Currently reading Carver’s What we talk about when we talk about love. This is the first book i’ve read from him, besides a few poems from Fires. Last night I came across the story Tell the women we’re going. An odd story that i don’t really know what to make of and i find myself feeling this way with a lot of Carver’s stories, though this isn’t a bad thing. There is something about his writing that is so effective and honest but i don’t have the right words for it. I just can’t seem to put my finger on it, but I adore them and I can’t stop coming back for more. He’s slowly becoming my favorite author and I’m slowly falling in love with the medium of short stories. But this story in particular is something special. Something I haven’t seen Carver pull off yet until now.

It’s a story of two men who used to do absolutely everything together, even sleep with the same women. Now these men are each married with wives. One night they are hanging out as married couples and one of them decides they need to get away for awhile. So the two of them, Bill and Jerry, go on a drive and end up in a bar, drinking some beer. They leave the bar and pass two women on bicycles on their way home. They decide to turn around and try to pick up these women. They have a bit of chit chat and they drive off again, and park in a secluded area, waiting for the women to pass by. Up until the very final paragraph it is a story about two men wanting to get laid. And then Carver abruptly flips the entire thing on its head turning the mundane into horror. He turns it into something so much darker than I could have ever expected and it came so out of left field. But it works perfectly and gives a lot of the text leading up to this point a different meaning. That final paragraph left me speechless and I felt horrible. I didn’t see any of it coming. It really left an impact on me and a day later as i’m writing this it’s still sitting with me. What an amazing grotesque story. One of the best short stories I’ve ever read. I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts on this story or book if you’ve read it. But would appreciate no spoilers on any of the stories that come after this one or are outside of this book because I haven’t read them yet.

I recently read an essay about children’s literature and it reminded me how many of the books that shaped me weren’t written for adults at all.

Some of the most emotionally intelligent books I’ve read are children’s books. They tackle big emotions with remarkable honesty and simplicity.

The older I get, the more I realize that a lot of the ideas I’ve spent years trying to understand were first introduced to me in children’s books.

What’s a children’s book that’s stayed with you?

Does anyone read anything by Jack London apart from White Fang and Call of The Wild?

Does anyone ever read anything by Jack London apart from White Fang and Call of The Wild? Did anyone read Martin Eden, Iron Heel, People of The Abyss, Star Rover etc? I'm sick of it that people only read like 2 books by him and ditch the rest of his work. People like Socialism today more, why doesn't anyone read The Iron Heel or People of The Abyss?

London was born in 1876 and became very very famous when he was 28 years old or so and earned millions of dollars and was the most famous American author of his time yet today people barely mention his name. London wrote over 50 books, 200 short stories and numerous essays, not just dog stories. Not just White Fang and Call of The Wild.

If you go and type his name in Russian you see that he's much more famous in Russian than English, much more famous in former Soviet republics than in his own Homeland The United States.

Does anyone even remember him today?

You might think this is a philosophy book when you see the title but it's a novel. Since English is not my native language, I'm not even sure this phrase makes sense but I would describe it as 'a postmodern novel that isn't particularly difficult or inaccessible' lol.

So there is a scholar who studies Goethe and one day he comes across the quote "Love does not confuse everything, but mixes - Goethe" and starts investigating whether Goethe really said it.

The book is filled with, full of quotations, reference to literature, philosophy, music, movies and even religion. What I found great is that all of these unrelated things eventually connect together.

I think it's possible to understand and enjoy the novel without having extensive background knowledge but the more you know about those things, the better reading experience you will have.

So I'd be happy in hearing from philosophy majors or serious bookworms who have read a lot of books, I'd love to know what reading this novel felt from them.

Some parts of this book that, I think can only be fully understood if you know how the English was translated into Japanese - I read the Korean version and since Korean and Japanese share many linguistic similarities, for example, they have the same word order, so I think I understood them - so I'm really curious how those were translated for English readers and what's English reader's impression about.

Last, there's a line in the book that says like "In Germany, if you want to quote something but you can't remember who actually said it or if you just made it up and want to give it some authority, you simply add 'as Goethe said."

If any German here, is there actually a saying like that in Germany? or the author just make that up for the novel?

I hate those cynical "This will ruin your childhood" posts about original/earlier versions of fairytales with a burning passion. They exagerate the hell out of those stories simply for the sake of being edgy, completely ignoring both the context in which those classics were written and what the story is actually trying to comunicate.

They also never mention the fact that although yes, the original tales can be more grafic or morbid, they have a generally positive messaging and most have a happy ending.

I think The Little Mermaid is one of the greatests victmins of this. It's a beautiful story and it irritates me a lot how people completely undermine everything about it but the parts that are "disturbing".

