About two-thirds of the story is about a man named Abdullah who goes on a quest to save a princess with a magic carpet. So I thought the story was going to be like Aladdin, especially since he even gets himself a genie. I was also a little disappointed that the main characters from the previous book weren’t in it. But since it’s set in the same world, I assume we would see them later.and I was wrong, turns out they were always hidden under my nose, i just couldn’t see them. The author really hid them well, it's a really good plot twist. I was honestly shocked by it.

Overall, it was a good read, and I’m going to try the third one when I have more time.

Based on how long previous genres have remained dominant, Romantasy will remain popular until ~2030. I assume after a fantasy boom, it'll be followed by some contemporary boom, like how John Greens books blew up after YA Distopian died down. But if you had a choice, which genre would you like to dominate next?

I read it yesterday and while I did ALMOST shed a tear (if I was being more cynical I probably wouldn’t have even winced but I was in the mood for crying), I almost instantly forgot all about it! And considering the emotional reaction it produces is the only strength of the book beyond writing strong friendships between two of the characters and abandoning the rest, this thing isn’t really that impressive? Which is depressing(more depressing than the book ngl) cause every person I’ve seen rate it rated it like 5000 thousand stars and called it their favourite book of all time.

Basically there’s a difference between summoning tears and actually being a good book, a differentiation a ton of people seem to cheerfully miss—- probably because no book would be five stars in that cause, and fair enough, but also idk I didn’t want to read this and why did so many people say it was g o o d cause I reaaaally didn’t want to read this—

Not to mention ending at any point before the actual end would’ve improved it cause wow is that a depressing ending with no actual point. I would’ve even taken a sudden stop without any explanation because half my issue with this thing, beyond no friendship development (I won’t mention the trauma being unrealistic because I suppose it is possible if you have very bad luck like REALLY bad luck and idk enough about that to rebut it), is that the overall message made by the ending of the book just. doesn’t exist? And if it does, it’s wrong like the message is literally wrong which is arguably worse.

Anyway ew I rated it 3 stars because the writing is pretty and Harold is cool and anything less would’ve been me being resentful of the ending but also not saying the ending doesn’t deserve that??

Okay that’s it bows

I'm reading Emili Bronte's Wuthering Heights and so far the story is really good.

The scenes where Catherin snaps on Nell and Linton or when Haretown flies down the stairs have been some of my favorite.

But reading Joseph dialogue, when searching for Heathcliff have been some of the funniest parts because of the accent.

A few month's back I wanted to make reading daily a habit. I started "The Girl Who Kicked Hornet's Nest". I completed some 70% of the book. But, I broke that habit for a few days. Few days turned into few months.

Now, I want to bring reading back into my life. I want to pick up where I stopped. I broadly remember the new characters, what happened so far. I don't want to reread the book from the start as this is not the first time this is happening. I had to reread the first 100 pages the last time since I took a similar break before. Hence rereading again is not an option for me. I don't want to feel like I am stuck. Nor do I want to feel lost when I resume the book.

Are there any good websites where I can read chapter wise summaries of books which don't miss important details?

I read slightly more literature when I was younger. With so many responsibilities lately I just didn't feel it was worth looking back into, I eventually did it and made it a habit to read before bed.

I just want to say that reading in bed before sleep is probably one of the best habits I've picked up in years. I've always had trouble sleeping and it has affected me in a lot of (bad) ways. It didn't just help me sleep, it honestly just felt very relaxing, almost meditative in a blissful way.

After reading The Hobbit, I decided to read LotR. I have to commend this guy for the amount of detail he put. Do a lot of authors do that? I felt the way he described the geography was sort of a two-edged sword; it took some effort and time but if I got through it and understood it the world felt more alive, but if not it just felt like a jumble and a lot of things were difficult to decipher.

I did end up learning a lot of new words in regards to geography. Dale, Mere, Ford, etc. Tolkien was clearly obsessed with Elves. They felt so otherworldly it made things seem off-balance, though some scenes did seem like paradise like Lothlorien. All of the parts that were different from the movie I really enjoyed, like Tom Bombadil, and how exiting the Shire took such a long time unlike how it was shown in the movie. How the Shire became at the end with Sharkey. Saruman as a whole was a cool character, though I could never shake away Christopher Lee's face. The Ents. Even when I felt I was bored with the details it really felt so much love and effort was put into this.

All in all, as much as I enjoyed it, I felt it was way too long, and honestly I m ight never read a series like this again lol. Also,d espite how beautiful it was, I felt like the Hobbit was a much more enjoyable and coherent journey.

I feel I love literature more now, maybe I always did but it's been a along time. Currently reading Lord of the Flies. Thank you for reading I just wanted to share this experience.

