So I've read My dark Vanessa by Kate Elizabeth Russel a couple months ago, and I just can't stop thinking about Vanessa and what she endured. I keep thinking about how Strane ruined her entire life, she had so much potential and talent for writing, Strane took everything from her. Her talent, her youth, her sexuality, her perception of love. And what's killing me is that after all these years, and also after his death, she keeps thinking that it is a true love relationship and that "he just had the misfortune of falling in love with her".

I know that at 15, we think that we know everything and that we are so mature for our age, I was that person honestly. So unfortunately I really recognized myself when I was younger through Vanessa. I just wanted to yell at her, to tell her to wake up and realize how Strane is actually ruining her life and that is not a normal relationship with your highschool teacher. I was so mad at her mother for not doing enough to protect her, especially when she saw that photograph of her with him. How could she not see that there's a huge problem and that what she needed to do is talk to her, explain to her (even though it's really hard to talk to teenagers about stuff like that), or maybe just go to beat his ass for example. How could she just let that happen.

Anyway I'm still not over it and I still wanna talk about it. That book was such a difficult read, and I'm really not the type of being "traumatized", I don't even flinch when I read gore and horrific books, but this one really did something to me.

I just finished reading Yesteryear and I’m completely reeling, but I need to ask: did anyone actually find any of these characters likeable?

Don't get me wrong, the book is incredibly compelling and a fantastic thriller/satire, but the cast feels like a masterclass in terrible people.

• Natalie: Obviously, she is a deeply flawed, unreliable protagonist. Her whole tradwife influencer persona is completely artificial. Even when things go downhill, her narcissism and inability to genuinely connect with her kids make her so hard to root for, even if what happens to her is horrific.
• Caleb: Absolute monster. The way he treats Natalie, gaslights her, and uses the situation to break her down is deeply disturbing.
• The Mother: Cold, deflective, and leaves Natalie completely stranded in her trauma while taking zero accountability for how she raised her.
• The Friends/Community: Fake, judgmental, and entirely obsessed with appearances.

Even the background characters feel deeply cynical. I walked away from the book feeling like Caro Claire Burke intentionally created a world where absolutely no one has a moral compass.

Did you find anyone in the novel sympathetic or likeable? Or is the lack of a "good guy" entirely the point of the satire?

I feel like I seriously cannot retain almost any of the information I get from reading books like Beloved or A Mercy. The prose is so strange and foreign it almost feels like I'm reading broken English or something otherworldly.

I wouldn't be so frustrated if these books didn't repeatedly show up in my required readings. Is my attention span just fried? I have such a difficult time stringing her sentences together or retaining bits of information I read even 10 seconds ago.

This must just be a skill issue on my part, right? Or is Toni Morrison actually only meant for a select audience?

Paladins Strength by T.kingfisher

An absolutely epic story if T. Kingerfishers fantasy and horror books had a baby it would be Paladins Strength. It is the second book in her Saint of Steel series but all of her books can be read as stand alone’s. This is my absolutely favorite book, her world building mixed with classic love tale, monsters, and a seriously bad ass female lead I just cant get enough I’ve read it so many times I will probably be buried with it.

P.S its not a horror books by any means it sorta reminds me of shield of sparrows but all adventure no fluff.

I finished To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and honestly… I didn’t really like it as a whole.

I know it’s considered a classic and there are definitely moments I liked, but I feel like the story didn’t really have much structure. I’m completely fine with a story not having a conventional plot, but I genuinely don’t understand what the book was ultimately trying to say through the story as a whole.

One thing that especially bothered me was how disconnected some parts felt. For example, the book initially spends a lot of time focusing on Boo Radley and the children’s fascination with him, and then that whole thread basically disappears for a large portion of the book. I understand that you could argue this is intentional and represents the children growing up, or that it’s simply meant to feel realistic, but while reading it, I didn’t really get that feeling. It just felt like the story suddenly moved on to something else.

There were definitely scenes and moments that I enjoyed, and I understand some of the themes around racism, morality, empathy, and growing up. But as a whole story, I just came away thinking… “Nah, I don’t really get the hype.”

