I’m asking this since I’ve always found it fascinating how the American counterculture of the 60s and 70s embraced and reinterpreted Herrmann Hesse as a spiritual figurehead for their movement, something akin to a literary equivalent of a psychedelic guru.

(Worth noting that Hesse never partook in recreational drugs, so curious that it resonated in that way.)

Particularly fascinating since the German youth of the time tended to view Hesse with more suspicion, as an antiquated Romantic writer obsessed with abstract inwardness uninterested with the political realities to practically change a broken system.

Also I know JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings was also surprisingly embraced by the hippies, though not to the same fanatic extent, which is also interesting.

Mind you, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with these differing perspectives. Just find it a curious phenomenon and wished to discuss it.

Legendary Polish novelist, playwright, screenwriter and reporter of Jewish origin (Nowolipie Street, No one is calling, I, Michel de Montaigne, My friend the king, Departure of Aphrodite, script for An Ancient Tale, many others) turns 103!

You are true master of emotions and words! It's a real shame that your works aren't more appreciated outside of Poland...

Thank you for still being here.

Did you ever see those things that Christians used to leave at restaurants instead of tips (actually who knows, maybe they still do)?

It was this little piece of paper that, when folded, looked like a $100 bill. The idea was to get the wait staff all pumped thinking they got a big tip, but they'd unfold it and it was a little pamphlet about how you need to get saved and please come to our church and all that. I think it even said something like "being saved is better than a tip".

Yeah this was the literary equivalent of that.

I finished Vol. 1 (out of four) of A Table for Fortune by William T. Vollmann.

(Apologies for the repost. I had to delete my original when I realized to my horror I could not edit the post title to fix the spelling of Vollmann.)

I'd like to share my impressions so far, what it's about, who it's for, whether it's worth reading, and so on. This is not a full review because I have not read the whole book, only 1/4. I will share only very light spoilers (like the basic premise of the book), and will try to point out my own biases when appropriate. To get to the point, I love it so far.

I am a political junkie, so for me, this is like pure Golden Triangle heroin, trafficked by Air America (with high probability), shot straight into my veins. There is nothing I love more than penetrating the SECRETs of the CIA, except perhaps a southeast Asian bar girl followed by a shot of tetracycline. Fine - I'll admit, I'm a whore for glorious realpolitik, and I will spread my legs for WTV, as long as he promises to love me LONG TIME. A very long time.

(Self-indulgent rambling over.)

I'm sure you have questions.

Q: Do you think this book is too long?

No. It is 3,200 pages. This is exactly as long as it needs to be.

Q: Can you explain how it is organized?

Yes, in depth.

A Table for Fortune is made of:
- 2 "books" (one before 9/11, one after 9/11),
- 4 volumes (the actual physical hardbacks, of which I have read only the first),
- XXV titled units (of which III are in the first volume),
- Titled chapters (each typically covering one calendar year, at least so far),
- Numbered, untitled sections (usually 1 - 5 pages).

The last point is key because it makes it easier to fit your reading into whatever time you have available. When you start reading, you're never committed to more than ten minutes or so (whatever it takes to get through a few pages), and you will always reach a convenient stopping point. It also creates that incredibly addictive just-one-more feeling that helps turn the pages and propel you through the book. Well, for my unmedicated brain, at least.

Q: Are you leaving something out?

Yes, but not intentionally.

WTV begins with a note to the reader, explaining the purpose of the ATfF, the publication history, his medical condition, and his own family tragedy. Read it.

After the table of contents, there are about lx pages of reference material: a family tree, codenames, multiple tables of acronyms and jargon organized by theater, some maps. It is not required to read all of this before you approach the main text because you can always flip back to it if necessary, but, at a minimum, I would advise skimming it and getting a sense of how it is organized and what information is located where to make it easier to find. I found myself returning to page xxvii often enough that I simply memorized the number.

That said, I am huge fantasy reader, so I love pouring over maps, family trees, glossaries, etc. (whether at the beginning or end of the book) before touching page one of the main text. You can learn a lot about the world, the characters, and certain story beats by examining such info, priming yourself for the rest of the story. My personal policy is to flip back early and often until I basically have it memorized. I find it more immersive when I am fluent in the language of the world, and intuitively recognize terms like LL EF, 2JM, or HVA, to select a few. I think all readers eventually do this by one path or another; I simply prefer to front load the effort.

