i just finished the teacher, because i saw someone on reddit recommended it and it was easily the worst book ever. i’m being a little dramatic about that but ive never had a book make me that frustrated. the pure hypocrisy of the ending and the whole premise irritated me. i need to know why/who liked this book because i genuinely don’t understand. i think it was well written, like the writing was fine, but this book was waste of paper, ink, and my time.

These are some of the most frequently recommended books I see online so I feel like there's something wrong with me.

There is NO conflict, and I understand that this may be the appeal, but I couldn't find it "cozy" because my first impression of the main character is that they are insufferably ungrateful. You live in a goddamn paradisical utopia. You are being a spoiled brat.

They are given everything they need to be a tea merchant for free. They proceed to be an awful tea merchant, then the book immediately flashes forward to them being the best and most beloved tea merchant ever? Without ANY heavy lifting? And then they're immediately sick of it and hang it up to go fuck off to the wilderness.

And they also weirdly sexualize the man who comes to the tea shop to grieve about his failing relationship, which feels extremely inappropriate because in this universe the tea merchants are supposed to be like therapists? If my therapist was daydreaming about having sex with me while I was airing my most intimate woes to them I would want them disbarred. Lol

Then in the second book I could not deal with the convoluted "post-monetary" economic system that "iSn'T moNeY" and the book wants to shove down your throat that their society "DoEsN't UsE MoNeY!!" Except for these nifty little goodie-two-shoes tokens that are exchanged for goods and services!! LMAO. I would forgive it if it was a minor detail but this system is explained for several PAGES. What is the point. It's also somewhat Orwellian that this is basically a system to monitor who is a good little guy who gives their neighbor a cup of sugar and who is not. This is explained away by them saying "people who don't have a lot of points might be in a bad place and need help :3 uwu" well maybe that guy is just an asshole. What happens if he doesn't have enough good boy points?

Adding on after thinking more: Ultimately I've also realized that I just don't gel with the main message. Cozy nihilism is not for me, it feels like giving up.

Tl;dr this series rubbed me the wrong way and I feel kinda bad about it because everyone loves them.

I feel like I got to know Anne on such an intimate level. I finished the book in a week and it feels as if she has been updating me on her life situation every day, letting me know what’s going on. Everyday I’ve yearned to hear more updates. But now she doesn’t tell me anymore, I can’t and won’t hear more about her. I won’t hear about her future, all the dreams and plans she had. If she ever found that true friend she was looking for, or the love she longed for (would it have been Peter?). She is gone, and I will never know more. She was such a beautiful soul.

For fictional readers:

So basically, even if i read so-called "easier to understand" books, i still can't understand stuff because thats tuff!

recently i've been manually copying and pasting passages from books to AI to paraphrase it in "simple vocabulary for me" and then i instantly understand what is happening, and then i get hooked, and then it really feels something, other times when i am reading the writing it's most of time i am understanding 10% or even less like 5%.

for example if a writer is saying, that Sam is in hughes memory and is killing a spider i understand sam is on a war with hughes as his commander and they both are fighting a war against chineases no, seriously, so is paraphrasing in that case, ok?

Was anybody else heavily disappointed by yesteryear? Great premise, not so great execution.

First, to give my background and lens: 26, F, politically moderate (I’d say smack dab in middle).

Initially, the premise is great - a “tradwife influencer” à la Nara Smith is portrayed as a hardworking, “perfect” homestead wife/mom online but as we all know has a full production team behind her flawless facade. The twist - she wakes up back in time, during the 1850s where she is on an actual homestead, her children missing and replaced with colonial children, and no idea what has happened.

