I ask myself this question from time to time. I recently finished reading "The Lord of the Rings" and I LOVED IT. Within the story you can clearly recognize a clear allusion to Christianity, and that is undeniable. The Lord of the Rings is evidently a Christian allegory, and yet J.R.R Tolkien asserts in his letters that it is not an allegory. I personally disagree with Tolkien, and I believe that authors, even though they are important people, should not be taken as the ultimate authority regarding their history, mainly because one does not always understand what they have written. For example, "Moby Dick." Herman Melville's book is a precursor to cosmic horror, and was appreciated in light of the work of people like Kafka and Lovecraft. What Melville describes is a true nightmare, and characters like Ahab and the white whale are symbols and mirrors of the universe, and rather than portraying its bestiality, they reflect its profound stupidity. Now, Meliville said that Moby Dick is not an allegory, and moby dick is, what a joke! An author's insinuations should not be taken as irrefutable truths, and extremely purist positions imprison the work and do not allow a more complex exploration of it.

I don't want to reduce the author to a mere social function and say that he has nothing to contribute beyond his work, but it is not an insurmountable wall either.

Hello everyone!

I just finished reading TGG, which I have not read for over a decade as a high schooler. I loved the story then, and I love it now still especially as time and experience have allowed me to have a deeper perspective of the lessons of the book.

However, I’m struggling to pull anything redeeming or positive/bright from the book. Maybe it’s because I’m struggling with a depressive episode at the moment, but to me right now, at it’s core, TGG is a cast of tragic and flawed characters acting out of mainly self interest and near-sightedness. Does anyone have any “bright spots” they’ve taken away from this book?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Melville#Melville_revival_and_Melville_studies

2nd, bonus question: Is any writer going through their own revival right now?

Hello,

I'm looking for Examples of modern literary works from Spain that deal with animals.
They need to have been published after the year 2000.

I read this in English and then in Spanish. It blew me away both times. I think Cristina Rivera Garza will win the Nobel Prize in Literature someday. I found this work very unique, I think the closest comparison may be Roberto Bolaño, but it’s even more poetic. The movements through time are very smooth and dynamic, and I think she has reached a new level of the free indirect style, where parts of the narrative are so assumed to be parts of conversation that are not placed in dialogue that they are even referred to in later dialogue. Like the narrator will say X to the reader, then some character will later say to the protagonist “it’s X, as you said.” It’s amazing and I’ve never seen anything like it.

"If there were only another New World, another Papantla somewhere...."

"Laughter whose echoes still makes time's skin tingle."

"People reduced to skin and bones, like statues in the museum of the hanged."

"She leaned over her mouth to drink up the airy ghosts that set her breast in motion."

"A leaden sky casting a purple glow on the humid skin of a four o'clock afternoon."

The mad, yearning characters caught in the the flow of history works perfectly with the anthropomorphizing and synesthetic language.

Beware reading if you write yourself, it can be so beautiful and poignant that it makes your work not worth finishing.

Edit 2: I see that my thread has found its way to the books circlejerk subreddit. Here's my response:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bookscirclejerk/comments/1f5pxlk/comment/lkxduba/

Edit: Several people have brought up that enjoying literary fiction vs. other forms of personal growth doesn't have to be an either-or question. That was what I thought at first, but I was exposed to some people who lead me to believe it's normally framed as an either-or question. Those people also lead me to think that stuff like manga doesn't count as valuable art according to the standards of the literary fiction community. I now realize that those are only minority opinions.

I never had the view that literary fiction is a waste of time, or that I need to be convinced to read literary fiction. I already am reading/have literary fiction I want to read. I wanted to understand the view of people who think that it's shameful or disturbing for a person not to read literary fiction.

There are a lot of discussions about men not reading, why they're not reading, and how the problem can be fixed. I'm one of those men. Early 30s, spent a lot of time watching anime, reading manga and Western comics but zero literary fiction since college.

