this comes from when i was reading a biography on Rodin by Bernard Champigneulle and 24 pages in the author writes this:

" Father Eymard had taken it upon himself to catechize the gangs of ragged and rowdy street Arabs who roamed the quarter outside working hours. In this fringe district of Paris, workshops were multiplying, together with the horrible slums of the Butte-aux-Cailles and the Fosse-aux-Lions inhabited by working families. It must have seemed a hopeless task to woo these youngsters, few of whom had ever been to school or heard of morality, let alone religion, and most of whom regarded the cassock as an object of derision. Nevertheless, Eymard's strong and kindly personality, coupled with his rugged physique, enabled him to win over and later educate even the most hardened cases"

Ostensibly this sense of writing seem to be extremely islamophobic, however i wanted others opinions on whether i was missing context to arrive to another conclusion: that the author has chosen to write this passage in such an overtly prejudiced manner as so to indoctrinate the reader into the average opinion of the french people in such a time, as rodin or Father Eymard would have. However such a conclusion seems rather far-fetched due to the fact that the topic of the arabs is not touched upon later, nor is the behaviour of the church as Rodin later would leave the church to continue his art. It also seems to further prove my point that all history and in many cases non-fiction books as a whole are dominated by perspective, being closer to a story than objective truth.

such cases are quite far and in between, confounding and honestly i can't seem to rationalize the reason for this text. Has anyone else come across something similar to this? The implication that Arabs are less than human, less of a person than Rodin or Father Eymard have left me quite upset. any other instances where you have come across something like this in a non-fiction book. quite displeased as a whole i must say.

Maybe the title is self explanatory, maybe not. I am curious to see how other readers learn new vocabulary when reading text. Do you highlight new words and look them up later? Do you just use context clues to guess at the meaning? I am reading a book right now that i love but there are probably 4-5 words a page i have to stop and search up.

The wording of a lot of material i read, i generally understand. I may come across a word or 2 i dont know each chapter. When i come a new word, I just go to my phones dictionary, look it up and continue reading.

As i said I am curious to see what other readers do when they come across foreign words, especially a lot when reading a harder text.

I just finished reading this celebrated book. Although I love classics, I must confess I found Stendhal bit dragging in the middle. He has tried too hard to show us the insights into characters' minds but his style of mingling narrative with stream of consciousness gets a bit heavy.

Despite this, I love how Stendhal has sprinkled gems of insights throughout. Julien is the biggest hypocrite because he even lies to himself. He has contempt for others' manoeuvres yet manipulates Mathilde into loving him. At the end, he has no feelings for her. I feel enraged at him. Is that the feeling Stendhal aimed for in his reader?

Don't know where else. To ask.

Infliction Point by Mark Hacker is a decent action book if you're looking for fast paced action with decent characterizations.

It lacks in plausibility and has many plot holes.

But that's not why I'm here.

Possible spoilers...

!In the final confrontation with Charlie Moore (the bad guy) releases drones. They spell out:!<

!RIP AD PRESTON!<

!What does that mean???!<

!Then we have:!<

!"The night sky turned to day from the flash. Like a tidal wave of concrete dust, the shock wave hit, knocking Zach back a couple of steps. As the sound dissipated, he could hear Charlie Moore laughing hysterically."!<

!Was that Austin blowing up? If so, the rest of the book doesn't make sense. If not, what was it?!<

I know I'm missing something.... Not sure what....

edit to fix spoiler tags.

I am just rereading the Alex cross series (which I LOVE) and it's actually annoying me that I've noticed two quite large continuity errors.

Currently on book 5 (pop goes the weasel) and it mentions how Alex is a senior detective and liaison between the DC police and the FBI - copied below, chapter 2.

"We’re senior homicide detectives and I’m also liaison between the FBI and the DC police."

However this doesn't align with book 1 and 2..

Along came a spider (book 1) "You and Sampson are being promoted today. Right here. Congratulations to our newest senior detective and our newest divisional chief.”

"I was offered a job in Washington as VICAP coordinator between the D.C. police department and the FBI. It was a bigger, higher-paying job than the one I had, but I turned it down flat. It was my buyout from Carl Monroe. No thanks"

Kiss the girls (book 2) "Burns smiled, showing off his capped, very white front teeth. “I do wish you had accepted our offer of that VICAP position.”

