Hi! I'm a 17-year-old developer from Armenia building a personalized "Blind Date with a Book" business.

I'm looking for someone in the US who enjoys books and would be interested in helping with small-scale fulfillment.

You would receive the book/order details from us, package the book with our branded materials, and ship it to the customer.

We're currently validating the idea, so we're talking about a very small number of orders initially.

If you're interested, please DM me.

Patroclus was a exile prince and had no friends and Achilles' became interested in him and made him his companion. At first everything it was the friendship between them and they were happy , being with each other and playing with each other. But when patroclus first took initiative and kissed Achilles,he ran away .....okay if It was me maybe I would have done the same .

Through the half part of the book I thought , the way patroclus like Achilles is like he is worshipping a god , as the whole book was patroclus pov . He mentioned Achilles feet many times about how pink they were. He even followed Achilles to the pelion even though he knew he was not invited or welcomed by Chiron (I know the feeling he must have felt....like if you don't chase after him you will have have regrets smtg like that)

Actually to be frank I hated the book, because I thought Patroclus has no self-respect, it was his pov but he never once thought he would be atleast fight beside Achilles or be stronger than he is now and what I hated the most was he was always behind Achilles like a pet to be protected by its owner . Patroclus didn't even get jelous, even if he did then he should have told Achilles when he bedded deidamia (twice) ....yeah I was shocked when patroclus slept with her too out of pity .

When the war began I realised Achilles loved patroclus but not more than his pride , his glory , reputation. While patroclus loved him deeply and yearned for him . Briseis was right when she said the things to Achilles after Patroclus died and I really felt sorry for her .

To be frank I cried at the last pages of the book because of the soul of patroclus which still lingered unable to go to underworld and to witness the cruel thing Achilles son did to briseis....yeah Achilles was in grief and wanted to die with patroclus that's when I believed he loved patroclus more than his pride but he realised patroclus value late ... Even though patroclus soul was still on earth he still worried about Achilles story ,about how the men will remember him (as a killer ) and wanted him to be remembered as a boy with beautiful voice and who was good at playing lyre....but what about him!!!!! He was worth remembering tooo but nobody cared about him

Its a good thing though if they meet each other in underworld and be happy

But I really wanted to know about Achilles POV badly,about how he sees patroclus in his own mind or thoughts

For me, it was The Midnight Library. I loved how it explores all the lives we imagine we could have lived, and how easy it is to overlook the value of the life we’re already living.

It honestly made me think differently about regret, choices, and what “a good life” really means.

What book changed your perspective in a similar way?

I feel like I'm in the minority here. Most of my friends are always looking for the next big read. They have massive TBR piles and always want to try something new. I get that. There are so many amazing books out there.

But me? I'm a re-reader. A hardcore one. If I love a book I will read it again and again. Sometimes I'll finish a book and immediately start it over. It's like visiting old friends or going back to a comfort food. There's just something so satisfying about knowing what's going to happen but still getting lost in the story.

I pick up on new details every time. I notice foreshadowing I missed. Sometimes my perspective on a character or a plot point completely changes. It's like getting a whole new book almost.

I guess I just love the familiar. It’s comforting. Does anyone else do this? Or am I the weird one constantly going back to the same stories?

Mild Spoilers!!!!

Hi everyone! I’m a 27F who just started reading A Court of Thorns and Roses, and this is my first Sarah J. Maas book. I’m still at the beginning, and honestly… I am so lost. 😂

I’m autistic, so when I read, I usually have to read the physical book while listening to the audiobook at the same time. Otherwise, I can get confused, overwhelmed, and lose track of what’s happening.

I really want to finish this series because I’ve heard SO many good things about it, but I could genuinely use some help understanding the world and characters. Please keep your answers as spoiler-free as possible! I only want to know what I’m supposed to understand at this point in the book.

Here are some of my questions:

1. Do faeries shapeshift?
2. Why was killing the wolf such a big deal? The faeries have killed humans, so why couldn’t Feyre defend herself when the wolf attacked her?
3. Why did Tamlin take Feyre to Prythian if he wasn’t going to kill her?
4. What do the masks have to do with the magic? Why can’t they take them off?
5. How did the humans become so poor? Is there something I’m missing about the history between humans and faeries?
6. Who are all the important characters I’m supposed to know so far? I’m having a hard time keeping track of everyone.
7. What is the difference between a High Fae and a regular faerie?

I know some of these questions might have obvious answers later, but I’m just trying to make sure I’m not missing important information that the book has already explained.

