Haven't read Dunsany (yet), but I'm quite a fan of Sanderson, and it's really clear how much writing has changed in recent years. I'm not someone who "sees" the things they read, but Sanderson's novels really do feel like a movie with more details.

It was horrible. I didn't have a library membership at the time, and I can't believe I spent money on it. Total garbage.

No doubt. All reading counts, now more than ever.

Curious how it is that almost every downvoted comment here also contains criticism of—or indifference to—McCarthy's book. Astounding how our supposed literati of intellectual giants seem utterly incapable of engaging in good faith debate or unwilling to defend a criticised work in favour of hit-and-run cowardice.

Please post 'Should I read X book''What do I need to know before I read X' questions, in our Weekly Recommendation Thread.

I just finished this book and felt the same way. It felt so strung together and the too graphic sex scenes next to the child abuse scenes were extremely weird. I kept thinking there would be something to tie everything together but it just fizzled out at the end with a shrug. I think if the main character had been hallucinating the faking that would have been way more interesting. I just found out about the extra chapter which honestly just makes the ending even worse.

I tend to read books as a whole and don't consider the individual chapters, although maybe this is my sign to start looking at the chapter as its own thing.

I don't know about best of all time, but I remember being really moved in Rabbit, Run by John Updike, when we finally see his wife's perspective. Throughout the whole book, we kind of hear from every character, but we only see Jan through Rabbit's eyes (and it's not flattering). Then when we see her on her own and the terrible climax of the book happens, I felt like I understood exactly how she had ended up in that spot, and felt empathy for her.

It's a good idea but you might find that you can't absorb the plot as easily, or forgetting key details. If you read slowly like this, you might want to also annotate / take notes on what's going on.

No, it isn’t bad literature, it’s just not for you. I find it quite illuminating how counting books by the words converges with “nothing happens for pages”.

Hi there. Your post would be better asked in our Simple Questions thread. It helps us keep the main subreddit focused around broader discussion rather topics which only apply to an individual. Thank you!

Yes! Our book club got a big kick out of the absurdity.

Do whatever feels right, suits you and your lifestyle...I personally have about a 100 unread books in my bookshelf, and read whenever I have the time and energy...like you, I like to focus on what I'm reading, so some days, I'll read 2 pages of each book (currently reading 3, technically 4) some days none, some days 10 or even more...as a result though, it takes me a looooong time to read a book (usually 2 or 3 months)

I wouldn't say most people read a novel in a couple days. Maybe most people who spend time talking about reading online do. I'd say it's very common for readers to read what they can in a day. That's one of the perks of a book is you can pick up and leave off at a whim.

Hence, why I said just a grain. Many urban legends have a kernel of truth to them.

Oh absolutely, the idea that witchcraft was a pagan religion being supressed is nonsense.

Witches were considered Christians, just flawed ones. Midwives and others would have actually been used to help carry out the witch trials, to search women for the alleged "marks of the devil".

The reality is that if you were a woman, disease and starvation were a far bigger anxiety than witchcraft accusations.

The number of women allegedly burned (witches were normally hanged, rather than burned, as burning was a punishment for heretics and witches weren't considered heretics) is always massively exaggerated.

Asimov really didnt write good characters at all. His books are basically great premises for short stories that turned into books. He didnt write about people he wrote about ideas.

So I think what has most people in this thread so hot and bothered is not that you didn't like Asimov, specifically; it's that you leaped immediately to saying that he's a bad writer.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it's perceived as fairly immature and self-centered to equate "I don't like this" to "it must be bad." Personally, I hate the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Herman Melville, and Hemingway, but I'm not gonna say they're bad writers.

It's okay to not like something and just move on, but I guess that wouldn't be very Reddit.

Me too! I really enjoyed it.

I still find it hilarious that it was a Father’s Day selection for Oprah’s Book Club. I mean, the epitome of interns making a recommendation based on the synopsis, without reading the book. Conceptually I get it: it’s a father protecting his child. But I have to imagine an awkward gathering of book club ladies silently staring into their wine glasses, wondering how many others in the discussion group Did Not Finish.

That said, the novel contains magically lyrical passages about being a parent in a dangerous world. There’s no writer like McCarthy.

I recently discovered that the research behind Terry Pratchett’s midwife-witches was flawed. He’d got the idea from the writer Lovecraft who he was parodying. Lovecraft had picked up on the ideas of a writer and a biologist, Barbara Ehrenreich and Dierdre English. It seems that not being historians they made a natural mix up by not having read the original documents, only later opinions. They were absolutely correct on both of their main ideas - 

* one that witchcraft accusations had been a way of policing and repressing women’s behaviour in the past, and 

* two that midwives were eventually pushed out of medicine by so-called ‘real’ doctors. * Their mistake was lumping the two groups together. 

Midwives were pushed out by doctors but weren’t persecuted with the witches. Witches, and many innocent women along the way, were persecuted but wouldn’t have been recognised as professional midwives.

​

They did have an important role in society and witchcraft was one of the few ways a woman could make an independent living. They were who you went to if you wanted to know about your future and probably gave advice along the way. You went to them if you had a grudge and wanted to get back at the person you were blaming with a curse. Some did useful herbalist and faith healer work too. 

​

Historians have checked the records and found that while midwives occasionally appear among the lists of people accused or executed for witchcraft, it was no more than any other profession or position in society. Also the church wouldn’t have mixed the two up as midwives get a good rap in the bible but witches don’t. 

​

I still love the witches characters but have to do a bit more gymnastics in my head now when he mixes up the witch, midwife and traditional healer roles. I know this is fantasy, and Discworld at that, but he’s so thorough in other historical details about traditional sheep rearing, relationships between the Lord of the Manor and the village, or describing how Granny made her hat with willow sticks it disappoints me a little that he’d been misled. This “ Dig'' podcast has the details and all the references in the show notes in the link. It’s proper studies not opinion.

​

https://digpodcast.org/2020/09/06/doctor-healer-midwife-witch-how-the-the-womens-health-movement-created-the-myth-of-the-midwife-witch/

“The reverse movie version of World War 2” in Slaughterhouse 5

A belief so stong you could bend irony round it.

not sure if this counts, but theres quite a few theories claiming Shakespeare didnt actuallly write his plays, with historical figures of the time, such as Shakespeares friend Christopher Marlowe and the philosopher Francis Bacon. in fact major details of his life are somewhat uncertain. these are all fringe theories tho.

I liked it, but it didn’t blow my skirt up. I adored Dune and all the rest of the books in that series. There is a difference in…almost the mindset of the writer between that series and all the others. For me, any novels, almost especially science fiction novels, including Foundation, written by men forty or more years ago are a little problematic. I read Rendezvous with Rama around the same time and the blatant sexism kicked me out of my reading flow badly. And Friday. I read that as a young girl and loved it, but when I reread it the main character is such a manic pixie dream girl.

Anyway there’s my two cents. Please, no one attack me for being a woman who reads scifi.

Lmao, I realised, I totally misunderstood the question, sorry and thanks

that’s one of the books i was going to read depending on how this book went… as you can see i won’t be reading that one