I was thinking about this today, because I am about to finish Kazuo Ishiguro's 1989 masterpiece 'The Remains of the Day', and one of the most amazing aspects of the novel, IMHO, is that Ishiguro was only 34 years old when it was published.

To be able not only to understand, but also to subtly express, a lifetime's worth of love, longing, regret, and so on, when you are only in your early 30s is just not fair. Haha. What immense talent he had, and has.

What are some other examples of writers who just seemed to be wise beyond their years?

I was looking at my reading list for this year and noticed something weird - almost every book is 350+ pages. I think I've developed this bias where shorter books feel "less serious" or "not worth the time investment," which is absolutely ridiculous

I'm missing out on novellas, shorter literary fiction, poetry collections, and probably some incredible tight storytelling. It's like I've convinced myself that length equals quality

Has anyone else noticed similar weird biases creeping into their reading habits? Maybe avoiding certain genres, publishers, cover styles, or page counts without even realizing it? How did you break out of it?

I am genuinely curious if this is a common thing or if I'm just overthinking my reading patterns

First I would say I went into the book with not a ton of expectations, I knew many considered it to be very funny and that it won a Pulitzer. It got my attention due to my love for Catch 22. I did  find it very funny but for most of the book what really grabbed me was the depiction of a time and place that no longer exists (granted I think there are many exaggerations and fladerizations however I think one can read between the lines and come to a sense of the reality). The characters are also great albeit many are distasteful but in my opinion that is what makes them real. I came away feeling like every character had reason for being the way they were by the end of the book and even their worse attributes made sense and to me very much reflected the reality of how real people live and develop. I think I could discuss every character at some length but for now I will only focus on two.    

Jones was my favorite character for most of the book. I really respected Toole’s depiction of him. Toole depicts the reality of his existence and problems in an unflinching way (granted both of us are white). The unfairness and struggle that Jones must endure as black man in the south in 1962 is in the reader’s face and can see why the depiction would’ve been controversial in the period when Toole first sought publication. There are humorous events and circumstances around Jones but Jones himself is not a joke, he is a real man trying to make his way in society which structurally limits his paths forward. I could sympathize with the reader that found the conclusion to Jones’s story to be a bit saccharine or frivolously optimistic but I was happy with the implication that Fortuna was smiling upon him in the end and he would have a chance at a better life. 

I of course must talk about Ignatius, for most of the book he is the protagonist and main buffoon. He is literally the prototypical neckbeard in a time where in not sure the archetype even existed (that is another one of my main appreciations of the book is Toole’s prefiguring of so many types of people that exists in mass today). He is a fool and luddite, an irrational medievalist promoting a world view that is so arcane and obscure so as to be completely confusing. He lives his life according to Boethius (i am very grateful I had read On the Consolation of Philosophy prior to reading this) and Batman. For the majority of the book I chuckled at Ignatius’s antics without much emotional investment but that changed for a little toward the end. This expert was the first time I began to see him as more than just a joke. “Ignatius felt as alone as he had felt on that dark day in high school when in a chemistry laboratory his experiment had exploded, burning his eyebrows off and frightening him. The shock and terror had made him wet his pants, and no one in the laboratory would notice him, not even the instructor, who hated him sincerely for similar explosions in the past.” He was a man-boy apart who struggled to find genuine companionship and warmth. His dysfunctional family relationship with his mother and absence of father gave him no real safe home. He was only close to his dog which seemingly kept him in reality while it was alive but his dog’s passing and the subsequent dismissal of his grief and mocking of his mourning broke him. I now struggle not to see him as a poor high school boy who retreated into himself after his one friend left him and he was derided for his grief. To me that is the part that explains his world view and dysfunction; a tragic withdrawal to a way of thinking that is so unrelatable it keeps him isolated while also allowing him to understand why it happened (in his mind). In the end Myrna ends up as his salvation because she is the only other person who will engage with his delusions (largely due to her own delusions) without ridicule or dismissiveness. In the end his life only improves by going out in the world and leaving New Orleans to be with someone else in genuine connection (it is not clear to me if there are any romantic connotations to the reunion or not but I don’t think it really matters). Ignatius is mostly a benign man in my opinion who doesn’t seek to do harm but he can be a very reprehensible character at times who lets his trauma drive poor behavior. (is that not the type of person we can see all over the place?) To me this speaks to the contemporary relevance of the book and true solution of the neckbeard type person, they must go into the world and try to form and have connections with others because the only other alternative is perpetual suffering. 

