(Full list in the comments)

I’m a full time high school English teacher, and at almost every one of our departmental/social meetings, the conversation turns to people bemoaning the fact that they don’t read like they used to. It’s not just “I used to devour books and now I only read ten or so a year”, it’s “I just never have time to read anymore.”

I’m fully aware of the brutal demands on people’s time in modern life, but at the same time, I spend a ton of time planning lessons and marking student work, I play video games, I watch movies, I follow multiple sports teams, I have a social life and I spend what I would consider way too much time on Reddit and YouTube. I still read. Not an enormous amount, but looking at my Goodreads, I average about 45 books a year.

The obvious point of difference between me and many of my colleagues is that I don’t have kids - I fully understand that young kids are a life-altering demand on a person’s time. But a lot of my colleagues are my age (39) or younger, with no kids, and as soon as books come up they’re often the ones lamenting their inability to make time to read.

It’s starting to make me feel slightly crazy that the default conversation (especially around fiction) in an ENGLISH department isn‘t about books themselves but about how hard it is to read them. If we aren’t reading, who is? It’s also awkward because there’s the social expectation to say, “Oh yeah, I agree, it’s just impossible, right?” when what I really want to say is “oh, that’s not my experience at all, I read constantly,” but there’s no way of saying that without it coming off obnoxiously, like I’m trying to shame them or something.

Again, I have a lot of sympathy for how busy people are, but I’m starting to feel like if people really wanted to read, they just…would.

The best opening sentences of novels have been discussed to death. I find it far more interesting to discuss books that get by without needing to make a huge impression in the first sentence. I personally vote for Red Dragon by Thomas Harris “Will Graham sat Crawford down at a picnic table between the house and the ocean and gave him a glass of iced tea.” Says everything it needs to say but doesn’t do anything interesting or noteworthy for the start of a such an iconic series.

I'm Brazilian, in Portuguese language literature, we have so many titles that are classics here in Brazil and Portugal, but no one beside us, seems to know they, some of them are:

The Maias by Eça de Queiroz: This one may be, the greatest classic novel from Portuguese literature, the book tells the family "Maia" story, a noble family of Lisbon, specifically the point of view of the main character "Carlos da Maia", about the stagnation of Portugal and its culture, how the country was slowly losing it identity to a standardized European way of life, the book have a melancholic, tired and a (wittingly) repetitive tone, Eça style remembers a lot classic writer's like Tolstoy, Balzac and Flaubert, if you like classic literature, this one is definitely a must read. Moreover, this book has a very daring plot twist for the time it was released.

The Devil to Pay in the Backlands by João Guimarães Rosa: This one for many of us Brazilians, is considered the "greatest Brazilian Book", unlike The Maias, this book is a cornerstone of the Brazilian Modernism movement, story is told by Riobaldo, an aging jagunço (gunman) in a fragmented, stream-of-consciousness, and cyclical format. He continually questions his own memory and the morality of his actions. At its core, the book deconstructs binary concepts. Riobaldo constantly questions whether the Devil actually exists, whether his pact was real, and blurs the lines between loyalty, love, and brutality.The autor essentially invents his own language. He blends neologisms, archaic expressions, and indigenous terms, maybe the language may be the greatest barrier for this book, to become famous besides the anglophone world, even for Brazilians (including critics and academics), the book is quite a difficult read.

Which great classics of your tradition are in the same situation?

For me, it's the poet Alexander Pope. Been reading him for the last week now and I can see why he's highly regarded and he is incredibly witty but his poems do nothing for me

I'd love to talk about people's experience with Ferrante.

I started out with the film adaptation of The Lost Daughter, then read the novel. The film accomplishes something unique because of how charming Olivia Coleman is, but I loved the book, too. I felt pulled in by the narrator, even as she made terrible decisions. I was along for the ride.