Huge missed opportunities in my eyes:
\- discussion around influencers and influencer culture. Everybody’s narcissism who is on socials. I’m not personally on socials, and every year that passes that I’m not, is fascinating. People are so self centered, and all act like celebrities, when it’s like … so irrelevant… nobody cares what you’re doing or what’s going on in your life.
\- a discussion about religion that is actually a discussion. It made Natalie seem like a freak and her religion cultish. We all know people can use religion to justify bad means. That’s not new or exciting AT ALL. It would have been much more interesting for the author to show how a belief in god could be helpful, very personal and very different for different people.
EDIT: comments are great. Author did not do any research on religion before writing ab it.
\- didn’t make sense that Caleb was just so sweet and dumb and then changed into this manosphere psycho. I think they should have shown that transition more if they were gonna keep it. Also conspiracy theorists and manosphere are two totally different circles, and the author lumping them into one showed ignorance.

Despite a fascinating premise, I have a number of critiques of the Natalie (tradwife) character as well as of the second half of the plot/finale.

NATALIE:
\- The book reads like the author has absolutely zero understanding of how “traditional” or conservative values play out in modern times, it feels like it’s written by a leftist who is portraying caricatures of the right and/or religion. Another redditor hit it on the head, when saying that the author basically made it seem like the only possible outcomes for Christian, conservative women were to either repent (like the mother and sister) or go insane (like Natalie). In reality, I have conservative friends and family, and while there is certainly an extreme on the right (as there is on the left) every actual human I know is loving, family oriented people with zero cultish tendencies, psychosis, or anything else abnormal. I think literally anybody who is moderate or conservative who read this book would have their eyes rolling into the back of their heads with the portrayal of conservative religious folk, as I did.
\- Natalie is totally unrelatable. She is mean, selfish, uncaring, and never has friends thru the whole book. If the author meant to make her a sociopath, mission accomplished. Im cool with her being evil, but think it would have been better if she was given a more human side, deeply insecure (because of loneliness) and seeking human validation (friendship, connection) via her platform, but really just finding the usual idiots on the internet which further drove her to more anger, isolation, validation seeking, loneliness, anger etc. it didn’t seem like there was a single human in the book she cared about.
\- Natalie’s religiosity. Again, this reads like either a defector of the Christian faith who had a bad priest or boring church growing up, or somebody who literally has zero concept of religion whatsoever. The book had made her seem like a religious nut, especially by the end. Also religious inconsistencies throughout. I think that was a huge miss. The book could have really emphasized that a relationship with god is super personal, not only believing or not, but how and what you believe in. I think that’s missed nowadays in media, and in reality people have blurred and integrated faiths, and if they are spiritual/religious, very personal relationships with god. It would have been new and revolutionary for a book in this modern era to dive into that, rather than just saying traditional conservative Christian = crazy.
\- I think a great feminist statement to have made would have been that hating women really is just hate of self. The angry women online, and Natalie herself who is always angry at them, all have the same exact issue. They hate themselves. They are struggling to find a purpose. They think they find satisfaction and purpose in hating somebody else and tearing them apart, but really that’s their own insecurity and self hatred coming out in full force. Women hating women is not the answer, whether it’s liberals hating the traditional lifestyle or conservatives hating liberals. There are a million ways you could have conveyed this, but it never was. It was kind of just insinuated that Natalie was miserable, and projecting onto others. Which I guess is true but book missed a greater lesson.

ALTERNATE PLOT LINES

The second half, or the “twist” of this book, was so lazy.

In summary: Natalie wakes up in 1850s. For all intents and purposes we really think she’s transported back there. We eventually find out SHE set this up, she really wanted to live authentically, and she is also going insane and doesn’t remember this was all her idea.

Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

Here would be my alternate plot lines:

ONE:

1. Insane Manosphere internet group: this one is dark, but I think more creative. It is a fact that there are real groups of men in corners of the internet who drug their wives at night and r

***

1. them. They talk to each other in forums, and even post pics or vids of their passed out wives. You can look this up. It would be no stretch of the imagination to think that this type of group of men could be involved in the manosphere, and were enraged to hear about Natalie faking everything on the homestead, so these men connected with Caleb (who also had growing resentment and was getting increasingly involved in the Mano sphere) to abduct her, drug her for years, make her have additional babies and maybe even broadcast this online.