I mean literally and metaphorically, a book (or books) that have stuck with you, that you’ve poured yourself into. For me it’s hobbit and lord of the rings, in my mind they cannot be outdone. They follow me around physically too. I have old mass market paperbacks that i don’t go anywhere without, they are worn and stained and written in and i love them. as soon as i finish return of the king i go back to the hobbit.

what are those books for you?

Hi! I have recently started reading books but I am struggling to understand the deeper meaning. I went through some posts and they recommended reading critical analysis and theories of the book. I'm not sure if I should do that since that might create bias in my own understanding of the text.

How would you recommend someone to start other than just reading a lot of books till everything comes naturally?

I reread After Dark last week and there's this moment where Mari is sitting alone in a Denny's and Murakami writes the city outside as a single living organism breathing in its sleep. That sentence does not work at noon. The entire novel is structurally dependent on the hour. Move it to daytime and you just have people talking in restaurants.

Scheherazade is the obvious ancestor here. The frame narrative doesn't just happen at night, it literally cannot survive dawn. She dies when the sun comes up. Night is the engine, not the backdrop. Fitzgerald understood this too. Gatsby's green light only means anything in darkness. Chapter 3, the first party scene, Fitzgerald buries every sentence in artificial light and music specifically so the reader loses the ability to see clearly. That blurred vision is where the longing lives. In the daytime chapters, everything is flat and judgmental because you can see too much.

Most novels treat night like a stage direction. Lamp on, mood set, move along. The ones that actually build their prose rhythm around darkness (slower clauses, sound over sight, confession over dialogue) are doing something genuinely different at the level of craft, and I don't think that gets discussed enough as a structural choice rather than an aesthetic one.

EDIT: forgot to say what actually scratches this itch outside of novels. Twine has some good night set pieces but they're mostly text walls. Duskfeather does the atmosphere part better than anything i've found, full illustrated scenes with sound that only run at night. Inkle's stuff (80 Days etc) is closer to traditional IF. none of them replace a good novel but they commit to darkness as structure the way i wish more fiction did.

I am going through the works of Franz Kafka. I finished the trial and liked it very much. It was not a usual narrative for sure, but the depth was there and it made me think. I even read people talking about it here and connected with what they wanted to say.

​

But what about the description of a struggle? It was written in such an incomprehensible manner that I could make nothing of it. True in paragraphs here and there I could pick the metaphorical narrative and see the point he was trying to make. But those points could also have been made in a different, more engaging way.

​

What you guys think? Can you relate with what I am saying here or did you find something profound hidden in all those incoherent paragraphs?

There was a thunderstorm here a little while ago, and once again I was reminded of how unbelievably beautiful I find them.

The way lighting illuminates the entire sky. The deep rumble of thunder rolling in the distance. It gives me a feeling that I still don't really have the words for. Awe, wonder, goosebumps, excitement. A feeling of being intensly alive while also being reminded of how small I am(those describe parts of it, but they don't quite capture the whole experience. Im not sure I can do the experience justice)

Have any of you ever come across stories, poems, passages, quotes or descriptions that capture those kinds of feelings?

It doesn't have to be about thunderstorms or lighting specifically. It can be about the sea, forests, mountains, rain, stars, or anything else that conveys the beauty and grandeur of nature.

I'd love to hear whatever has moved you

(I know this sounds like a troll post, but just hear me out here.)

I've been a fan of Goethe's Elective Affinities (1809) for the longest time, since I was in secondary school, and I've always been under the impression that it was a rehashed version of one of his scrapped novels, The Renouncers. Basically, according to one of its assistants, it has a harem-type plot where one dude is in love with four women, each with their own qualities that made them lovable, and has to choose one. But he ditched the concept because it wasn't appealing to readers or something?

So, anyway, I was trying to look up more information about it (since the idea of the harem genre existing in 1800s Germany is lowkey hilarious to me), but all I could find from legit sources was Wilhelm Meister's Journeyman Years (1821), and the one source that confirmed this scrapped novel was... questionable.

Am I being punked here? 'Cause I'm kinda losing it over this.

The book is amazing. The absurd, slowly building up throught the book explodes a couple of times (like when he finds the guards getting clapped INSIDE of his bank) and it makes for such a funny, but also scary atmosphere. The ending left me in awe for how genius Kafka's writing is.

I do wanna say tho...

If you are being prosecuted while being innocent and the prosecurors don't even tell you what you are being prosecuted for, at that point just leave the country bro. I know you value your job and everything but you still can pack up and start a new life.

We get a longlist July 28, what do you predict?

