-
Find more reddit channels over at @r_channels join @blarkhive for free audiobooks
Solaris by Stanislaw Lem questions for the community
Hey there, I just finished reading Solaris. I thought it was a fascinating and thought provoking novel. I had many questions after the book, so I watched some video overviews, read other people’s Reddit posts, and I get the whole philosophical main dilemma of the book. However, there are a few things I wanted to bring up or ask about that it doesn’t seem anyone is talking about.
First thing is at the end of the chapter titled the thinkers, Kelvin is talking about his own doctoral project regarding electrical charges on the surface of solaris which were somewhat analogous to electrical processes in humans that have to do with emotions such as depression and whatnot. It was right around this time in the book that they sent his EEG brain waves readouts and beamed them at the Solaris ocean. Soon following this is when Kelvin begins to have these very bizarre dreams, some of which he describes himself as being formless and touching another being which is formless. Soon after this is when he stops shaving and it seems he has a shift in his whole emotional state.
When I read this section of the book, I read it as, and it came across to me that maybe the mimoids and symmetriads and asymmetriads that are projecting from Solaris could almost be read as electrical brainwaves from an EEG of Solaris. Then when Kelvin sends his brainwave scan into the ocean he begins to have dreams which I interpreted almost as him being one with the ocean and being a part of the ocean in essence. Then the despair he felt immediately after could maybe have been a shared consciousness and shared despair with Solaris.
Then soon after his brainwave scan was sent into the ocean there was a rapid increase in activity on Solaris. This I interpreted as almost a cheerful symphony and excitation from Solaris for having made “contact” and communicating through brainwaves and dreams.
Then later Snow or Snout (depending on which translated version you read) tells Kelvin after their talk about God that he just made a new theory about Solaris… that it is an imperfect god still in its infancy or maybe even toddler phase, and hence why they can’t communicate with it, because Solaris hasn’t yet learned how.
When reading this part however, it seems to me that Kelvin stumbled upon the answer, but didn’t realize it.
Please if anyone has any thoughts on this if you would reach out and write a response that would be much appreciated. Sorry for being so long winded.
https://redd.it/1in6xrz
@r_books
Why exactly are Gustav Hasford's books out of print?(Short Timers, The Phantom Blooper, A gypsy good time)
I recently read The Short Timers and i'm currently working my way throught The Phantom Blooper after finding some Epubs and they're fantastic. Why exactly would they not republish these? Obviously there are people that want to read them, i see posts semi often asking where to find copies to read of these books, The Short Timers inspired one of the most popular war movies of all time, I just can't wrap my head around the way these have just been kind of ignored.
Figured i'd post because i've wondered this for years, ever since i first tried finding an affordable copy of The Short Timers.
Also, I highly reccomend both, if you liked FMJ youll probably love these books. Pretty much all the best lines from the movie came right from Hasford. (aside from some of Gunny's best lines)
https://redd.it/1in4kaz
@r_books
White World: a book that hits you like a shrapnel.
https://www.cormorantbooks.com/white-world
https://redd.it/1in264r
@r_books
Simple Questions: February 11, 2025
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!
https://redd.it/1imv7jb
@r_books
Which book-character, if any, do you really dislike/hate?
My current read is Mists of Avalon. Besides it being a problematic read in itself (due the author, the story itself is great), I've started to really, really disklike Gwenhwyfar. She is slowly turning into a religious zealot and I can't stand it. If it become any worse, I might even abandon the book and that would be the first time, ever!
What, if any, character from a book do you really dislike or even hate? And did you stop reading the book(s) because of it?
https://redd.it/1im6n64
@r_books
Children’s books about Fred Hampton
It’s black history month, so of course the library has displays in the children’s area filled with books about Rosa Parks, MLK Jr., Harriet Tubman, etc., but I can’t seem to find any kids books about Fred Hampton. I’ve even looked on Amazon to see if there are titles out there that just aren’t in my library, but I haven’t had any luck. Can someone recommend some kids books about Fred Hampton? I’d like a picture book, but even a kids chapter book would be better than what I’ve been able to find.
https://redd.it/1imi41h
@r_books
The Demon of Unrest by Erik Larson (2024)
The Demon of Unrest by Erik Larson (2024)
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️- A Must-Read for History Fans
I have a lot of thoughts on this book so please bear with me as I attempt to flesh them out. As a long time Erik Larson fan, I was certainly very happy to complete his latest work. I normally try to focus these reviews on the author and the artist, but I confess I am likely to stray from that model in this review. I find this work so relevant to today's political and cultural atmosphere in America, that I just need to get them down and out of my skull. I will try to tread as carefully as possible.
The Demon of Unrest may not be necessarily Larson's most enjoyable read, but I think it is his most important to the current state of affairs in the United States. The book focuses on the momentous event that ignited the Civil War, America's bloodiest conflict (so far). The event, the shelling of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 by the confederate batteries of Charleston, South Carolina, wasn't an especially gory, death-filled occasion, but it kicked off a 4 year span in the United States that certainly was. The lead up story here is Larson at his best, providing the attitudes and backgrounds of some of the moment's most important characters to include Lincoln, Seward, Major Robert Anderson (Fort Sumter's commander), fire eater Edmund Ruffin, the detestable James Hammond, General P.T. Beauregarde, Mary Chesnutt, William Seward, and so on. Indeed, these back stories and mini biographies are a strength in all of Larson's book as he always does such a brilliant job of forcing his readers to care about these characters. But, in this work he goes a step further with a feat that really connects the past to today- he explains away thoroughly, the attitudes in the North and the South, and WHY they were so different, and WHY they so often egregiously misunderstood each other. And, in a manner, why they still do today.