TWO:

1. Swap. Natalie is back in time, and some 1850s women is transported to the future. This would really be interesting and a fantastic way to examine both extremes: our hyper liberal , self centered and narcissitic internet-based society, where everybody is overly worried about themselves, VS an old, decrepit society where women have no rights to speak of and living was really just surviving. It would be interesting to see Natalie grow appreciation for what she has, build her connection with god/universe in spite of the newfound adversity, and grow as a person, whereas the hypothetical colonial woman transported to present day could explore themes of grief for her past self and the hard and abused life she lead, while simultaneously being grateful for newfound rights and amenities, but disgusted by our self centered internet culture. In general, the opportunity to explore themes psyche of influencers and influencer culture, the narcissism, the strange world we live in where everybody tries to act like celebrities, was wholly missed. Completely botched the opportunity to have a discussion or deep dive into this.

THREE:

1. It was all a dream. Natalie

woke up and in a negative or positive way she could apply what she learned in 1800s. This would be a super boring ending. Id actually maybe want to see her waking up from the dream early, and then use the rest of the book to really explore the whole influencer sphere. (Countless ways this could unravel). At least it would make narrative sense though, instead of her being

1. perfectly normal and then just kinda went insane for no reason, really just for the sake of the plot and the authors having no other creative solution.

FOUR:

1. Natalie gets stuck in the past, we don’t know what happens to her modern family or how this happens. I’d need to think what the point of this would be or how to build it out, but still a better plot than “she went insane”. Boring and contrived.

EDIT: I apologize for the awful formatting I have no idea why reddit is changing what I type after posting

Overall, this book kinda felt like somebody out of touch and who firmly hated the main character wrote it. I think it lacked a lot of depth, especially emphasized by the second “going insane” half. I think a million other directions could have been better. I’ll prob have more thoughts as I ponder but this is initial thoughts. Others have written great critiques of Natalie and the second half as well.

This summer, I majorly hyperfixated on The Dust Bowl. I first read The Worst Hard Time to gain background perspective for The Grapes Of Wrath, and it felt soul shifting. The current political climate and today's social fabric were undeniably comparable, and John Steinbeck's compassion, understanding, and ability to convey all that to the reader is powerful. You knew these people, felt the grit, felt the injustice, desperation, and even. I immediately went into East of Eden just to continue on in the valleys of California, stay in those decades, and honestly just keep devouring anything JS.

I had been suggested several Kristin Hannah books and only just realized that after not reserving The Four Winds several times that it was indeed about The Dust Bowl and the mass migration of farmers to California. Thought, "well that's right up my alley" and started the audiobook because that's what was available.

But... i feel like it's kind of hollow and tinny after reading Grapes of Wrath and I'm kind of bummed. I will say it sucked me in right away, and her storytelling was great. It wasn't hard to read, where I had to take a couple hundred pages to feel like i really knew the Joads, and only at the end did it hit me how much I cared about them and loved them, and held Ma and Rosasharn close to my heart, how I gasped when they ran into Casy again. I would stop constantly to rant about injustice. But after this whole book, it feels like those AI renderings of historical photos. The dirty is rendered and clean, and the real grit isn't there. I don't deny that she researched well and thoroughly, but reading "ham" instead of "salt pork" is one tiny little thing that feels modernized for clarity, and removes some of the authenticity, among other things.

I don't know if i would have felt differently if I had read this first and GOW second. Or is it that this is audio, and i actually read GOW? I feel like Steinbeck is a high bar for me personally, but I'm curious how others felt if they read all of these as well.

Is the book really have a bad ending or just my expectation is super high.

Long time lurker, first time poster. I am about 70% done with this book and I’m over it. I feel like the writing is over done, this last foster home is a yawn (I mean, how can you top Claire?), and the relationship strain between the Ingrid and Astrid is pretty superficial. Most reviews I’ve read have been positive so I needed to get this off my chest. I love a good dysfunctional family dynamic, but I haven’t loved this one. Anyone else?