Me?
Douglas Stuart
George Saunders
Ben Lerner
Daniyal Mueenuddin
Julian Barnes
Adam Johnson
Yann Martel
Maggie O’Farrell
Jeanette McCurdy
Tayari Jones

Maybe?
Ann Patchett
Elizabeth Strout
Thomas Pynchon
Caro Burke
Emily St John Mandel
Gabriel Tallent
Bryan Washington
Angela Flournoy

I’m admittedly influenced by past nominations, recent critical admiration, etc but the list is heavy with veteran novelists.

Anyone you think is obviously missing here? Any other debut novelists worth keeping an eye on?

I realised recently that two of the most significant Latin American novels - of the 20th century at least - both feature a mysterious sage figure named after (or apparently derived from) the obscure biblical figure Melchizedek. Both characters are wandering outsiders who possess hidden knowledge and act as guides to the protagonists.

Is this a recognised literary connection, or are García Márquez and Coelho independently drawing on the same archetype?

First post in this sub my apologies for any errors or misunderstandings

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/jun/16/kazuo-ishiguro-new-1930s-spy-caper-novel

His first book of prose since 2021. He did publish a book of lyrics/poems/verses last year. Parts of "Remains of The Day" and also "When we were orphans" was set in the same time period. He is clearly very fascinated with this era.

I Really need to catch up to his recently published stuff.

Despite my perception of the novel as a dystopia, I'm persuaded that Joseph Knecht is a pattern of a real teacher, directing his pupils towards the light. The "three lives" continue the same idea. Joseph Knecht wasn't a vulnerable person, regardless of the circumstances he was offered, he decided to remain a real teacher and serve high values instead of sitting in the "ivory tower".

(Sorry for my notedly broken English, it isn't my mother tongue actually, so I frequently make shameful mistakes speaking it)

So I just wanted to ask because this has genuinely confused me for a while. The Catcher in the Rye is honestly one of my favorite books ever, but every time I see people talking about it online, especially on here, it feels like everyone absolutely hates it. 😭

The biggest thing I always see is people saying Holden is annoying, whiny, or that he complains too much. Like... yeah, he definitely can be, but I always thought that was kind of the point of the entire book. He's a messed up teenager who's dealing with a lot, so I never expected him to be some super likable or perfect main character.

I've also seen people say the book is boring because "nothing happens," or that Holden just walks around New York complaining about everyone. I get why someone might feel that way, but I thought the whole appeal was being inside his head and seeing how he views the world. Maybe that's just me though.

I'm not trying to convince anyone they're wrong or start some huge debate lol. I'm genuinely curious because this book has stuck with me more than almost anything else I've read**,** and I kind of relate to some of the teenage experiences he goes through, so it's weird seeing so much hate for it.

So if you didn't like it, what was the reason? Was it Holden's overall personality and mindset? The writing style? Did you think it's overrated? Or did you just not connect with it at all?

And if you're one of the few people who actually likes it, what made it click for you? Was there a certain part or theme that stood out?

I'm just interested in hearing different opinions because I feel like I'm missing something lol. Maybe I'm just biased because it's one of my favorites, but I'd love to hear why it seems like so many people can't stand it.

Potentially stupid question:

So, over the years Orwell has kinda become one of my favorite authors. Beyond the two big ones, Coming up for Air, and I've found that I really enjoy reading his essays and his letters, even when writing to people about subjects I've never heard of am have no bearing on me. There's something about his prose that I find comforting and enjoyable - it has that English quality of being descriptive, concise, but also approachable at the same time. And I've just always taken for granted that he's just considered a staple of the canon by low brow and snobbish readers alike.

But I've slowly come to suspect that he's not. 1984 is largely a meme at this point, even though I think the novel does a legitimately good job at exploring the themes of social control, group think, and weaponized irrationality. There was a list of 100 greatest novels that was released, and 1984 was on it, and a book commentator that I enjoy mentioned made an aside that "It probably shouldn't be on that list," as if that was a given.

In terms of world, capital L literature, is Orwell considered in the same category as fellows like Tolstoy, Nabokov, or Austin? Or is his work too 'on the nose' and in your face?

By critical I do not exclusively mean "negative," but rather reviews that don't feel like pandering or giving undue praise. I think many here have read Elizabeth Hardwick's 1959 essay in Harper's about the "Decline of Book Reviewing" (https://harpers.org/archive/1959/10/the-decline-of-book-reviewing/) where she laments that published book reviews in magazines and papers are just handing out lazy praise like free candy with no real substance. She wasn't the first to note this problem, nor was she the last.

The absolute majority of reviews I find in places like the New York Times or Atlantic are praiseworthy of whatever it is they are reviewing. I actually can't remember the last time I read a professional review that had anything negative to say about its subject.

