For about 3 years I couldn't concentrate enough to finish even a short book, even though on a free day I could devour 250 pages without any problem. However, months ago I was given a physical copy of The Shining, so I ventured to take a peek at it.

I loved it. It might not steal the podium from It as my favorite Stephen King novel, but I would definitely put it on a list of the best. When people say Kubrick's movie is a bad adaptation, they aren't kidding. It's not a bad movie in itself, because even though I finished the book, I still love the film, and its media impact is impossible to ignore. Nevertheless, what King wanted to portray throughout the entire novel, Kubrick abruptly omitted. So, man, even if you've seen the movie, you should start reading it right now!

Now let's move on to the spoilers and my thoughts. I read it months ago, but I had forgotten that I interact on this sub, so I didn't write a review back then. Also, my memories are vague; I'll try to put down what I remember, and it would be exceptional if you guys could add what's missing so I can refresh my memory.

First of all, the characters are nothing like what the movie portrays. To me, they are much more human, and that adds a weight the movie lacks, which I'll explain next. Here, at least, it's made clear that the Overlook is a cesspool of malice. It's not that Jack is stark raving mad; he was simply a man trying to reform who became the hotel's favorite toy. We know Jack is inspired by King himself and his battle with alcoholism, so the portrayal of his descent is much more believable. He's a father who made a huge number of mistakes in his life that almost cost him his marriage and his family in that first stage of the book. I'm not an alcoholic, I'm not a father, nor am I married, and yet, in some parts, I managed to put myself a bit in Jack's shoes—to feel what it's like to be rejected (or despised?) and to have to beg for salvation, only for the hotel to turn out to be Jack's doom. In the movie, he's a non-stop lunatic, and Nicholson's manic face doesn't help at all in scenes where he's supposed to look gentle. In the book, on the other hand, he does show himself to be—or rather, tries to be—a good person. He's not perfect, because anger often got the better of him, but despite his mistakes, he tried to take care of Danny and stayed as firm as he could in his process of staying sober. I genuinely felt sorry for him.

Now, Wendy; I loved her more proactive role. I devoured the book in about three nights, so I probably don't remember half the scenes and might confuse a few things with the movie. But what I do remember from this version of Wendy is how firm she was in defending her son. I don't know what you think of her, but as far as I'm concerned, she had the courage any woman would probably have finding herself in that situation. Locked in a hotel in the dead of winter with no escape route and her crazy, aggressive husband trying to kill her and her child. Here, she was firmer in her acceptances and restrictions; although she had to compromise a lot given the circumstances, she didn't entirely let her guard down. Danny, for his part, is also more sensible and intelligent. He still has a child's naivety, but not to an absurd degree; the shining was much more present in the story, which gives the title more reason. Maybe I should take a look at Doctor Sleep to see the evolution of his character; I liked him a lot.

The dysfunctional family dynamic is better worked out because it's not just the two of them with a lunatic-looking Jack, but rather different moments of happiness that slowly break down due to a succession of events—something that easily happens in real life. On some occasions, we see Danny just wanting to be next to his father or preferring him over Wendy, but it's not for a silly reason; it's because, even with the presence of supernatural powers and Danny's intrusion into his parents' minds, it is truly impossible for him to comprehend just how broken that marriage is.

The desolate atmosphere was perfect; it completely hooked me. You genuinely felt there was no help or possibility of escape—it was either freeze to death or fight a corrupted husband, and the only option left was to support Wendy in the fight. Even knowing the ending beforehand, there were moments when I worried about her and Danny.

The hotel is another character, not just a setting in itself. It's sadistic and meticulous, attacking Jack from his weak points. Jack tried to stand his ground against the circumstances, but once the Goldroom scene arrived, we knew he was screwed; it had trapped him and wasn't going to let go.

Silly me, waiting for iconic scenes like the twins in the hallway, the hedge maze, or the famous "Here's Johnny"; I didn't know that was exclusively from the movie. However, I didn't dislike the book's scenes. At first, I thought the topiary animals were ridiculous, but every time Jack turned around to see the creatures baring their fangs, all I could say was: "Run away from there, you motherfucker."