The whole idea of growing as a human being through reading literature sounds kind of fuzzy to me, but plausible. Yes, I could learn to be more empathetic by reading a made up stories, but I could also read real memoirs or just talk to real people, so why should I spend my limited time on literature? I could notice a flaw in myself by seeing it in a made up characters, or I could go to therapy.

Whenever I read about people having their lives changed by literature, it's always a story of them learning something at a young age that I've also also learned without reading literary fiction. I would love to have my life changed, but I'm skeptical that literary authors have a superior ability to do this.

I feel like there is something magical about literature that you guys understand but I can't. I've been watching YouTube videos about the value of literature and the ideas explored by history's greatest authors. I find them interesting, but I haven't found the answer to my question.

Both books follow character who are shunned by the person who created them (Carrie by her mother and Frankensteins monster by Victor Frankenstein) as well as the rest of the world. Both finally think they may have found people who appreciate them when something horrible happens Carrie has blood dropped on her and Frankensteins monster is attacked by a person he thought would understand him. After this they both go on a killing spree Carrie at The Black Prom and Frankensteins Monster over the period of a year. Carrie kills half the town of Chamberlain and Frankensteins monster kills six people indirectly and directly. Both die at the end of the book. After killing their creator (Frankensteins monster killed Victor Frankenstein indirectly).What does everyone think?

SPOILER ALERT - A while ago, I finished reading the Three Musketeers, and i thought it was one of the best books i ever read. Upon further reading, i found out that alot of people criticize the book, mainly saying that the four protagonist are actually a-holes.

I thought this was really stupid. Thats the whole point of the book, isn't it? Anyone with a little bit of reading comprehension can see that they are presented as anti-heroes, they gamble all their money away multiple times, they use deception and lie (e.g. kitty), they get drunk alot, and one of them even committed a heinous crime that can't be justified. Its clear that Dumas presented them as flawed protagonists, which is where the true beauty of the book lies.

I have read someone say that the book is more or less a parody of classical romance novels, which could be true, but I think its just a romance novel with a twist; not classical high-moral-ground heroes, but deep characters with interesting stories that keep you thinking.

Dumas' character building is some of the finest and most intricate I have ever read, he's a true literary master.

Let me know your thoughts.

P.S. — I believe alot of the critics of the heroes were just shocked to see that these swashbuckling bunch they saw in movies and tv shows are actually not-so-perfect, and,to me, this imperfection makes the novel even better.

I know not everyone loves goodreads, but I’ve found it to be pretty enjoyable once you find likeminded readers and have gotten some great recommendations I wouldn’t have found otherwise. Would love to find some more people who share similar taste on there! Some of my favorites are Nabokov, Don Delillo, Cormac McCarthy, DFW, Clarice Lispector, and Camus. Gonna drop my page below if anyone wants to be friends on there!

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/156738477

Just finished reading Norwegian Woods and here is my take on it.

Do you unintentionally compare this book to other Murakami's work while reading it?

On Our Relationship with Death:
Rereading the first few pages after finishing the book provides a true sense of closure, almost like giving the story an actual ending. It’s striking how Watanabe forms his strongest bonds with people who are on the verge of leaving life. It's as if a door has always been open between him and death. This idea is mirrored in the field well that Naoko describes during one of their walks in the meadow, reinforcing the concept that “Death exists, not as the opposite of life but as a part of it.” At that point, Watanabe took her description literally, suggesting that the well should be found and walls built around it to prevent people from falling in. The reality was that everyone was in danger of falling into that well. At that time, what saved Naoko from falling was having Watanabe with her. She even urged him to stay on the path, emphasizing the constant presence of this metaphorical danger.

On the Definition of Normal:
Watanabe’s visits to Naoko in the hospital, followed by his return to the 'real' world, serve as transformative experiences that reshape his understanding of reality. These experiences make him question the boundaries and rules that define what is considered real and what is not. How could this chaotic world be the "real" one, while a peaceful connection with oneself is labeled as mental instability or sickness? The hospital becomes a space for Watanabe to reflect on these distinctions, prompting him to challenge societal definitions of normalcy.

