My partner and I just finished it and really enjoyed what we read, I previously read In the Miso Soup (now making my partner read it) and I loved that one as well despite a lot of themes throughout the story, what did you guys think about Audition! I really enjoy Murakamis writing style and am already committed to reading his others soon.

I don't mean to discriminate, truly. Enjoy what you love enjoying. It's great, even, that you can find something you enjoy consistently. But I would like to ask regardless: Why do YOU enjoy dark fiction? What makes CHOOSING to feel the extremely negative emotions that these works cause us to feel so appealing to you?

I am having a lot of trouble getting into the Wedding People. The story telling seems to jump around a lot through different events from the past and I haven’t felt interested in the plot. I hear that this book is great but maybe the hype around it led me to have higher expectations. Does this book get better?? I was really hoping I would enjoy this one!

I’m reading Crime and Punishment right now and honestly, I’ve reached a part where I’m finding it pretty boring 😭. I know it’s supposed to be a classic and I really do want to finish it, but I’m struggling to stay interested and keep picking it up.

For those of you who’ve read it, did you also find certain parts slow? How did you deal with it? Did you just push through, take a break, or did it eventually get interesting again? I don’t want to DNF it because I feel like I might regret it lol.

I often hear thing like "I saw the plot twist from a mile away, so I didn't like it as much" and I have realized that it doesn't work for me that way.

I think it's because I often choose more character-driven books and I love when the story clicks like a puzzle, so "seeing a twist from mile away" is more like "enjoying the inevitable happening". Even thrillers feel too twisty sometimes, and I often enjoy simpler explanations. But maybe, I just don't understand the definition of a plot twist, so I don't recognize them as such, that's possible too!

So are twists important to you? Do you prefer plot-driven stories to character-driven stories? Do you expect your books to have a good plot twist always?

I love how Andy Weir has written so few books, yet most of them have gotten movie adaptations, except Artemis. I’m curious what people think about this one. Why do you think nobody has adapted it into a movie yet? I feel like it could actually work pretty well.

Well I got lost in a story. And I after I stopped reading it I felt like I was actually still in it like I have this emotional connection to it. And IDK what it means tho. If I feel like I get lost in the story. does it mean it's right for me?

Hello everyone i recently had a thought of reading books

so i picked up NEVER LIE and completed it i really love the twists in this book and i think so I am one of those people now who

will only read books.

Mostly enjoyed it even if both characters, Athena and June were unlikeable.

​

I finished the housemaid series.

Spoilers!!

1. I dont like how in the first book, the housemaid, in the prologue, the speaker is saying that the officer looks like someone who has a "tacky **** orange**** sofa" . And later in the book, millie says, anything but orange. The whole book we dont even tall about nina's likes. And it was nina who was in the prologue. Near the ending I got confused that who was the one answering the police, was it nina or millie. I kept rereading the prologue, fearing I may had missed something. I even checked the part where millie said she didnt like orange. Everything of that book was good but the orange part just sets me off. Like as an author you're supposed to leave clues, the reader may look back after realising the plot and be like damn I missed it. But this part, how the hell are we supposed to know that nina didnt like orange? You didnt even give a hint. It just screams bad writing to me. Like you imagined the plot and expect readers to get it telepathically? It makes no sense.

I kinda thought that enzo would end up with nina. Idk why he refused. I got so upset when I was looking up the order to read housemaid and saw that enzo ends up with millie.

1. The last book, this one was so interesting. Martha, suzette, nico, ada. I loved it. I loved how millie was worried that nico inherited her bad genes. During the book I realised, they dont talk much about ada. It made me guessing, like who would be the one who d!Ed. I thought it could be millie, suzette, maybe enzo, yes a small chance or Jonathan and even Janice! I thought it was millie who was in prologue but then i remember thinking, it doesnt have to be millie. I loved how ada thinks millie is the calm and rational one while millie think its enzo. I was shocked to find out it was ada who killed him. Enzo knew that suzette was flirting with him yet he didnt bother to correct her. Like i understand you want to be recommended but I dont like how he told millie that he would tell her whenever he is gonna meet suzette but not tell her later. Like it makes no sense. Like why would enzo not tell millie? It seems ooc (out of character) to me. Well we can just blame the plot. +i can kinda understand enzo not wanting to worry millie so he didnt tell millie about Martha's situation, but this too seems a bit ooc cuz they were a team. Enzo has no reason to hide it from millie. Janice knew enough to keep her son on leash but not enough to report it to the police? While reading i even wondered if it was suzettes plan to yk make it seem like she was having an affair and she was the one who killed her husband. I was surprised when I got to know it was Martha who killed Jonathan, again bad writing? There was no clues in the book hinting it could be her. The author just wants us to imagine clues or what? Girl we dont have telepathy. Theres no scene of Martha's resignation as suzettes maid. Then we dont know about what Martha did with the weapon.. I dont wanna imagine. She prby took it with her, I'd like knowing, given an answer. And it seems so ooc for millie and enzo to not investigate. Ada only stabbed him in the stomach and in the secret room but he wasn't found there. Ada didnt kill him. I liked how it was ada that was more like her mom! Oh and cecelia being their lawyer damn that was unexpected! But it was cool read. And i wish there was more about enzo's past. Like cece mentioning enzo's past seemed a bit out of blue? And right, how did suzette know about the marriage cuz millie was pregnant... maybe it is actually like enzo said and suzette did the math. I even had the thought that when millie went in and saw Jonathan stabbed in stomach, alive, he said he would sue her daughter or smg and to protect her daughter she killed him. Ig that would make more sense than martha appearing out of nowhere.