Anyway, I would have liked to cover more points, but I've forgotten most of the details. Maybe I'll give it a re-read in a while, after reading the next books on my list (I have to take advantage of the fact that I've gotten my reading groove back). For anyone who has been postponing this read for whatever reason, read it as soon as possible! You won't regret it (or well, depending on your tastes). The book is long like most of King's works, and I liked the ending better than the movie's. You could consider the film more supernatural horror than psychological, unlike the novel. So when you read it, I recommend keeping in mind that you're diving into the family's psyche rather than just the hotel itself.

Anyone who wants to add a point or correct me on something is very welcome, as I want to chat a bit about the story and remember things I might have forgotten.

I decided to dive into Full Dark, No Stars because of its reputation for being absolutely brutal and not exactly easy reading. I eventually finished 1922. I left the second story halfway through—I’m not sure if it’s because it hasn’t fully grabbed me yet or what, but I’ll get back to it eventually. Even so, rape is still a subject that I personally don’t digest very easily.

Now, as for 1922, I thought it was a pretty damn good and solid story. It tells, through the protagonist’s confession, the misfortune (or karma) that befalls Wilfred and his son after the murder of his wife.

The book’s reputation is well deserved. And by “the book” here, I’m referring specifically to 1922. It’s extremely violent, but not just because of the graphic content—which definitely doesn’t hold back—but because of everything surrounding it.

In his selfishness, Wilfred didn’t just dare to murder his own wife; he also dragged his innocent son into it, making him his accomplice. Because of that, I can say that I never really empathized with Wilfred the way I did with Henry, and I doubt that was ever King’s intention.

We get to watch Wilfred’s descent as a man, husband, father, and farmer from several different angles. To me, his psychopathic tendencies were innate. He was methodical when he committed the murder. He knew exactly what he had to do, and he knew how to proceed afterward to hide the body. That kind of pragmatism doesn’t come from nowhere, comes in the same way Wilfre did, you have to be able to sit there and calmly think through what you’re going to do while pretending everything is fine.

Dragging Henry into it was the worst part.

If the story ever tries to give you a somewhat convincing justification for Arlette’s murder, it absolutely fails when it comes to the boy. Henry was simply innocent. He was impressionable, manipulated, and at the mercy of his cold-hearted father, with his entire life thrown off the rails to the point where he could barely think rationally by the end of it.

He knew what he was about to do was wrong, but at the same time, he believed he had to do it. His father convinced him there was no other choice. And despite everything, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to completely condemn Henry in my mind.

In his selfish determination to protect his land, Wilfred ended up losing it anyway—and at a humiliating price, considering he had the opportunity to sell it for an absurd amount of money. But he also lost his beloved son and everything he could have called “home.” I don’t include Arlette in that because, in my opinion, she was never truly loved by her husband.

The irony is that Wilfred eventually ended up being manipulated and dragged through the mud just as he had done to his son, except by that point, there was no one left for him to turn to for help.

The rats, to me, represented more than just the trauma surrounding Arlette. They also represented how rotten Wilfred was becoming as a person, and how that growing rot was attracting more and more rats.

The story does a great job of portraying how indifferent fate can be toward collateral damage. It wasn’t just Wilfred and Henry who paid the price. Shannon, his father, and Arlette herself all suffered the consequences of one selfish man, each in their own way—some through death, another through misery, despite never having touched the knife.

Honestly, this is an essential King read from beginning to end. If you haven’t read it yet, I really think you should give it a chance.

The story is extremely graphic, especially in some of its scenes. Arlette’s cold-blooded murder is probably the part that takes the gold medal for being the most disturbing thing in the entire story for me. I genuinely don’t think I have the balls to do something like that to my own partner, no matter what the consequences might be.

I’d love to hear what you guys thought about 1922!

I read this book a few weeks ago and I've been thinking about this aspect of it ever since. I just rememberd that this sub exists, so here is a ramble. Also note that I myself am not blind, so this a bit of me looking in from the outside, no pun intended.