On Adulthood:
Adulthood is portrayed as a process of figuring things out along the way. While we might think we have a plan, it often turns out to be just a rough blueprint. Life throws unexpected challenges at us, reminding us that while we narrate our own stories, we control only our reactions, not the events themselves. For instance, Midori’s routine visits to the hospital become something she no longer questions, turning what was once a misery—her father's inability to care for himself—into a new reality she must manage. Similarly, Watanabe declares his growth into adulthood, yet he had likely reached that stage long before he consciously realized it. The book suggests that adulthood is less about reaching a particular milestone and more about how one adapts to life's ongoing challenges.

On the Role of Sex in the Book:
Although I initially considered skipping this topic, it’s important to address it because, in this book, sex functions almost as a character itself. For Watanabe, sex represents a physical aspect of adulthood, yet it does not capture the true essence of becoming an adult. The numerous sexual encounters in the book symbolize his search for identity and meaning, underscoring the contrast between physical maturity and emotional or psychological growth.

On the Book Cover:
The cover of the book depicts people standing opposite each other, symbolizing a deeper existential choice—one person choosing to live while the other chooses to die. Despite these opposing choices, they continue to affect each other’s lives, casting shadows on one another. This imagery reflects the interconnectedness of life and death, reinforcing the book's central themes (mentioning that cause i absolute loved the cover).

On the Circle of Life:
The book explores the cyclical nature of life through its characters' desires and experiences. We aim to be known and loved, but once we achieve this, we retreat into solitude and cherish it. We seek various sexual experiences, but after having many, we come to treasure a single memory of one special experience. We strive for independence, especially from our parents, but once we attain it, we often seek someone to depend on because we’re unsure how long our own strength will last. We desire change to feel alive, yet ultimately, we end up seeking stability in whatever form we can find it.

This book is a profound exploration of life's complexities, capturing the tension between opposing desires and the inevitability of death. It challenges us to reflect on what it means to live, to grow, and to find meaning in the face of life’s contradictions.

For those who has given this book a read, what was your take on it? What other aspects of this book you found interesting?

I have a brilliant and depressed teen. Truly, on both counts. An old soul even when little. Deep and passionate thinker, great writer, artistic, articulate. And sadly, depressed. Like was hospitalized as inpatient for a SI and self harm a few years ago, the youngest one on their floor. They have a therapist now and are on medication and they seemed to be doing better... but there are still dips and they’re having one now (cutting, quiet, doesn't seem to have joy, doesn't come out of their room).

They just read The Sunset Limited — on their own, picked it out at the library — and wanted to watch the movie with us. It's bleak, as McCarthy tends to be. It really resonated with them. Which... isn't great. I'm not articulate enough to be able to argue, post-movie, with how White's character was wrong. Or, even if not wrong, the stakes aren't just over literature here. I guess I need something to say to my kid to help them see the fallacy of suicide, in a way that the play wasn’t quite able to do. Or to introduce them to books that are smart, that perhaps deal with this topic and have a happy ending, or highlight meaning, that have some hope.

Edit: Well, wow. You really came through; at best I was hoping for a comment or two. I can’t respond to all nor even most folks here — thank you reddit for your thoughtful reflections and suggestions, thanks for sharing your personal experiences too. It helps. 

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone here has tried reading Dostoyevsky in the order in which his works were written, and if they themselves would recommend it.

I tried doing this with Vonnegut and seeing how his own writing/personal philosophy evolved with time and how he developed as a writer based on what was happening in his life/in the world at that time to be very cool.

Would you recommend this for someone who hasn’t read Dostoyevsky? Ik a lot of people say to start with C&P because of how high quality and gripping it is, but wouldn’t it be better to see his art evolve and work up to that point?