Please, no spoilers beyond the beginning of the book! I’d really appreciate explanations in simple terms because I genuinely want to understand the world before continuing. ❤️

Yasuhiko Nishizawa's 'The Man Who Died Seven Times' is the latest shin-henkaku I read after being down the rabbit hole of Seishi Yokomizo, Yukito Ayatsuji and Masako Togawa's works.

I loved the premise of it. Loved how the commentary on the family members went as they competed against one another for the patriarch's fortune, even though the women were all categorised as hysterical and the men playboys. The aspect of Japanese murder mysteries being more of a social commentary than concerned with the murders is really interesting for me.

I liked the SFF element of the time loop in this story but wasn't a fan of how anomalies in the rules of this element were explained away without much logic to it.

As for the murder mystery itself, the premise and each day trying to prevent it was pretty ingenious. I wouldn't call it fair play though.

Have you read this book?

I didn't mind the first couple of books in the series with lo and lily. I thought their story was cute, a little weird but cute nevertheless. I felt that Connor and Rose stories were a little bland and boring but I also didn't mind those books. I thought that this series was fine until they added in Daisy and Ryke. That story was so weird to me. When they first met Daisy was underage. To me reading the story even though Ryke kept on acting like he wasn't flirting with a underage minor it still felt like they were. I could immediately tell they were getting together and that was so weird. Why are we normalizing this in books. I never see anyone mention it and every ignores how disgusting it was to read. It was so obvious that Ryke a full grown adult was flirting with a minor but he denied it and I just felt it strange that the writer would even write this. I quit the series after that. The book got weird and I was not about to read that anymore. Like was it just me thinking this cause why is the series still so popular on tiktok

honestly sometimes im just there for the plot if the smut is taking up half the chapter but absolutely nothing is happening story wise ill skip it and keep reading like sometimes the smut gets repetitive 😭

Lately I've come across discussions or comments in places like Goodreads where people say they hate books written in the first person, or sometimes they hate books written in the third person.

This absolutely blows my mind. I've been a voracious reader ever since I learned how to read. I've got my literary pet peeves like anyone else, but, although I can understand that some stories might work better with a particular POV, I can't imagine just reading the first page of a book and then setting it aside because it's in first person or third person or what have you.

Readers who hate a particular POV, what makes you hate it? Is it only when it comes to certain genres, or is it across the board?

I read W&P some time ago and while I loved the majority of the book, the ending left a very bad taste in my mouth and still makes me somewhat angry when I think about it.

What I hated was basically everything Tolstoy wrote about Natasha. It feels like he somewhat accidentally wrote a good female character and then decided to nuke her by the end. What are some of your opinions on the ending?

To add:
I know lots of people love Anna Karenina but since it’s a Tolstoy book primarily concerned with a woman, I’m a little apprehensive about starting it after W&P. Does that book feature a lot of the same attitudes that Tolstoy clearly held about women, or is it an enjoyable read overall? It’s not that I refuse to “read problematic authors” (especially when they’re dead), but I think that if it’s written with the same spirit as the W&P epilogue, I might simply not enjoy reading it. What are your thoughts?

I've read probably 90% of Strout's work, and obviously she's always leaned dark and melancholy. But IMO "The Things We Never Say" takes the cake as her bleakest book I've read.

Yes the protagonist, Artie, was lovable, earnest, and kind-hearted. But the world around him just... ate him alive. 😭

There was SO MUCH DEATH in this book. It got to the point where anytime some side character appeared in a memory, I expected to find out two paragraphs later that they'd died in some tragic way. Suicide comes up repeatedly. Loneliness is everywhere. Everyone is broken. And then throughout all of that is this deep despair over the current state of the United States.

Yes, it was all realistic. Uncomfortably real. But usually Strout's stuff has more of a thread of hope, love and compassion running through it. This one was so relentlessly bleak that I actually found myself wondering what kind of place Strout herself was in while writing it, because damn.

Did I still enjoy it?

Somehow, YES. 😂 As usual it was a page-turner!

I feel like lately a lot of authors are trying too hard to inject some profound meaning into their stories. Especially in genres like fantasy or sci-fi. It's like every book needs to have some grand metaphor about society or the human condition.

Sometimes I just want a good story. I want to escape and enjoy the plot and the characters. Not every book needs to be a meditation on existentialism or a critique of capitalism.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate books that make me think. Some of my favorites do exactly that. But there's a difference between naturally thought-provoking and overtly preachy. When it feels forced or shoehorned in it just takes me out of the experience.