Allow me to be self-indulgent for a moment. As a New Yorker born and raised myself, I often struggled in school to understand the South's motivations when it came to slavery and their belief that it was a moral good to own people. And I struggled with understanding the current Southern mindset, sometimes still pro-rebel flag, still anti-yankee, still "Old South". After all, in New York, we could so easily see this error in confederate thinking. But, that is just it. We try and understand the other side through our own cultural lenses. This book lights upon the obvious notion that within the United States exists various cultures and belief systems that we often take for granted because we are all Americans, and feel we all should be of one mind and one heart culturally. Larson, here, holds up a mirror to that idea. Within these passages, it was eye-opening to realize how very little William Seward (who had never been to the South) and President Lincoln knew about the Southern mindset, and how their early actions (or inaction) showed them anticipating Southern reactions and sentiments as if the South were filled with pro-Union, northern hearts. They were not, and it was shocking to both Lincoln and Seward as they began to understand this, and had to modify their plans. The same misunderstandings were rife among southerners when it came to bitching about the North. How could Unionists and abolitionists not see that slavery was a good thing provided by God and that the African was meant to be subjugated? How could northerners not feel the hurt and insult to Southern pride when they railed about slavery being a vile evil? How could Lincoln and the Black Republicans not see how tyrannical they were being? The South was built on honor and chivalry, the North had little concept of what that meant. And so, a war began after tensions, much of it attributed to vast misunderstandings, finally boiled over with the attack on Sumter.
I say all of this because I see these misunderstandings still existing today. And I am not sure how to handle it. It may not be so much of a North versus South thing, though in
What Books did You Start or Finish Reading this Week?: February 10, 2025
Hi everyone!
What are you reading? What have you recently finished reading? What do you think of it? We want to know!
We're displaying the books found in this thread in the book strip at the top of the page. If you want the books you're reading included, use the formatting below.
Formatting your book info
Post your book info in this format:
the title, by the author
For example:
The Bogus Title, by Stephen King
This formatting is voluntary but will help us include your selections in the book strip banner.
Entering your book data in this format will make it easy to collect the data, and the bold text will make the books titles stand out and might be a little easier to read.
Enter as many books per post as you like but only the parent comments will be included. Replies to parent comments will be ignored for data collection.
To help prevent errors in data collection, please double check your spelling of the title and author.
NEW: Would you like to ask the author you are reading (or just finished reading) a question? Type !invite in your comment and we will reach out to them to request they join us for a community Ask Me Anything event!
-Your Friendly /r/books Moderator Team
https://redd.it/1im3k2h
@r_books
Tom Robbins, author of Another Roadside Attraction, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, Jitterbug Perfume and other countercultural classics, dies at 92
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/09/obituaries/tom-robins-dead.html
https://redd.it/1iltk1g
@r_books
How important is translation to you? Example: The Stranger by Albert Camus
This post is inspired by a comment I left on someone’s post in another community talking about modernized vs literal translation. I love talking about The Stranger by Albert Camus and using it as an example of how much of a difference the translation makes!
The two most well known translations of this book are the Stuart Gilbert translation and the Matthew Ward translation. A lot of the time, Gilbert’s is recognized as the British English translation while Ward’s is recognized as the American English translation. (I want to take a minute to note that I have only read the Ward translation in full, and only excerpts of the Gilbert translation.)
There are two really important differences between their translations that I’ve seen people recognize. The first, being the use of “Mother” vs. “Maman,” and the second being the order of words and word choice.
When it comes to using “Mother” vs. “Maman,” it shows a different style of relationship that Mersault has with his mother. “Mother” is much more formal, whereas “Maman” is not too formal, yet also not too casual. However, it’s hard to translate “Maman” into any English equivalent in the context of this book, because it is the perfect middle ground between “Mother” vs. something like “Mommy.” It also captures the essence of the original text and puts a specific emphasis on their detached relationship and the type of care he holds for his mother.
As for word choice and order of words, the Matthew Ward translation (as you’ll see below) is much more literal to the French text. He uses the exact translation of the text, whereas Stuart Gilbert puts a spin on it that makes it fit the English language more fluidly. However, I would make the argument that in this particular book, the writing isn’t about fluidity, but rather converying the concept of absurdism and how it applies to Mersault, in the detached way that absurdism can reflect on real life. (Not sure if that makes perfect sense, but I’m trying my best!)
The example I want to take a moment to share is the opening lines:
Original French: “Aujourd’hui Maman est morte. Ou peut-être hier, je ne sais pas.”
Stuart Gilbert: “Mother died today. Or, maybe, yesterday; I can’t be sure.”
Matthew Ward: “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.”
When it comes to word choice and order, Matthew Ward’s is much closer to the depiction that Camus was trying to make in the first place compared to Stuart Gilbert’s.
So, yeah. I’m very curious to see if anyone else (especially people who have read the original French text) have any input on this. I find it very interesting to talk about and would love to discuss! Please let me know if I got any information incorrect (although most of this is opinion based rather than fact based).