It’s peak teenage angst wrapped up into one character. I read it in 8th grade and fell in love with the book and Salinger’s writing style and Holden. He’s not likable, but he’s genuine in his frustrations with the world. I’m rereading it now in my mid 20s and while I can’t relate the same, I can recognize that I did feel similarly to him when I was 16. It was written so long ago but still I think it’s a very good reflection of what being a teenager is like. It will continue to be that for decades to come.

It's 0430 and I just finished the book. HOLY COW. I just can't. The irony of everything. In the end, I can't figure out if I love, hate, pity or even admire Granouille. I love how the book is such a short read but took me to an intricate and elaborate psychological journey. Anyone felt the same? What were your thoughts?

So I've been facing a huge problem lately: I'm buying way too many books that I cannot understand. And I don't mean like I don't understand its themes or messages or whatever. I literally cannot understand them—they're incomprehensible to me. To give reference, these particular books are Mason & Dixon, some of Shakespeare's plays, To The Lighthouse, The Remains of The Day and some dialogues from Plato (esp. The Symposium. Their speeches about love go right through my head.). I just feel like my reading level's too low to really comprehend them because it's not like I have really bad reading comprehension overall: I can read and understand more contemporary works such as Tsukuru Tazaki and even reading older classics like Frankenstein and The Brothers Karamazov (Garnett trans.), I can understand perfectly fine. I've tried paraphrasing passages with AI just to understand, but that feels like cheating. I want to understand it on my own without any external help.

Perhaps it's a matter of style? Mason & Dixon is written in faux 18th-century prose, and To The Lighthouse very notably in stream-of-conciousness. Maybe I'm just far too inexperienced to read them? I'm only a few months into this reading hobby after all and I haven't even been awfully consistent with it.

Though, I think it's pretty understandable to not be able to understand these authors judging by some posts I've read (esp. Woolf and Pynchon), however I am looking for advice on how I could somehow 'build up' to reading them? Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance!

Hello everybody, very fine evening, &c. I'm looking to rack all of your brains.

I am giving Jane Austen a bit of thought, and I have been trying to compare her to Victorian authors. The only problem is - and it was a bit unexpected - I can't think of any novels that compare directly to P&P or to Sense and Sensibility. There are obviously a lot of very fine Victorian novels out there but nobody I could think of actually wrote stories that are purely about people getting to know each other and getting married.

This is what I am looking for:

1. The amatory characters do not know each other at the start of the novel.
2. The novel ends with the marriage(s).
3. Neither character objects to marriage per se.
4. No characters form an unsuccessful relationship.

These requirements don't seem very strenuous! Basically, I want a novel that is purely the characters 'getting to know each other' like they do in P&P. There must have been some Victorians writing like that!

But every Victorian-era novel I have read either focuses on the marriage after the wedding (Flaubert, Fontane, Thackeray, etc) or starts with characters already in love but who can't or don't want to marry (Trollope). They're never just: once upon a time there was a lovely maiden in Hampshire who met a gentleman and they fell in love, the end. There must be some!

Thank you all for any help!

Example (!spoilers!): ~ Paris (king of Troy), steals the wife of Menelaus (king of Sparta). Obviously, Menelaus wants to return his wife (as well as the wealth stolen by Paris’s soldiers) and begins a war against Troy. As a result, because of the whim of Paris, his own people suffer, and in the end Troy fell completely and every man was killed, and every woman was given into slavery.

~ King Agamemnon fought Troy on the side of Menelaus. At some point, their common cattle and warriors began to die and it turned out that it was Apollo who was punishing them for the fact that Agamemnon took the daughter of the priest of Apollo as a concubine. Do you think Agamemnon immediately returned the daughter to her father? No, he did not care that his warriors were dying because of his whim and selfishness

~ Agamemnon agreed to return his daughter to the priest of Apollo, but on the condition that Achilles give him his concubine. Achilles agreed, but was offended. He refused to participate in the war against Troy and wished that Zeus would arrange for the loss of the entire Greek army. In the end, who suffers? Ordinary Greeks are suffering again

He has so many enjoyable books.