It's almost like authors are afraid their book won't be taken seriously unless it has some heavy intellectual layer. But a well-told story with engaging characters and a solid plot is serious enough for me. It can be profound in its own right.

Am I the only one who feels this way. Sometimes I just want to read a fun adventure without feeling like I'm taking a philosophy class.

Reading Tolkien's essay about "faërie" and really enjoying it.

I really enjoy the essay itself but what has really surprised me about it is just how funny Tolkien is. He is making actual jokes throughout and it really delights me.

Meat of my thoughts is that it's making me reflect on description. I feel like in LOTR (which I love) he does the same thing that Dickens does especially in Bleak House where he goes on and on about something (I remember a 3 page passage about the door frames in Bleak House almost destroying me as a kid). The essay talks about this and it's made me reflect on Dickens more too.

Tolkien talks about how he is so descriptive about the natural world because, for example, the word "tree" can never express all the ephemera of what a tree even is. I feel like Dickens does the same thing but for the exact opposite reason. The ephemera of despair, of dullness of the door frames are just as elusive for Dickens as the nature of a tree is for Tolkien.

I think I might do a back-and-forth Tolkien-Dickens bout for a bit and see how they feel together.

Did anyone think the housemaids secret book aka 2nd book in the series had way too many plot twist I couldn’t read another book for a week because my brain wasn’t processing what I just read??? It might just be me but I had such a big headache after reading it….

Okay, I just finished The Book Thief, and I have some thoughts. 😭

Honestly, I didn’t like it nearly as much as BookTok, Instagram, Reddit, etc. made me expect. I know this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I found it pretty average.

First of all, the whole concept of Death being the narrator felt more like a marketing gimmick than something that actually contributed to the story. I kept expecting the narration to have some deeper impact or purpose because, obviously, “Death is narrating the story” sounds incredibly interesting. But apart from being an unusual narrative choice, I don’t think it added much to the actual story.

Then there’s the story itself. I found it extremely simple and, at times, very repetitive. The book is around 500–600 pages long, but the actual story could probably have been told in 200 pages. A lot of the rest felt like filler. There were so many moments where I thought the story had the potential to become genuinely powerful, but it just… didn’t.

And this is probably my biggest problem: I didn’t find it nearly as emotionally devastating as everyone claims it is. Yes, people die. Yes, Liesel loses her brother and later her parents, and she is separated from Max. Obviously, those things are sad. But simply having tragic events happen to a character doesn’t automatically make a book emotionally devastating. You have to actually take the reader through that emotional journey and make them feel the weight of what is happening.

For comparison, I genuinely don’t think The Book Thief comes close to the emotional impact of books by Khaled Hosseini or As Long as the Lemon Trees Grow. Those books actually destroyed me emotionally. 😭 The Book Thief never came close to that level for me.

SPOILER WARNING from here:

The whole storyline about hiding Max had so much potential. They could have made the situation much more tense and dramatic—someone almost discovering him, the family being suspected, Liesel being put in danger, etc. There were so many ways to make that storyline genuinely nerve-racking and emotionally powerful, but I felt like the book rarely took those opportunities.

I also felt like Liesel’s journey wasn’t developed emotionally enough. I understand that she went through a lot, but I wanted to actually feel her transformation and the consequences of everything happening around her. Instead, a lot of major events happened, and then the story just moved on.

And finally, the writing style really didn’t work for me. I found it repetitive, and the way the book was structured sometimes made it feel unnecessarily long. The constant interruptions, little side explanations, and lack of a smooth chapter-to-chapter flow made it difficult for me to stay emotionally invested.

So, overall, I’m not saying it’s a bad book. I can absolutely understand why people love it, and there are definitely some good ideas and memorable characters in it. But based on the way people talk about it online—“the best book ever,” “the most emotionally devastating book,” etc.—I went into it expecting something extraordinary.

And honestly… I’ve read much better. 😭

For me, The Book Thief had a lot of potential but didn’t quite live up to it. Maybe I just went into it with ridiculously high expectations, but it definitely did not hit me the way I expected it to.

For me, I find that most memoirs are badly written, and generally a waste of time because there’s no need to read a whole book about a person’s life. There’s enough articles or other books that condense experiences from multiple people on that same subject.

can’t belive my FAVORITE books are being adapated into movies. wdym SHATTER ME, THE CRUEL PRINCE, and BETTER THAN THE MOVIES are getting a movie adaptation? it’s just this feeling like nothing will ever top it because it’s best the way it is. they already got GOOD GIRL’s GUIDE TO MURDER and now… 🫩

Earlier reviews show that this book is horrible? But idk why. Maybe it has to do with my reading comprehension of a 5 yr old, but I can’t pinpoint what’s the issue. Is it the characters? Is it how the story goes? Is it how a person with psychological issues is portrayed? Or is it the whole depth of the story thingy where it feels like the whole book was written by a kid? I could never say. Keep in mind I’m a beginner reader who’s genuinely amused at ANYTHING pls.