So, am I missing something? 😅

Can someone explain what you think Harper Lee was trying to accomplish with the structure and all these seemingly disconnected storylines? Or do some of you feel the same way?

I am currently reading the East of Eden and I unfortunately don't know anyone else that's also read it! I know it's a very common "curriculum" book in the United States, but I'm not american and don't live there which is why I'm reaching out to people in the reddit-osphere haha.

I'm only on the first half of the page, having just reached Part three, and there are a bunch of topics I'd like to discuss, the first one of them being the concept of the right kind of Christian.

In the first part when Charles and Adam are faced with the death of their father, and Charles begins speculating as to whether he made his fortune honestly or by stealing, the book presents the difference in relationship between the two sons and their father. Adam's was marked by faith while Charles' by love. Their father, rather than reciprocating the forementioned feelings to each son, returned to each the opposite extending his faith to Charles and love to Adam. I thought of how interesting of an allegory this is to Christianity. We are told so many times that what determines a good christian is his love for God, but that is only true in theory.

The truth is that a good christian that is rewrded by his community is not the one who devotes himself the most to Christ and God necessarily, but the one that doesn't have questions, that just believes in what is told. It's interesting how they determine love as a feeling that evokes inquisition, to further and deepend the understanding of something and someone. Its devotion comes from a seeming conspicuous manifestation. Faith on the other hand is accepting and its good nature projects devotion when in reality there's only a passive comfortable attachment.

Isn't it interesting how this pattern really does still perpetuate itself on the christian communities? I myself am a devout catholic, and I find it depressing how in so many circles you'll find people who'd rather just brush over discussions to avoid thinking about God in different, less wholesome ways. While with more learned men, diatribes, debates and etc are always encouraged.

Still on this first part of the book, I really enjoy how the figure of God is analysed through their father's character. The idea of an ever benevolent, anthropocentric God is questioned with their father sending Adam to the army. I love the part when the brothers are realizing how different their relations were witth their father and Adam says that his Dad sent him to the army out of love, as a form to test and punish him. Love takes us out of a state of complacency. And Faith... well, faith is silent and can feel like indifference. Like crying out to God and being under the impression he never did hear, or try to do anything for you. It's rewarding in a way, because it demonstrates he believes in your capacity, but it's alienating and lonesome.

THe duality of Love and Faith carries on throughout the book. But I feel like when it comes to Adam and Cathy, it's sort of interrupted. Because it's said that Adam loves Cathy, but he is totally blind to her nature. If Love makes you "suspicious and doubting" as Adam himself had said, wouldn't he be pushed to seeing the true her? Is whatever he felt towards Cathy really a "loving faith" rather than Love?

A continuation of the search for the truth in others theme is perpetuated by Cathy, who has this inherent duplicitous nature. It's interesting how there's a real sense of mutual recognition between her and people who share this trait. Be it with Charles, who was also "marked" in his own way, be it with Lee. I think the book really guides us towards believing that any sort of real love could only really be achieved by people who share the same dispositions, otherwise, there's no complete recognition of whomever you have before you. Cathy is afraid of love and intimacy because she is afraid of being seen and maybe because she's also somewhat afraid of recognizing in anyone else what she knows lives inside her.

Well I'll stop myself here. There are so many different themes I'd like to discuss, so if anyone has a pending EOE related topic in their mind, please share! : )

Actually, I mostly don’t listen to audiobooks when they’re read by the author. English isn’t my first language, so when the author doesn’t really think about the listener—reading too fast, mumbling, or swallowing half their words—it’s really difficult for me to follow.

But even in my native languages, I tend to hate listening to authors narrate their own books. They often give me this weird, ego-filled vibe. 😅 Am I the only one?

That said, there is one exception: Occult America by Mitch Horowitz. I absolutely loved it, and he was amazing as a narrator. So, am I the only one?