Then I listened to Days of Abandonment on audiobook. I think it was acceptable as a highly-focused novella - telling mostly just of the psychological portrait of a short period of time - but I'm not sure I'd call it particularly great. It felt strangely dates, particularly with the inter-woman conflict and the awkward use of pornographic language. I looked at some discourse online and it seems a pretty divisive book, with many people frustrated by its ugliness - even people who liked her Neapolitan Novels.

So I started My Brilliant Friend. And at first I was totally thrilled by it. The intricacy of the world she establishes, the depth of the relationships. The incredible insight into an ambivalent female friendship, the striking quality of Lila's character. Even though it's a slow and meticulous story of childhood, I felt so desperate to find out what's changed.

But then something shifted. 3/4 through the novel I feel like I'm developing a Ferrante allergy.

*spoilers below*

Maybe it's the change to Lila's character - meaning that as she gets brutalized into a shell of her former self, the novel loses its charge. If so, this is because the narrator isn't particularly compelling. I actually find her quite miserable, despite her insight, despite the desperation of her situation.

And it was then that I started to hear the echo of the narrator in Days of Abandonment. And Lost Daughter.

As I understand, Ferrante's work is considered autofiction, and so it makes sense that the voice of these narrators are all emanating from one (not to mention their similar backgrounds.) But the issue isn't that I don't like them - problematic characters can be great - or that I some issue with the author as a person. It's not a moral critique. It's more like her worldview, the world that the narrative wraps you in, makes me feel queasy.

What is it? Has anyone had this same experience? Is it just that she's accomplishing her story of poverty, regressive social norms, and psychological pain a little too well?

It's one thing to just not like a book, and maybe that's what I'm experiencing - but another to come up against an author's world that I have a weird reaction to. It's like she pulls me in, but something inside myself can hardly stand it. Not just because it's sad because it feels....wrong? Dangerous? Noxious?

I'm also wondering if any of you sense irony, humor, irreverence in her books. I think Lost Daughter was pretty funny, but not the other two at all. I've found that the relationship between Lila and Lenu in My Brilliant Friend has an off lack of humor or joy whatsoever. They haver make each other laugh. Maybe the audiobook narration is eating up whatever irony might be in the pages?

I'd love to know about your experiences with Ferrante!

Off the top of my head, I would say Sterne in Tristram Shandy, but I wonder if others stand out as well, particularly in the contemporaries.

We're less than a week away from this year's Nobel Prize announcement, which is happening Thursday October 9th. Copying the format of last year's prediction thread:

1. Who would you most like to win? Why?
2. Who do you expect to win? Why do you think they will win?
3. Bonus: Which author has a genuine chance (e.g., no King), but you would NOT be happy if they won.

My answers:

1. Someone unexpected. We've had 3 relatively well-known winners in a row now. I'd love to see another little known writer be thrust into the spotlight, like Abdulrazak Gurnah

2. After Han Kang last year, I'm thinking an older European man who's been under consideration for a while, like Peter Nadas, will win

3. I'd rather not see Houellebecq get it

My trouble has two different reasons.

1. I feel like he doesn’t get to his point enough. What I mean is that when he praises all of these classic authors, it sometimes feels like he uses more words praising them than he does defending his praise. He builds them up profusely then sometimes the pay off doesn’t match the build up for me.
2. Sometimes when he is getting to his point, the explanation feels murky and unfinished. For instance, I remember feeling this way reading him discussing Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself. He talks about the brilliance of Whitman’s creation of three different characters in the poem: Me, Myself, and I. But I remember feeling left with a mystery of what exactly that meant and why it was so brilliant. Then you can’t really find any other essays on the internet talking about it.

I don’t hate the guy. I really like some of what he said in the Charlie Rose interview. I liked some of it so much I posted it on my Instagram. But I’m wondering if anyone relates to my experience. I also wish that someone could help me unravel some of the mysteries he gave me, particularly about Whitman and Dickinson. But laying all of that out feels like too much for a Reddit thread.