Thanks for reading!
https://redd.it/1ilgb8x
@r_books
Childhood books with unforeseen descriptions of abuse and violence which left you scarred? I'll go first
[SPOILERS\] [Trigger Warning\]
Good Night Mister Tom
During a discussion yesterday about childhood books, a commenter mentioned this book ahhhh blurgh ughghghg and it resurfaced from the depth of my brain where I thought I had buried it.
The amount of trauma in this seemingly innocuous uplifting beautiful tale of a small city boy evacuated from London to the countryside during WWII, where he thrives and finds love and community among the kind rustic folk is indescribable.
Baby abuse and torture? Check.
Graphic descriptions of bruises following description of belt used to inflict said bruises on child? Check
Chained in a basement and left to starve with dying baby? Check
Violent death of best friend? Check
Creepily trying to "become" the best friend as part of the mourning process? Check
Weird sexual awakening? Check
And last but not least: "I've sewn him in for the winter"- like actually, what the fuck? was this a British thing or a mad mother thing or a war-was-a-time-of-deprivation and everything-was-rationed and people-ate-dirt thing? Underpants and vests sewn together- for what? How were the kids supposed to poop then? I just could not wrap my mind around it. Any of it.
I didn't have anyone to talk about it with- it was just another book lying around the house for whatever reason- I don't think people believed in children talking about things those days, outside of school work.
I see a lot of boomerish complaining about trigger warnings and how the young generations have become soft and unmanly because of trigger warnings- can't have enough trigger warnings as far as I'm concerned, and I'm rapidly approaching boomer age.
How were you scarred by a childhood book?
https://redd.it/1ildw0q
@r_books
misunderstand me: I'm not making an argument against religion. I'm making an argument against Martel's argument for religion.
So while Life of Pi is brilliant as a novel and as a piece of literature in defending the virtues of making a leap of religious faith, I personally think it is flawed in encouraging us to choose to make this leap independent of whether what we believe is true or not. But that's more of an issue I have with post-modernism than I have with the book itself. For me, the truth does matter, also for religion, and faith needs to be grounded in some objective truth. So I'd grant that calling this a "flaw" is mostly a reflection of my personal worldview being different than Martel's. I don't see that all religions are valid paths to God, because if one religion is literally and historically true, then surely everyone should believe it. And for me faith and believing God isn't a matter of wishful thinking, or believing something because I think it's a better story, or because that belief is a good coping mechanism, but somehow it needs to correspond to truth. But as mentioned, this is more about how my personal convictions are different than Martel's, than it is a criticism of his book as a work of literature, and I recognize that many readers are perfectly okay with a post-modern approach to life.
**OTHER NEGATIVES**
Readers should also be forewarned about a few other things. This is not a children's story. It's very gory at times, and the narrative of Part 2 includes detailed and bloody descriptions of a hyena eating the innards of a zebra while it's still alive; a tiger mauling a castaway; and attempts to eat animal feces. And if that sounds bad, it gets even worse in Part 3: there's the brutal killing of a woman; the primitive amputation of a human leg with a knife; eating strips of human flesh; and other savage descriptions of butchery and cannibalism.
I was also puzzled by the lack of consistency between chapters. The overall structure into three main parts makes sense in the end. And the author says it was important to tell his tale in exactly 100 chapters. But some of these chapters are unnaturally short; one even consists of just a single sentence. But why? The chapter division often feels completely arbitrary as a result, and even hinders the story.
Despite the authentic feel of the survival story, there are also elements that seem implausible about it. How is it possible for the main character not even to have a thought about eating or drinking for three entire days? "*I thought of sustenance for the first time. I'd not had anything to eat or drink for three days.*" Surely the impact of hunger, thirst, and exposure after three days would be enormous. And why does Pi not ask for help from God during this time? We're led to believe from Part 1 of the story that he is intensely religious, and yet all mention of religion just vanishes for several days after the initial disaster. Pi doesn't even call on God for assistance until much later, and his religious faith doesn't really play any role in how he copes with the awful situation he finds himself in. This undermines any credibility of his earlier religiosity.
**OTHER POSITIVES**
On the positive side, besides the literary genius of the novel in its construction and the way it communicates its message, there's no doubt that Yann Martel is a skilled writer. His prose is excellent, and he often uses very creative images to describe things, with imaginative similes and metaphors that are a real pleasure to read. Many parts of the book are beautifully written, and a real delight to the senses. It's not surprising that this book won the 2002 Booker Prize.
Several parts of the story were highlights for me, even in the initial section which goes into detail about zoology. I loved Martel debunks as a myth the common notion that animals in wild are happy and free, and I enjoyed reading the argument made for how animals in captivity can actually be happy. I also loved the early meeting of "the three wise men" after Pi becomes
necessarily false, just because you haven't seen it? Questions like these have epistemological and theological importance, and that's what the survival story is really all about. It's designed to make us ask the same stories about the stories of different religions: are they true or not, and what should we believe?
That this is the author's intent is supported by a couple of key statements voiced by Pi in the first and in the final part of the book. At the beginning Pi says that this is a story that "*will make you believe in God*". And at the end, when the investigators make the choice to believe the story with animals, he says, "*And so it is with God*." The point is that a life in which you believe in God is a better story. Martel himself said in an interview that his book can be summarized in three statements: "*Life is a story*"; "*You can choose your story*"; "*A story with God is the better story*."