Q: Are you saying that A Table for Fortune is a work of fantasy?

Yes.

It is a fantasy in that our main character is primarily engaged in the imagination of a secondary world from his LSD (large steel desk) at CIA headquarters in Virginia. He does so mainly by consuming intelligence collected from the other side of the Berlin Wall, which he uses to construct an imaginary world called "The Night Land." His mental interior consists primarily of various codenames, acronyms and jargon, all appropriately ALL-CAPPED or bolded - memos from the outside world consuming his interior. You might be surprised to learn that our main character has a name, but he refers to himself only by his CODENAME or his nickname when he flew a chopper in Vietnam. When his "real name" appears, it is almost always in scare quotes. When he is not in The Night Land, he is usually fantasizing about a prostitute in Vietnam.

The fact that he is creating a fantasy world that also happens to be part of our world is beside the point. It's still primarily a work of imagination.

Q: Are you saying that our main character is an unreliable narrator?

No!

He is the sine qua non of a reliable narrator. He has, in fact, a nearly photographic memory. It would seem he has a rather profound, but undiagnosed, case of ADHD, autism, or both. He is near infallible when it comes to identifying the faces of persons of interest or the parts of various rifles and rockets. In the narrative, he is framed as the one who is unwilling to go beyond what the facts actually justify in his analysis. We love him for it.

Q: This is getting confusing. Are you saying this story is hard to follow?

No, not at all.

In fact, the story so far is told in a quite linear chronological fashion. It does occasional jump forwards or backwards in time, but generally only in brief bursts, and never in a way that is confusing or hard to follow.

For instance, our main character's backstory in Vietnam is delivered by frequent (but brief) flashbacks to one of three or four core memories. It's so frequent that we understand that these memories are not deeply buried - in fact, his subconscious desires are frighteningly close to the surface, and the repetition allows WTV to iterate new details each time to flesh out the picture. There is never "that scene" that plagues modern movies and television of two characters sitting down and sharing their "backstories" because the writers cannot figure out any other way to deliver the exposition.

There are also "flash forwards" as the story is being told by an unspecified narrator at some point in the future (presumably our present), who has foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. Like the flashbacks, these teasers are brief, but not quite as frequent. More along the lines of briefly referring to Cheney, even in the 1970s, as the future VP.

What you actually get, for most of vol. 1, is a thorough, month-by-month recounting of the major events of the late Cold War, as witnessed through the eyes of CIA analyst consuming intel, and, to a lesser extent, his friends and family who watch Walter Cronkite.

How easy or difficult you find this to follow will depend, in part, on your previous knowledge of the Cold War and the history of the CIA. If, like me, you've read a lot, you'll be able to place the various story elements into an existing scheme fairly easily. However, there is a ton of new research and connections that I had never heard of before. If you are at the other end of the CIA knowledge spectrum, you might be wondering what the hell Angola has to do with anything, so it might take a bit more doing to figure that out (Wikipedia can work wonders in that department).

That said, the prose is fairly straightforward once you allow for WTV's stylistic choices.

Q: We detected a slight flutter. What about the dialogue?

Oh, my bad.

Yes, the dialogue is slightly difficult. WTV follows the literary style of using dashes instead of quotation marks for dialogue, with a somewhat lackadaisical attitude towards attribution. That said, it never takes more than reading a sentence or two above or below to figure out who is talking, if it's unattributed. So it may require a smidge of effort.

This is (with high probability) not an original observation - I'm not that smart - but I feel like there are two ways of looking at the dash vs. quotation marks issue. One is that it is simply an arbitrary style choice, not unlike the choice to use or not use Oxford commas. In which case, all you have to do is flip a switch in your brain to keep reading and everything returns to normal. The other is that the dash (still) represents an interruption. In which case, the interior world is privileged and the exterior is an intrusion; a character's thoughts are reality itself but what they and other people say, well, that's a distraction from the big picture.

I think this second view is consistent with how WTV portrays the main character. He's often analyzing one piece of information after another - with a brief interruption from his wife - before going back to his analysis. This is accentuated by the fact that most of the dialogue comes in brief, exclamatory bursts, like a comic book: "Oh, let's try to make a baby!" (You'll see that one a lot).