Ashenden is a great book about a WWI spy, apparently based on his experiences in that war. It's a sarcastic, cynical and very funny book. The Magician is a pretty good book, the only fantasy book he ever wrote, and good stuff. Theatre is a decent book, about theatre, obviously. Volume 1 of his short stories is pretty good, with tons of interesting stories from his lengthy career. UP At the Villa is a decent book, but short.

Have you read many of his books? What do you think of him?

This book, as you all know, is full of messy, petty, violet, and spiteful people and I LOVE IT. The teenager I was could never relate to the use of manipulation to aid infatuation and possession. She definitely had mistaken obsessive acts and a narcissistic “win” as a notion of love, and I am so angry it was portrayed to me as a romance novel. Reading this at almost 30 is downright exhausting and I’m smiling all through it. I’m so glad I picked it back up. Has anyone else picked this back up for a reread? Or am I the only one who just didn’t “get it” the first time?

I was in a bookstore recently and noticed that the books on trend seemed to be aimed at women (especially the books for teenagers).

The books are by female authors and the main characters are also women.

The influencers who show books on TikTok are also almost all female.

If this is right, what do you think the reason is?

I read this book over the course of a summer spent in the Mediterranean Sea, between Menorca and Corsica. Not only did this end up being a fitting reading location thanks to characters such as Malta or Creta Kano, whose namesakes originate from the Mediterranean, but the heavy heat perfectly resonated with the hazy, dreamy atmosphere found in the novel as I found myself at the border of a headache simply sitting still under the sun. Escaping the dense summer heat in the cool water felt akin to Toru Okada's transitions from reality to his subconscious.

Before diving into my analysis and breakdown (necessary, given the book’s massive size and the sheer number of storylines, characters, and themes), I’d like to share my overall impressions, now that I’ve just finished it. Honestly this story felt absolutely immersive and gorgeous to read. I was expecting a narrative laden with magical realism and surrealistic events bursting at the corner of every page. What I got instead was the musings of our main character who investigates the reasons behind his wife's departure. Though there’s a fair share of bizarre characters and unexplainable events, the story felt oddly reserved and peaceful for the most part—a quality I enjoyed quite a lot. The plot points throughout are intriguing and kept me on my toes, some of the side characters' individual stories which almost read as their own novellas were superb and the overall vibe or atmosphere was perfectly hazy and vague which is something I've come to appreciate from Murakami. I wish my positive feelings and enjoyment had lasted till the end but unfortunately I did find the last third of the novel to be a bit less engaging. We're presented to a few new characters and the story stutters a bit.

This is absolutely a book I'll be re-reading (though the 600 page count is quite daunting) as I'm sure I'll be getting new perspectives and points of appreciation. Now, here goes my ramblings around the themes, the characters and what they mean!

At its core, this is, in my view, a story about grief and how we manage to cope with it. Our main character and narrator, Toru Okada, is a passive and apathetic man who quits his job and does not have the ambition to do anything else. On a very surface level, it becomes apparent quickly that one of the reasons that Kumiko, Toru's wife, left him is because of the emasculation he suffers from. After quitting his job, she becomes the main bread winner and he takes on the role of dealing with household duties. She even mentions in one of her letters that she left him because she was satisfied sexually with other men. This ultimately leads to his wife distancing herself from him and leaving. This event pushes Toru into rethinking not only his relationship but also his apathetic stance to life. He will need to transcend his previous self. Of course, the story wouldn't move quite as well if we didn't have a gallery of other character who act as triggers to push Toru into acting out this transcendence of self. In that respect, Malta and Creta Kano, the medium sisters kickstart Toru's transition. One way of reading the novel is to see it through the eyes of someone who is going through a divorce and who is rethinking his entire relationship in order to pinpoint the moment that it started going wrong. Of course Toru takes this a step further, by having to do his meditation deep down in a well devoid of any light in order to reach into his subconscious. Most characters in the novel serve as triggers to push him into this meditative direction. Creta Kano as well as the telephone lady merge into being Kumiko at times, which reinforces the presence of these elements built to remind Toru to look into why Kumiko left him. At one point, Creta Kano even acts as Toru's sexual re-awakening and his newfound desire also pushes him to look for Kumiko. This manifests as him literally searching for Kumiko, which serves as a metaphor for his quest to understand why she left. Overall, Toru's experiences within his well of thinking and subsequently in the hotel locked in his subconscious were so well written and were my favourite portions of the novel. It's quite a literal view of stepping into your subconscious as if you were stepping into a deep, dark well but it was very effective. The well allows Toru to explore his own psyche, confronting fears and suppressed memories.

