weeks to finish reading it, letting every word sink into my break and I don’t think that reading it any other way can do it justice.

Bit of a pointless rant, but after so many days (and finishing another book) I still can’t stop thinking of this masterpiece randomly throughout the day.

If anyone that loves BM can recommend other novels that had the same impact on them, please do so 🙏

This book is wild. Just reading the back cover, I knew I was in for something crazy, but Outer Dark surpassed even my wildest expectations.

Outer Dark back cover:

"A woman bears her brother's child, a boy; he leaves the baby in the woods and tells her he died of natural causes. Discovering her brother's lie, she sets forth alone to find her son. Both brother and sister wander separately through a countryside being scourged by three terrifying and elusive strangers, headlong toward an eerie, apocalyptic resolution."

This is an extremely dark read, but I loved every word McCarthy wrote. It was fantastic.

As I mentioned in my review of All the Pretty Horses, Cormac McCarthy is probably my favourite author. Outer Dark continues to reinforce that belief.

Interestingly, as I started reading Outer Dark, a Vanity Fair article surfaced claiming that Cormac McCarthy had a 16-year-old muse late in his life. While I haven’t been able to access the full article due to subscription barriers, the excerpts and discussions I’ve encountered paint the piece as overly stylized, almost as if the author is attempting to mimic McCarthy’s own prose. This stylistic choice, combined with the extraordinary claims made, makes the story feel exaggerated, if not dubious. I’m not dismissing the possibility that some of it might be true—if it is, it’s deeply troubling—but the lack of concrete evidence and the outlandish nature of certain allegations leave me skeptical. It’s also worth noting that McCarthy is no longer alive to respond or clarify these claims. While the article has sparked debates about separating art from the artist, I believe McCarthy’s literary contributions remain vital. His works deserve to be read and analyzed, even as we remain mindful of the complexities surrounding his personal life.

Now, back to Outer Dark.

This is an amazing piece of fiction. From the very beginning, the book is relentlessly dark. Set in Appalachia, McCarthy creates an eerie, almost fantastical world that feels alive in its desolation. The brother and sister live in an isolated shack deep in the woods, and when they venture out on their separate journeys, they encounter a cast of vivid and unforgettable characters. Some of these figures are helpful, while others are downright malevolent. These secondary characters breathe so much life—and death—into the story, amplifying its intensity.

The first time Culla Holme, the brother, meets the three elusive strangers face-to-face, right after his ride on the ferry, is one of the creepiest scenes I’ve ever read. The way McCarthy describes the shadows moving in the clearing and the strangers’ unsettling mannerisms—how they move, stare, laugh, and speak—is masterful. The tension is almost unbearable.

You know they’ll return, and when they do, McCarthy doesn’t disappoint.

"Well, I see ye didn't have no trouble findin us.
I wasn't huntin ye.
You got here all right for somebody bound elsewhere.
I wasn't bound nowheres. I just seen the fire.
I like to keep a good fire. A man never knows what all might chance along. Does he?
No.
No. Anything's liable to warsh up. From nowheres nowhere bound.
Where are you bound? Holme said.
I ain't, the man said. By nothin. He looked up at Holme. We ain't hard to find. Oncet you've found us."

This scene is haunting, and when the strangers appear again—with the one-eyed baby and the tinker in the tree—the atmosphere is downright terrifying. I’m not sure if Outer Dark is officially considered a horror novel, but it’s probably the scariest book I’ve ever read.

I’m not a big horror reader. People rave about Stephen King, but I haven’t been impressed. I’ve read The Dead Zone and The Shining, and neither really did it for me. I actually prefer Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining because it improved on the source material in tone and execution. That said, I love Dan Simmons, I mostly know him as a science fiction author, however, I read Drood and loved it, though it wasn’t the horror elements that hooked me. If you have horror recommendations, I’d love to explore more.

But Outer Dark? It qualifies as horror in my book.

Religious themes also run deep in this story, coming to the forefront in the latter half. One of the most memorable scenes is when Holme meets the hog drovers. After one of their brothers dies and Holme gets blamed, a preacher shows up, declaring his guilt without any knowledge of the situation. The absurdity of this preacher, casually pronouncing judgment, is both comical and thought-provoking—a sharp critique of blind religious authority.