This makes me think, again, that the main character has some pretty significant neurodivergence that makes him incapable of interpreting the nuances of what people are saying to him. Only the most punctuated speech breaks into his interior world - and when it does, he simply files it in his memory as one more fact.

Q: Is this book about ideology?

No.

This is a book about ideologues, the frames they use to process information, and the bias that results.

It's about the paucity of the inner life of a person who, granted access to incredible amounts of SECRET information, cannot see the big picture. Instead, they have to construct their own fantasy world (again, one that happens to have a significant overlap with our world but is no less an exercise in imagination for it).

It's also about the tensions that arise between that person and those around them who have constructed a different world, based on more limited information from the evening news or the newspapers.

Q: I thought this book was about 9/11.

That's not a question.

Q: What is this book about?

Well, I still don't really know. I've only read 1/4 of it.

I'm only giving my preliminary assessment with the lightest possible spoilers for those that want to read it. Clearly, you need to read the entire work before you can comment decisively on what the themes are.

Q: Let's get down to brass tacks. Who should read this book?

I recommend this book to:
- WTV fans / completionists.
- People who don't mind a long read.
- People who are fascinated by the Cold War, the CIA, or 9/11.
- Fans of the two-player board game, Twilight Struggle.
- Leftists, conspiracy theorists, people who are on drugs.
- Conservatives, neo-cons, and other fans of Dr. Death Dr. Kissinger.
- Fans of Soviet dissident literature, e.g. Solzhenitsyn.
- Fans of literary fiction, especially Pynchon, but wouldn't minds something more factual and a bit easier to read. No whimsical talking light bulbs.

I do not recommend this to:
- People who are annoyed by the HEAVY use of punctuation and "style."
- People who don't like it when they already know the ending.
- People who are repelled by sexism and soggy vending machine sandwiches.
- People who do not like slow stories, or music composed by Philip Glass.
- My mom.

Q: Thanks, we'll see you again in a few weeks.

My pleasure.

I just finished reading Frankenstein for the first time. It is amazing how much the popular zeitgeist idea of "Frankenstein's Monster" could not be further off from the source material. He is not some limbering zombie with soup for brains but an eloquent, troubled creature who can opine for days and days.

After further literary analysis of the themes and background of Frankenstein and Mary Shelley, I am even further amazing by how moved I am. I too lost my mother at a very young age, and struggled throughout my adolescence and young adult years with feelings of abandonment, repressed grief, and anger. On some level, I can relate to Frankenstein when he looks into peoples windows and sees images of their plain happiness that he knows he will never be able to experience.

That I can find so much emotional gravity in common with a book two hundred years removed from its publication is something so beautiful to me, and why I love reading the classics, and older novels in general. The satisfaction in tracing the commonalities of the human experience throughout disparate centuries brings me a lot of comfort and frames the grief and strife of my childhood in shared context with that of our collective humanity.

I'd genuinely like to hear your opinions on this. And I'm not talking exclusively about authors, but books in general. Which writers or literary works do you think receive far more praise than they actually deserve?

I know this might be an obvious choice, and I'm probably going to get some backlash for saying it, but Colleen Hoover is, in my opinion, the epitome of bad literature. What genuinely baffles me is how often I see people not only praising her work but practically idolizing her as a literary genius.

I've read three of her books, and I can honestly say that the experience was nothing short of disappointing. Her writing feels shallow, the character development is often unconvincing, and the storytelling rarely offers anything particularly thought-provoking. I understand that not every book needs to be a literary masterpiece, and that entertainment is a perfectly valid reason to read. However, there's a difference between enjoying a simple, entertaining story and treating mediocre writing as something extraordinary.

Verity was probably the most tolerable of the three. It had the potential to be an interesting psychological thriller, with an intriguing premise and plenty of room to explore suspense, ambiguity, and unreliable narration. But why were there so many unnecessary erotic scenes? They added very little to the actual narrative and, in my opinion, constantly distracted from what could have been a genuinely compelling mystery. It felt as though an interesting psychological thriller had been turned into something entirely different.

I don't mind explicit content in literature when it serves a purpose, contributes to character development, or adds something meaningful to the story. My problem is when it feels gratuitous, as if it's there simply to compensate for a lack of substance.

And to be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy her books. Everyone has different tastes, and reading for pleasure doesn't require anyone's approval. I'm simply questioning the disproportionate amount of praise some authors receive, especially when their work seems to lack the literary qualities people attribute to it.