Red Dragon, the first Hannibal Lecter book (though it'd be more accurate to call it a book with Hannibal Lecter in it) has weirdly great Blind representation. I say "weirdly" because this is a freaky serial killer novel from the early 80's and because more recent media fails to meet it's standards.

Assuming you're not familiar with the three adaptations (Manhunter, Red Dragon, and season 3 of Hannibal), Red Dragon tells the story of Will Graham, an FBI profiler who is able to get into the mind of serial killers better than anyone. Graham gets pulled out of his early retirement to help catch The Tooth Fairy, named because of the fucked up bite marks he leaves on his victims. Oh, and Hannibal Lecter shows up too but only for like 25 or so pages.

The Tooth Fairy is a man named Francis Dolarhyde, who was born with a cleft palate. Abandoned by his mother and abused by his grandmother, Dolarhyde believes that he is possesed by The Great Red Dragon, a creature from The Book of Revalation and depicted in a series of paintings by William Blake.

So what does this have to with blind people? Well, Dolarhyde meets and falls in love with a coworker at his job, a blind woman named Reba McClane.

At first this seems eyerollingly cliche. You mean a blind woman falls in love with the ugly/horrific/deformed man and "sees" who he is deep down? That is one of the most persistant blind stereotypes.

Well, no. McClane does fall in love with Dolarhyde. But Dolarhyde isn't actually ugly! He just thinks that he is. Because his self image is warped by abuse and severe mental illness, he thinks he is hideous. But in actuality his cleft palate, while noticeable, has been improved by many surgeries. He is also in amazing shape (the narration compares him to a linebacker), and many women at his job talk about how hot he is behind his back.

Deformed? Ugly? Not at all. Horrific? Yes, but only because of his actions. (Manhunter fucks this up -it fucks up the whole romance actually- by making him look like a ghoul.) Dolarhyde thinks this trope is being played straight but it's actually being subverted.

We get a few scenes from Reba's POV and we learn a bit more of her attraction to Dolarhyde and her life as a blind woman. It is in this that two more blind sterotypes are discared: The immensly competent badass who hears everything, and the helpless flower who depends on others for everything.

The narration informs us that blind people don't "hear better" than anyone else. It is outright called a myth. But Reba lives by herself, is able to cook and clean by herself, is able to get herself to and from work via the bus, is able to reasonably guess the general time of day by the feeling of the sun's warmth on her skin, has a watch made for blind people, and is sexually active.

In fact, Reba is a bit of a gooner. The narration tells us that she "quite likes sex" and has had many lovers. She goes down on Dolarhyde after their first date and their sex is so fulfilling that it actually blows his fucking mind and makes him not want to kill people anymore.

But Reba has troubles too. She can get men but she can't keep them because they see her being blind as a burden. They hit it and then quit it. The bus as transportation is possible but is a challenge. She mainly relies on rides from a coworker who she knows full well is acting nice from a mixture of pity and the desire to get in her pants. She walks with a cane but has difficulty in the snow. She lived most of her life with other blind people and worked in a school for the blind, but left to prove to herself that she can make it "on the outside."

Her love for Dolarhyde forms specifically because he does not pity her or take advantage of her. He has some really dark, fucked up thoughts about her at first but she has no way of knowing that.

As soon as he realizes that she's blind? No sense of shock or sadness in his voice. No questions. No trying to find the "up side" of blindness. He asks to take a plum from her lunch. She counts her plums after he leaves and finds that he only took one. Being without sight, of course blind people have to worry about theft more. How many times has someone abused her generosity that she feels compelled to check?

He asked for a plum. And only took a single plum. Is it any wonder that she fell for this dude? She's not desperate or naive. She fell for a serial killer but so have lots of other women, some for much shadier reasons.

And that first date? Dolarhyde calls in a favor and brings her to the zoo. A tiger has been sedated for a tooth extraction. Reba, who's earliest memory was seeing a tiger before becoming blind, gets to feel it.

The doctor describes the tiger to her. It's size, the firey shade of it's orange fur, how big it's paws are. He's taking effort to make sure she is able to form an image in her mind. But he also doesn't overdo it, nor is Reba able to do it by sniffing the air or some stupid Daredevil bullshit.