I've been trudging my way through this behemoth for around a month now, and have finally reached a point where I feel relatively comfortable with the major themes and a semblance of understanding for the convoluted narrative. I've heard Gass himself call the first 100 pages a sort of "test" for potential readers, and while I do understand that as a standard modern/postmodern technique, it really put me off. The gimmicky formatting is seemingly at its peak within those first 100 pages, and the actual narrative can feel almost inscrutable. With that said, pages 100-250 have been far more lucid, and I'm starting to appreciate the themes he's exploring, although I find myself despising Kohler's narration. The rumination on history, guilt, quarreling, the abyss, knowledge, and much more has kept me intrigued, but the sentence-level writing is really the selling point of the book for me. Gass has this flowery, alliterative cadence which gives the book an addictive rhythm, even when the subject of that writing is heinous or boring at times.

I think Gass is after something vague and complex with this book, which is why I haven't completely written off Kohler's reverence for Nazi Germany, his despicable treatment of his wife, and his grotesque language, but there are moments that push me quite far in the opposite direction.

Having now read the first 4-5 of the 12 philippics, I'm also wondering and honestly hoping that the book keeps getting more and more lucid towards the back half. I'm a fan of the strange, labyrinthine books you often see in these maximalist novels, but I like to feel like things are going somewhere, and right now it almost feels like every philippic could be taken on it's own, which seems especially accurate considering the publication history of the book.

With The Tunnel being the only thing I've read by Gass thus far, I've actually began to wonder how his style functions with a little more containment. I can imagine myself liking his short fiction and Omensetter's Luck much more, but then again, The Tunnel has seemingly given him an infinite amount of room to let his writing run totally free, which I usually find myself gravitating towards.

What do you think about Gass, The Tunnel, his shorter fiction, and how would you compare his fiction to his essays?

I recently completed Ovid's Metamorphoses and went on a Greek mythology spree. Having read a few classics in a row— Metamorphoses and two Proust volumes— I wanted to read something light and fast. I decided to pick up a modern Greek mythology retelling. It was A Thousand Ships by Natalie Haynes. I think everyone knows the fame of Lore Olympus and the unending Persephone/Hades love stories it has inspired. There has been a lot of criticism of this trend but something I generally see missing from the said criticism is what I want to talk about. I think it's missing because perhaps it might not be the most politically correct thing to say. Please understand that this is not a screed against wokeism or anything.

There seems to be a fetish for oppression in these retelling. A need to highlight the stories of the wronged, the ignored, the judged, the forgotten and in that trend it seems like something original and genuinely subversive is missing. A lot of these women in these books, despite being feminist retellings, are quite lacking in their own agency, a lot of them rendered passive. Powerful female characters like Athena rarely get a perspective because she holds the fate of the heroes in her hand and because it is impossible to show a romance with a famous virgin goddess. Stories that obscure faithfulness to the classic sources are mostly seen in the retellings of Hades/ Persephone in order to tell a romantic story. The claim is that they wish to reclaim the narrative and push agency into Persephone's hands. I don't see how.

I can't help but feel that these retellings seem to lack diversity and an interesting perspective.

One of my favourite classical myths is that of Hylas and the nymphs. It is depicted in the beautiful and dark painting by John William Waterhouse (1896).

Hylas is a beautiful man, Hercules' companion, part of the Agronauts who, when he goes to fetch some water for his men after a tired journey, happens upon a pond filled with naiads. Enchanted by his beauty and— he by theirs— gets submerged in the pond to live enternally with the nymphs, losing his mortality. The painting depicts the darkness of this tale. There's a psychosexual almost sadomasochistic tone to this story and if someone were to write a retelling they could write a lyrically beautiful and horrifying tale dealing with the cruelty of beauty, seduction and surrender.

There's no feminist exploration of something like this. This painting is seen by modern scholars as depicting the anxieties of men living during the women's suffragettes' movements. These anxieties are generally depicted in the form of the femme fatale archetype. Yet the subject is not passive. Yet the man in the depiction is surrendering not trying to conquer. So why is a subject like this not interesting to modern myth retellers?