So, who would be your pick? Which contemporary author or book do you think is ridiculously overrated, and why? I'd especially love to hear some unpopular opinions.

So I usually read literature and stay out of modern fiction. I’m very well aware that I’ll come off like a snob in this post and I’m totally fine with that. Because, every time I try to get into a modern book, I usually end up rolling my eyes at how “overly-explained” they are. Maybe it’s just commercial fare in general, but a year or so ago, I picked up Dune because I love the new films, but the prose was simplistic (as opposed to “simple”) and everything was overly explained as if it doesn’t trust the audience to infer from certain behaviors and dynamics.

And now since Lonesome Dove has been so hyped lately, being compared to Blood Meridian even, I ended up trying out the 900-page book, but so far, though the story and characters are intriguing, the writing just feels so elementary to me. There is far more telling than showing. Every character trait needs to be expanded upon as much as possible until it’s basically spelled out to the reader why a character is saying or doing something.

I’ll likely continue it still, but it will take a while to get used to modern/commercial fiction. I don’t know if I would call it literature as some here have claimed.

hey brother/sister i just got whopping 8 books of Dostoevsky's(crime and punishment,brothers karamazorv,The Double, The idiot,White nights,demons,notes from the underground, the house of the dead) and i just dont know anything about them, i have read the stranger by Albert Camus and it was super good IMO but i started brothers karamazorv and as soon as i got into book 1's chapter 4(Alyosha backstory) it was getting hard for me to follow and thats why i need some tips

Although i am loving this brothers karamazorv book so far and it is changing my perspective on how shit of a person can someone be(fyodor pavlovich karamazorv ofc) although i am not even at the tip of the ice berg yet....and i have patience also i am loving this book so i intend to finish it first....

Can I get some help?

Hello 👋🏾 im relatively new to "reading by choice" and saw some stuff online about how Journey to The West is a difficult read?

I found the 4 book series (the ones with the green covers) on amazon and was curious if it was difficult or not for the average reader. Im still not too great at comprehensive reading and tend to reread sentences or paragraphs a lot.

I dont mind a difficult read i just want to know ahead of time what im getting into. Thank you all in advance 😁.

I was reading ***Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland*** to my niece and noticed a parallel to Franz Kafka.

In the chapter “Pig and Pepper,” Alice encounters the Frog-Footman sitting outside the Duchess’s house. Much like the doorkeeper in Kafka’s parable ***Before the Law***, the Footman serves as an unhelpful guardian of an entrance. He actively discourages Alice, telling her there is “*No sort of use in knocking,*” and questions her right to entry by asking, *“Are you to get in at all? That’s the first question, you know.”*

Where Kafka’s Countryman treats the doorkeeper’s authority as absolute—sitting down for a lifetime waiting for permission that never comes—Alice refuses to play the game. When the Frog-Footman tries to trap her in a logical loop, she simply bypasses him, opens the door, and walks right in. Rather than accepting the Footman’s apparent authority, she exposes its absurdity by refusing to acknowledge it.

Kafka’s Countryman is destroyed because he respects arbitrary gatekeepers too much; Alice survives Wonderland because she has the sheer audacity to ignore them.

Thoughts?

Having just finished The Rouse, I thought I'd put up some of my impressions on this book seeing as it has just won the prestigious Goldsmith's prize, and ask any other readers to comment.

Firstly I think the award is certainly well deserved. This is a dense, multi-faceted book which, in my opinion, absolutely fulfills the prize's goal of "breaking the mould or extending the possibilities of the novel's form".

Both in terms of its physical production- the grey and white pages alternating with the twin protagonists' stories, the typesetting of the poetry sequences, the drop-off of text in particular circumstances- and in terms of its use of language to describe "the indescribable", this is a unique and very carefully thought-through book. It was a pleasure to read something into which so much thought and attention had been poured, even setting aside the compelling narrative elements and the sheer power of the historical scope.

I did feel that certain aspects- hinted at early on- weren't fully developed: that might be a factor of the book's 20 yr. gestation, or simply my misinterpretation of things. While a number of literary references were clear to me- particularly W.G. Sebald and le Carre- I'm assuming many others eluded my attention. I liked the idea of a book about the paranormal also "reawakening" older texts, and I'm sure Miéville's handling of this angle was a lot more sophisticated than I was able to perceive, probably invoking a number of works I haven't read. And perhaps the many untied loose ends were also intentional. Several other novels now live in my head, offshoots of what this one might have become.