Reba McClane is a blind person. She is not a badass kung fu master, superhero, seer, or a prop. She is an amazing character.

And she is from a 1981 thriller novel about a dude who thinks he is a fucking dragon.

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

The Rules

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

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

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

How to get the best recommendations

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

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

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

• The Management

I’m about 50 pages in and I’ve noticed so far a few chunks of the text looks blurry. Anyone else here who has read it and noticed the same thing? Is it meant to be like that or is it a misprint?

No spoilers please! I like it so far although I’m not a huge fan of the writing style in which the journal entries are written = confusing at times.

The history book club strikes for the first time! The second time I made the meeting and got further in the book  than the first one (The Monuments Men - which I want to go back and finish).

What did I think? Not bad. Burroughs details the characters of the era (and they were characters), pointing out the circumstances that made the American gunfighter possible - Southern honor codes and dueling culture, lots of alcohol, crooked gambling and wide open spaces you could escape to. This is definitely a popular history book and the asterisked footnotes were very different from the usual - including one that suggested the readers check out his book about John Dillinger. 

The story I liked the most was of Elfego Baca who stood off a siege of Texans for two days after he arrested one of their number. By using the terrain and keeping a cool head, he lived to tell the tale and die in bed in 1945. 

Burroughs dedicates a lot of time and ink to Billy the Kid (2 chapters) and the shootout at the OK Corral (3 chapters) and the players in these dramas. He also demystifies and removes a lot of the allure and romance attached to these men. They were violent, damaged individuals. Even Wyatt Earp is pointed out to be a pimp early in life.

But Burroughs takes us through the Golden Age of the Gunfighter, on into the Range Wars, the era of train robbery and bank robbery. He doesn’t spare the ugliness, but he does note the humor and the occasional insane runs of luck the gunfighters and outlaws had. 

Some of that luck was the jails and prisons they were in. From guards that were intimidated by the gangs, to repeated escapes, those were not the end of various gunmen and outlaws. 

One thing my father would have noted were the sheer number of historically documented gun accidents, friendly fire incidents and the sheer lack of hitting what they aimed at. He’d have either had kittens (as the man who taught gun safety), or laughed himself sick (part of my history of dark humor). I know my mother would - she has opinions on criminals. And even outside of that, the sheer number of times that people failed to keep control of their guns. 

One part of Western history movies and my American History instructors entirely skipped over was the rise of the paid gunman in the late 19th century as part of the range wars and to “deal with” rustlers and horse thieves. None of them were romantic - they were hired killers - and some of them massed impressive body counts, Jim Miller killed 51 by his own admission. I have to wonder how many were more out there that attracted no attention.

Another element of this is how much of it was self promotion. Wild Bill Hickock was self created. And the part of a credulous media in this was also important. Then there were the dime novels and they seemed to have an impact - particularly near the end of the age with Butch Cassidy and his accomplice. People far worse than Hickcock seized on the self promotion and used it to cultivate an air of invulnerability. 

This was an amusing popular history book. It is well researched and if you’re into the Wild/Old West, a great place to start. 8 stars, ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ 

After how much I enjoyed my first experience with Robert McCammon's writing (Boy's Life, my Book of the Year for 2026), I was anxious to jump into more of his work.

Speaks the Nightbird is a very different, though equally well-written, novel.

It is, at its heart, a character-driven historical novel with an immersive setting and a genuinely compelling mystery.

We follow 20-year-old Matthew Corbett, a Magistrate's Clerk residing in Charlestown, South Carolina, in 1699. He and the magistrate are tasked with visiting a small settlement called Fount Royal to investigate claims of a witch who has cursed the town. The majority of the story involves this investigation and trial.

Although I would classify this book as a historical mystery with horror elements (rather than straight Horror, which is what McCammon is mostly known for), I do feel compelled to warn potential readers that there is still some shocking, bizarre, and (at times) terrifying content in this story. There are some scenes that are decidedly not for the faint of heart.

That said, I found the writing to be well-paced, and the characters compelling. Outside of Matthew himself, I truly did not know who to trust or what was real and what was not, and that made for an incredibly exciting and satisfying reading experience.