Rinthy Holme, Culla’s sister, has her own strange and fascinating encounters, though none are as grotesque as her brother’s.

This was an incredible read. Any Cormac McCarthy fan needs to pick up Outer Dark. Being one of his earlier works, it’s not as widely discussed as some of his other novels, but it deserves to be. It’s right up there with the rest of his literature in my opinion. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend Outer Dark as a starting point for McCarthy newcomers, but for fans, it’s an absolute must-read.

What are you reading?

I am really enjoying the prose in Houellebecq’s “The Elementary Particles,” but I can tell it’s going to be a quick read for me.

Apart from reading the rest of his books, which I plan on doing, could any of you give me recommendations for similar novels with similar style of writing and themes?

Also, I welcome any thoughts on this novel. The only part I don’t enjoy is how much emphasis there is on sexuality, but I’m still finding that part humorous and enjoyable.

I’m contemplating reading “Journey to the End of the Night” by Louis-Ferdinand Céline next.

Thank you.

Hey guys, I finally got around to reading Jane Eyre – it’s probably not an exaggeration to say that it is one of the most compelling love stories/feminist epic I’ve ever read. Anyway, I have a question regarding the tension between passion/rationality, desire/morals (or however you want to frame it), which is clearly the novel's key focus. Of course, with Rochester we see a lack of emotional regulation; a type of personality where passion is the main driving force that tends to overcome his rational faculties. With St. John, we see the other end of the spectrum with his extreme emotional regulation. To the point that his rational faculties completely suppress any worldly passions due to his utmost devotion to his religious cause. Although this tension is still present with Jane, especially prior to her marriage to Rochester, rather than occupying one of the extreme ends of the spectrum, she seems to strike the perfect balance between passion and rationality. She is still capable of passion, but also contains enough willpower to not allow her passions to derail her rationality/morals completely.

Was Bronte attempting to communicate with this character that Jane’s temperament is the ideal? A temperament that balances these two faculties without succumbing to the extremities of Rochester and St. John?

It is striking in White Noise that no one is ever angry or irritable. They are uneasy a lot but never angry.  And this seems to translate into an ever present worry.  Goodreads describes it as a modern family. The parents wanted to be friends with the children.  When the father was trying to get the dylar away from his daughter who had taken it, he says “I am your friend. I just don’t want to be tricked.” The parents see their children as friends and equals. The idea of punishment is non existent in the novel.  In fact the father repeatedly cast Denise as the true weapon against his wife and could  not once appear to break her authority.

In the eating scene he says “We decided to eat in the car. The car was sufficient for our needs”.  And it ends with, “We could feel it coming, Babette and I. A sulky menace brewed back there.  They would attack us using the classic strategy of fighting among themselves.” And he goes on in a defensive mode “But attack us for what reason? For not getting them home faster?” They were scared of their kids being angry at them. Eating is primal. We digest after the meal and who is in control is crucial to who has authority and power.  This is what happens when you want to be friends with everyone.  

80s liberalism as I remember it had an emphasis on being nice. We were not the brutal people of our historical past. We are not slave owners or racists.  But is this inherently selfishness?  Was the father in White Noise in how he raised his family the epitome of selfishness? Does this mode of parenting do any justice to the kids? Instead of being angry they choose to be anxious to a pathological degree. And at times even openly share their worry with their children such as the scenes with Denise. 

There are many topics I could write about from this short story, but I want to focus on communication. Perhaps this is the central element within Xurtao’s piece. Writing, film-making, messaging, singing, interviewing all occur in the story. I shall look into three of these topics. These communication forms take place on a wide scale which is not only impressive for such a short piece, but also adds to the idea of the modern world in which communication comes easily.

This is the forefront of the narrator, Li Mo’s, relationship with a woman online known as ‘Li Lu’. They spoke mostly on Saturdays but occasionally on weekdays too. The narrator bases his life around Li Lu and uncovering her identity. He believes himself to be in love with her despite not knowing her appearance or gender.