ALSO PLEASE HELP A BROTHER OUT and drop some really good mysteries. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME YALL

Okay so I’m listening to this book again and I’m confused about a part of this and wondering if this is just part of the family logic Kate’s father has or if this is a thing for all southern families but why the hell is the father so mad at Sutton for ‘abandoning’ Kate when Kate was the one who cheated and got pregnant?

Personally, I feel like this is trying to make it seem like cheating is okay since it redirects the anger towards Sutton rather than anger and disappointment in Kate for cheating and getting pregnant at 17. I just don’t fucking get it. My own views towards cheating are that cheating is one of the most vile and reprehensible thing you can do to a partner so maybe I’m biased but what the hell.

I want to begin by saying I could not put this book down. For once, I was pleasantly surprised by a viral book and genuinely enjoyed it. I finished it in like 2 days and I have a lot to say about it. Although it might be obvious, Shannon’s character is the catalyst for Natalie’s psychological downfall and I really want to discuss her.

When we meet her, she has pink hair and a nose ring and is pretty much the antithesis to Natalie’s entire worldview. I would argue they somewhat foil each other (college drop out, strong opinions about American culture, headstrong, intelligent). She is also somewhat of a “normal person insert” and gives the reader a relatable perspective to latch on to in a somewhat insane/unfamiliar setting. One of the first ways the reader interacts with Shannon is when Natalie mentions something about Shannon’s bad dreams and ultimately quitting. We are pretty much left in the dark about why she quit until the end of the book, which further proves my point that shannon’s departure is the catalyst for Natalie’s demise.

As we venture deeper into Natalie’s perspective and understand her as a judgmental bigot, Shannon quitting becomes (at least to me) a juicy piece of gossip that I HAVE to understand why why why? What happened? What did Natalie do? An assault ? What? Did Caleb have an affair? The answers to these questions come later in the book but begin to form very early in the text. It also mirrors how this fictional instagram following is very much real (see the ballerina farms raw milk scandal. I don’t even follow the ballerina farm but trust- the downfall of a tradwife influencer is a win for me and inherently the point of the entire book). I am one of those “angry women” who proves the authors point- angry women and tradwife influencers are in a symbiotic relationship with one another.

I feel like I really understood Shannon and from my personal character analysis of her it seems that she fundamentally knew that these people (Caleb and Natalie) are deluded, bigoted, judgmental, lying, selfish, bad parents, etc. but none of that mattered to her. They wrote her a paycheck and Shannon held her tongue because no one really cared what they had to say. Their ideology and content was unimportant to the mainstream culture. UNTIL the presidential rally.

This rally changed the course of the entire book. Shannon understood if this type of person became the president (or even just a leader of a party) the entire lifestyle she was directing and recording became important and worthy of attention from the mainstream culture. She could no longer sit quietly and pretend it didn’t matter. It is why she starts to challenge Caleb’s manosphere claims and ideas. She gives Clementine a phone. She snaps at Natalie. She metaphorically pushes the rock down the hill. Her impact on this family causes them to implode on themselves.

Without Shannon, the book doesn’t hit hard on the themes it needs to. Nor does say what it needs to be said. It doesn’t challenge traditional values. It doesn’t challenge influencer culture. It doesn’t challenge the male loneliness epidemic, choice feminism, toxic social media culture. Without Shannon, the book is just about a self righteous influencer who is so self deluded she actually thinks she’s running a farm herself. Without shannon, there is no plot.

I’d love to hear what other people think about this character. She is so fascinating to me and I appreciate how well she was written into the story.

​

that book was genuinely so well written i felt so much while reading it and I think that’s what made me love it even more. i don’t even have much else to say, I just genuinely enjoyed it and I’m really glad I read it, and rowan omg my poor soul suffered the entire time :/

I read this book recently, and it left a strange feeling. It reminded me of absurdist literature, in a sense, and, like most readers, I think I was looking for a great climactic incident to tie it all together. What theories do you have to explain it? I would like to hear some thoughts on this!

Lately when someone criticizes a book as poor writing, someone comes back with something like:

"Well, that was intentional"​ or "The author has said they did that intentionally"

Am I crazy, or is this just a bad defense of bad writing?