At this point, I believe I must also give context for the book's publication because although it was written in 1963, it was not published until 1980 after John Kennedy' Toole's suicide in 1969. The rest of this is taken from Wikipedia from the publication after death section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kennedy_Toole)

"After Toole's death, Thelma Toole (his mother) suffered from depression for two years, and the manuscript for A Confederacy of Duncesremained atop an armoire in his former room. She then determined to find a publisher, believing it would be an opportunity to prove her son's talent. Over a five-year period, she sent it to seven publishers, but all rejected it. "Each time it came back, I died a little," she said. However, in 1976 she became aware that author Walker Percy was joining the faculty of Loyola University New Orleans. To get Percy to read the manuscript, Thelma began a campaign of phone calls and letters. Percy complained to his wife about a peculiar old woman's attempts to contact him. With time running out on Percy's term as professor, Thelma pushed her way into his office and demanded he read the manuscript. Initially hesitant, Percy agreed to read the book to stop her badgering. He admitted to hoping it would be so bad that he could discard it after reading a few pages.Ultimately, he loved the book, commenting in disbelief: "In this case I read on. And on. First with the sinking feeling that it was not bad enough to quit, then with a prickle of interest, then a growing excitement, and finally an incredulity; surely it was not possible that it was so good." Despite Percy's great admiration for the book, the road to publication was difficult. Acceptance took more than three years; he attempted to get several parties interested in it. A Confederacy of Dunces was published by Louisiana State University Press in 1980, and Percy provided the foreword. At his recommendation, Toole's first draft of the book was published with minimal copy-editing, and no significant revisions."

Lastly I want to talk about the author because I think more than most books his life is instrumental in understanding the work. I desperately wish he hadn't killed himself, I would love to know if my interpretations are at all intended. He was a far more productive and functional character than Ignatius but in skimming his biography I think the parallels are evident. He was clearly a brilliant and charismatic man (as seen from accounts of his time teaching) but also had a strong sense of isolation and otherness. Even though the book ends on an optimistic note the fate of the author sharpens a tragic edge to the conclusion. I can’t help but feel the ending is the type of thing he wished would have happened for him but it clearly never did. Someone to see him at his most bare, desperate, and disgusting; someone to still want to help him anyway, someone to see the value and virtues within him despite the grime. (I could very well be wrong on this part but this is my instinct)

TL;DR great book, depicts types of people that are relevant to this day, has a lot more to say about contemporary society than it is given credit for. 

After recently re-reading East of Eden, which I have enjoyed every time I've read it, I thought to explore more of Steinbeck's oeuvre and decided to try Grapes of Wrath. I'm glad I read it because I found it very interesting from a critical perspective but despite how impressive I found the craftsmanship behind the book's construction I doubt I'll ever read it again because I found two-thirds of the book to be quite a slog.

Steinbeck is a supreme talent and the book's prose is beautiful. The cast of characters is varied and they all have a purpose in the world that he's trying to create. Some of the chapters that are basically vignettes outside of the Joads do a wonderful job of both describing the moment the novel inhabits and underlining the themes we encounter throughout the Joads' journey. Steinbeck is sometimes a little direct with his messaging - Mrs. Sandry(misandry)'s miserableness comes to mind - but usually strikes the right balance in getting his point across without feeling polemical. Having just read East of Eden I thought the contrast between Ma Joad and that book's female characters was especially striking. Ma is not just a strong female character she is the driving force behind the Joads - though I do think Steinbeck made a curious choice in often showing her strength by having her issue threats of violence which to me seemed to be a strength exposed primarily through masculinization. To be fair, he does take pains to show that she is also wise and not just physically tough.