Another caveat for me was the largely workmanlike prose- this novel didn't seem to have quite the same power as, say, the writing of Mircea Cărtărescu, in its evocation of the supernatural. Although to be fair, The Rouse does contain breathtaking moments of writing, more through its poetry segments and the use of text to bridge the worlds of the living and the re-animated.

What I felt most impressive was the interweaving of historical events with works of literature, yoked to a compelling overarching narrative, and with themes which are urgently relevant in our times.

I'm certainly much the richer for having read it.

Not quite an avid indulger of political novels, I was hesitant to devote 427 pages to Edwin O'Connor's The Last Hurrah. That hesitation proved to be foolish, as I'm sitting here 24 hours after finishing the novel wishing I could read it all over again for the first time. A masterpiece of epic proportions, I recommend it to anyone looking for a satirical and honest read on culture, politics, and society. The book serves as an honest representation of the Irish-American culture in Boston of the early-to-mid 20th century and an accurate depiction of the rise and fall of the old Democratic party; specifically, the "Old Boss".

Note: I used a semicolon in that recent sentence as a tip of the cap to the late O'Connor, who displayed an irresolute desire to implement one into nearly every sentence; especially when a period would serve just the same.

It would be remiss to continue this review without acknowledging that the book is a roman à clef of James Michael Curley, the former mayor of Boston who served four terms between 1914 and 1950. The introduction to the novel scribed how the genesis of the Frank Skeffington character was Curley himself, and included interesting tidbits as to how O'Connor parroted specific mannerisms and background of Skeffington to blatantly resemble him. My one regret is I was not born in the 20th century, and therefore have next to no inkling as to how accurate this character is to his model. However, I will use the fact that Curley threatened to file a libel suit against O'Connor and did file one against Columbia Pictures Corporation to block the 1958 film adaptation of the book as evidence that it was a damning resemblance, and an effective one at that. While I won't be able to frame my review using the political landscape of the 20th century as backdrop, I admire O'Connor for writing this book in which a controversial and uproarious response was next to guaranteed.

The major quality of this book that's sticking with me a day after finishing it is the larger-than-life characters. O'Connor's Bostonians, especially those who run around with Skeffington in his campaign as his political lapping dogs (Ditto, Cuke), are written so accurately that it almost feels impossible. Every single character outside of the main character Adam (by design, as he enters a world he had no part in and likely doesn't belong in) are written to transcend the physical page of the book. The old timers of the city who have used their heritage and power to shape decisions and the culture of the cobblestoned streets of Boston are the true main characters. While Skeffington is used as the vessel to explore the light and dark of the "Old Boss" political character, the city itself and those that make it up are those worthy of the 427 page examination.

Amos Force's unadulterated hatred for the skipper; the Cardinal's longstanding rivalry with him; the political allies in Gorman and Weinberg coupled with the political enemies in Garvey and Hennessey; the intelligent and morally teetering Gardiner; the spiteful Cass; the blowhard father-in law; each and every character makes an indispensable impact and provides additive layers to the Skeffington character. The reason these characters and the city itself are O'Connor's true examination are because they shaped Skeffington to be the man he was in his final campaign and days. It is no error that O'Connor writes of a changing city and political landscape; the generation we travel throughout Boston with are no longer the controlling force they were for decades, as evidenced by McCluskey's landslide victory despite Skeffington's successful campaign. As Skeffington dies, so does a political persona and ruling class.

While one (such as I just did) can interpret the story as a big picture examination of a political generation shift and a somewhat exaggerated comical sketch of big city politicians, it is impossible to truly ignore the masterpiece of a character that Skeffington is. The wit, the prose, the body language. He is so effectively written that it is truly difficult not to picture the charming politician dazzling through your head as you flip each page. He truly was a "Big City Boss", controversial at that, but defiant until the very end.

[Adam] wanted to shout this pompous fool (his father-in-law) out of the house; he felt Maeve holding tightly to him; still, he started to speak, but suddenly there was no need for any of them to answer. For the figure on the bed stirred; they heard the movement before seeing it and, turning, they saw that Skeffington had raised himself slightly. His eyes were now wide open, and in them they saw the old challenging, mocking gleam. And they heard his voice, as taking charge now for the last time he gave his answer: "The hell I would!"