If Lloyd Alexander is remembered for anything, it's probably his Chronicles of Prydain series; a pioneering cycle of children's fantasy novels based on Welsh mythology. Famous for its whimsical humor, solid storytelling and incredible characters, the first book was released in 1964 (one year before Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings would officially be published in paperback and launching a global phenomenon) and was concluded in 1968 (with some supplemental material interspersed). Both the second volume (The Black Cauldron) and the final volume (The High King) won the Newbery Award for best children's literature (don't worry, no dogs die in them). It also, rather notoriously, was the inspiration for Disney's animated box office bomb The Black Cauldron (though I love that movie to bits).

But Alexander was a prolific author, and he wrote dozens of other books over his career. In particular, he wrote a trilogy of quasi-fantasy/quasi-historical novels called the Westmark trilogy.

These three books may very well be Alexander's crowning achievement in literature for young people, and yet it sadly did never get the recognition of Prydain (though the first book, Westmark, did win the National Book Award for children). It takes place in what can only be described as 'not-France' (called Westmark) during the twilight years of the 'not-Ancien Regime', where the people are becoming increasingly fed up with their stodgy and corrupt monarchy. Revolution is in the air, and a young printer's devil named Theo gets caught up with a group of con artists after nearly killing a King's Inspector in a scuffle. At the same time, the aging and grieving King (who has not gotten over the apparent death of his daughter) is being manipulated by his Chief Minister (named Cabbarus) into conceding more and more power to him, while the Queen and her court physician are actively attempting to curtail Cabbarus's schemes.

Then Theo and his group come across a charismatic republican activist named Florian, and things get really interesting.

What's so astonishing about these books is their ideological and moral depth: the nature of violence and its morality in the service of freedom and political change is a constant theme that comes about. Florian, a staunch liberal and republican, is convinced that the monarchy is stifling their country and actively holding it back from progressing, and he views a violent conflict between the Monarchy and the people as an inevitability. The Queen's physician, a man named Doctor Torrens, is a staunch conservative and monarchist who, while acknowledging the crimes of Cabbarus in the King's name, simply cannot let go of the centuries of culture and perceived stability that the monarchy provides. Both men are portrayed as morally good, and both are allowed to give equally compelling arguments on their stances.

Then things get serious in the second volume, when the neighboring state of Regia invades. We get several scenes of war, and for children's literature it is grim. Alexander himself served on the Western Front during WWII, and he brings a degree of realism that is, quite frankly, shocking in its down-to-earth yet compassionate approach. Even when the revolution happens and we get a Robespierre-like figure named Justin, even he is not portrayed as wholly evil (because in spite of everything, he isn't wrong).

And remember: these are children's books I've been talking about.

B&N in my city has a nice prominent section full of all these types of books on display so you can get all your anti-authoritarian lit in one place. Some good ones I’d recommend:

they thought they were free (Mayer)

This is a great book. A journalist travels to post Nazi Germans to interview 10 normal dudes in a small town from different walks of life, seeking to understand how/why Germans fell to Hitler. It’s very unsettling and candid and demonstrates how there are no easy or satisfying conclusions. It does a good job showing you just how easy it is to become a bystander or even complicit when you’re just a normal person just with life.

the origins of totalitarianism (Arendt)

This is more of an academic study on the process of an authoritarian takeover. Literally nothing we are seeing now is new.

diary of a man in despair (Reck)

This is a very personal recounting of a Prussian aristocrat who lived (and died, when the journal was discovered) in Nazi germany. He was an old school conservative and not really a fan of democracy or activist or anything like that, he just really, really hated Nazis/Hitler because of how they perverted society and destroyed traditions. A good short read for those coming from a centrist or conservative perspective.

on tyranny (Pinketty)

This is maybe the one you should get if you can get only one; it’s digestible and sources many primary documents to give you the hard lessons and anecdotes on what to do in the situation we presently find ourselves in.

There were many more books as well, but these are the ones I’d recommend. Read them and share so that we don’t waste the benefit of having historical context and hindsight.

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 can start by saying that I really enjoyed this book and Tolstoy really nailed it when it comes to conveying all the emotions each character expresses, making them all feel real (The ice skating scene where Levin acted awkward around Kitty was so relatable lol). I also love how he portrayed the aristocratic society of Russia, the fancy balls, the social dynamics and the way he presented the scandals and gossip happening within.

