I started getting back into reading this past year, and it all started with the Hunger Games (bc the new book was coming out). Then i started to read romance books, since they’re such easy reads. I’ve now read 1984, the Picture of Dorian Gray, and I’m halfway through Pride and Prejudice. I want to read more classics, but I was want to feel hooked on a book like I did with the Hunger Games. I loved the world build in 1984, but hated the doom and misogyny of 1984. Dorian Gray was good but it took me awhile to be interested in it. Pride and Prejudice has been ok aside from the places and etiquette that I have a hard time keeping track of. Any recommendations?

I recently picked up these three books because I've been thinking about exploring Russian literature, and they seemed like a good place to start.

I've already started War and Peace and I'm about 250 pages in. So far, I'm honestly surprised by how much I'm enjoying it. I was expecting it to be a slow, difficult read, but it hasn't disappointed me once. There hasn't been a single page that felt boring.

Before this, I was reading Kafka and Camus. While I can appreciate what they were trying to do, their writing didn't quite click with me, and I found parts of it a bit slow.

Would you say this is a good starter pack for someone getting into Russian literature? I'm already planning to read Anna Karenina and more of Dostoevsky's novels after these, but I'd love to hear your recommendations. Which Russian authors or books do you think are essential, and why?

I was reading Homer’s Iliad on the subway and got to the Catalogue of Ships — that long passage listing all the contingents, leaders, and places going to Troy.

Usually I’d just skim it. But this time I wanted to understand who these people were, where they came from, and what this map of the ancient world actually looked like.

So I made a small interactive map: you can follow the catalogue while reading, see each contingent on the map, their leaders, number of ships, and the places Homer names.

Sharing it in case someone else wants to slow down and explore this part of the Iliad instead of skipping it.

https://stg35.github.io/iliad-catalogue-map/index.html

Deux personnes que tout oppose se rencontrent et tissent un lien profond. Malgré leurs différences, les préjugés et les épreuves de la vie, elles découvrent un amour qui les transformera à jamais.

Au départ, rien ne laissait présager une telle rencontre. Rien... ou plutôt tout le contraire de ce à quoi ils pouvaient s'attendre.

Alors, n'est-il pas parfois préférable de se laisser porter par la vie et ses aléas ?

Entre traumatismes, peurs, amour, accident et bien d'autres émotions, cette histoire invite à porter un regard différent sur la vie.

30–04–2024

Look... we're under the same moon. Isn't that beautiful?

The moon above us shines for both of us, as if it's quietly calling us to look at it together. Sometimes I like to believe it's fond of us, patiently waiting for the right time for our paths to cross.

You're so beautiful.
Has no one ever told you that before?

I know everything seemed strange at first. But when you start liking someone, you never stop to weigh the pros and cons. You don't search for perfection because, somehow, they already feel perfect exactly as they are.

Then one day, without realizing it, you fall in love.

Suddenly, you're smiling for no reason.
Laughing a little louder.
Finding joy in the smallest things.

You haven't even told them how you feel, and somehow... it doesn't matter whether they love you back or not.

Because simply loving them becomes enough.

Here I am, living with memories you never meant to create for us.

I quietly stole every little moment, every conversation, every glance I imagined, and tucked them safely inside my heart.

Now I fall a little deeper every single day.

And maybe...

you still think I'm just a silly little girl.

— a small part from the book I'm writing.

I made a short analysis arguing that Kafka's Metamorphosis is not a fantasy about transformation, but a precise description of what happens when a human being is reduced to their economic function.

The core argument: Gregor's transformation is structurally identical to what we now call burnout, severe depression, or chronic illness. The family's reaction — adaptation rather than grief — is the actual horror of the story, not the insect itself. Kafka was diagnosing the Industrial-age relationship between identity and productivity, decades before the language of "alienation" became mainstream outside Marxist circles.

Interested in feedback from this community: does this reading hold up, or am I projecting too much modern framing onto a 1915 text?

I made a short analysis arguing that Kafka's Metamorphosis is not a fantasy about transformation, but a precise description of what happens when a human being is reduced to their economic function.

The core argument: Gregor's transformation is structurally identical to what we now call burnout, severe depression, or chronic illness. The family's reaction — adaptation rather than grief — is the actual horror of the story, not the insect itself. Kafka was diagnosing the Industrial-age relationship between identity and productivity, decades before the language of "alienation" became mainstream outside Marxist circles.