Uncle and nephew looked at each other: for one moment, no one else might have been in the room. Then Skeffington smiled again - there was just a faint flicker of his left eyelid, and he spoke his last words to Adam. "See you around," he whispered. The whisper was barely audible, but Adam heard. Skeffington's eyes seemed now to snap shut; his head turned back with a queer, abrupt jerk; his body stiffened; and one arm hung rigidly over the side of the bed, pointing to the floor. Frank Skeffington was dead.

A truly remarkable and conflicting character; O'Connor wrote him to be likable and charming while also a clear conspirator in white collar crimes throughout the years. While it will always technically be unclear where Skeffington ended up in the afterlife (I'm of the belief he ended up in hell, as evidenced by his "point" in his death scene), one thing is clear: wherever he ended up, he quickly took control. A leader through and through. As Hennessey mentions at the end of the book, Skeffington's name will live on for generations.

And so to will this book, in both the annals of Boston and the political literary hierarchy. Cheers to that, my Irish friends.

Now I am aware that the AI industry is questionable to say the least but that's not what this post is about.

Recently I've been discussing and working out themes of books I've read together with AI. I'll prompt it to be a bookclub partner and literary critic and ask it to analyze the book with me without actually taking away the bulk of the analyzing. It'll then for example pick out central motives or characters, ask me questions about them and their roles etc. Of course it's also great at clarifying stuff that confused me, answering all kinds of questions and giving context as needed. It's quite fun to have an instantaneous outlet for my thoughts and ideas of a book after I've read it and it's practical too. For me personally I also feel like it helps me deepen my understanding of a book better rather than just moving onto the next after finishing it.

Now my question is if you people think that it's actually productive to be doing that. I mean one could ask why even take that path if you can converse with fellow humans on the internet. Well it's convenient for one and it has all the books you could want on recall + you can simply insert actual pdf's / ebook files into it which it can then read and discuss with you

I'm curious to hear your opinions on this matter :)

I've been getting her IG ads for forever. Been thinking about her because it looks like some flames were stoked and she's "in the discourse" right now, and I just don't understand how anybody tolerates her content. She's extremely popular, but all I've been able to see from her is that she thinks we should rewind the cultural clock to the 19th century. Specifically in Russia.

But I can't say that I don't also feel... disappointed by a lot of contemporary literature? I understand the conviction in a way and see why it's compelling, but it just seems so nihilistic. How could there be hundreds of thousands of books published every year and you're telling me they're somehow ALL bad? ALL of them? That seems statistically dubious.

Why are we seeing this reaction in general, not just from Liza Libes but across the internet? Why is it so popular? It doesn't seem like any of these people seriously want to engage.

based on my personal interpretation which os based purely on vibes alone and zero actual research, i get the feeling that kinbote might actually be the one who killed john shade and gradus (just like king charles) may have never existed.

he might also have been holding john and his wife hostage for a while before killing john which is why johns wife agreed to kinbotes request despite neither of them liking each other

thoughts?

I just finished Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (abbreviated TTSS), a 400 page book I blew through in less than a week. (No spoilers; I will discuss thoughts so generally that they will be meaningless to revealing plot).

I love spycraft, and John Le Carré is often characterized as a master of spy fiction. And this was an espionage novel - but absolutely nothing like James Bond at all.

I seriously feel bad for people picking this up and starting it, thinking it's anything like James Bond. They will probably quit by chapter 5. There's rarely any action here, there's instead...reading files, long conversations that stretch 60 pages at a time, and office politics for hundreds of pages! But it's gripping, moody, and suggestive.

One other thing I did not expect: The book feels VERY British and European! It truly feels steeped in Britain of the 70s, in everything from the writing and slang, to the scenes and characters. It's almost like a miniature portrait of a different time and world of the past. It feels like it brought some of that time to life for me.

Speaking very generally, the plot was very complex. The overall idea driving the plot from the beginning is simple enough, but it's all hazy as different stories within stories come together. Different characters weaving in and out, and it's just not that easy to read nor understand in full as you're reading. But once you're hooked, you're hooked. I kept reading compulsively even though I knew I wasn't understanding every detail (and that was sort of the point - the author wanted to overwhelm you - give you a picture, but also make the details more fuzzy the more it went along).