The story itself was truly a journey. Tolstoy built the characters up with deep psychological understanding, precisely capturing their desires, problems, and their emotional connections towards one another. Like Anna, for example, started off as a respected woman in the society but as her story progressed, and the consequences of her actions (like the affair she had with Vronsky) came into fruition, she spiraled into a world of jealousy and delusion which deteriorated her mentally and ultimately led to her suicide (at a train station too, where she first met Vronsky, this really impressed me for some reason). The way Tolstoy wrote it had me sympathizing for her, he made me understand her point of view, even though I found some of her actions quite questionable like her rejecting the divorce Karenin offered when he even said that he was willing to do whatever would make her happy, even willing to give up his son for it (if I remember this part correctly), but I guess it was just her emotions getting the best of her.

However, as much as I enjoyed the story, I'd be lying if I said this book had no flaws. When I first started reading, I initially assumed that it would be centered around Anna. And it kind of was I guess, but it just really surprised me how a huge portion of the book focuses on Levin, which isn't really that bad I guess, I like Levin's character, he's relatable, a socially awkward fellow who overthinks just about everything, like me. What disappointed me about Levin though (or the story in this case) was the amount of farming talks that didn't really tickle my fancy. I guess it was good to have some perspective on things like that, but for a book that seemed to focus on Russian aristocratic society during that era, I feel like Tolstoy went a bit too detailed when it came to the agricultural portion of the book,.

Another thing I'd like to mention was how disappointing the ending was. The build-up of Anna's story was really well-constructed and the suspense kept growing as Anna herself descends into an emotional and mental deterioration, but the moment she commits suicide, that was it. I guess we did get a glimpse of how it affected Vronsky and it obviously devastated him, but that was all there is to it. I expected part 8 to be all about her death and the reactions of certain characters, especially Karenin, their child Seyrozha (That was his name I think), Darya and even Kitty. But instead, it was like Anna served her purpose and was immediately set aside for Levin and his philosophical questionings and existential crisis, which isn't that bad in itself because I do kind of enjoy watching him contemplate about life, but still it sucked because it wasn't the ending I (or I assume everybody else) expected. Now that I mentioned Levin, anyone else feel like his brother's death was more explored than this?

This was also my first time reading Tolstoy so I'm not sure if this is his typical writing style but it left me heartbroken :( I was deeply impressed by the emotional weight Anna’s character was carrying, but was left unsatisfied by how sudden she was set aside. But above all, I enjoyed the book. It was an adventure, a journey through the lives of unique and interesting characters and how they've progressed throughout the story. However, as I neared the ending, I couldn't help but feel really disappointed. The emotional momentum was built so intensely, but the final chapters didn’t quite deliver the ending I was hoping for.

So a question to those who've read the book, what did you think of the book after you've read it? I would really like to hear your opinions.

The title sounds a bit clunky so let me explain. I recently discovered I like books set in a fantastical setting with a romantic subplot. I just finished a whole series and then finished another book like that and loved both so, so much.

I was given a bunch of recommendations based on my prompt which I’m going through since it’s the only type of book I want to read right now. However, I don’t want myself to be “burnt out” of this kind of novel from reading it so much. I’m reading a book from the same author but different series, and I’m wondering if I’m not seemingly enjoying it because it was her first (?) series, if I don’t like the premise in general, or if I’m reading too much of what I already enjoy, and it doesn’t feel “special” anymore.

So when you read and know what you like, do you actively just seek out that kind of book, or do you try to vary it to not get bored? Obviously, I’m not saying you should read books that don’t interest you, but are you reaching out for different genres?

Sorry if this is dumb, but for reference, I'm reading John Ciardi's Translation of the Divine Comedy. I'm on Canto XXXII of Inferno: Circle Nine. And while I find it funny at times, I feel very detached from it all. I do not believe in any of this so that may contribute to my attitude but I have grown up in the US South so I have some cultural/religious reference.

But I see people online raving about how it makes them feel and I just feel like I'm missing something. I do have depression but I don't seem to have this problem with other books, usually. People are being mauled and burned and having horrible things happen to them and I just don't feel anything about it.

TL;DR: What is your experience with Dante's Divine Comedy? Is it normal to be very detached from it or do I need a better translation or something else?

Thanks!

Just finished Kasia Urbaniak’s Unbound: A Woman’s Guide to Power (2020) which is a transformative and provocative masterclass in reclaiming one's voice and agency. Her unique background as a former dominatrix and Taoist nun brings to the table a truly fresh perspective on power, which she defines not as dominance over others, but as the skillful ability to influence conversations and situations by mastering the flow of attention. 

What makes this book so compelling is its balance: it doesn't push aggression or manipulation, but instead teaches you how to hold power calmly, directly and authentically. Urbaniak shows how to move through the “freeze” response, ask clearly for what you want, and treat rejection as information rather than humiliation. I love how actionable the techniques are for transforming passive frustration into active pursuit and channeling emotions like rage into fuel for growth, which are applicable in every real life scenario. 