Many people, especially here on Reddit, could perhaps relate to this. Shuang is a masterful writer, and tackles the controversial idea of the ‘online relationship’. Many people hate them, many people have them. It is accurately captured in ‘Paris Friend’. The absense of quotation marks is skilful for it shows how online can permeate into real life. He never hears Li Lu, yet remembers everything she has told him.

Should online relationships be frowned upon? There is evidence of them working out of both people are willing to put the work in and have a healthy mindset about it. However, the narrator’s commitment to travel from Beijing to Paris for a woman who mightn’t exist is borderline obsessive. He looks up to her as a role model in writing.

While she never shows herself to him, she does translate his writing and publishes it in a magazine. He accepts the fact he will never meet her and her hidden husband. Does this acceptance correlate with how writing comes above love? Should writing dictate your life and your emotions? How do writers distinguish the line of guidance and tyranny? Li Lu is so emotionally impacted by her work she is often seen weeping in a Paris cafe. To be so vulnerable in a public setting is an ability so few possess, yet it appears as a requirement for the writer.

Xiaoguo aids Li Mo in uncovering Li Lu’s identity, he is known for filmmaking. I found his character interesting as the piece starts and ends with him in a hospital. Perhaps his injured state captures Xuetao’s belief in the filmmaking sector itself. He states in an interview with the New Yorker how “Movies are currently in decline because they take things too seriously.” Perhaps this is true, however I see movies becoming the prime form of storytelling in the future, surpassing millennia’s worth of literature. It is my greatest fear.

Sontag argues 'A work of art is a thing in the world, not just a commentary on the world', asserting that literature is inherently a piece of art that should be appreciated, not dissected.

I'd argue that meaning is heightened in the unobserved, literary analysis is necessary. However I do see how see feels that the artistic nature is almost removed when 'over-analysing' literature and in some instances should refrain from this process and appreciate what's in front of us.

To what extent do you agree with Sontag (or me)? Can we differentiate between what needs literary analysis, and what doesn't?

The title says it all. I really enjoy Carrère’s style, I find his prose crystalline (I read it in French, don’t know about translations). Also the topics he writes about are captivating and might appeal a jury prize. Sure, it’s mainly non fiction, but also his earlier fiction works are noteworthy.

What do you think?

Hi all,

So, I studied literature in college and I was really invested in it, especially the literary theories and criticism part. I know a lot of literature students or lovers literatures around the world often find this area a bit difficult or boring, but let's say I was very much into it.

I spent hours reading theories, philosophies, criticisms and I would apply them to whatever text I went through. Initially, I would re-read a particular text many times and come up with interpretations on each reading. It was an interesting hobby to have. It's like a treasure hunt based on clues, you face challenges and take small steps, finally getting some great treasure. Gradually, it became an obsession for me. Whatever I read, however big or small, I could easily come up with a hundred interpretations. I was happy for it too.

One fine day, I was introduced to Susan Sontag and her famous work, "Against Interpretations and other essays". Let me tell you, it was a watershed moment in my intellectual life. I realised how deep and deviated my mind went with the several interpretations I imparted to texts and how silly some of the might have been. Afterall, "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose!" It is a flower first and all other symbolisms are second to it. This was a literary curse upon my view of texts. Not just texts, but also art, cinema and whatever involved creativity.

I can say that interpretations are very important to reading texts, especially when you analyse it from a theoretical perspective, like while you apply techniques like close reading, for example. BUT, it should never take you away from enjoying the simple pleasures the text offers to an ordinary reader. Suppose if I weren't a literary student nor obsessed with theories, I might have went on with the shallow meanings of texts. I guess there should be a balance.

I made this post because I would pretty much like to know if somebody else has experienced this flaw (idk if it's a flaw, but still...), and if yes, what did you do about it? Also, how do you read texts and interpret them?

I just finished Blood Meridian and left so utterly disappointed. As one of the "Great American Novels", it sure left me upset. I felt the same with Wise Blood, Brave New World, and The Bell Jar.