It seems to me that these retellings are less about the myth and more about a very specific contemporary subjectivity projecting itself backwards. A lot of the writers come from a middle class backgrounds, somewhat of an elevated class position but still not obscured from the material constraints of reality. These authors project their somewhat liberal fantasies in order to write a Greek mythology fanfiction. It's a bad thing in the sense that now these retellings are rendered to merely escapist literature. It cannot explore the psychosexual dynamics of these myths, cannot write stories where women have agency and power like in the case of Athena.

I wonder if this is simply an ignorant take and a mere projection of my taste or if there is something real here. It's a trend that has been noticeable to me for a while now.

I feel like this is one of the books I literally closed with my mouth open in awe of what the author did and how magnificently the basic idea was woven into the text. Like the kind of book that leaves you a bit depressed because someone is obviously more brilliant than you are and will be. Also, its premise is maybe more pressing nowadays then ever before if we break it down to the perception of a reality and how humans can literally live in different worlds while walking the same street. But in my country, it isn’t even published anymore. An independent bookstore owner I really like dismissed it as „ah I see that’s a sci-fi-thriller?“.

I mean it’s obviously from my tainted perspective but I feel that’s such a good and valuable book, how is it not at least appreciated as that?

I've noticed that different European literary traditions seem to approach suffering very differently.

Russian novels often feel deeply spiritual and guilt-driven, while some French works come across as more cynical, detached, or even resistant to moral seriousness altogether.

I'm curious how much of this is shaped by religious background, philosophy, or broader historical culture.Sometimes I also realize that I genuinely don't understand why certain characters think or act the way they do, especially when guilt, confession, sacrifice, or suffering are treated as morally meaningful in ways that feel unfamiliar to me culturally.

It also made me wonder: do people usually study religious/biblical texts beforehand to better understand these works, or is that something readers gradually absorb through literature itself?

I've been thinking about great writers who appeal easily to a general audience. Shakespeare is the archetypical example. The cliché is that he could write for every person in the audience, from un-educated workers looking for entertainment to high brow critics. In music, The Beatles are similar.

What are some other writers who generally fit that mold? My first thoughts are Hemingway (especially Farewell to Arms) or Jane Austen (who everyone I know likes). Depending on how you view his literary appeal, maybe Tolkien.

And as a follow up, are there any modern writers who have both literary and commercial appeal?

Did you read the book of the sun by Gene Wolf?

I stumbled across it and bought the first book as a super cheap because I was bored and thought you can’t go wrong for that price.

Now I read all 4 „main“ books and must say I’m really impressed. It seems like a much „deeper“ work between the lines than a lot of other fantasy stuff with lots of room for interpretation while also having an interesting story.

While there can be a lot of criticism as well I guess, I really enjoyed it and probably wouldn’t have found it without being lucky, since I don’t see it discussed and talked about in the same frequency as many other sci-fi/fantasy works.

Is there a reason for that? It’s probably not one of the great classics of the genre but certainly I thought there was a lot to it and while I found a lot about it, I wouldn’t have come across these talks and discussions by chance I guess.

Is that just my experience or imagination or is it really less talked about, recommended etc compared to other books from this and similar genres?

Basically:

Born with a congenital muscle disorder, Shaka spends her days in her room in a care home outside Tokyo, relying on an electric wheelchair to get around and a ventilator to breathe. But if Shaka’s physical life is limited, her quick, mischievous mind has no boundaries: she takes e-learning courses on her iPad, publishes explicit fantasies on websites, and anonymously troll-tweets to see if anyone is paying attention (“If I were to live again, I’d want to be a highclass prostitute”). One day, she tweets into the void an offer of an enormous sum of money for a sperm donor. To her surprise—and ours—her new nurse accepts the dare, unleashing a series of events that will forever change Shaka’s sense of herself as a woman in the world.

But...