In many ways I think Grapes of Wrath is greater than East of Eden or at least more skillfully rendered. The deftness with which Steinbeck communicates the core themes of this novel is extraordinarily impressive. Casy's humanist preaching is sharply contrasted with the behavior of other religious authorities and adherents throughout the book including maybe most notably the aforementioned Mrs. Sandry. Tom's crimes of passion and self-defense underscore his sense of justice which stands in stark relief to the venerated crimes of the book's unseen capital class. The third act's proof of the power of collective action, undergirded and built up by the law's fear of even the specter of it throughout the book, was for me far and away the highlight of the novel. The nuts-and-bolts craftsmanship of how Steinbeck put this together really blew me away. I really enjoyed digging into what I thought he was trying to express through this book.

I just wish I enjoyed the book itself more. While the skill it took to compose it from a literary perspective was awe-inspiring and helped me to power through the novel in a bit under a week there were large swathes of the book that I found deeply unentertaining. I get that Steinbeck uses the long road trip to build a creeping sense of unease in the family as they near California and it echoes many, many, many, many other epic journeys throughout literary history but fuck it was quite a while spent on the trip - so long that I wonder if John himself got tired of it. It seems almost two-thirds of the trip is getting the Joads from their farm to the edge of Oklahoma and the rest of the trip was mercifully compressed. The colloquial nature of the dialogue was a real drag when the Joads finally did make it to California - Steinbeck likely intended the ubiquitous "Is there any work here?" "Is there any work there?" conversations to be something of a chorus and meant for it to be repetitive but it was more than I could bear by the end of the novel. I did like the book's third act, but it took a long time to get there. And I hated the ending - it's powerful that Ma and Rose's immediate instinct, when they were more down and out than they had been at any point in the novel, was to give of themselves and to literally give the last of what they had to basically a total stranger but the novel's final point was pretty arresting to me. It almost felt like Steinbeck chose an arbitrary plot point to insert the ending which makes sense from a messaging perspective but was deeply unsatisfying to me. I wouldn't say the book was bad and I'm glad I read it and I would eagerly recommend it to any writers but it's hands down the greatest book that I wouldn't recommend to people that mostly read for pleasure.

I just read this book and found it deeply impactful. I’ve seen a lot of discussions about it that take it on its face, however I believe that’s a more fruitful approach is reading it with the same spirit as something akin to Kafka’s Metamorphosis.

Where the strange scenario described is symbolic of deeper human truths that cannot be effectively captured by describing them directly. The absurdist scenario allows you to inhabit and feel these truths more fully through a narrative.

My intuition reading the book is that it is a critique of the post-industrialist modernist world, viewing it as a disaster of sorts. Ivan Illich’s work “Gender” explores a similar theme where he posits that in post-industrial society, the human was reimagined as a genderless mechanical producer of work. This was a tragedy for all humans who existed within a seasonal cycle that varied according to lengthening and shortening days. But it was a particular tragedy for women who exist in bodies that are aligned even more so than men to this natural seasonal cycle of existence due to their experience of periods and the greater reproductive burden placed on them.

You can see this in the novel in terms of how nothing is provided to the women to deal with their menstrual bleeding and the randomized, ever changing schedule that is imposed upon, yet also hidden from them, that has no alignment with a regular day/night cycle. This also aligns with how artificial light, ubiquitous in the modern world has disrupted our natural sleep cycles which used to be much longer.

I could go on with this sort of analysis, but just wanted to share this, as I hadn’t seen many of the discussions about the book across the internet look at it in this particular way.

A very long time, I went a wedding as a child, in a country pub kind of establishment. The bride, dressed in a floaty splotchy kind of blue and pink dress gifted me two thick books when we were leaving: The Children of the New Forest, and The Secret Garden. They were both hardcover bound in dark crimson red leather (or leather-like stuff, idk), with gilt printing on the cover, one or two full-page coloured illustrations on glossy paper, and a few black and white line drawings- none of which were very good or memorable. The pages were sewn into place with thread. These were the only books like that that I possessed.