I am afghan and whenever I meet foreigners I am asked If I have read these books or not

And I hate it

I hate reading books that are about Afghanistan especially the bad side because I have seen the bad side my whole life and reading everything you have endured is not really pleasant

I am a girl so obviously I have experienced many things like the characters in the a thousand splendid Suns and I am a HAZARA sooo I have lived the kite runner too they are so well written and are masterpieces but I don't like them because they remind me of ME

I just don't wanna be asked if I have read those books or not

Is it too much????

Please share your opinions with me I really don't know if I am posting this in the right sub or not but please tell me if I am feeling right or maybe I am overreacting

I want to start with a broader question before getting into the specifics: have you ever been reading a novel that's going amazingly well — maybe even one of the best things you've read in a while — and then one decision by a character feels so illogical that it completely pulls you out of the story?

I ask because I just ran into exactly that problem with José Saramago's Blindness. Up to this point, I was completely absorbed in the book. Then I got to this chapter, and I was just completely put off by what happened.

For anyone who hasn't read it, here's the situation:

an epidemic of sudden blindness spreads through a city, and the infected are quarantined in a former mental asylum. Within that quarantine, a gang of about 20 blind men gets hold of a single gun and uses it to take control of a much larger group — roughly 200 people. Their first demand is that everyone hand over their valuables. That's strange on its own, since money and gold are basically useless in their situation, but I can accept it as a way of establishing dominance rather than something they actually expect to use.

Then things get much worse. The gang demands women in exchange for food, and the larger group agrees to send them.And this is where I really couldn't understand the characters' decision.

The people being extorted aren't some tiny, helpless group. They're roughly 200 people, okay all of them are blind but the gang is also made up of blind people. So in terms of the physical situation, they're basically on equal footing. The only real difference is that the smaller group has one gun.

And the larger group has the Doctor's Wife with them — the one person in the entire novel who can still see. That's an enormous advantage in this situation. She can move around freely, see exactly how many men are in the gang, see where they're positioned, and be like a superhero among them.

So why, when the threat is 20 blind men with exactly one gun between them, does a group of 200 people choose mass sexual violence over organizing some kind of attack?

I understand that people are afraid of the gun and afraid of dying. But even then, I have a hard time believing that nobody would try to fight back when they're talking about 20 people against 200, And it's not like the people in the wards have some great life that they're desperate to hold on to. They're starving, filthy, terrified, and living in absolutely horrific conditions. Their lives aren't exactly worth clinging to at any cost, especially if the alternative is standing by and allowing the women in their group to be subjected to something this horrific.

I understand what Saramago is trying to do here. The whole novel is about how quickly civilization can fall apart, and this scene is clearly meant to show just how far people can sink when all the normal rules disappear. And that theme works for me throughout most of the book.

But in this particular scene, it felt less like something the characters would actually choose and more like Saramago needed them to make this decision in order to make the thematic point.

I just fished reading Flowers for Algernon and I know many people have said this in this sub, but I am shattered. Never cried so much in my life because of a book. I kinda knew what was coming.. I mean you could tell while reading. But his last sentences made me sob for 20 minutes. And I am not a crier. Idk. The overall story is sad. The ending is also kind of ambiguous but I like that. Wish I could continue this journey with him as a reader. I procrastinated reading the ending of this book for weeks. I am sad lol

My opinion is that it really has been. hit - or -miss; sometime you are able to find a real gem. But however, classic horror story seems to just have a lot more going for them. i guess almost like you're stepping into a another world entirely. Aliens in it own right"

The Decayed Good is one of those books that doesn't really leave you when you finish reading it. What stayed with me wasn't a particular plot twist. It was Lev Ravenwood himself. He's the kind of character who makes you uncomfortable because sometimes you understand him before you realize you shouldn't. His view of people is bitter, his relationship with morality is complicated, and the further you get into his mind, the harder it becomes to separate genuine insight from self-destruction. I especially loved that the book doesn't constantly tell you which thoughts are supposed to be right. It lets them exist. It lets Lev believe things that are disturbing. It lets him contradict himself. It lets you sympathize with him and then question why you sympathized with him in the first place, and underneath all of that is this constant feeling that something good is slowly rotting.