Interested in feedback from this community: does this reading hold up, or am I projecting too much modern framing onto a 1915 text?

I have been reading an English translation of The Flighty Woman by Mustafa Sadiq al-Rafi'i, a 1930s Arabic writer virtually unknown in English. The most striking moment in the book is when the Flighty Woman herself, educated, sharp, rebellious, writes this in a letter:

"Woman seeks freedom and insists upon it. But life brings her in the end to a certainty beyond doubt: that the gentlest kind of her freedom lies in the gentlest kind of her enslavement."

What makes this extraordinary is who says it. Not a conservative man lecturing about tradition. The woman herself, after living through everything the book describes, arrives at this conclusion.

Al-Rafi'i does not tell us what to think. He lets her speak.

Is she right? Is there truth in the idea that real freedom for a woman, or for anyone, is found within certain bonds rather than outside them? Or is this just a beautiful way of accepting defeat?

A note on the book's structure for context:

The Flighty Woman is not a novel. It is a collection of four literary essays by Mustafa Sadiq al-Rafi'i, an Egyptian Arabic writer from the 1930s. Before reading the quote, there is something important to understand: al-Rafi'i himself states clearly at the beginning that this is not an invented story. The Companion gave him proof that the Flighty Woman is a real person, that none of the incidents were fabricated, and that none of the conversations were invented. The letters quoted in the book are real letters written by a real woman.

The book has three distinct voices worth understanding:

Al-Rafi'i is the narrator and framing voice. He is the author himself, observing and recording what he hears. He does not speak for long stretches, he mostly listens, occasionally interjects, and frames what the other voices say.

The Companion is a man al-Rafi'i meets who has loved many women and observed them closely. He is worldly, sharp, and often provocative. He tells al-Rafi'i the story of the Flighty Woman from his own experience. His views are often cynical and are presented as his own perspective, not as the author's conclusions.

The Flighty Woman is the central figure of the book. She is educated, rebellious, contemptuous of tradition, and fully capable of arguing her own case. She is not a passive character. She writes letters, makes arguments, challenges the men around her, and arrives at her own conclusions through her own lived experience. The quote in this post comes from her own letter, written in her own hand.

So when the Flighty Woman says that the gentlest kind of freedom lies in the gentlest kind of enslavement, she is not a character invented by a male author to make a point. She is a real woman who lived through rebellion, desire, disappointment, and self-examination, and wrote these words herself.

Whether you agree with her is a separate question. But she is worth reading on her own terms.

Check-out project Gutenberg.  It is of infite value because what you learn and enjoy costs 0$  I have read many books including; Tale of Two Cities, A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations, Alice in Wonderland, Jane Eyer, just to name 5.

https://www.gutenberg.org/

I've recently started reading p&p and this is hard, the sentence structuring, vocabulary, writing style are so different from the things I've read up until now

​

Any suggestions on how I should approach it?

​

P.S I'm not a native English speaker please don't be harsh on me for not knowing some basic words

Currently in Part 2, chapter 3 of Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet.

I was wondering how Sherlock solved the murder mystery. He arrested the Cabman as the murderer of both men, but I wasn't sure how he figured it out.

Also, I would like to know if the rest of the novel explains this as part 2 seems to be an entirely different novel compared to part 1.

Either way the book has been incredible so far, would love to hear thoughts about it as well as answers to my question.

Thanks

I’m a Chinese literature enthusiast (please don’t laugh at me). I love Western literature deeply, but my English isn’t good enough yet, so I can only read everything in translation.

My favorite book is Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time. It’s incredibly long, but I’ve been slowly making my way through it. I also really enjoy Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind, even though I’m a guy.

In China, not many people read books. Most are focused on making money and gaining power. Among those who do read, the majority consume Chinese web novels — a very commercialized and often quite shallow type of fiction that only appeared in the late 20th century. The authors have little freedom; they mostly write whatever gets the most clicks, or they’ll get attacked by readers. These novels are entertaining, but they don’t offer much else.

In my real life, I have almost no one to talk about literature with. Whenever I try to mention Proust or other serious books, people look at me strangely, like they think I’m showing off or being pretentious.

It’s quite lonely and frustrating. So I’ve come here, outside the Chinese internet, hoping to find some real book lovers.