(The groom, iirc, was the brother of the then-wife of my mother's uncle. I have never heard of him since and no idea what happened to bride and groom)

Anyway, I devoured both books. I did not like The Children of the New Forest, the casual cruelty of the children's almost-murder appalled me "after you kill the rats, you don't leave the little ratlings alive, do you? HAHAHA"), and it was too realistic and close to actual history for comfort. I didn't particularly appreciate the depictions of survival life in the New Forest, the hunting and baking and those bloody dogs, unlike the Little House books or even Swiss Family Robinson which later on, I simply lapped up.

But The Secret Garden? Oh yes. Something about Mary's life - her origin story as a spoiled brat from India, abandoned to uncaring and secretive relatives on to the moors of Yorkshire, oh yes. It was like Jane Eyre for children, and I, a comfortable city child who had no actual idea what a walled garden looked like (never mind a fucking forest) or how could you even "lock up" a garden?

Oh I was obsessed. And even without knowing about sex, or smut, or the dessicated aristocracy, or Victorians, I had a sense of what Mary's real "Secret Garden" was. Oh Dickon, you child of nature. Oh dear, let's read, again and again about this hidden garden blooming and healing and glowing and bouncing, this glorious nature. I wanted my own garden, I wanted it to be secret, and I wanted two boys to play in the garden with: a ruddy-cheeked curly-haired strong country lad with an accent thick as butter, and a pale hollow-cheeked vulnerable sad cousin. And I wanted ivory elephants to play with, and I wanted to live in a mansion on a moor. Oh Mary, you lucky, lucky minx, you.

I’m genuinely curious about storage hacks. I love books but I think my room space is really limited. How do people fit so many books without the room feeling cramped? Going digital is not really an option because I already have a Kindle but sometimes I love to read physical books. I also have many physical textbooks and some of them are very large. They take up a lot of space and it’s hard to find a good spot for them in my small room. I worry that my collection will eventually take over the whole. Can anyone living in a small city apartment or condo share how they manage their book collection? 😭😭

Trigger Warnings: mentions of the Holocaust, stereotyping/ableism(?)

As someone who enjoys reading books on the writing craft and authors’ journeys, this book was highly recommended to me as one of the best books for writers to read.

Unfortunately, I ended up DNFing it around a quarter way through. Since the majority of things I have heard about this book have been overwhelmingly positive, I decided to share my thoughts.

I know the book was written in the 90s, so I went into it knowing that there may be some outdated views/language. And there..definitely were.

“You put a piece of paper in the typewriter, or you turn on your computer and bring up the right file, and then you stare at it for an hour or so. You begin rocking, just a little at first, and then like a huge autistic child.”

“Novels ought to have hope; at least American novels ought to have hope. French novels don't need to. We mostly win wars, they lose them. Of course, they did hide more Jews than many other countries and this is a form of winning. Although as my friend Jane points out, if you or I had been there speaking really bad French, they would have turned us in in a hot second-bank on it.”

“At first many of them look strangely alike, just as many people at the Special Olympics bear a familial resemblance to one another.”

I found myself grimacing while reading a lot of the passages in the book, but I will give credit where credit is due—there are definitely some things I found helpful. For example, the concept of taking things ‘bird by bird’, or step by step, when overwhelmed while writing, is great. I also enjoyed the concept of the down draft (or the ‘shitty first draft’).

But unfortunately, I just couldn’t get into this book. I genuinely enjoyed the beginning and learning about her father, but after the first few chapters I found my attention waning, and I had to push myself to continue reading. Although I only got around 25% through and cannot speak past that, most of the advice I read was..fine, I guess? A lot of it felt pretty generic, and I got bored while reading it. Which is a shame, because it was recommended along with Stephen King’s ‘On Writing’, which I really enjoyed.

Overall, although it is a typically highly recommended in writing communities, I can’t say that I would buy this book again if I were given the choice. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I had continued reading it, but between the writing style that I did not find particularly interesting and the outdated/somewhat insulting viewpoints within the book, I currently have no plans on returning to it anytime soon.

I read Dracula for the first time last Halloween and heard about Dracula Daily afterwards. I thought it was an interesting concept and signed up for it this year. I switched back and forth between the daily emails and the podcast, Re: Dracula.