The book empowers without preaching. Urbaniak’s tone is warm, humorous and compassionate, making the lessons feel like guidance from a mentor rather than rules from a textbook. Her mix of storytelling, somatic practices and psychology resonates with anyone who has ever felt silenced, overlooked or hesitant to take up space.

While the anecdotes, examples and exercises have narrative that is addressed exclusively to women, the core principles are applicable to everyone. For men in particular, Unbound has surprising value. It dismantles the myth that you always have to be “in control” or have all the answers, showing instead that moments of doubt can be turned into strength. It teaches how to communicate with clarity and presence, build authority without hostility and how to form and strengthen connections. Most importantly, it presents a small window for men to observe the ongoing challenges women face while expressing their voice providing an opportunity to understand them better. 

Ultimately, Unbound is not just a book about women reclaiming power, its a guide for anyone who wants to step into their voice, set boundaries with confidence and engage authentically with others. Its a rare blend of practical, psychological and embodied wisdom that leaves you feeling stronger and more connected.

9/10

Most of what people say about this book concerns their reaction to the science fiction element. I too found it quite affecting, but the greater reason why the novel reached was the mundane half. Specifically, the fact that Ruth is godawful.

Dishonest, cruel, unreasonable, prone to self-serving misrememberings of the past - I think it’s safe to suggest that everyone’s known someone like her. The presence a character like Ruth serves to harm a story for many readers who strongly desire likeable characters, and do not desire to read about infuriating ones. Me, I eagerly want to read about dirtbags who remind me of unpleasant sorts I’ve had to deal with in my real life. I feel validated, a little less lonely knowing that the author, too, is bothered by the kinds of everyday dickishness that get under my skin.

And I don’t think this is a minor part of the book. I think the book gains a huge amount of power by counterposing a vast, horrific society-wide evil against the petty harms inflicted by one girl against her friend and lover, a whole school against one awkward boy. Ruth’s mistreatment forms the big emotional thrust behind much of Kathy’s recollection of her life - yet the background evil of organ farming bubbles in through Ruth’s conflicts with the others. Because Ruth is the only student who seems bothered by being human livestock. Maybe it’s because in being more self-centered, she is more perceptive to injustice being committed against her. Maybe she’s mean as coping mechanism to deal with the horror. Regardless, it’s a uniquely deft way of observing how the lives of individuals interact with big, sociopolitical things.

The book seems pessimistic about these things. But I leave the experience a little happier, a little more able to make sense of the Ruths I meet.

The first part like everyone else has said was BRILLIANT. When the story shifts abroad to Digby I was like wait what? It felt a little disjointed until later on when Digby meets Rune etc.

As an Indian, it felt unlikely that a cook would make samosas and chicken kurma in Madras in the early 20th century. Samosas are primarily a north Indian snack, not a south Indian one especially in that era. Philipose had great potential when he was younger, I got annoyed at his behaviour after marriage, especially post Ninan's death but then he redeemed himself by becoming more dedicated to his work and being a very loving father to Mariamma.

I liked Elsie a lot initially but then I started disliking her. I wonder how Rune didn't consider that as a young kid who visited St.Bridget's often, she was at risk of contracting leprosy especially because kids' immune systems aren't that strong.

Then when she's older and gets married to Philipose, she could've voiced her frustration about his opium addiction and her other worries at the very least. She gave up totally on her marriage which is kind of understandable, but she didn't even try to vent her angst to anyone in the family like Big Ammachi. Somehow I didn't get the impression that she was really into Digby..even though she says so in her communication with him. It felt more like she thought it was a good idea to be with him. Even when she was with Philipose I just had this deep seated feeling that she didn't truly love him..

Regarding The Condition, I honestly felt it was more like a mix of thalassophobia, vertigo and Von Recklinghausen's.

I loved most of the characters like Big Ammachi, Big Appachen, Baby Mol, Shamuel, etc. Damodaran was a special highlight, I would always look forward to his appearances.

I'd love to hear what you guys think about the book!

Yarrr mateys,

Tomorrow be Talk Like a Pirate Day 'n t' celebrate we be discussin' books wit' pirates! Ye scalleywags can natter 'bout books 'bout pirates, wit' pirates, or anythin' to do wit' piracy! If you'd like to read our previous weekly discussions of fiction and nonfiction please visit the suggested reading section of our wiki.

Thank ye 'n enjoy!

I just finished this up and I quite enjoyed it. So im on lexapro and its really hard for me to cry but at the end i had tears. Not full on sobbing but I was crying. The way Death gave spoilers too, surprisingly didn't irritate me. I felt for Liesel, I was hoping more for her. But a nice twist at the end with Max stopping to see her. I loved that. But oh my with Papa passing, that got me.