Besides the transcendence of oneself to surmount painful experiences, the other theme which comes back again and again has to be the inevitable nature of pain and suffering. The novel's namesake, the wind-up bird acts as an agent or announcer of impending pain or suffering to any character who hear it. In the novel this is not treated as an inherently evil occurrence, but rather a normal and natural event. The wind-up bird is merely a neutral messenger, despite heralding endless pain for the characters, creating a striking contrast. Characters throughout the book deal with pain at different scales. The main plotline is the most obvious as we follow Toru and the emotional pain of betrayal and the lack of understanding from Kumiko's departure. We have several chapters through Lieutenant Mamiya's flashbacks which serve as displays of man's physical cruelty in times of war. One particularly harrowing sequence (which is also one of the well written chapters in the entire novel) recounts Mamiya's experiences with a Soviet soldier who is very much into torturing his foes. On a larger scale, we also have a good number of plot points dealing in the history of pain of peoples and nations. The Nanking massacre, mass deportations from the Manchukuo puppet state, the hardships of prisoners in Soviet working camps are all vivid examples of this inflicted pain from men to other men. Pain is recurrent; as soon as one cycle ends, another begins. Toru may have 'freed' Kumiko by the end of the novel but she will not choose to go back to his side. What ends up being more important than the pain suffered, is the decision to not be defeated by said pain, and that is Toru's entire journey.

I think that the plot technically has weak points. Some characters or surreal events can sometimes feel like not-so subtle tools to move the plot along when it gets a bit slow. However, if you're really only focusing on the emotional odyssey that Toru is going through, a journey of the transcendence of self from apathy to actively standing up to the pain, the novel is a massive achievement in that regard. There's a brilliant mix of these dreamy events happening in his subconscious that collide with the very real implications of his divorce and the grief he's feeling about it. Kumiko's departure also acts as a catalyst for Toru to realise how alienated he feels from society. Kumiko and him had been so focused on building their home where they could live safely between each other, that he had slowly drifted away from those around him. This is resolved by the end, not only because Toru ends up interacting with and helping out a host of various characters, but also thanks to his newfound empathy for the horrible news he sees on TV in the hotel. Overall, the pacing was quite slow but this corresponded with Toru's step-by-step approach of diving into his psyche, often accelerating whenever he was on the brink of discovering something.

My only gripe with the novel is the weaker third part. The exclusion of the medium Kano sisters to introduce Cinnamon and Nutmeg was disappointing to me. I enjoyed the backstories and the vivid imagery of the Manchukuo zoo that Nutmeg's father worked in, but I was not attached to these new characters, nor did I think they truly moved the plot along apart from providing Toru with the well once more. I was also let down by Noboru Wataya's character. I guess he does his job acting as Toru's polar opposite in every sense, but despite the novel bringing up his rise to power frequently, I felt that his characterisation was quite weak. He represents these darker elements of humanity (in opposition to Toru's general goodwill and passivity) and Murakami uses him as a critique of Japanese politics. A cunning man who has trained to wear a mask to hide his depravity and to appeal to the masses, quickly gaining approval and power. He often felt more like an abstract threat and a metaphor, rather than a concrete villain as he was implied to be considering the responsibility he has in Kumiko's departure from Toru which kickstarts the entire novel.