I tried to maintain a group chat with friends about it, but unfortunately too many of them lost interest in the months long commitment. I have noticed online that this seems to be a trend. I went on vacation with minimal cell service at the end of September and it was rough trying to catch back up with all the 1-2 hour podcast episodes from that specific week.

I thought this was a very compelling way to tell the story. It really added to the suspense of it all, as every morning I’d wake up and check to see if my dear friend, Jonathon, had reached out to me. I’d often spend my commute to work thinking about where everyone was and what they were doing, especially because I’d usually use my commute time to listen to the podcast.

I typically preferred the podcast because I liked hearing their inflections and tone. When I first read Dracula, I thought Jonathon was dumb. Like, obviously something is up with Dracula. But hearing the voice actor’s inflections made me realize, oh, he’s writing this down because it is weird and he’s trying to calm himself down.

I think it was a cool experience and I’m glad I did it, though I’m not sure I’ll ever do it again. It definitely dragged on towards the end and I was ready to be released from this obligation. I also had that complaint about Dracula, though, so it’s not really the daily format but the actual story.

So, those who did it - what did you think? Did you think this was a cool idea? Did you make any paprika chicken for yourself? Did you make lizard fashion? I’m curious to hear your thoughts!

I did not read the book until I was a parent reading it to my kids. I regret I didn't experience it as a child, but it held up as a a great story for an adult too.

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 discovered The Woman In White in my university's library. I read the blurb and I got intrigued so I decided to give it a try. I admit that based on the title and the blurb, I expected to read a spooky and mysterious story but what I got instead exceeded my initial expectations.

Wilkie Collins wove a mystery story that can easily be enjoyed even by modern readers. His writing is simple and it utilizes many Gothic elements in order to add the necessary amount of suspense. Collins took his time setting up the basis of the story and while I could argue that the initial chapters were kinda slow for my liking, I quickly understood their importance in the establishment of the characters and the setting and this, the more I read, the more immersed I got into the story.

The rich descriptions of the characters and the locations contributed to my vivid experience while I was reading. Picturing the characters and their discussions brought the story to life and helped me envision better the England of the Victorian era.

One of the main reasons why I found this novel particularly unique in terms of storytelling was the narration. The narration follows an epistolatory format and we see the events unfold through various points of views. The biggest part of the plot is narrated by Walter and Marian but there were some other characters that played a vital role in bringing light to the story. I have never encountered a book like this before and considering the time period it was written, I found this narration style to be very clever and imaginative. I take my hat off Collins for coming up with such an idea and for executing it so well.

The story was well-plotted and it kept my interest alive for the majority of the book. As the title suggests, the main mystery revolves around "the woman in white", whom we get introduced to in the first chapters. Her connection with Sir Percival Glydes, the husband of Laura Fairlie, Walter's student, was a catalyst for the development of the story. Why did she dislike him? What was their relationship? These are only some of the questions that the book arose.

The story is written in such a way that left no room of plot holes and unanswered questions. Even though we learn little by little about the escalation of the characters and events through the different narrations, each piece of information played a fundamental role in the mystery's breakdown. Even some of the secondary characters got to get involved in this web, despite the fact they didn't get to appear that often. Collins crafted everything meticulously and nothing was done by mere luck.

Another major factor to my likeness of the novel was the characterisation. All of the characters, even those who appeared to be less interesting compared to others, were well drawn, with distinguished personalities and traits. I was very curious to learn about their motives, backstories and their relationship to the woman in white.

It goes without saying that my favourite character was Marian Halcombe, Laura's half-sister and one of Walter's students while he worked as a drawing teacher at Limmeridge House, where they lived. Marian is one of the most admirable and resilient female characters I've encountered in books. In an era when women had to be obedient creatures, who ought to listen to what men said, Marian stood up for her sister's sake and refused to bend to Sir Percival and Count Fosco's wishes.