I've searched all 4 previous books (thank you kindle for making CTRL+F a thing for books!) and there is no mention of a demotion or accepting the VICAP role.. it shouldn't annoy me but it does! Anyone else found any others? I googled these to check I wasn't crazy or remembering wrong and couldn't find any other mention of these continuity errors online

So sometimes when I read books and authors describe the appearance of the MMC I’m just like no thanks.

I just finished Six of Crows and imagined Kaz as this tall emo boy, which I loved because I didn’t have to strain my thoughts every time he appeared in the book to make him look different in my mind. But some other books as soon as I read the through the description of their appearance I’m like yeah I don’t think so buddy.

Do you guys do this too? And how do you get over an appearance you don’t really like. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with their appearance but for me personally I want to feel like the MMC is attractive and sometimes the way the author describes the character is just not it for me. Obviously it’s totally fine if the character doesn’t adhere to my view of attractiveness, I’m just curious if any one else feels like this?

Welcome readers,

Over the last several weeks/months we've all seen an uptick in articles about schools/towns/states banning books from classrooms and libraries. Obviously, this is an important subject that many of us feel passionate about but unfortunately it has a tendency to come in waves and drown out any other discussion. We obviously don't want to ban this discussion but we also want to allow other posts some air to breathe. In order to accomplish this, we're going to post a discussion thread every month to allow users to post articles and discuss them. In addition, our friends at /r/bannedbooks would love for you to check out their sub and discuss banned books there as well.

When I was little, I really liked superhero comics so I often tried to dress like them or act like them. I think this desire to be like characters I admired or liked very much never quite left me. It just evolved and took new forms that were perhaps felt more mature but weren't really.

When I read The Outsiders, and later saw the movie, I put grease in my hair and wore leather jackets and just tried to act tough. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. I mean the movie had Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, Tom Cruise, Ralph Macchio, Patrick Swayze....they defined cool and so everybody wanted to be like them.

The Count of Monte Cristo was a whole other story. I don't think I quite understood the narrative but it drove my imagination crazy. There was a girl in my class named Mercedes, and I had all these wild fantasies of finding treasure behind the school and getting my revenge. There was actually this mysterious well that remained uncovered and smelled of piss and gasoline, and my treasure was supposedly was at the bottom of it. Once I were to find it, then I would prepare to get my revenge on her boyfriend, a football player who was actually a nice guy. My only problem was me trying to change my voice and appearance. I found a wig and a fake mustache but didn't seem to really do much. So I gave up. And never did climb down that mysterious well to find my gold.

I was reminded of this today when I saw a thread on The Count of Monte Cristo, so I thought why the hell not, I'll embarrass myself and hope others will share a few embarrassing stories of their own. :)

I usually don't use the word 'best' to describe any piece of literature, but this book fits the bill. Reading this book was a roller coaster ride, felt multitude of emotions- despair at how ED was incarcerated, happy that he was able to fulfill his objective and tasted real happiness at last and everything in between. This is the one book i am really unhappy about getting finished. What are your thoughts of the book and story?

!spoilers!< !I particularly like the fact they didn't try to reconcile ED and Mercedes in the end since too much had happened in the intervening decades between for them to be able to rekindle their romance. But I feel really bad for her and how she was condemned to a lonely life, she deserved a better end.!<

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've noticed there a number of reviews for this book already but I'd thought I'd share my personal thoughts. This is my first written book review.

This was not a book that I had read in high school or studied in the past, in fact what drew me to this book was an episode of Seinfeld. Jerry forgets the name of one of his girlfriends who leaves a hint to him that her name rhymes with a part of the female anatomy. George provides a number of guesses in the episode, one of them being "Bovary". Yes, this is why I chose to read the book. As I'm sure many readers will already know, cross referencing other works in ones own art can be used to send a message, make a comparison, or emphasize contrasts, to name just a few utilities. I wanted to understand the significance of the reference both in the context of the individual Seinfeld episode as well as the series as a whole.

On the outset, I think the book is fantastic and intentionally puts forward both a moralistic/theistic critique (via the priest Abbé Bournisien) as well as a material/atheistic critique (via chemist Monsieur Homais) of which of life's desires one is ABLE to actuate in the face of life's REALITIES. The reality of how people and society ARE, and how they really SHOULD BE. Obviously the two seem to be at odds for most of the book, however the two perspectives I don't believe are intended to be adversarial as opposed to complimenting each other. As the book states toward the end;

The priest did not need any persuading; he went out to go and say mass, came back, and then they ate and hobnobbed, giggling a little without knowing why, stimulated by that vague gaiety that comes upon us after times of sadness, and at the last glass the priest said to the druggist, as he clapped him on the shoulder— “We shall end by understanding one another.”