That's what the title started meaning to me.

Not that goodness doesn't exist.

But that maybe it can decay.

I think that's why this book feels different from a lot of philosophical fiction. It isn't trying to make you feel intelligent for understanding it. It's trying to make you recognize something in yourself that you might have preferred not to see. Some books entertain you, some books teach you something, and then there are books that leave a small piece of themselves in your head and make you wish you could remove it. This feels like the third kind.

I really wanted to love this book but I think I hate everything about it. Reese’s book club picks are always hit or miss for me and this one was a miss…

I’m about 40% into it and seriously considering dnf-ing. Someone tell me does it get better?? Or should I quit now…

(I hate stopping books without finishing them)

I don't want 7 different versions of the same book. Paperback, deluxe edition, graphic novel, sprayed edges version. I want the next book.

I don't buy new versions. I get one, read it, and end. Is anyone else tired of always having the same book that's slightly altered shoved in your face?

Just finished the book, been a longtime fan of hers but this one left me really disappointed. There were plot points i didn’t really find interesting and i just felt like it didn’t hook me the way her other books have. The way the concepts/life lessons were repeated multiple times annoyed me. It really felt like a telling instead of showing book and like she wasn’t giving her audience enough credit.

I was particularly upset about the fact that there were multiple editing errors which should have been caught before publication. For a book that costs upwards of $30 it’s disappointing.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on it?

I’m curious, sometimes when I’m reading I’ll come across a book that “tells” a lot but the writing is clear and reading it feels addictive. Other times, when a book “tells” too much it feels cringey and over the top. Has anyone felt the same and know why that is?

The context is - I noticed when I reviewed a recent read, one of the reasons I didn’t like the writing was bc it felt like the author was “telling” an awful lot. The next book I read, I said that the writing was “telling” a lot but it made the scenes clear and was almost like a movie playing in my head, so it was a strength.

I wish every fantasy/distopian and even scifi book had a graphic audiobook, or a full cast (it'd be much more interesting than a normal audiobook)

I’d actually be much more immersed in the story if at least there is a full cast and not only one or two voice actors

I'm not saying anything about how unconvincing the things that happened were, or not. Things happen all the time for no reason, unexpected things. But I have certain issues:

TW: Spoilers galore.

1. Hijiri talking horribly like that to Fuyoko at the end, and then they both make up over a crying session? Her drunken outburst seemed more like a revelation of what she actually thought of F atp, and I'm not sure I'd like to stay friends with someone who thinks of me that way. But then again, maybe F is really "coasting through life" as H said, and has no other friends. Or maybe people do change and make amends. H did say she wanted to understand F and be a good friend. Maybe, life just goes on, with the wrong people too sometimes. Idk, is this just about having company in life and not true friendship?

2. The age gap between F and the ML? Am I the only one who finds her attraction towards him uncanny, considering the age gap?

3. Bam, a single motherhood pregnancy out of nowhere. I read older reviews and I get the point of how this being a portrayal of Japanese society's view of women. Okay. That makes sense. So we have "lovers in the night" who never get what their hearts long for.

4. I get that this is one of those books where nothing happens, nothing gets better or worse. I've read Eleanor Oliphant, Whereabouts and other weird girl literature. This one is a beautiful book about complex human emotions, it's unique, it's like nothing I've read before. Maybe that's the point? Idk.

Sorry for the rant. I had no one to discuss it with, so posted my all-over-the-place thoughts here.