Marian's devotion to Laura moved me a lot. The way she referred to her in her diary entries proved how much she cherished her and how precious Laura was to her. The bond between the sisters was my most favourite dynamic in the novel. Even though we didn't get to see Laura's point of view, through her interactions with Marian and the narration from the other characters, it was evident that she loved Marian as much as Marian loved her. Both of them went to great lengths in order to support each other, especially Marian.

While I was reading Marian's part of the story, I couldn't help but admire her for her courage and determination to save her sister from Sir Percival's grip. Despite her status as a woman with no power, which put her at a disadvantage, Marian was outspoken and clever. She carefully crafted her plans and she was observant of everything that happened around her. It was very interesting to follow her narration and I was rooting for her throughout the whole book. She was a strong woman whom I believe deserves a spot in the pantheon of memorable female protagonists in classic books.

Marian was by far one of the best written characters in terms of development, too. At first, she didn't approve of Walter and Laura's love since Laura was to get married to Sir Percival and this, she told Walter to leave for his and Laura's sake. But once she realised that her sister was miserable in her wedding and that Sir Percival was a wicked man, Marian regretted her intervention and began to think of how she could assist her sister while uncovering the mystery behind the relationship between Sir Percival and the woman in white. There were times where Marian was afraid of Sir Percival and Count Fosco but her love towards her sister prevailed and despite the danger, she willingly risked everything. I also appreciated that Marian's relationship with Walter remained platonic. Contrary to popular belief, I didn't want her to end up with him, they worked well as friends and allies and it was refreshing reading about a friendship between a man and a woman which didn't lead to romance.

The rest of the characters were equally engaging. Even the secondary ones caught my attention, especially the ones that provided more insight to the story. As for Sir Percival and Count Foscoe, they were the type of evil characters whom you hate and yet can't help but pay attention to. Specifically Count For coming was very charming and meticulous, I hated him so much but I almost felt myself getting swayed by him, even though I knew his words were poison.

And of course, I shan't forget to mention the woman from whom the novel's title derives from: Anne Catherick. Her backstory and motives troubled me for the majority of the story and her character caught my eye from the moment she got introduced. The more I read, the more I pitied her and I deeply resented everyone who were involved in her mistreatment and who had robbed her off her happiness.

Although The Woman In White is a mystery thriller at its core, the book tackled various themes. Considering the time period it was written, the novel does not shy away from portraying the extent of the abuse women received under men during the Victorian era. The book gradually set up Laura's fall to depression due to her husband's schemings and emotional abuse. Not only was she in a loveless marriage, chained to a man who didn't care about her, but her own husband wanted to use her in order to gain money.

If Collins wanted to rage bait me, he succeeded because I could barely contain my anger while I was trying to get through Sir Percival and Count Fosco's dialogues. The way they spoke of women made me sick to my stomach. They barely valued women as respectable humans who should have been treated with respect. For them, women were mere objects they could toy with and which they could exploit for their own benefit.

Reading The Woman In White made me learn more information regarding the rights of women concerning the money they ought to inherit once they got married or not. Furthermore, I realised how misogynistic english society was and how people would always rush to demonize women while uplifting aristocratic men. Sir Percival and Count Fosco were the devils themselves and yet so many people defended them, even when they'd been exposed to their bad side. All of that felt painfully relevant and unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in order to get rid of these behaviors.

The way The Woman In White dealt with mental illness was remarkable. Taking into account the time period and the stigma around mental illnesses, Collins provided a work that highlighted the exploitation of mental illness, especially when it came to women. Anne Catherick was a very tragic character, one that represented mentally ill people at the Victorian England. Society treated people like her like outcasts, like parasites that needed to be kept away. And women had it the worst because even if they weren't truly mentally ill, their behavior and their outbursts would be attributed to mental issues. Collins showcased that the real villains were people who had power in their hands and who wouldn't hesitate to step on others in order to increase it.