I think this is critical, by end of the book, when it comes to the repeated motif of realities surrounding pursuit of one's life's desires both Homais and Bournisien are not actually in opposition to each other. Where their perspectives derive from may be different, but their conclusions are the same; whether it be God's will or the will of Science there does seem to be some sort of predestined FATE that is to determine the state of our being. Whether it is Spiritual or Societal. This book looks at how this fate operates and how it affects people differently in terms of comparable DREAMS or DESIRES.

This is where Madame Bovary comes into the picture.

In my interpretation, Madame Bovary is symbolic of this idyllic desirous life. SHE IS THE DREAM. SHE IS THE IDYLLIC LIFE.

Madame's increasing distaste of her husband Charles can be interpreted as HIS OWN distaste at the life that he has built. He dislikes himself. When Madame is enchanted with the Viscount and noble lifestyle of the initial feast, its symbolic of Charles' infatuation with that same society and lifestyle. Madame is HIS DREAMS, his dreams of joining them in this lifestyle. When Madame has had enough of Tostes and wants to move, its symbolizing CHARLES who has had enough of the mundane and wants to move. Her affair with Rodolphe is really just a friendship of Charles and Rodolphe, it's Charles' attempt as a lower peasant to enter higher society. The gifts that Madame buys for Rodolphe, the whip for example, or gifts for herself such as the Horse, are Charles' attempt to buy his way into that society. He continues by gallivanting in town with Leon, Madame's "Second Affair". This really being "Living the dream" of Charles going to the ballroom dances, going to theater's, slowly sending himself broke in this attempt to join that life which he is desperate to be a part of. Her affairs with Leon and Rodolphe can also be interpreted in the sense that both of them are "living the dream" ie getting to have sex with Madame is actualizing this dream of entering that higher life or youthful adventures, whereas Charles constantly desires them. I know some people may comment on Berthe their child, but one has to remember the context established early in the book, Charles's is a widower. So the real context is Charles is a peasant who got married early as many peasants likely did back then (and as many of lower socio-economic classes still do today) and Madame's regrets of having gotten married early are actually Charles' regrets of having done so. They have restricted him in being able to pursue a more adventurous life. He has a child and is unable to pursue lets say the adventure that Leon is able to, by traveling to Paris etc. As a man to whom novels have constructed an idyllic life in his mind, being educated, and early surrounded by people of higher status with his parents having sent him to a better education, he was exposed to, but was never truly a part of the higher richer classes.

In providing a brief break from the review I think its a good time to mention who first translated the book into English;

Born in London, Eleanor Marx-Aveling (1855–1898) was an activist, politician, actress, translator, feminist, and youngest daughter of Karl Marx..

I myself am not a communist, but it's quite clear that the book does possess an inherent critique at the unfairness or inequality that was present in the society of the day, and one could definitely argue as it does now. This is why Homais and Bournisien's perspectives come together at the end. Christianity implores one to consider charity from a spiritual perspective. Atheism, or if we want to use socialism purely for the sake of comparison, does the same by imploring charity from a humanist perspective if you will. That's why "we shall end by understanding each other". At the core of it, the two characters are also communicating two perspectives which do not actually differ in their end conclusions. Whether it be Godly fate that has made it so, or earthly fate, the odds were always stacked against Charles succeeding in this venture.

When all of Charles' attempts to join higher society fail he ultimately goes broke. Everyone ends up using him, Homais more or less sabotaged him from the beginning, he gets loan sharked and indebted by others. Rudolphe nor Leon end up helping him and finally Madame Homais wants nothing to do with him as he is now entrenched in that lower echelon of society. His life is finally compared to the Homais' and the book ends actually considering Homais state of being primarily;

Since Bovary’s death three doctors have followed one another at Yonville without any success, so severely did Homais attack them. He has an enormous practice; the authorities treat him with consideration, and public opinion protects him. He has just received the cross of the Legion of Honour.