The question that Pi's second story leaves us with is: Which story is true? Like the investigators note, the two stories have important similarities, except that the animals are replaced with people. In light of this, some readers argue that the second and more horrifying story must be what really happened, while the story with the animals was just Pi's coping mechanism for dealing with the horror and extreme trauma he experienced. I have not seen the film corresponding to the book, but I gather that it leans more to this interpretation. But one could equally argue that the story with the animals is the true story, because don't the meerkat bones in the lifeboat and tiger tracks on the beach prove it? Both stories seem to have evidence pointing towards them being possible.
Martel's point, however, is that we can't tell which one is true. When asked in an interview "*Which is the real story? Was Richard Parker in fact Pi all along? His evil side (or real side)?*" Martel answered: "*You decide which is the real story*." The ending is deliberately geared to be ambiguous. We get to choose which story we think is true. And that's why Pi says at the beginning: "*This book will make you believe in God*." Because most of us will prefer the story with the animals to the more horrific story without the animals, even if it's the latter is more plausible and seems more rational. "*And so it is with God*," says Pi. In other words, we might even choose to believe the story that is more fantastic, because it is a better story. The twist, then, is not that the story with the animals wasn't the truth, but that we don't know what the truth is. Martel would say the same about religion: we can't really know what is true, but in his view, this doesn't matter. Pick the story that is the better story. He would say: A life lived where you believe in God is a better than a life lived where you don't believe in God. Because religion will serve as a blanket that comforts you in hard times, and you'll cope with life better.
That this is Yann Martel's goal is confirmed by what he wrote in an interview about whether Life of Pi reflects his own spiritual quest. In answering that, he observed that he had an agnostic upbringing, but began considering religion when he realized a spiritual perspective was missing from his life. He stated that in all religions there are limits to what you can do rationally, and eventually you have to make a leap of faith to believe. And that's what "Life of Pi" is really about: encouraging us to make the leap of faith, and view life through the lens of religion, believing that God exists. In Martel's words: "*Pi is something of a mystery in itself in that it represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter - 3.1415926... etc - but it seems impossible to take it through to the last number after the point. Like \`pi', life is not finite. And so I didn’t make the title The Life of Pi: I deliberately left out the definite article. That would have denoted a single life. This book is not escapist fiction. It's to do with discovering life through a religious perspective. Religion
Thoughts on Yann Martel's Life of Pi
THE STORY
Several descriptions of Yann Martel's book "Life is Pi" said that is "a fantasy adventure novel". So I came in expecting some kind of fantasy story, and those familiar with the book will understand why I found myself extremely puzzled when I began reading it. The book is divided into three main parts, and Part 1 (which takes up about a quarter of the book) feels more like a primer on running a zoo and on the psychology of zoo animals, mixed in with a philosophical and theological consideration of comparative religions. The main character who tells the story is a young boy named Pi Patel, whose father runs a zoo, so he has lots to say about that. He also explores several religions, and ends up becoming a practicing Hindu, Christian, and Muslim all at once. Definitely no fantasy yet.
Just when I was feeling comfortable with this unexpected content and style, I arrived at Part 2 of the novel, which takes up over half the book. Suddenly the story switches gears, and it feels like we're in a completely different genre, as the book unexpectedly transitions into an epic and gripping survival story. The ship that Pi and his family are on sinks, and he becomes a lone castaway in the Pacific on a lifeboat, the sole survivor together with four animals: a zebra, an orang-utang, a hyena, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. At that point the novel felt like it didn't know what it wanted to be. After a deeply philosophical and theological beginning, it inexplicably abandons that entirely, and becomes an adventure story instead, albeit a good one. It's like someone playing a thoughtful classical piece on solo violin, and then without notice switching to playing heavy metal on an electric guitar. Both are legitimate forms of music, but not right after each other as part of the same concert, surely?
And where are the dwarves, elves, and orcs? But wait, this is not THAT type of fantasy story. The "fantasy" element starts to make some sense when our shipwrecked castaway ends up on a strange meerkat-filled island with mysterious carnivorous plants that kill animals with acid by night, and even consume humans except for their teeth. Now I was even more perplexed, especially after the gritty survival story I'd been captivated with until that point. It was conveyed with very vivid and real descriptions of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and feelings, and felt thoroughly authentic. But this new development of a carnivorous island felt so fantastic and unbelievable, that it seemed to take away from the survival story that felt so real until then. I'd been able to suspend my sense of disbelief up until that moment, but what now?
Things finally started to make sense when I began Part 3, which is the shortest of the three parts, and which closes out the book. It describes what happens when Pi is rescued after 227 days, and is interviewed by Japanese investigators from the insurance company. When Pi tells them what has happened to him at sea, they find it too fantastic to believe. So he tells them an alternate and much shorter story, one in which there are initially four castaways on the lifeboat instead of four animals. Far more atrocities happen in this story, including murder and cannibalism, but it's a more plausible story, and it has the same ending: a lone survivor. After hearing this, the investigators choose to believe the story with animals after all.
THE GENIUS
It's exactly this conclusion that the author has been setting us up for all along. Yann Martel has stated in an interview that he made the main story deliberately far-fetched "in order to raise certain important questions." He wants us to think about believability and about truth. As Pi says towards the end, "God is hard to believe, ask any believer." But does that make him untrue? The third part of the book makes us return to all the questions raised about religion in the first part. The key point is: how can you know if a story is true or not? Is something that seems unbelievable
The man who mistook his wife for the hat: Do you think separating the savant twin was the right thing to do?