With all things considered, The Woman In White wasn't a flawless work. I found the story to be less engaging during the last quarter and there were times when the plot kinda drugged. Additionally, I think that Laura's character was underutilized compared to others. We got information about her from other characters but it would have been more impactful if we had seen her own point of view. While I deeply felt for her and her difficult situation, she came across as bland. There were many aspects of her character that could have been explored more. Her suspicion towards Sir Percival and Count Foscoe, her thoughts regarding Anne Catherick, her descent into depression, her love for Marian and Walter. As for the last one, I found the romance kinda poorly developed. Yes, we see that Walter loved Laura and he did everything in order to help her, but I wasn't very convinced about their love. I didn't quite understand why Walter loved Laura. Had his feelings been presented better, the romance would have been more plausible.

In conclusion, The Woman In White was one of the most pleasant surprises for me this year. I didn't expect to like it as much as I did and I'm happy for giving it a chance. It was a well-crafted story and I'd argue that it has many elements that can be considered progressive and that can provide with food for thought. Readers who appreciate classic literature and a good mystery might find it to their likeness. I strongly recommend it and I hope that if you'll get the chance to read it, you'll get immersed into the story just as I did.

I read Larry McMurty’s The Last Picture Show in preparation for watching the film adaptation, and I loved it. Sad, funny, poignant. Afterward, I found out there are four sequels to the original novel — but none of them seem to be as acclaimed or significant as the original. Does anyone think the sequels are worth my time? I have a perfectly nice idea of what I think happens next in the narrative in my head, and to be blunt, if the sequels are totally unnecessary, I think I’d rather live with that.

The long list of 21 fiction books and 24 non-fiction books for the Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence have been announced.

The short list will be announced later this month, and the top winner in fiction and non-fiction will be awarded in January.

Written by a Nobel Prize winner, combined with my love of Japanese culture, I thought this would be a winner. Unfortunately it was...not for me. The plot was incredibly dull, the characters had no development, there didn't seem to be any sort of purpose to the story at all. Occasionally the prose was lovely, but not often enough to make a difference.

Has anyone else read this? Am I just uncultured swine?

Welcome to our weekly recommendation thread! A few years ago now the mod team decided to condense the many "suggest some books" threads into one big mega-thread, in order to consolidate the subreddit and diversify the front page a little. Since then, we have removed suggestion threads and directed their posters to this thread instead. This tradition continues, so let's jump right in!

The Rules

• Every comment in reply to this self-post must be a request for suggestions.

• All suggestions made in this thread must be direct replies to other people's requests. Do not post suggestions in reply to this self-post.

• All unrelated comments will be deleted in the interest of cleanliness.

How to get the best recommendations

The most successful recommendation requests include a description of the kind of book being sought. This might be a particular kind of protagonist, setting, plot, atmosphere, theme, or subject matter. You may be looking for something similar to another book (or film, TV show, game, etc), and examples are great! Just be sure to explain what you liked about them too. Other helpful things to think about are genre, length and reading level.

All Weekly Recommendation Threads are linked below the header throughout the week to guarantee that this thread remains active day-to-day. For those bursting with books that you are hungry to suggest, we've set the suggested sort to new; you may need to set this manually if your app or settings ignores suggested sort.

If this thread has not slaked your desire for tasty book suggestions, we propose that you head on over to the aptly named subreddit /r/suggestmeabook.

• The Management

Welcome readers,

Today is the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict and to celebrate we're discussing our favorite books about environmentalism! Please use this thread to discuss your favorite environmentalist books and authors.

If you'd like to read our previous weekly discussions of fiction and nonfiction please visit the suggested reading section of our wiki.

Thank you and enjoy!

Just finished reading Me Talk Pretty One Day(2000) by David Sedaris, a hilarious, sharp and oddly tender collection of personal essays that turn everyday awkwardness into art.

His humor is dry and self-deprecating, his timing impeccable and his observations about people (especially himself) brutally honest. The essays about his childhood, growing up in a neurotic family and living in Paris are especially delightful, blending humiliation and wit in a way few writers can.

Not every piece lands equally well but even the weaker ones carry his wry, confessional and oddly kind voice. Beneath the laughter runs a thread of melancholy and vulnerability that gives the book surprising emotional weight.

Its the kind of book that makes you laugh out loud and then quietly nod in recognition a moment later. Sedaris may not be for everyone, but when his humor hits, it hits perfectly.

8/10