This is an 800-page book (31 hours in audio) that I finished in less than 10 days, which is unheard of for me.

McCammon simply does not miss. I would recommend this to fans of historical fiction, mysteries, and addictive storytelling.

I should also note that, while this is technically Book #1 in a ten book series, it absolutely stands alone and ends satisfyingly.

When I thought about getting me some stories by Fritz Leiber it was either his science fiction or his sword & sorcery fantasy, and I settled for some of his SF with a very big collection of it. And "The Fritz Lleiber Collection" is a very big one!

What I got with this one isn't just the short stories, but also novellas and also a few full length novels also. And that's not the first I've gotten a big collection that either has two novels or even quite a bit of them along with the short stories.

Leiber's SF is pretty quirky in its own way with quite a bit of humor, and there are some stories in it that are just hilarious like "Bread Overhead", and with some suspense thrown in, though sometimes with a bit of horror veneer also. They're also very philosophical at times but there are some very action forward moments that breaks up some of the slower moments so it doesn't all too boring.

So beyond the one story that he did for the "Dangerous Visions" I like this particularly big set. If one story was dipping my toe in, then "The Fritz Leiber Collection" was a plunge. There are still some other collections (and a novel or two) I still have to dive into, like some of his horror tale and Lankhmar stories, and if I had a choice I'd go with the Lankhmar collections first before I get to ones that have his horror stories.

“King Sorrow” by Joe Hill is a book I’ve been excited to read ever since it was published in October 2025, just in time for spooky season. I finally got around to it, took my time with it, and my goodness, was this a powerhouse of a read! Not only is this one of my favorite horror novels of the year, but it was also the final book I finished and reviewed in 2025, bringing my 2025 yearly Reading Goal to 52/50.

Before I dive into my book review, here are all the trigger warnings I found while reading…

- Drugs
- Gangs
- Racism
- Cancer
- Suicide
- AIDS
- Drinking while pregnant
- Violence against animals (cats and dogs)
- 9/11
- Religion
- Domestic abuse
- Abortion
- Sexual abuse
- Violence against children
- Rape
- Child pornography
- Self-harm

If any of these trigger you, please do not read this novel. Moving along, this kicked off with a bang. It was such an incredible start with a plot twist I never saw coming. It set the tone for what would become one hell of a ride. One thing to know about Hill is that, just like his legendary father, Stephen King, he’s an intricate storyteller.

Numerous times while reading, this was a genuine page-turner. Several parts dragged a bit, but trust me, the slow-burn aspect of this novel is worth it in the end. Thanks to quick, short chapters, this wasn’t so bad for a novel that is over 800 pages.

The Easter eggs, while reading, were nothing short of fantastic. I love it when authors do this, and Hill threw in some great ones here. Don’t worry, I would never spoil anything. But let’s say that my journey to The Dark Tower by Stephen King and my reading of other books by Hill made me smile when I found these.

When it comes to the horror in “King Sorrow,” it delivers beyond words. It’s that dark fantasy kind of fiery horror that made me make many weird faces while reading. Besides the solid parts of horror, I loved the suspense and tension during an insane mid-book countdown. Hill crushed it with the tension and race to see what would ultimately transpire during this countdown. One of the novel's strongest foundations is that each character is unique and meaningful. I connected with many, especially Arthur, Gwen, and everyone’s favorite evil dragon, King Sorrow, who gave me major Pennywise vibes with his creepy and sometimes hilarious encounters.

Hill also effectively wove real-world events into this fantasy-horror novel. It blurs the line between reality and fantasy, making for a thrilling read. As I said before, the story drags a bit from around the 50-75% mark, but it picks up nicely and brings it all together for an epic ending.

Speaking of the ending, I loved all the plot twists, monster fighting, and well, what a shocker it was. I never saw that coming and was left satisfied, since it could open up the world Hill built to further exploration. Who knows if there will ever be a sequel to this magnificent novel, but considering that, in an interview with Mashable, Hill confirmed the TV series adaptation rights have been optioned, it hopefully means we’ll be in for a treat.