I read the book a few months ago, and it was really perspective-changing. All the stories are filled with new insights and make you think about the wonders of the brain.
But I keep wondering about the savant twins. Was it right to separate them? The world of numbers they built around themselves was such a big part of who they were. I do understand that they needed to adapt to society on their own, but still! It is sad that they had to lose so much of themselves just to conform to the idea of "normal" when the disorder itself was such a big part of their identity.
https://redd.it/1ilbes5
@r_books
Are You More Wide Net-Spreader or Deep Diver?
I feel like other than for my English degree I haven't read THAT many different authors; instead, I find an author whose style I like and devour their entire oeuvre. If the latter, with approximately how many authors have you read, say, 10+ or 80%+ of their books? I probably have 15 or 20 like that...
https://redd.it/1in7y6j
@r_books
So Far, Mood Machine by Liz Pelly is what I wanted Filterworld by Kyle Chayka to be
I posted some time ago about how disappointed I was in Filterworld, to the point that I DNF. Chayka's insights on the actual business of streaming fell far short compared to his personal misgivings about the spending habits of millennials, and his lack of meaningful suggestions in the first half made the book a slog for me. So I was excited to take a peek at Mood Machine to really understand what was happening to the music industry due to the Spotify streaming model.
I'm happy to report that, so far, it's been a blast! The interviews are interesting, the history is pretty well presented and it's clear from the jump that Daniel Ek and the rest of the music executives essentially sought to destroy the intellectual value of modern music. I'm not super far into it so there's definitely time for it to fall apart, but so far, it's a much better read for anyone seeking to understand the corrosive effect of the streaming industry on music as an artform.
Can't recommend it enough.
https://redd.it/1in58kv
@r_books
"Becoming The Boogeyman" - A Line That Stuck Out To Me
I recently read Richard Chizmar's "Chasing the Boogeyman". I liked the book and it lent itself nicely to a sequel, which I started a few days ago. For context, the book is told from the point of view of the author of "Chasing the Boogeyman", which is a both the name of the book, and the name of the fictional book in the story. The story is taking place in 2021/2022, for reference, and the sequel I'm currently reading, "Becoming the Boogeyman", was published in 2023. Early in the book, a line stuck out to me:
"Chasing the Boogeyman stuck around on the hardcover bestseller lists for seventeen consecutive weeks - a rare occurrence these days unless your name happens to be Grisham, King, or Patterson..."
As someone who reads a variety of authors, I thought this line irked me, since although these authors are undeniably popular, I felt like it was leaving something out. I looked up the NYT Best Sellers for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, and found the following:
2019 - The most frequent best seller of the year was "Where the Crawdads Sing" by Delia Owens, 25 weeks at the top.
2020 - The most frequent best seller of the year was "Where the Crawdads Sing" by Delia Owens, 7 weeks at the top.
2021 - The most frequent best seller of the year was "The Four Winds" by Kristen Hannah at 5 weeks, followed by "The Duke and I" by Julia Quinn at 4 weeks.
2022 - "Where the Crawdads Sing" - by Delia Owens (again) at 12 weeks, followed by "It Ends With Us" by Colleen Hoover at 11 weeks. Hoover spent a total of 19 weeks at the top between 3 of her novels.
Considering the book is actively referencing real authors, it may have been worth it to accurately portray which authors are dominating the charts. A throwaway line in the book, but one that stopped me in my tracks and boiled my blood.
https://redd.it/1in1pm7
@r_books
Haunting of Hill House should be considered an all-timer!
I've read this the second time now, and it really gets more tragic and haunting the more I read it. It's not really the supernatural scenes that stick out, but the ones that may or may not be natural that are. Seeing the characters twist against each other, Eleanor growing both contemptuous and dependent on her company at Hill House. We don't know if we are seeing visions of increasingly callous remarks, or if the million wrong angles Hugh Crain has drawn up all compound on them until their behavior becomes impossible to understand. Eleanor is probably the closest I've gotten to getting stuck in a characters head, and for better or worse, the ending really releases you out of it. Shirley Jackson is above all of this a really great writer and is able to almost cut off her characters with the narration. Incredibly scary in a way I haven't gotten over since 2022 when I first read it, highly recommend!
https://redd.it/1imvc9x
@r_books
“The Given Day” by Dennis Lehane is en epic of the highest order.
Wow, I just finished this sprawling epic and I am amazed. For those who are into historical fiction and books with a large scope of events, this one is it.
A plot line I pulled from Dennis’ website.
“Set in Boston at the end of the First World War, bestselling author Dennis Lehane’s extraordinary eighth novel unflinchingly captures the political and social unrest of a nation caught at the crossroads where past meets future. Filled with a cast of richly drawn, unforgettable characters, The Given Day tells the story of two families—one black, one white—swept up in a maelstrom of revolutionaries and anarchists, immigrants and ward bosses, Brahmins and ordinary citizens, all engaged in a battle for survival and power. Coursing through the pivotal events of a turbulent epoch, it explores the crippling violence and irrepressible exuberance of a country at war with, and in the thrall of, itself. “
The book contains a big plot line about the Boston Police potentially going on strike. Deals with themes there such as the working man getting robbed, wanting cost of living wages, “the man” screwing people over.