The system was more or less rigged against Charles from the beginning. We don't even really know what ends up happening to him. At the end of the day who cares right? Who cares today even? Once you're broke and disgraced where is Christian charity? Where is secular understanding? Throughout the entire book we are constantly reminded of the fickle elements of human nature. The propensity for gossip in the town, the lack of loyalty shown towards the doctor even in informing him of Madame's affairs, the loan sharking lying and baiting.

Was there anything truly wrong in him wanting to try and enter that higher status of society? Wanting to experience more out of life? Is it wrong to dream? To be artistic? Is it a wrong realization to have that so many social pressures mold you in their image and not your own? That humanity's wretchedness always prevails? I can't say I am struck by any other theme with an over arching sentiment other than this one;

The system was more or less rigged against Charles from the beginning.

Whether of God or of Science, fate seems to have been pre-destined from the start...

I do have a lot more to say. If I were with you now at the Lion d' Or I would continue till early morning sharing my thoughts. In short however, the key to understanding this novel in my view, is recognizing that Madame Bovary is Primarily a symbolic character, if not SOLELY symbolic.

The book is fantastic, I really felt that I was there with everyone the whole time but now...

Like Madame Bovary herself, I am ready to leave and start a new adventure.

EDIT** Spelling and grammar.

Im nearly done with the book “I want to believe” by A. M. Gittlitz and I want to say I enjoyed it significantly more than expected. It’s about the history of a Latin American communist figure named Posad who in modern times has very much become a meme. At first I purchased it for the meme thinking it would be a funny book but the in depth analysis of this guy and the things he’s done was shocking. I have another book on Cuban history that correlates to a lot of the sorties told in “I want to believe”. All in all an unexpectedly great historical book. And of course it goes over the memes lol

Just finished this amazing book last night! While I definitely appreciated it for the masterpiece that it is, I did find myself confused at times about certain things.

One big question I have is: how did the Master know so much detail about Pontius Pilate, the death of Jesus, Levi, Judas, etc.? It sounds like Woland/Satan was there to witness all of the actual events, so did he somehow transfer this detailed knowledge to the Master?

Quite some time has passed since I finished that one and I have already moved forward to my next read for also quite some time, but since it will definitely make it into my top 5 of favourites that I've read this year, it would be a shame not to post about. Incredible novel, masterful in its simplicity, and the winner of a well deserved Pulitzer prize. It took no time for me to become fully invested in the story of Desdemona and Lefty, their vagarious yet heart-warming romance, and their efforts of beginning a new life in a foreign America. Unfortunately I can't say the same about the story of Milton and Tessie which followed but it was by no means displeasurable (it could be even slightly intruiging at times) and was fortunately relatively brief (the upsides of an intergenerational novel). The book picked up for me again, slowly but steadily with the birth of Cal and his unexpected journey to manhood, only to reach new heights with its last pages and an ending which i found particularly moving, both because of the much desired conclusion of his permanently present-yet up until that point never fullfilled- fling with Julie, and his final dialogue with Desdemona which fulfills her decades-old prophecy and his transformation/silkworm metaphor playing out throughout the entirety of the novel. Last but not least, being of greek descent myself, Eugenides' references were not surface level as I had mistakenly assumued they would be before reading the novel, so I'll give him that too. Overall, this novel made for an amazing reading experience. I had wanted to read it for years and it was everything I wanted it to be and more. Will definitely re-read it in the future. I would love to hear what other people who have read it think of it. did you love it (like I did)? did you hate it? were you somewhere in between? and why? anything you particularly liked or disliked? do you think it deserves its pulitzer? anything is welcome. feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

I was recently reading 'Our Wives Under The Sea' by Julia Armfield and there was a moment where one of the characters talks about sneaking her own treats into the cinema.

It just felt like a small relatable moment that just reminded me of all those times as a kid when my mum would stuff her bag with sweets and even make her own bag of popcorn just so we could save money on the food.

We talk a lot about how relatable stories can be due to some of the themes, but I was instead wondering more about the tiny everyday moments described.

Welcome to our weekly recommendation thread! A few years ago now the mod team decided to condense the many "suggest some books" threads into one big mega-thread, in order to consolidate the subreddit and diversify the front page a little. Since then, we have removed suggestion threads and directed their posters to this thread instead. This tradition continues, so let's jump right in!

The Rules

• Every comment in reply to this self-post must be a request for suggestions.

• All suggestions made in this thread must be direct replies to other people's requests. Do not post suggestions in reply to this self-post.