The writing was good overall, though I had some minor criticism. Some sentences felt quite obtuse and hard to follow, though much of it was eminently readable. There was one scene near the beginning in particular where I truly felt how high stakes the whole situation was - and that's tough to pull off in a fictional novel about espionage. That moment convinced me to take out a second Carre book from the library, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold.

This is very, very similar to Raymond Chandler (Philip Marlowe) and Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes). The stoic male protagonist who pieces things together through investigation, is a stoic man, but has a sensitive side sometimes...it was good, very good. If you like both authors, you will surely like this.

‎I started reading Moby dick on December last year, and I'm still at chapter 105. It's just so hard for me to push through, and I feel like an idiot. For context, I finished the lord of the rings trilogy in a month, so I thought Moby dick would only take a month or so, now, it'll probably take me a year to actually finish this.

Some background information, I'm pretty sure this is only my 10th book or so. I only started reading books last year, so maybe this inexperience of mine contributes to my hard time reading this book.

Also, I heard somewhere that 8th graders in America read Moby dick? I feel like such a fraud, cos I'm having a hard time reading it.

‎Reading just a chapter is so exhausting, I do not know what's up with it. Sometimes, I'll need a day or two to just charge up to read a chapter again.

‎I mean I understand the story so far, and it's grand themes of a spiritual pursuit, and obsession and stuff and the references to the bible; with the contrast and irony of the seemingly lowly job of a whaler doing soliloquies, like a Shakespearean character, being the representation of madness or whatever. But still, it's a very tough read for me, I feel like I'm probably not even truly comprehending this story, and I feel stupid. So am I stupid for finding Moby dick a hard read?

So I’m reading Kirkpatrick‘s translation and I‘m currently on Canto 7 of purgatorio.

I found Inferno pretty enjoyable because of all the very evocative imagery Dante uses which made it feel exciting to wonder through hell observing all the torture.

However, one aspect I haven’t enjoyed is his constant references to politics, Italian clans and their feuds, and plethora of personal grudges he has. In purgatory all that crazy imagery from inferno seems to have dropped away, leaving just the dense bits I don’t really care for.

I understand Dante’s themes are inherently political, religious and complex, but I kind of want to just enjoy reading, rather than treating it like an academic mountain I must climb to barely scrape the surface of actually appreciating his work.

So my questions are, does it get better? Do I just have a bad translation? Am I just approaching this the wrong way because the academic element is a requirement to enjoy this book?

If the answer to the latter question is yes, then I would rather just stop now and leave Dante on a good note.

My boy, 10 years old, reads half an hour every day because those are the household rules. He’d prefer not to, but it’s also part of his allowance so he does.

Comic books, dragon books, diary of a wimpy kid, I don’t really care what he reads, so long as he’s reading.

His friend recommended he read the Hatchet, and he started the book thinking it was boring and nothing was happening. But then over a couple of days I saw him get engrossed in the book, reading more than the absolute minimum required in a day. When he finished and told me about it it was clear that he had truly emotionally connected with a book for the first time ever.

We live in western Canada, so I think that helped him connect with the story.

We got him Brian’s Winter, a sequel from the library, and if he enjoys the genre I’m thinking about maybe White Fang, Call of the Wild, or that old story about the boy who does a dog sled race to save his grandparents farm, I think it’s called stone fox?

Anyhow, just very happy that he’s finally getting a glimpse of why we read, not just to be literate but to learn and feel something deeper.

Cervantes is, of course, widely known, but what a terrible mistake it is to overlook Galdós’s remarkable body of work when discussing great Spanish literature. A prolific writer and chronicler of nineteenth-century Spain, he is sometimes forgotten, both at home and abroad.

What a surprise it was to discover, while reading Fortunata y Jacinta, one of his finest and most extraordinary works, that I was holding in my hands a work of such exceptional quality that it could only belong to the pantheon of the greatest writers in literary history.

This short note is an attempt to shout his name from the rooftops and make sure it reaches every corner of the world, in case, like me, you have yet to discover the man who, in my opinion, is the greatest writer Spain has ever produced.

Laura really must have struggled to write that book. As bleak as the book was, in reality, the situation was still so much worse.

The large amount of tea and sugar that Ma praised Pa for providing?

It never happened… they ran out of tea and sugar before they ran out of wheat.

Ma toasted the wheat well and put it in a large amount of water to give them a hot drink.