It goes into prejudices, racism, and class affecting people’s judgements. How families can be torn apart but still love each other at the same time. There is unrequited love and how the idea of the one that got away can gnaw at someone.
Lehane goes into power and tips how facist ideals spread. Of course, very relevant now. There’s an also the Spanish flu which occurs which of course is relevant as well with talk of masks mitigating spread.
It’s got a wide scope in terms of its characters and story. There are morally grey characters but you ultimately root for your protagonists. The villain Eddie McKenna reminded me of Dudley Smith from James Ellroy’s LA Quartet. Although truth be told, many of the forces in the book are deemed to be villainous such as high ranking government.
Babe Ruth even makes appearances in the books while as a Red Sox player who wants his money! Young J Edgar Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, and a couple other historic references to real life people are made as well.
Beyond these themes, Lehane himself is just a great writer. Amazing dialogue, juggles the many subplots well, and has a sharp sense of writing.
So if you’re looking for a great book, especially one that’s epic and deals with the history of Boston in the early 20th century, boy do I have a recommendation for you. This really was an amazing book.
https://redd.it/1imnujo
@r_books
some ways it still is. I see it now as a misunderstandings in political cultures that has the most ardent participants at one another's throats and again desiring war. The vast majority of us seem to be caught in the middle somewhere being urged to choose sides and take action. And it was sort of like this in 1860 as well, if Larson is to be believed. Larson is quick to reveal that previous to the shelling of Sumter, the South had multitudes of citizens and states who didn't want to fight, and didn't necessarily even want to secede (such as the state of Virginia) until they felt forced to. They desired conversation, and argued for patience and cool heads. And, because of loud, extremist mouthpieces like Ruffin and Hammond, were rather pushed into action than into diplomatic debate. They began seeing each other as the enemy, and opposition, terms that are being flung around today between the two major political parties. They talked past one another in open forums and debates, rather than engage. Senators and state representatives began walking the capitol with pistols, and sessions began with the majority of participants armed. Tensions were that hot, hatreds were that visceral. And sadly, it would not be much of a leap of faith to imagine that scene happening today.
So what is the ultimate take away from this? What is the point of my rant here? Even in attempting to see the point of view from the Southern vantage, I still see slavery as a moral evil as do most now (I hope). So, there are instances where decision-making leaves no room for concession, as Lincoln first attempted to do by promising to leave alone the states that already had slaves, and just prevent new states from being slave-owning. Beliefs of that righteous of a magnitude are worth fighting and dying for. I guess I am left asking if the issues we fight and threaten one another over today are on this same level? Do they carry the same weight? Are they worth misunderstanding the "enemy" over, wasting no effort in consideration? Or could diplomatic talks and concessions on both sides solve the chaos? I don't claim to know the answers to this. A cop out, maybe. I feel we all have those issues we believe are worth are efforts and our focus, but with so many conflicts existent in today's America, how best can we solve them as a nation? We face no small issues as Americans, and find ourselves amidst politicians and influencers urging action, and in some cases, violence. With immigration, abortion, Gaza, Ukraine, tariffs, costs of living, pandemics, oligarchies, identity... How do we proceed as a country as these different cultures, ideologies and belief systems crash into each other once more? How can we prevent misunderstandings?
The Demon of Unrest is a 5-star work in that it even has me asking these questions in the first place. It is a 5-star history of how the states came about seceding in order, the swirl of political passions as Lincoln came into office, the consequence of Buchanan's inaction, the courage and meaning of Major Anderson holding Fort Sumter. There are excellent vignettes about Harriet Beecher Stowe, Robert E. Lee, Andrew Jackson, John Brown, and William Russell. You will appreciate the man that was Abraham Lincoln, and the fiery political mess he walked into in 1861. Larson's book is proof that Lincoln was an American titan. I can't recommend this book enough. An important read in the current political climate.
https://redd.it/1imhbe3
@r_books
Otherland by Tad Williams
I just finished the Otherland series by Tad Williams, and I cannot recommend it enough. I haven't read much in the sci-fi/fantasy genres and I wanted to change that, so on a trip to Half Price Books I happened upon the first volume of Otherland.
I had never heard of it before, and I'm amazed now how it's isn't better known. For those that love sci fi and cyberpunk, if for whatever reason you haven't gotten to this one, you need to.
Otherland (written in the mid 90s to the early 2000s) is the story of a VR world where children have begun to disappear into, becoming comatose in real life. We follow a large cast of characters who set off into the mysterious Otherland area of the VR world to rescue the children. There's Renie and !Xabbu from South Africa out to rescue Renie's brother. Orlando and Fredericks, two friends in an RPG world who more or less stumble into the Otherland mystery. There's Paul Jonas, a man seemingly lost in endless worlds, not sure even who he is or how he got there. And a myriad of various supporting characters. There's mysterious ultra wealthy villians and a psychopathic hunter on the trail of the heroes, and possibly ultimate power.
It's a big read, but the variety of worlds (fantasy worlds, historical worlds, bizarre worlds such as a world comprised entirely of an over grown kitchen, or a world that is entirely an old mansion) and the large cast of interesting characters keep the plot humming along. Also, the ultimate mystery of what Otherland is and how it all works is a great one, with a crazy finale.