I give “King Sorrow” by Joe Hill a perfect 5/5 for being a masterpiece of a dark fantasy horror novel. If you love dragons, great storytelling, unforgettable characters, and lots of dragon-filled psychological horror, read this novel immediately. It’s such an original idea that, if this TV series does get made, we could have another glorious horror book adaptation that takes the world by storm. The ending was exciting and totally unpredictable; I couldn’t believe how it all turned out. I will never be able to listen to the song “Puff the Magic Dragon” the same ever again after finishing this novel.

I guess my desire to get to know the woman Marie Curie will remain a pipe dream. Having now completed two biographies of her, I still feel as though I know very little about Marie Curie as an individual.

This biography, in particular, was written in quite a boring manner. Just as Ève Curie, in her biography, felt the need to overly praise her mother, Susan Quinn seems to go too far in the opposite direction. It often feels as though the author does not particularly like Marie Curie and interprets events in ways that justify this view.

The book is full of assumptions and suppositions, as well as other people's perceptions of events, rather than concrete facts. Quinn judges Marie quite harshly in many places without, I felt, sufficient evidence to support those judgments. Having read Ève Curie's biography before this one, I was struck by how differently the two books portray the same woman. Of course, neither account can be entirely objective, but in this version Marie often comes across as distinctly unlikable because the author's own bias seems to seep into the narrative.

Letters, correspondence, and events are rarely allowed to simply speak for themselves; instead, they are frequently presented within a narrative that guides the reader toward a particular interpretation of Marie's character. This was especially frustrating because what I wanted from another biography was a more nuanced understanding of who Marie Curie actually was, rather than another strongly filtered portrait of her.

The one part I did appreciate, and immensely enjoyed reading, was the account of how Marie Curie discovered radium. I loved learning about the science behind the discovery and seeing the process unfold step by step.

Quinn says that she chose to write this biography partly to fill the gaps left by Ève Curie's account, but apart from the fuller treatment of Marie's affair with Paul Langevin, I didn't feel that I learned much that was genuinely new. After two biographies, one that seems determined to idealize Marie Curie and another that seems determined to dismantle that ideal, I somehow still feel that I haven't met the woman herself.

All in all, quite disappointing.

This is inspired by my recent reading of Patti Smith’s M Train. I’m not sure I’ve ever been so disappointed by a mostly beloved book. I found it pretentious and boring. I did not find it poetic or profound. I spent every page wishing and reading only to hasten the end. There was one particular line about her Rockaway bungalow surviving the first major storm of the 21st Century and I was irritated by her dismissal of Katrina. I think I am very alone in my opinion towards this book, but I couldn’t throw this one in a donation pile faster.

Please tell me your experiences with renowned works!

It took me a long time to finally read Brave New World but Im quite happy I didnt read it earlier in life. Im still trying to gather my thoughts on this book and Im very curious of how other people have interpreted it.

So first of all, let me start by saying that Huxley was way ahead of its time. The whole society he built - a society where every the individual doesn't matter and you are very much replaceable, where capitalism is what moves society, where people do everything to only feel the good parts of life - is something we see in 2026. The fact that he wrote this book just 20 years after Henry Ford created the assembly line is kind of insane tbh and I think the world building is clearly the biggest strenght of the book. Also, writing this openly about sex, including between children, religion, politics and State propaganda and drugs in 1920s was very brave, even though the UK was of course more open than other countries back then.

The second point I want to make is that the book is not an easy read at all. Not so much in terms of content, but in terms of language and pacing. Im not an English native, but usually read everything in English and this book had so many words I've never heard of before. And the pacing is my biggest beef with this book. I think its suppose to be on purpose tbh, just like an assembly line, everything happens fast, there's no time to focus too much time on an individual character. But it did make it harder to read and Im still not 100% sure I got everything correctly and there's some characters Im still confused about (Henry Foster, for example, I dont get this character at all).