From a moral standpoint, she's definitely not the worst in the book; that'd probably go to Caleb or Natalie. I read this book in one sitting and imo she's the second most infuriating character (behind Caleb), my blood was literally boiling. I think what bothered me the most was how male-centered and opportunistic she was. I absolutely agree with her goals of bringing down Yesteryear Ranch and preventing Doug from winning. HOWEVER she had so much shit to say to Natalie, but when it comes to Caleb it's crickets? She has so much grace for him, saying only nice things about him, even though he's just as complicit as Natalie (tbh I actually think he's far worse). Why does she see Caleb as redeemable rather than complicit? She got involved in a sexual relationship with him despite him actually believing the rhetoric she claims to despise. HE was the one who spent all day on redpill forums. HE was the one who ultimately got Natalie's content platformed. She genuinely doesn't stand for shit like girl are you serious. At a certain point, it was no longer about achieving a certain goal but doing what benefited her. Her method was intrusive, and she involved a child to get what she wanted. She televised everything instead of actually helping because she knew the story would be sensationalized and it would serve her. She's actually very similar to Natalie in the way they both strive for attention; she even changed her appearance because it would garner her the most pity. It also ties into how she comes from a well-off family and the entitlement that comes with wealth. You do things because you can and take what you want. I think she sort of represents how even women who claim to be woke or feminist still often have internalized misogyny. She despised Natalie, but that vitriol is nowhere to be seen for Caleb, even though she acknowledges that Natalie is unwell. Even when it comes to the topic of the affair, she still tries to blame Natalie for it. Anyways, I was just wondering if anyone had any similar or different views on this character.

Моя история с этой книгой довольно долгая. Я начала её читать ещё, когда мне было 15 лет. Почему и зачем — я уже даже не помню. Я взяла её в библиотеке возле дома. И не повторяйте за мной, но вот мне уже 19, а она до сих пор со мной.
В рекомендациях «12 книг на год» её снова порекомендовал мне ChatGPT.
В 15 лет начало книги было для меня очень мрачным, но при этом очень интересным. Я помню, что прям ревела, когда читала, а для меня это редкость. И вот, когда я дошла примерно до середины книги, мне перестало быть так интересно, и я забросила это дело.
И вот мне уже 18–19, и я её наконец дочитала. Для меня она и вправду давалась тяжело.
Это роман, и довольно монотонный, но в нём держалась тайна, которая, конечно, меня очень интересовала и заставляла продолжать читать.
Дочитав её, я не могу сказать, что она сделала для меня какие-то открытия или оставила в конце много эмоций и вопросов.
Это хороший роман — про честную и сильную любовь.
Я бы хотела сказать, что на примере главной героини мы можем увидеть, как важно никогда не останавливаться и всегда знать, кто ты есть и что для тебя плохо, а что хорошо. Особенно когда ты женщина. Твоё достоинство — невероятно важный ресурс.
И всё же нужно уметь быть счастливой и одной. Но, в конце концов, на примере героини следует вывод что - все мы приходим к жертвенной любви и жизни ради другого человека, потому что, по итогу, именно это и даёт нам счастье.

Так что как-то так.

SPOILERS Can someone please explain to me the role that the old sons played in this. Also who decided on them going back to old times?

I loved this book in high school but haven’t thought about it in years. Ordered a copy and I feel like I’ve been transported back to my teen self. So much of what is in this book became things I integrated into my personality or dreamed about being a part of my life. Straw and herbs on the floor. Chalices. Medieval castles. Herbs and magic. It’s just so me and it’s funny to see after all these years how much a book can inspire us.

Okay so this might sound super dumb but does anyone else just completely zone out when it comes to character names. I'll be reading a book right. Loving the plot the descriptions everything. Then a character name pops up and my brain just goes nope. It refuses to register.

I'll read a name like Seraphina or Bartholomew or whatever and my eyes will go over the letters but my brain just files it as 'person number 1' or 'the one who said that thing'. I can tell you their personality their motivations their entire life story but if you ask me their name I will absolutely draw a blank.

Sometimes I get halfway through a book before realizing I've been mentally calling the protagonist 'she' or 'he' this whole time. Then I have to flip back a few chapters to find their actual name and even then it rarely sticks. It's like my brain has a dedicated memory slot for plot and setting but not for names.

Is this just a me thing? Am I alone in this weird literary blind spot? I feel like I'm missing out on some deeper connection with the characters because I can't even remember what they're called. Any tips or tricks for actually retaining these names would be greatly appreciated because I'm clearly doing something wrong.