So, if anyone finds this kind of epic genre bending sci fi fantasy stuff interesting, have at it!
https://redd.it/1imc2qs
@r_books
Do the new Puffin editions of Jane Austen make classics more accessible to younger readers?
https://www.penguin.co.uk/series/FRSTIMPRSNS/first-impressions
https://redd.it/1im0za4
@r_books
The New Yorker magazine's first hundred years
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-new-yorker-magazines-first-hundred-years/
https://redd.it/1ilnqby
@r_books
What silly book reviews have you found?
Sorry if the title sounds mean.
A person can explain in a structured, understandable way why he liked/disliked the book, and even if you do not agree with his opinion, you accept it. But there may be those reviews, reading which you have a lot of questions about whether this person has read the book at all.
For example, I can include reviews of Lolita. Yes, those infamous reviews where a little girl is called a dirty hoe because she seduced an adult man. After all, this book is not about an unreliable narrator, but a straightforward story about a "poor man" "suffering" from a little girl (sarcasm).
By stupid review, I don't mean those that don't match your opinion.
https://redd.it/1ildfab
@r_books
a practicing Hindu, Christian, and Muslim simultaneously, and where his religious teachers all try to convince each other that he's exclusively dedicated to their chosen religion. I also particularly enjoyed the humorous elements of two extended discussions later in the book: the one Pi has with a fellow castaway (the French cook) about food, and the one with the Japanese investigators in the final part of the book, where they are presented as insensitive and incompetent.
The audio version of this book from Audible is read by Sanjeev Bhaskar, who does a brilliant job. If there is a weakness of listening to the audio version rather than reading the printed text, it's that the unusual structure of the novel does hamper the listening experience slightly on occasion. At times it's not obvious that it is the narrator speaking rather than the protagonist, whereas in the physical book this is clearly indicated by italic text. But aside from that, it's very well read, and listening to this top-class reading helps one really soak and enjoy Martel's imagery and absorb every detail. Bhaskar does an excellent job in pacing and tone, and even adds appropriate accents where necessary, which all add to the authenticity and feel.
**FINAL THOUGHTS**
So how do I feel about novel after all this? My feelings about Life of Pi have changed several times, and my reading experience parallels a lifeboat going up and down on the peaks and troughs of waves. Initially, especially with the wrong expectations about a traditional style fantasy (which was my own fault!), I was disappointed. Because instead of spending time with dwarves and elves in a fantasy world, I found myself listening to zoology and theology. But that grew on me, and I became more positive about things. But just when I adjusted to that new normal, I was cast adrift and thrown into a completely different story, one of survival. At first I was perplexed about the radical incongruity, but eventually that grew on me too, because as far as survival stories go, it was compelling. But just when I was thinking that perhaps I liked the book after all, things took yet another unexpected turn, first when Pi ends up on an adversarial island that seems rather too incredible; and then at the end when he basically says "Do you think that my story isn't true? Try this one instead." It was simultaneously frustrating and yet brilliant.
But the more I thought about this and the more I read about it, the more I realized that it was actually all quite clever in the end. In fact, it's worthy of five stars from a literary point of view. Although for me personally I find it unfortunate that Martel has used this literary genius to communicate an idea that I think is fantasy: post-modern relativism, and a philosophy where God exists only because the fantasy of believing him is better than a reality where he doesn't exist. After deducting points for that, it brings my rating to 3.1415926. In other words: Pi. But this book deserves to be rounded up. So: 4 stars.
https://redd.it/1ilb86r
@r_books
doesn't deny reality, it explains it.*"
In another interview, he said "*I work really hard on my novels and everything has a meaning. Pi is what’s called an irrational number, so the nickname “Pi” is irrational. I just thought it was intriguing that this irrational number is used to come to a rational understanding of things. And to my mind religion ― and after all Life of Pi is ultimately a religious novel ― to me religion is the same thing. Religion is something slightly irrational, non-reasonable, beyond the reasonable, that helps us make sense of things*."
In yet another interview, Martel defended the idea that stories of imagination and fantasy - including religion - are a kind of reality: "*Reality is how we interpret it. Imagination and volition play a part in that interpretation. Which means that all reality is to some extent a fiction. This is what I explore in the novel.*" In other words, even if it exists just in your mind, if it helps make life better for you, it's a reality, and that's okay. Pi's first story was to some extent a fiction too, and the religions that tell about God are the same. But Martel thinks that's okay. When talking about religion, Martel stated: "*Why not believe in whatever? You know, whatever? Jesus, Buddha, any one of these? ... Why not?*" Yes, why not believe in God, if it makes life become a better story?
This is all very clever, because it sheds a whole new light on the book and how it should be read. As someone who enjoys literature, I can appreciate how brilliant Yann Martel is in making us ask questions about reality and faith, and how brilliant he is in coming up with a story that allegorizes this.
**THE FLAW?**
At the same time I find the point that Martel is making a troubling one. Effectively he is saying we can't know what the truth about life and God really is, and that this doesn't matter. Whether something is reality or fantasy doesn't matter to him - just go with the more interesting story and accept that, even if it defies logic, science, reason, and reality.
In other words: Life can be horrific and traumatic - just as it was for Pi on his lifeboat - but it's fine for us to make up religious stories about God if that helps life become more bearable and worth living. Faith - regardless of the religion you choose - is really about choosing to believe things that will make our human experience better, and that's what Martel presents as a reason for choosing to believe in God. But with this approach to life, truth doesn't really matter. Religion is really just a coping mechanism to a traumatic event, and it's the result of making a leap of faith just because that helps make things better for you, even though it may mean you're believing things that aren't true. With this thinking, faith is really just a personal choice to believe a fantasy in order to help you deal with suffering and pain.