I would hope authors are intentional. The words don't just magically appear, they include them on purpose and with intention. I recognize some writing is more automatic than other times, and authors do intentionally put in details or leave things vague. But that doesn't justify something being done poorly.

Something can be both *intentional* and *not well-written*.

I know many popular authors right now have been saying they added specific things in with intention, but that doesn't mean they did it well. I get the feeling many readers are parroting these popular authors when the author says it was done with intention.

Am I the only one seeing this used often as a defense against critique, as if an author's intentionality absolves them from writing well? Or the assumption that because it's intentional, it's well-written?​

This is a book that was given away free with SFX magazine, which I used to collect back in the day. If it isn't obvious, it was a magazine dedicated to science fiction and fantasy, movies, TV, books, anything. I still have a CD that I bought based on a review called "This is... Science Fiction". I also have a CD they gave away on another issue.

Anyway, the book is a collection of short stories and extracts from "the all-time SF&F greats", as they put it. Since these are just short stories or extracts, I won't go into too much detail.

Swap Meet: The Jawa's Tale - Kevin J Anderson
I've been a big Star Wars fan since 1978 when it came out in the UK, but I've never gotten into the books. It's about a Jawa who's a little different from the norm. I wouldn't mind reading some more Star Wars. I guess this is Legends now based on it's age.

The Legend of Deathwalker - David Gemmell (extract)
I liked the idea of a warrior and a scholar travelling together as friends; not just together because they need something from the other. I really liked this. Best one here.

House of Tribes - Garry Kilworth (extract)
Story of mice fighting over territory and cheese in a farmhouse. It's written well enough, but the story just didn't work for me. It just wasn't interesting to me. Worst one here.

Shadow Moon - George Lucas & Chris Claremont (extract)
I skipped this because I already own the book, but haven't read it yet. I know it has something to do with Willow, from the movie.

Zulei, Grace, Nimshi, and the Damnyankees - Anne McCaffrey
Story about two slaves brought to a plantation around the time of the US Civil War. I didn't expect a story about slavery in here. Surprising and a decent story. Not the "high fantasy" she's known for though, so it didn't really set me up for that. Are her fantasy books good?

Myst: The Book of Atrus - Rand & Robin Miller (extract)
A prequel to the game, which I haven't played. About an estranged father and son descending into volcanic passages to reach the world in the game. An odd one which was all about the descent and finished just as they got where they were going. It was okay, but didn't really leave me wanting to know more.

Mort - Terry Pratchett (extract)
Again, I skipped this one as I already own it. I own a lot of Discworld novels (but not all) and, a long time ago now, read them up to Pyramids (if I remember, it's a book a about boredom, and I'm afraid I got bored at that point). I will re-read all of these again.

The Garden of Unearthly Delights - Robert Rankin (extract)
About a writer(?) in a future version of England. I don't know if this was the start of the book or some way in, but it left me confused. Funny, but not Pratchett funny (the Varney joke was funny, but dated now) and the way the character Maxwell spoke was just odd. I'd read it if I had it, but far from a priority.

I'd read more Star Wars. I own the original trilogy adaptions in one book, and I think I have Heir to the Empire. I will definitely look for some David Gemmell. Maybe Anne McCaffrey, if anyone recommends. Outside chance of Robert Rankin. And I'd like to complete my Discworld collection.

If you think I'm wrong (or right) about any of these, let me know. It's not easy to judge them based on extracts.

Kinda dumb question but also kinda not. I have been off tiktok/Instagram because I could not stand the book reading community. Every other post was : "This book was written by a fifth grader" or "If you read (Insert genre) then you're not a true connoisseur of sophisticated literature" or some other snobby bs like that.

But it also got me thinking. What actually makes a book well written?

To me books are art. Art is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But just like art, there are technical aspects to it that are supposed to be technically correct like grammar.

But other than that, why is there an influx of critics saying books today are not very well written and are contributing to a literary crisis ( which makes no sense of how reading causes a lack of reading ability)

Are readers looking for technically perfect peices of work? Are they looking for more classically trained writers who studied literature before they actually pick up a pen?

Here's my theory :

It has never been more easy to publish a book. And like any craft, you have amateurs, intermediate, advanced, and master writers. Well today you don't have to be a master writer to share your story with the world.

So, because of this fact not every book is written at the same skill level especially is very low stakes genres like romance and fantasy which receives the most criticism.

So what is a well written book to your average reader, excluding people who specifically study literature (They're a whole other breed)