• All unrelated comments will be deleted in the interest of cleanliness.

How to get the best recommendations

The most successful recommendation requests include a description of the kind of book being sought. This might be a particular kind of protagonist, setting, plot, atmosphere, theme, or subject matter. You may be looking for something similar to another book (or film, TV show, game, etc), and examples are great! Just be sure to explain what you liked about them too. Other helpful things to think about are genre, length and reading level.

All Weekly Recommendation Threads are linked below the header throughout the week to guarantee that this thread remains active day-to-day. For those bursting with books that you are hungry to suggest, we've set the suggested sort to new; you may need to set this manually if your app or settings ignores suggested sort.

If this thread has not slaked your desire for tasty book suggestions, we propose that you head on over to the aptly named subreddit /r/suggestmeabook.

• The Management

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10765.A_Year_in_the_Merde

This is a novel about a Brit moving to France, and trying to set up a new life there. From the blurb:

Based on Stephen Clarke's own experiences and with names changed to "avoid embarrassment, possible legal action, and to prevent the author's legs being broken by someone in a Yves Saint Laurent suit," A Year in the Merde provides perfect entertainment for Francophiles and Francophobes alike

(Merde means excrement, and the reference is to the need to learn to walk in France avoiding dog poo)

I read it when it first came out, about 20 years ago, and I re-read it this year. This is the first book in the series; I also read the second one, but not the others.

It is a light-hearted story about the cultural differences between France and the UK. It was recommended to me by a female French colleague, who found it hilarious - and I agree. European readers might find it easier to relate to many of the points, while maybe American readers who haven't spent time in Europe might, understandably, find that harder.

As with anything, multiple interpretations are of course possible.

Mine is that this is a story about the cultural differences between two countries, and of how important it is to grow out of your comfort zone to grow and develop as a person. There is of course quite a lot of British humour, but what I appreciated is that the author makes fun of himself and his own culture; he does absolutely not approach this from a sense of superiority. It is of course not a PhD dissertation on the profound cultural differences between the two countries, but neither is it cheap, cheesy, cringey nonsensical entertainment like "Emily in Paris".

Of course, not everyone agrees. In this age of hyper-sensitivity, where everything and anything can be easily deemed offensive, some people took offence and saw this as offensive, sexist, and derogatory towards the French. I disagree, but to each their own - in recommending a book I think it's useful to point out why other people disliked it, even if I disagree, so that those reading this sub can make an informed decision on whether they might like this book.

Appreciation post to the prose of Jeffrey Eugenides. This book was tragic, beautiful, depressing and left me with a deep empathy for these characters. The boys who loved them, the parents who were left behind, and the Lisbon girls who lived and died only together. I had seen the movie, first when I was younger and again a few years back. My experience differed both times- when I was young I had no relation to these emotional women, yet. When I was older I understood this film of heartbreak and tragedy. Now I have just finished the book and am truly touched by this gaze into a family down the street whom no one understands and left to mystery.

Please comment if you want to talk about this book. I would love to hear what you have to say.

This story caught me completely off guard. I went in with no idea what to expect, and it was much shorter than I anticipated—just 30 pages. But wow, it achieved so much with so little.

One of the most intriguing aspects is how little context is provided about the lottery itself. It’s a tradition, but the reason behind it? We’re left in the dark. Even the townspeople don’t seem to remember why it started, and that mystery adds to its impact. Honestly, I think if we were given more explanation, it might not have hit as hard.

Shirley Jackson’s writing is masterful. It’s short, sharp, and direct. The prose is sparse, yet it manages to pack in an incredible amount of emotion. The characters are just ordinary people—we don’t know much about them, but that simplicity is part of the story’s strength.

What really stood out to me is how the tone shifts as the story progresses. At first, the lottery feels like a festive event, almost exciting. But as it unfolds, a sense of dread creeps in. The tension builds and builds until the final, chilling reveal. It’s fascinating how Jackson manipulates your emotions in such a small amount of space.

The world-building is another standout. In just 30 pages, Jackson vividly sets the scene, making the story’s setting feel grounded and real. It’s a testament to her talent that she could create something so immersive in such a short format.

I’m thoroughly impressed by this story’s depth, themes, and emotional weight. Shirley Jackson’s skill is undeniable. This experience has made me want to pick up The Haunting of Hill House—I loved the Netflix adaptation, and I’m sure the novel is even better!