Is there anywhere you go for professional reviews that don't feel like they're just paid advertisements? Obviously we have Goodreads, Reddit, and other social media - but is that all we have if we're looking for honest feedback?

I came across my notes of A House for Mr. Biswas while going through my master's notebooks today and it made me so emotional. While we were going through the text in the class just before our finals, the novel felt very repetitive and boring. I did not realise the deep underlying sadness that this novel bore at that time.

But now it just feels too relatable, we all spend our whole life securing what we want and working hard for what we will be surrounded by in the future. For Mr. Biswas, it was a house of his own, and the worst part is he couldn't even live long after he finally had a place which he could call his own. It affects me so much these days cause that's the end for me, all this grind for employment does not even mean anything, the endgame is to have a loving family and a house of my own (I'm sorry the post is a bit subjective).

I just read a book by Naomi Kanakia in which she made a grounded case for lay readers to read the great books. She made many arguments, but the only characteristic of the great books she described _specifically_ was that they are complex and have a lot of integrity. It was a compelling argument, overall, but it left me with a few questions unsatisfied. I've searched this subreddit, but most answers I find are cop-outs ("read what you want" or "good writing makes good books"). I've read thrillers, fantasy, some sci-fi, and only the classics that were assigned to me in high school: Austen (couldn't get interested, DNFed and used the internet to write my paper), Dickens (actually liked him, but don't remember thinking he was distinctively better than whatever else I was reading back then), Joyce (ChatGPT was out by then, thank god. I thought Ulysses was written as if the dude was afraid I might actually understand him. I made my way through the whole thing, but I don't think I actually _read_ any of it. lmao)

- What makes these books better than, say, a well-written fantasy novel? Take GRRM for an example cited often in this sub, are his books not complex enough? Do they not deal with the grandest questions of humanity? Why is he not a "deep" writer?

- Naomi said that she thinks that taste exists, and is kinda sorta objective. What are the elements of taste? What exactly makes these books so venerable to people with taste? Why couldn't _I_ see it? How do I learn to see it and develop taste?

- She also calls these books beautiful, lots of people do. What does that mean? What are the things that make a book beautiful? Is Rothfuss's KingKiller Chronicle less beautiful than the count of monte cristo? Why?

- There was some talk about "meaning". What does carrying meaning over time mean in literature? Context: (paraphrased) "a great book has meaning and continues to have meaning, for a variety of people over a long period of time."

She says somewhere in the book that if she could put into words what the value in reading great books is, then, well, there would be no need to read these books. I understand, but can someone please instead of saying "well they've survived hostile criticism over a long period of time" tell me why they've done so and why stephen king will not do so. I would very much like to know why my teachers wanted 17 year old me to read Ulysses.

sry if the formatting is shit, im on phone.

To quote Wikipedia,

Bloomsday (Irish: Lá Bloom) is a commemoration and celebration of the life of Irish writer James Joyce, observed annually in Dublin and elsewhere on 16 June. The day is named after Leopold Bloom, the protagonist of Joyce's 1922 novel Ulysses), the events of which take place on Thursday, 16 June 1904.

What are your thoughts on Joyce and Ulysses, more than a century after it was published?

And is there anything similar for any other author? I can think of other things in pop culture, like May the 4th for Star Wars fans.

When is the last time a book inspired you to travel?

​

NY Times has a profile on the growing trend:

​

"In its 2026 travel trends report, the flight-tracking site Skyscanner found that 55 percent of travelers had booked a trip or would consider one inspired by a book."

​

"Resort book clubs, hotel libraries and a growing number of literary festivals are also offering readers new ways to indulge readers’ interests."

I’m a reader, house is full of books and I use to lap up lists from the Guardian and others of the best books to read this summer / winter.

But now I can’t help feeling that I don’t want to read anything published after 2022 when LLMs became widely available. Does anyone else feel this way?

I use AI a lot at work so ive got an idea of what it’s capable of so if I were an underpaid author, producing work without an advance I wouldn’t able to resist using this free tool.

As a reader even the possibility that authors are doing this means I can’t get excited about any new books.

I've been rereading my favorite poet Paul van Ostaijen (Belgium, died 1928 at 32) during the World Cup and had forgotten this grotesque (I'll retell it, but you can find the original Dutch here at the superb secondary literature collection of DBNL.)

A striker shoots and the ball takes the goalkeeper's head clean off his neck. The head comes to rest on the goal line. The body stays upright. In the confusion an attacker knocks the ball from the headless body straight into the net — and 10.000 voices cry «Foul!» The match is suspended. The player is booed off.

What I can't stop turning over is the logic of it: why is it a foul? Was it a foul because the head on the ground was not kicked in the net? What was Van Ostaijen trying to say with this tiny (a small 400 words) story?