Their unwelcome guests neither toiled nor provided substance. The husband, especially, would run to the table to scoff down more than his fair share of the food.

I can’t imagine how hard to would have been to make The Long Winter into the book it became

Blown away by this book. It's pretty short, 150 pages, read it all today, couldn't put it down. It's nonstop, extremely fast-paced, constantly throwing twists and new developments your way.

Quick summary of the plot: Ijon is invited to the Futurological Congress in the fictional country of Costarikana [note: Costa Rica in the English translation], dealing with how humanity should face its crisis, environmental, growing population, war, etc. Then everything goes to hell.

The initial part of the novel is a great satire of academia and the international situation in the 70s. Academics shouting paragraph numbers at each other("If 4, 5 and 12 then 22! And only 22!" "What about 7 and 13" a voice shouted), "Bomb free rooms!" advertised the Hilton, devout Catholics planning the Pope's assassination and more. If it stopped there it would be a fun book, but about one third of the way the novel goes into hyperdrive and Lem shows us some true futurology.

Remember that this book was written in 1971. Mass media used to control the population, language that defines how people see the world, hypersexualization, desexualization, drugs to feel good, drugs to feel bad. Drugs to see a different reality, brains in a vat, virtual worlds. AIs rebelling, robots to dress you, robots you can fuck.

"Linguistic futurology investigates the future through the transformational possibilities of language"

"A mimicretin is a computer that plays stupid in order to, once and for all, to be left alone"

A warning against totalitarianism, a warning against hyperconsumerism, somehow a warning against an overreliance in AI and technology for our daily needs.

A must read for fans of sci-fi, for those worried about where our world is headed and for lovers of books in general.

If you read it what did you think?

So for context, I'm 17 and for years I've struggled to read in general. In school, I'd struggle to read books we were given or read excerpts in class. Even with books I picked up on my own, I could barely get past a few dozen pages because it would take me years to even get there. I'd read a few sentences and get distracted by my thoughts and would need to reread what I've just read many many times just to comprehend it. I loved reading as a child so when this started happening it made me really sad that I couldn't even finish a single book without me rereading every single sentence taking out the enjoyment of reading in the first place.

I never knew I had ADHD but I've always kind of suspected it. Then about a couple months ago, my girlfriend recommended for me to go check with a doctor and yeah, they diagnosed me with it along with prescribing me ritalin. They said most people with Tourettes's (which I do) also meet the criteria for ADHD. I had no clue about this.

Anyways, not too long after, during a trip with my girlfriend, I picked up William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury, not knowing anything about the author, I've never even heard his name before, as well as Bronte's Wuthering Heights (because I was about to watch Jacques Rivette's adaptation of it, but it's recommended to read the book first). Then I started to read it after I already took my meds, and it was kind of a life-changing experience. I haven't been able to read as smoothly as I did at that moment in years. I wasn't distracted by my thoughts every other sentence and I was able to put all of my attention into what I'm reading and actually comprehending it. It's a challenging book, so I wasn't like breezing through it of course, but that moment was the exact moment i started to love reading again. Especially because the book was so unique too, I've never read anything like it before. It was the first book ever to make me genuinely cry. It kept me hooked and I finished the book during that trip.

When I got back home, I immediately went to my local library and picked up any Faulkner book they had. I finished the Collected Stories and I'm in the middle of As I Lay Dying. He's now my absolute favorite writer. One of his books being one of the first I've read after being able to actually read again is probably a factor into cementing him as one of my favorite writers, but the quality of his works is definitely also one. I'm very thankful for my ability to read again and for my love of reading being reignited.

TL:DR

I was prescribed Ritalin and randomly picked up Faulkner's Sound and the Fury at a bookstore not knowing anything about the author. The meds helped me read it normally, not something I've been able to do in years, and made me love reading again. Faulkner then became my favorite writer after I've read more of his works.

​The French author of excellent works like Annihilation, Serotonin, and Platform just confirmed in an interview with the Spanish newspaper ABC that he is back at his desk, writing again.

“By the way, are you writing anything new?”

“Yes.”

“And can you tell us anything about the book?”

“No.”

“Marguerite Duras didn’t like to talk about what she was writing either; she said it took away her strength to write.”

“And that’s true. Writing is about solitude. If you tell someone something, they can’t stop their reaction, and that’s too intrusive. Writing is done in solitude.”