Lastly, it’s clear that The Lottery has influenced pop culture in major ways (Hunger Games, anyone?). It’s an incredibly written story, packed with thought-provoking ideas and an unsettling atmosphere that leaves you thinking long after you’ve finished.

If you haven’t read The Lottery, I highly recommend it. It’s short, impactful, and an excellent starting point if you’re looking to get into reading more fiction.

Recently I created a blog. If anyone is interested let me know and I can post the link!

It had never occurred to me until I looked at this list of recent releases, nearly all by women, perhaps because historically so many purveyors of the gothic have been men. Nor do I think, looking at the lists from the last few years, that this is a weird sample. How do you understand this phenomenon? Or maybe you don't think it's true. https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/190158.2024_Gothic

I am guessing this is somewhat well known by now but in case anyone hasn't read it, back in 1980 Isaac Asimov wrote a political opinion piece about anti-intellectualism “A Cult of Ignorance” by Isaac Asimov, 1980 (aphelis.net)

I think this is some of his best writing, actually. Super sharp and to the point, and makes a hell of a point. My knowledge of Asimov went from learning about him as a physicist, then this opinion piece, and then reading his books and short stories. I think it's ironic that for all the sci-fi he wrote, this political opinion piece maybe aged the best as things currently feel lol.

Nightfall was really damn good though now that I think about it... But though this would be worth sharing incase anyone has read his books but not seen this.

I want to preface this by saying that this review is based on my own thoughts and experiences and do not reflect those of every Christian. I just made this post because being familiar with the Bible gives the book a whole other layer which I found interesting.

So I went into this book completely blind without reading any reviews or discussions on it. I had heard of The Handmaid’s Tale before but literally did not know anything about it…which is surprising considering how popular the book is. Because of this, I was so lost until like the first quarter of the book when things had began to unfold. Once I got the hang of what was going on, I was shook. I loved Atwood’s use of non-linear storytelling. Although this made it difficult to follow the story at some point, I still think it was such a great way to keep the suspense and interest throughout the book.

I was shocked at how real the book is. This book was written decades ago but still related to today’s decade in so many ways it’s scary. Although the chances of our world being thrown into a totalitarian government are slightly lower, it’s scary how (somewhat easy it will be). The book was able to capture that sentiment quite well.

Now on to my thoughts about the book from a religious perspective. I consider the book a very good critique of Christian nationalism. From Wikipedia “Christian nationalism is a form of religious nationalism that focuses on promoting the Christian views of its followers in order to achieve prominence or dominance in political and social life” In simple terms, using the Bible and God to gain power over others. This occurred in Europe in the Middle Ages and even today there are quite a number of countries that still follow the ideologies of Christian nationalism. The portrayal of this ideology in the book is so spot on. One way is the use of biblical verses to reinforce certain ideas. In the Handmaid’s Tale, certain bible verses are repeated over and over during certain events that they are entrained in the people’s subconscious minds. You see it a lot in the main character because although she is not a believer, at some point, she becomes influenced.

Another way that Christian nationalist is portrayed in The Handmaid’s Tale is also the gatekeeping of the Bible or even any information in general. Bible’s are kept locked up and only opened during certain events for specific people to read. This is similar to what the Catholic church enforced during the Middle Ages where only priests had access to the Bible and the Bible could only be read in Latin. What this creates is that the people in power are able to bend the rules to their will…This is what we see in the Handmaid’s Tale where people in power are able to take certain liberties their subsidiaries cannot

I loved this book so much because of how spot on it is in showing how societies an easily be shaped to conform to certain ideologies especially by keeping people in ignorance. I hear it has been banned in certain schools in the States, which is so ironic considering the contents of the book. Reading the book as someone who has a bit of Bible knowledge was so interesting because I noticed how certain verses were taken out of context or tweaked to fit the oppressor’s narrative. The oppressors did not even have to change or uphaul much of the words in the Bible, but by keeping people in ignorance and constant indoctrination, a totalitarian state was created where people would not question anything. I rate this book an easy 4.3/5 stars. I regret waiting so long to read it.

Welcome readers,

Tomorrow is Stand Up to Bullying Day and, to celebrate, we're discussing our favorite books with bullies!

If you'd like to read our previous weekly discussions of fiction and nonfiction please visit the suggested reading section of our wiki.

Thank you and enjoy!