I’m really curious: How do you guys read? What books are you reading lately? What kinds of literature do you enjoy? Please forgive me if my questions sound naive — I feel a bit like someone from a small village asking about the outside world. I’d love to hear as many details as possible about your reading habits and experiences.

Thank you!

Hi guys,

rather weird and nitpicking, but I am a bit confused, help me. Chapter 5-6

Was father Nicanor killed when Aureliano was still in town (before he gathered the men and took power of Macondo back from the forces) when the Conservative forces came in and killed the priest or not? Because at the start of chapter 6 Garcia says that when Aureliano left the city and left Arcadio in charge, Arcadio sequestered father Nicanor, which should have been dead by then.

Edit: (page 113) Apparently: “Father Nicanor tried to impress the military authorities with the miracle of levitation and had his head split open by the butt of a soldier’s rifle” doesnt mean he was killed…

So confused

Thanks y’all :)

I’m not a reader but I’m looking to get into reading soon. Any recommendations please?

Hola comunidad, estoy trabajando en un análisis de Rebelión en la Granja y me interesa escuchar diferentes perspectivas. Les dejo algunas preguntas para abrir la conversación:

1. ¿Qué modelos socioeconómicos se reflejan en la novela Rebelión en la Granja?
2. ¿Qué paralelismos existen entre los hechos narrados y los sistemas políticos de 1920-1940?
3. ¿Cómo se relaciona la explotación de los animales con los modelos socioeconómicos reales?
4. ¿Qué citas de la novela muestran la transformación de la igualdad en desigualdad?

Me interesa tanto la mirada académica como las interpretaciones más personales. ¡Gracias por compartir sus ideas!

Hi everyone, I’m working on an analysis of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and I’d love to hear different perspectives. Here are some guiding questions to spark discussion:

1. What socio-economic models are reflected in Animal Farm?
2. What parallels exist between the events in the novel and political systems of 1920–1940?
3. How does the exploitation of the animals relate to real socio-economic models?
4. What quotes from the novel show the transformation from equality to inequality?

I’m interested in both academic insights and more personal interpretations. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!

Now I have 19 Penguin Classics black spine books

Hello, I would like to get some opinions on the best translation of The Aeneid. I am unsure of which to go for. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

Hi everyone, I’ve been re-reading The Great Gatsby and stumbled upon a subtle ambiguity in Chapter 3 that I’d love to get your thoughts on. It’s regarding the referent of the pronoun "it" in the following context.

The Passages in Question:

(A) As soon as I arrived I made an attempt to find my host, but the two or three people of whom I asked his whereabouts stared at me in such an amazed way, and denied so vehemently any knowledge of his movements,that I slunk off in the direction of the cocktail table—the only place in the garden where a single man could linger without looking purposeless and alone.

(B) “Let’s get out,” whispered Jordan, after a somehow wasteful and inappropriate half-hour; “this is much too polite for me.” We got up, and she explained that we were going to find the host: I had never met him, she said, and it was making me uneasy.

The Two Perspectives:

Interpretation 1: Internal Anxiety (Nick’s Social Displacement) This view argues that "it" refers to the situational fact that Nick hasn't met Gatsby yet. Based on passage (A), Nick is clearly plagued by his status as a formal invitee who hasn't fulfilled the social duty of greeting his host. He feels "purposeless and alone." In this sense, Jordan is simply vocalizing Nick’s pre-existing internal discomfort. The uneasiness stems from the awkwardness of being a guest in a house where the host is a ghost.

Interpretation 2: Interpersonal Friction (Jordan’s Social Maneuver) Alternatively, some argue that "it" refers to Jordan’s act of disclosure. In this reading, Jordan uses Nick’s private situation (not knowing the host) as a convenient "exit strategy" to escape a boring conversation. Nick feels "uneasy" because Jordan is making his private business public or using him as a social tool without his consent. It's not about Gatsby; it's about Jordan’s tactlessness.

My Question to the Community:

When you read this, which "it" feels more grammatically and thematically consistent to you?

Does "it" represent the heavy weight of Nick’s failed social etiquette (Interpretation 1), or does it reflect Nick’s subtle irritation with Jordan Baker’s characteristic cynicism and social maneuvering (Interpretation 2)?

I’d love to hear your take on this!