Now, the part I want to ask about is people's thoughts on John's character. He's of course supposed to represent the exact opposite of the people who were conditioned since birth to be part of the new society. But he is the exact opposite, meaning that - in my opinion - he is his own kind of extremist. While the "civilized people" want 100% comfort and happiness, he seems to want 0%, to prove to God he is worthy. He allows himself zero satisfaction, he ignores Lenina's advances, he doesnt try somma, he prefers to isolate himself from society and torture himself. He's flawed on his own way, which I quite liked in the book: Huxley doesnt give us any character who is the beacon of morality, who we should want to be like. He gives us two-sides of the same coin, though I guess Bernard Marx and Helmholtz are somewhere in between the two.

Finally, Im curious to know whether anyone has seen the BBC adaptation. The book is paced so fast and with so many technical/old words that Im kind of confused about some parts and would love to see an adaptation of it, but only if there is one that is actually good.

I dunno, I'm midway through a tough week and I want to think about something stupid and fun instead of stressful. Hence this random question to escape from reality for a bit: Twilight vs. Fourth Wing vs. A Court of Thorns and Roses, which is the best? And because this is a deep and complicated question rife with subtlety and nuance, I've decided to break it into smaller subsections oscars-style:

(1) Best worldbuilding?

(2) Best female protagonist?

(3) Best love interest(s)?

(4) Best Romance(s)?

(5) Best Story Overall?

Whichever book wins the majority of these questions is the winner. But this is all very vibes based so winner is a very loose term. Also because this is vibe based, the questions can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on personal judgement. It's more for fun than clout.

I'm going to put my answers in the comments section but I'm also going to spoiler tag them to give anyone else who wants to be a judge the chance to judge in an unbiased manner.

And on the off chance somebody reading this doesn't, for whatever reason, like paranormal romance, romantasy, or these books specifically, they can just do the inverted version of the list and explain which is the WORST in each category and why. As long as they remember rule 2 and stay civil about it, that's also fun. I would not be posting this if I was deeply invested in any of these.

Hope this dumb fun brightens your week a little!

Has anyone here read Till We Have Faces? If so, what is your opinion? I just finished it and I am unable to say anything positive about it. I was familiar with the Cupid and Psyche myth upon which it is a variation and I wondered what Lewis, with his talent for myth and fantasy would do with it. I considered putting it down and quitting often throughout my read but kept on hoping to arrive at some 'aha'. It never came. Reviewers (professional and Amazon) rate it highly. Based on that I'm considering re-reading it to see if a deeper understanding or 'aha' will come. I've never re-read a fiction tale I didn't like on first read hoping to see what I missed. So to other readers of Till We Have Faces, both pro and con, thoughts?

This is a favorite book of mine which I revisit every few years, and in light of reports about Trump considering selling off part of Yosemite to a private developer, not to mention the "Lake America" debacle, the short story "—And the Moon Be Still as Bright" felt especially relevant and emotional to read. In general, I've found Bradbury's works to be enduringly prescient, though often in regrettable ways.

"'They're all here. All the things which had uses. All the mountains which had names. And we'll never be able to use them without feeling uncomfortable. And somehow the mountains will never sound right to us; we'll give them new names, but the old names are there, somewhere in time, and the mountains were shaped and seen under those names.

The names we'll give to the canals and mountains and cities will fall like so much water on the back of a mallard. No matter how we touch Mars, we'll never touch it. And then we'll get mad at it, and you know what we'll do? We'll rip it up, rip the skin off, and change it to fit ourselves.'

'We won't ruin Mars,' said the captain. 'It's too big and too good.'

'You think not? We Earth Men have a talent for ruining big, beautiful things. The only reason we didn't set up hot-dog stands in the midst of the Egyptian temple of Karnak is because it was out of the way and served no large commercial purpose. And Egypt is a small part of Earth.

But here, this whole thing is ancient and different, and we have to set down somewhere and start fouling it up. We'll call the canal the Rockefeller Canal and the mountain King George Mountain and the sea the Dupont sea, and there'll be Roosevelt and Lincoln and Coolidge cities and it won't ever be right, when there are the proper names for these places.'"

Additionally, the penultimate story, and my personal favorite, "There Will Come Soft Rains" is set during a future post-apocalyptic August of 2026 (the book was published in 1950), so that was another stirring coincidence/parallel of sorts.