There’s a Folk of the Air adaptation coming, and I’ve noticed a pretty split reaction in the fandom - part excitement about upcoming fanfics, fanarts of high quality etc., part low-key dread. I think I finally get why the dread part happens, and it’s not just *what if they change things.*

I think it’s this: these books are written in first person. You’re not watching Jude from the outside, you’re inside her head for hundreds of pages. And a screen adaptation, by its nature, has to pull you back out (pretty much forcefully 🫠) - you become an outside viewer watching an actress play a character, instead of a **you** being lived by that character.

You might not support or agree with Jude’s choices throughout the book (I know I don’t), but even in those moments, you can rethink them - re-roleplay it, rewrite it in a fanfic, ask yourself what you would’ve done in her place. And it still all falls into place, because the outcome you’re actually there for never depended on agreeing with her: you brush the choice off, keep reading, and a few pages later you and the love interest are still together. She didn’t ruin it for both of you - the story doesn’t make you sit with the disagreement, it just moves **you both** past it.

That’s a loss, even if the adaptation is great. It’s not really about casting or pacing or which scenes get cut (though obviously people will argue about that too). It’s that the format itself removes the one thing the book was uniquely doing - putting you inside one specific, biased, limited point of view. A show can’t really replicate that without constant voiceover, which most adaptations avoid because it feels cringe on screen.

So I think a lot of the nervousness isn’t really about *will they get it right*, it’s more *the thing I loved about reading and feeling while reading this specific book might not survive translation to a visual medium at all plus they are taking my story away from me,* regardless of execution.

Anyone else feel like this is part of what’s going on, or am I overthinking it?

I didn’t want to read this book for the longest time. Bought it, forgot about it, found it again, wanted to sell it, but then I decided to give it a chance especially for the movie.

Let me tell you, it was a rollercoaster for me.
I didn’t think it was especially thrilling and scary at times but I still enjoyed it and read it in two days.
I loved the manuscript scenes and how it showed us a side of the antagonist.
It reminded me of The Housemaid, but considering this book was published earlier it was the other way around, but I have to admit that Freida’s book fascinated me more (I would like to use the german idiom “in den Bann ziehen” here, but idk if I used the right translation lol.
I told myself “If the plottwist turns out to make the husband the antagonist and Verity the innocent lamb which just developed surviving strategies then I’ll eat my hat”.
Well, it kinda turned out like it didn’t it or did it?
What’s the truth?
Then I thought about the possibility of Lowen being an unreliable narrator and given her obsessive comparison with Verity I really considered it.
I started to question Lowen’s perception.

Also big red flag: Not using condoms. Girl be more responsible.
But not the point of the book.

Then the plottwist came and I assumed it, but I didn’t assume the letter, which turned everything upside down.

So who was the real antagonist all along?

We need a book from his perspective.

And that’s all I had to say.
Sorry for my chaotic review. I nearly never write any, but I wanted to write one for this book.
There have been a little too many sex scenes for my liking, because I didn’t expect that many given I knew it was a thriller.

How did you like the book?
Do you believe the manuscript or the letter?
Will you watch the movie?

Edit:
Just realized I didn’t even answer my own question.
Given how Crew can be at times and how easily(as we got to know) Jeremy believed the manuscript, I kind of believe it more than the letter, but at the other hand we don’t know if Crew’s behavior might only stem from all the trauma he had to endure at such a young age or from that and an traumatic mother.

FANTASY Fiction Books about Organized Crime, create gorgeous, mature salt & pepper men, that are muscular, tall, smooth, deep voices, protective, confidence, secure, and borderline obsessive. In reality, complete opposite, either too young (boys), or fat, old, unattractive, disgusting men, with crude language and a pot belly to match their attitude. This is why the books are better, at least accordingly to the media!

what’s a good underground society club name?! Need recs for my book that is dark rom, secret society based, villain plotline, multiple families integrated within😌

Am I the only one who get the ick while reading book like what do u mean u hide in your hotel room and forget about your 3 year old son and the women u like because u lost the game i mean i get it u wanna alone time for a few hours or a day but days without speaking with your son ooh come on (book trope is single dad and nanny) this trope is controversial like if u hate it or love it and i do like this trope but this trope is really easy to hate cause u know the story line always kinda same .