This is post-modernism and relativism, which says: "If it's true for you, power to ya!" Through Pi, Martel is asking us to say about religion "Which story do you prefer?" It doesn't matter whether the story you believe is true; all that matters is that you prefer what you believe. But suppose someone actually did believe an invented reality as a coping mechanism to a real trauma they experienced. We wouldn't encourage them to keep believing the fairy-tale. We'd send them to therapy to help come to terms with the reality they experienced. Believing something just because it's a better story or makes your life feel better, will in the end not be helpful if it's not true. Is it really a good idea to create your own reality, and cover yourself in a blanket of fiction if that makes you feel warm and cozy? That's escapism, and while it's fine to do for a couple of hours when you're relaxing on a Friday night, it's a very poor way to deal with real life the rest of the week when you're supposed to be at work. Just because religions make us feel better is hardly a reason to follow them, because choosing self-delusion instead of reality is always a mistake. Don't
Thoughts on Yann Martel's Life of Pi
**THE STORY**
Several descriptions of Yann Martel's book "Life is Pi" said that is "a fantasy adventure novel". So I came in expecting some kind of fantasy story, and those familiar with the book will understand why I found myself extremely puzzled when I began reading it. The book is divided into three main parts, and Part 1 (which takes up about a quarter of the book) feels more like a primer on running a zoo and on the psychology of zoo animals, mixed in with a philosophical and theological consideration of comparative religions. The main character who tells the story is a young boy named Pi Patel, whose father runs a zoo, so he has lots to say about that. He also explores several religions, and ends up becoming a practicing Hindu, Christian, and Muslim all at once. Definitely no fantasy yet.
Just when I was feeling comfortable with this unexpected content and style, I arrived at Part 2 of the novel, which takes up over half the book. Suddenly the story switches gears, and it feels like we're in a completely different genre, as the book unexpectedly transitions into an epic and gripping survival story. The ship that Pi and his family are on sinks, and he becomes a lone castaway in the Pacific on a lifeboat, the sole survivor together with four animals: a zebra, an orang-utang, a hyena, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. At that point the novel felt like it didn't know what it wanted to be. After a deeply philosophical and theological beginning, it inexplicably abandons that entirely, and becomes an adventure story instead, albeit a good one. It's like someone playing a thoughtful classical piece on solo violin, and then without notice switching to playing heavy metal on an electric guitar. Both are legitimate forms of music, but not right after each other as part of the same concert, surely?
And where are the dwarves, elves, and orcs? But wait, this is not THAT type of fantasy story. The "fantasy" element starts to make some sense when our shipwrecked castaway ends up on a strange meerkat-filled island with mysterious carnivorous plants that kill animals with acid by night, and even consume humans except for their teeth. Now I was even more perplexed, especially after the gritty survival story I'd been captivated with until that point. It was conveyed with very vivid and real descriptions of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and feelings, and felt thoroughly authentic. But this new development of a carnivorous island felt so fantastic and unbelievable, that it seemed to take away from the survival story that felt so real until then. I'd been able to suspend my sense of disbelief up until that moment, but what now?
Things finally started to make sense when I began Part 3, which is the shortest of the three parts, and which closes out the book. It describes what happens when Pi is rescued after 227 days, and is interviewed by Japanese investigators from the insurance company. When Pi tells them what has happened to him at sea, they find it too fantastic to believe. So he tells them an alternate and much shorter story, one in which there are initially four castaways on the lifeboat instead of four animals. Far more atrocities happen in this story, including murder and cannibalism, but it's a more plausible story, and it has the same ending: a lone survivor. After hearing this, the investigators choose to believe the story with animals after all.
**THE GENIUS**
It's exactly this conclusion that the author has been setting us up for all along. Yann Martel has stated in an interview that he made the main story deliberately far-fetched "*in order to raise certain important questions*." He wants us to think about believability and about truth. As Pi says towards the end, "*God is hard to believe, ask any believer*." But does that make him untrue? The third part of the book makes us return to all the questions raised about religion in the first part. The key point is: how can you know if a story is true or not? Is something that seems unbelievable
Weekly FAQ Thread February 09, 2025: What book format do you prefer? Print vs eBooks vs Audiobooks
Hello readers and welcome to our Weekly FAQ thread! Our topic this week is: Print vs eBooks vs Audiobooks. Please use this thread to discuss which format you prefer and why it is clearly superior to all other formats!
You can view previous FAQ threads here in our wiki.
Thank you and enjoy!
https://redd.it/1ilccwc
@r_books
Summertime
I'm reading this book Summertime by Charlotte Bingham. I found this very accidentally after reading another book Season by the same author and looking up more books because I really enjoyed Season. I ended up picking this one solely because of the title as it's almost summer where I live. I expected to find a light breezy summer read, which I would read once and forget next week. Oh boy, was I wrong! Why is this not a talked about, analysed, and well loved classic? The writing, the themes (youth, fashion of a certain time, relationships, depression, abuse, hope, love), there's so much to unpack and think about. I haven't yet finished the book, yet I felt compelled to write this half review and half pleading request for someone to read this book so that I can know what others think of it.
https://redd.it/1ila833
@r_books