However, Stoner blew me away but it is rarely ever mentioned as a "Great American Novel". I am reading The Moviegoer and I love it so far. Albeit, critically acclaimed, its not mentioned as an all time great. But I feel so far that it is better than Heart of Darkness and Tropic of Cancer. Yet, they make the Modern Library top 100. Why?

I get that they are great works but it seems there are alot of books overlooked and worse novels are harolded.

Looking for just insight on why I keep getting let down by reading "All Time Greats"

I recently thrifted The Little Friend by Donna Tartt without any prior knowledge about her or her work, but the book sounded really interesting so I got it. I'm half way through chapter 2 and I was caught really off guard by the amount of times she uses the N-word, seemingly without a real purpose. It seems extremely racist to me, I get that the book is set in the south during a time where racism was extremely common but I still don't think that justifies it. I may be over thinking this but idk I'm skeptical if I should even continue reading cause while I am really enjoying the story itself, the constant use of racial slurs makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. I'd really love to hear from any POC and their thoughts on this, as their voices are the most important during these topics, as I'm unsure if this author and book is racist, or if the context they're being used in makes sense.

I'm a highschool sophomore and I finished this book as of yesterday. To anyone who has read this book, you know that once you finish reading, the book doesn't just end(obviously why it keeps popping up on this subreddit and r/books). There is some beauty in Salinger's prose through this book. This book is so uniquely worded and just so refreshing. By the end of the book Salinger to me is just a publisher, this book is Holden. That's why you can't take away Catcher and the Rye. It is disturbing, it is painful, it is horny, it is reality. The reason why Holden is so relatable is because these are real issues teenagers deal with, that parents cannot see. There's a quote by someone that really hits that, along the lines of how children are justified in not understanding adults but not vice versa. What I'm trying to get at here is that we can ban the book, but we can't take away these real experiences children deal with. We cannot ignore them or simply reduce them especially as these children become their own people outside of their parents. The Catcher and the Rye is a resource. "Get help, call 988": there is only a certain number of times someone can say that. By experiencing Catcher and the Rye, I am certain a lot more teenagers feel that their life has value. It's supposed to hit in a weird way, because life is weird. Pretending our kids are picture perfect only sets them up for failure. His mother's disappointment leaves Holden on the streets for days, is that not a direct comparison? Imagine your kids loving you so much, that even though they can see their crevices and faults they can't show them to you. Holden's experiences are a sum of teenagers around the world, if you can't read it for yourself, read it for your friends and colleagues and loved ones. I pray this book is never taken away. It is easy to point and say it is bad, but there is so much value in this raw emotion.

I read this 20 years ago, and it’s still the most meaningful, most memorable, and most enjoyable book I’ve read to date. Oddly - or maybe not oddly, I’d love to hear your thoughts - many critics seem to say it’s among the worst books they’ve read. And for sure it’s meandering, rudderless, fugue-like, confusing…

But that’s exactly the point. I don’t know if there’s another book that does a better job at depicting the modern confusion of identity and the resulting tenuousness of perceived reality. To say it’s just a 400 page book written with non-linear dream logic disregards how actually relatable it is… we all have days, weeks, sometimes eras where we feel like Ryder: rudderless, grasping for meaning, trying in vain to make fleeting connections, to make sense of memories, forgetting who we really are while being driven by an underlying anxiety we can’t specifically locate. (What happened on that elevator ride? Why do I seem to recall having a two hour long conversation? Did that happen? And if it didn’t…)

I suspect the discomfort people tend to feel about the book is largely based on how terrifyingly relatable it actually is.

Have you read it? What do you think?

Side quest - can anyone recommend a shorter-length book that touches on the same themes?

You all know "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy, which presents a realistic view of the apocalypse, featuring looting, gangs fighting for survival, and the everyday struggle with violence, along with a lack of food and water. Personally, I believe this is a reality we may face at some point.

I’ve started writing a book on this topic with the goal of exploring it from a family perspective. I want to describe the stories of different people before and after the apocalypse. Would this be interesting to read? I'm struggling to find motivation, as my girlfriend says this is a topic that no one writes about, so she thinks it's a stupid idea.

Also, do you know any similar realistic apocalyptic books like “The Road”?