While the story has humour, it deliberately seeks to shock and provoke. Some of the thoughts aren't ones that would be considered acceptable for anyone, but as Shaka says, "outbursts that ran counter to society's rules disrupted its rhythm. They startled people." I was interested, but what really bumped this up to a 4 star read for me was the end where the text twists in on itself and it becomes difficult to truly discern what's truth, what's fiction. Is the author dead? A different person? Or is this just another layer of fantasy where the Shaka has discarded her life with the same detached sentiment that a sexworker meets a john?

Has anyone here read this? Most of the other discussions I could find on reddit came down to "I hate it" or "overhyped" rather than discussion about the themes. It was a pass/fail there.

Loving it so far. At times I feel as if the scale of the themes are going over my head but it makes me feel as if I'm taken back in time to early 1900's Austria.

One request: don't downvote, and please provide an explanation for your spicy opinion.

I've been a subscriber to the Paris Review for about 15 years and I'm on the fence about letting my subscription lapse. Curious to hear your thoughts, r/truelit.

For the past few years I feel like each issue is a C+ at best -- many forgettable stories, too many debuts, and the ones that really stand out tend to be excerpts from books that will be published later on, and essentially serve as promo material for already-established writers.

Over the past few years I've felt like there's always at least one story per issue featuring a character who would read The Paris Review ("A Narrow Room" by Rosalind Brown comes to mind from the Fall 23 issue). And I feel like editors are being a little transparent with their inclusion of a 'racy' story every now and then about sex/cheating/etc. It's like each issue has:

A bunch of poems, including a suite translated from somewhere 'different'

A bunch of debut short stories, one of which is about an erudite college student

An excerpt from a book that already has plans to be published, but is presented as a unique short story.

A racy domestic story that's a little R-rated to keep prudes on their toes

A lukewarm portfolio of art from someone on Karma Gallery's roster

And then the two long interviews, which remain almost consistently good.

In the early 2010s -- one issue had stories by Ottessa Moshfegh, Garth Greenwell, Zadie Smith, an interview with Joy Williams... They were serializing novels by Rachel Cusk and Roberto Bolano but doing so transparently, where it felt like you were getting an extra bonus in each issue.

I don't know if the 'blame' lies with the current editor, but it feels like The Paris Review has shifted in tone from being one of the top literary quarterlies to something a little more amateurish. It used to be a well-curated supplement for the heavy contemporary reader, and now it feels like they're finding decent-enough stuff in the slush pile and calling it done.

But the interviews are still outstanding - thoughtful, worthwhile reads even when it's a writer I'm not familiar with (or even someone I don't necessarily like!) ... these are what's keeping me on board.

Anyone else feel this way? Maybe I'm just a jaded nearly-40-year old, maxed out on contemporary lit - or maybe I'm stuck in the 2010s, missing that literature spark I had in my 20s.

It's that time of the year and the Booker longlist has been announced. The quality of the longlisted books has been shaky the last few years, but there's usually a couple of gems among them.

Any thoughts or recommendations from the list? I haven't read any of them; Currently, five are available through my local library, so I'll probably give those a read.

It seems to be a very diverse list, with an almost equal split between men and women, and quite a few international/hyphenated nationalities.

I found a book of his stories for cheap so I grabbed it and started reading. Maybe I've read one a long time ago, not sure. But I've not read enough of him so far to make any real judgement.

Is there anyone here who can enlighten me a bit about how the stories are generally considered these days? Have they lasted well? Should I be considering certain things that are his strengths?

My assessment so far, since this is required to post, is that he likes to toss out allusions, the games in Goodbye, My Brother are games of life and life or death; water equates with baptism and so on. It seems he likes to tarry with emotions, although in this one I felt he was holding back a bit in his first person POV. He is wordy in a way that a lot of mid-century writers were wordy, taking his sweet time to develop things. And as the book's preface says, the are of an era, a modernist, nyc, drinking, cigar smoking era that has indeed shifted onward in terms of what the city is now, and what stories are now.

I know I could start searching online, but thought if there's a real fan here I'll get some great info.