My favorite aspect of reading is looking into the choices authors make in their writings and why they make them. I gained this interest about a year ago when I read Animal Farm and Fahrenheit 451, each for the first time. I was able to grasp the author's message quite easily in those books, maybe because they're more up front about it, although, I can't say that for sure. Ever since, I've felt while reading, I've been more concerned with what the author was trying to convey than what I was actively reading. I'm just looking for general advice or opinions. What actually goes through your mind while reading, do you spend time reflecting, how easily does the authors message come to you, does every story even have a message?

There's been a lot of discussion elsewhere about the departmental dysfunction in the article, the terrible behavior of the profs involved, etc. I'm curious about the actual argument between literary approaches here, not sure if this is the best place to ask.

One of the triggers in the conflict was that Kunin wanted to run a seminar called “Five American Writers Who Had a Problem with the Social Sciences". The writers he proposed were Albert Murray, Hannah Arendt, Jane Jacobs, and George Kubler, & Ralph Ellison. This was an update from a previous seminar he'd wanted to teach, which would've focused only on Ellison. From the article:

These writers, in different ways, “tried to redefine the concept of culture so as to make it useful for art and artists,” Kunin writes in his course description. “... Perhaps they lost that argument; the successes of sociological approaches to literature suggest that they did. In this seminar, we will run the test again.”

The two other profs mentioned, Tompkins and Thomas, repeatedly called his approach "anti-black", "factually incorrect", a "misreading" of Ellison and harmful to students. If I could grossly simplify it, is this essentially part of the long-running debate between aesthetic vs sociological interpretations of literature? As a Renaissance scholar, is Kunin's framing of the works "disrespectful" to Americanists in the fields of US and African-American lit, and their methods?

Non pay-walled version here: https://archive.is/kspHn

After playing many Lovecraftian video games, I decided that I had to give Lovecraft's short stories a try. I have never been an horror guy. I mostly read historical novels but I must admit that those short stories are real treats!

I know that the patterns of those stories are all the same and they are all mostly built the same way but still, I am being carried through this universe so much! I would not say that the stories are scary, I mean, they are not at all, but the general atmosphere and the pacing are top notch. The fact that the same themes are present in every stories helps a lot in building the atmosphere. I have read only 6 of them so far but I just cannot stop.

Just wanted to share my appreciation of this author with you guys. Sorry for my not-perfect english, i'm french.

I've just finished re-reading one of my personal favourites, Arthur Koestler's 1940 dystopian classic "Darkness at Noon", about an Old Bolshevik who falls victim to Stalin's purges. Koestler avoids explicitly naming most of the historical figures and countries that appear in the text. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Italy are all alluded to without being named, even if Koestler has to contort the prose slightly to avoid doing so. Stalin is "No. 1", Nazi Germany is "the Dictatorship", the USSR is "over there" or "the country of the Revolution". Belgium is explicitly named early in the novel, but later on referred to only as "B." - an oversight? France, Britain, America, India and Gandhi are all named. It seems like countries that haven't fallen victim to totalitarianism get to keep their names.

What was Koestler's intent with this? It doesn't seem like an attempt at obfuscation - I find it really hard to imagine any contemporary reader not immediately knowing what was being alluded to. A way of suggesting that these dictatorships have lost their national identities in the obsessive pursuit of their ideologies? An attempt to give the events of the novel a mythic, universal quality that rises above the details of any particular country or individual? These are my best guesses, but I'd love to know what you all think, or if Koestler himself ever spoke about what he was trying to achieve.

Every time I read something by Tolstoy, and then go off and read other great authors-lately Steinbeck, Hugo, Borges, and then come back and read something by Tolstoy, it seems like I’m reading the first writer to ever write words on paper. Does that make any sense? Tolstoy’s writing is as natural as ocean waves and even if the story is sad (it usually is) it always makes me smile. It always just seems…absolutely perfect. I think if I could go back in time and have any writer on earth give me writing lessons, it would be Leo Tolstoy. Anyone else feel this way?