City of Theives is a very straightforward story with friendship and a fast paced adventure. It's a good beginner book I think. The book Atomic Habits is excellent but TLDR it teaches to make tiny commitments, like 5 or 10 minutes per day to start a habit.

The Lions of Al Rassan, the Adventures of Dunk and Egg, the Deed of Paksenarrion and Surrender None, the Dragon and the George and sequels

Black Sabbath - Children of the Grave

I like the rambling over descriptive language Collins uses, I didn't find it to be that much of a slog. I found it spooky and suspense building.

I never thought any of the characters were really supposed to be likeable, just unique and flawed. It's like a slow motion train wreck.

I really liked the twist, it seems all the more crazy when presented in flowery fancy British English.

Hey I’m active in many bookclubs and we manage to get pretty deep in discussions without specific spoilers. But somehow I must have missed seeing a ‘spoiler’ tag on the original post, and the comment also wasn’t marked as a spoiler, otherwise I’d simply have skimmed over. Now I won’t bother reading the book.

Wasn’t the whole thread tagged as a spoiler? And if people are discussing their opinions on a book wouldn’t you expect them to use examples from the book to back up their opinions? Or is everyone just supposed to say “it’s good” or “it’s bad” without any context?

I read it six years ago so my memory of specifics is pretty fuzzy but I loved the novel. The multiple narrators kept the story moving, Count Fosco is a great character, especially for readers of the modern Pendergast novels, and I found the comedic parts quite hilarious. And to quote from the review I wrote years ago, now I must go because "my hour for tea is half-past five, and my buttered toast waits for nobody."

I am not fond of this book either. I am also surprised by its high ratings/reviews and best-seller status. The novel reminds me of a so-so Netflix movie. You see what it was trying to do, and there were some cute moments, but overall, nothing landed or stuck with you. It was a very surface-level novel. Sadie to me was just so unlikeable. In the beginning her character had promise, but then it was really hard to like her. Espeically when she essentially blamed Sam for getting back together with Dov and then never really had a breakthrough or self-awareness as to why she shouldn't blame others for her actions.

In another thread on this book, I also mentioned that sometimes the writing was a little disjointed. Zevin would use more obscure words (which I do appreciate), but in the actual sentence, it did not seem to fit. For example, palimpsest. The way she used that word when I looked it up did not really fit its' proper or commonly used meaning.

I used to tell people that Hemingway got me into writing but now I keep it close to the vest. Not that he’s a bad writer or anything, but just in today’s climate, more often than not, if you rep a problematic writer you need to come equipped with a sword and shield to defend them haha

Question: Were there 'Literature sensations' like the 'Go set a watchman' release in the last decades? Or what were sensations in the last decades?

I also found it melodramatic. Melodrama can be awesome but it needs to want to be melodrama and really work it. I didn’t feel that here.

I do think it’s very hard to make a work of art about one kind of art in the form of another- a book about movies, a video game about books, a painting about music. But yeah I just wanted so much more than this one ended up having for me.

I assumed this would be quickly deleted though I did not predict the time frame.

I read COM while super sick with COVID and couldn’t figure out what was going on at all until the end. I had to reread it after I recovered, and realized it was supposed to be that way! I think maybe it started as a separate standalone book from the COT series, and the author felt it would fit in well with that series during writing. I loved all three, but Ruin was the weakest in my opinion.

There is no antisemitism in HP. The whole idea was made up by spin doctors. The dwarves aren't antisemitic symbols either. There were many celebrity antisemitic writers in England while Tolkien was working - Chesterton, Belloc, Eliot, Sassoon for four. They were completely explicit about it, no secret coding. Anyone in Tolkien's position could have got away with it. But he didn't have anything to do with that gang.

Rowling's attitudes to trans people postdate the HP books. And at this point she can afford to take the attitude that any publicity is good publicity.

Oh god, I’m still reeling from the Ayn Rand worship thread from yesterday.

I’ve got the penguin classics edition, already had it so it was too late to pick the best. I did get P&V’s Crime and Punishment though :)

I feel like this is a post meant for a subreddit with a focus on sociology or something. Ethics?

I don't think being a fan of an invented world makes you anything in this world.

I understand that if you take into account JK's persona, and the coding of them or whatever, it seems like she was talking about Jews. But as far as the story is considered, the Goblins are just Goblins.

The story itself is art. It's expression, it's a journey, it's not the author. Even if it's a 'bad' story, someone can and will glean something of value from it. Something good. Even if it's a subversion of what the story is.

I hate censorship of art.

Yeah I found the dialogue around the book really misleading once I'd read it. She had a lot of theories, but none of them fit the guy who was ultimately caught. And the investigations were languishing but clearly active, that's how she got so much info after all, by talking to investigators who were still trying to figure it out.

You could definitely attribute the popularity of the GSK (and that name) to her, but not any of the actual solving. He was caught through DNA, like so many are.

I will mention though, that the GSK was actually found by a civilian genealogist personally uploading a DNA sample (from one of the rapes) to a civilian genealogy website as if she were a normal person, and then using the suggested family connections to figure out who he was. This was all in violation of the genealogy websites usage agreements (other databases had also been searched legally, but this one was not aware and had not agreed to disclose customer info in this way).

It's entirely possible that if this had gone to court it would have been thrown out, and there are some really questionable privacy issues at play, so I have wondered and heard others wondering if Michelle McNamara and her book were useful distractions away from how this guy was actually caught.

I wasn’t referring to anti-trans rhetoric when it came to Tolkien, I was talking about Rowling being a transphobe despite the fact that it’s 2023 and she’s still standing by the idea that trans peoples identities aren’t valid.

The dwarves were characterized as selfish and greedy when it came to matters of the Arkenstone and their wealth.

[deleted]

Look at the OP's profile. It is either bait or this is one seriously confused person. I'm going to have to start reviewing all profiles before I comment. I get suckered in to too much insanity when I don't.

Is there a book out there about how not to be rude and elitist? If there is, I recommend it to you.

Ian Curtis was a big Burrough's fan although the author snubbed him when they met.

I think I just have an aversion to "what is the best book" type of questions. I feel like the iceberg metaphors are basically the same thing. I just don't see that books need to be ranked. Does everything need to be a competition? Isn't literature more of a collaborative effort?

But please don't get me wrong. This isn't really directed towards your post.

Well said!💃🏼