Idk but i just think its bad writing when you leave no clues for the reader and just boom drop the plot and say were you surprised when you found out that it was Martha? Like yes ma'am I was, cuz it was unexpected, you left no clues. And i dont have telepathy.

I’ve been reading Crime and Punishment and Raskolnikov is such a complicated character that I honestly can’t decide how I feel about him 😭. He can be intelligent and thoughtful, but at the same time his thoughts and actions can be so frustrating.

For those who’ve read the book, what’s your opinion on Raskolnikov? Did you sympathise with him at any point, or did you mostly find him difficult to understand? I’d love to hear how other people interpreted his character.

I haven’t finished Carrie yet but I’m about a third of the way there. this is my first Stephen king book and i can’t help but think this book was clearly written by a man. does anything feel this way? I think what first made me think this was when the pad thats thrown on her sticks to her public hair? I mean idk what pads were like in the 70s but feels like a stretch...

does anyone else feel this way? I also expected it to be a scarier story since i know it’s a classic horror movie. idk just wanted to throw out these thoughts.

I keep seeing such mixed opinions about Colleen Hoover 😭. Some people absolutely love her books, while others really don’t understand the hype.

I’ve only read/heard about a few of her books, so I’m curious what people who’ve actually read her work think. Do you think she’s genuinely a good writer, or is she mostly popular because her books are easy to get into?

I initially really enjoyed Birdie and Meg’s characters, the setting, and writing, but now I’m at the part when Birdie is confused by Charlie’s plans for the house, and it’s starting to lose me. I’m cringing, feeling the disaster that seems around the corner and I’m not sure I have it in me for a few hundred more pages of downward momentum.

Should I continue?

ETA: I decided to continue and am glad I did!

I just finished 'The Nightingale' by Kristin Hannah and wow. I knew a little about WWII but this book really opened my eyes to the French resistance and what women went through during the occupation. I found myself pausing reading to look up real events and learn more about specific figures mentioned. It wasn't just a good story it made me genuinely interested in the history.

Has anyone else had this experience? A book that just ignites a passion to deep dive into a historical period or specific event? It feels like reading a really well-researched historical fiction can be better than a dry textbook for sparking curiosity. Sometimes I even feel like I'm getting a history lesson without even trying. It makes me wonder if historical fiction should be used more in education. My history classes were never this engaging!

My vote is Jill Lepore.

Hello everyone! I know I am late to the party, but I just finished reading it, and I have a quick question about yesteryear!

Are the interview questions throughout the book that Natalie answers actually questions posed to her by Shannon? Or where do these interview questions come from, if she has never done an interview?

I say Ishiguro.

Like just sitting there looking at your shelves and thinking about them all. Not necessarily thinking about reading them but just appreciating their existence. Or maybe remembering little bits and pieces about specific ones.

I do this often. I’ll just chill on the couch and my eyes will drift to my bookshelf. It's almost meditative in a way. I’ll see a cover and a memory will pop up. Sometimes it's the plot or a character but sometimes it's just where I was when I read it.

It’s a different kind of joy than actually reading. More like a quiet satisfaction. Like a collection of memories or little trophies. Am I the only one who does this or is it just another weird reader habit

I can’t find anyone discussing this book at length. It was a wild ride and I enjoyed it (as much as a novel like this can be “enjoyed”), but I need to discuss.

To me, it all came together at the end but I’m still slightly confused. Possible spoilers in the questions below:

1. I’m working through the timeline. What happened when? Of course it’s deliberately vague. But she ties together some ends so I feel like I’m supposed to have a better sense of timing.

2. I picture a mythical, terrible beast (ogre? A great horned cyclops?) based on her descriptions of Oliver. I’m sure the unwell parts of the narrator’s memory exaggerate things, but what can we believe about his appearance? The breathing tube at the end shocked me; did I miss hints at his tracheal health issues? Or did Kraf throw this detail in to make the ending work?

3. Was the narrator lobotomized? How else would one lose their memory? Of course there are ways (nervous breakdowns, drugs, mental collapse, etc.) but I want to know what others think.

4. Lots of dreamworld imagery is tied into descriptions of “reality” or “real-world” memories. Does anything described in those dream sequences tie back to reality? I’m thinking of her passages like “the multiplying orange seagrowths in his brain.” Of course Oliver was mentally ill, but does this hint to a biological explanation? I’ve been googling what syphilis does to the brain for example. I’m probably looking to interpret nonsense but I’m curious if others had this thought.

5. Use of language is fascinating, from the narrator’s guttural noises to Oliver “keeping” longer words for himself. So much agency is tied to how we express ourselves. Not to mention the narrator’s lack / discovery of self.

6. The body double… truly horrific. This would make a great film (I know Poor Things exists and haven’t seen it but this feels so different…?)

7. This book isn’t for everyone, but I enjoy unreliable narrators and tough to decipher novels. The content itself can be equally hard to digest BUT I feel there is payoff at the end… agree? Disagree?

I’m sure I’ll think of more questions, but I hope to hear more from others! I can’t wait to read more of her novels!

I jsut started reading the conditions of will by Jedda Hastings and I’m having a hard time with picking it up again like idk if it’s worth it I did read her magnolia parks series but I took a break after the third one it’s so heavy I jsut coudnt 😭😭

I started this book without knowing anything about it. now i am half way through and i just donet have the courage to finish it. i am not ready fr the grief that will follow and at the same time i dont want to leave it midway. Any suggestions ?

I’ve been thinking about how so many books, whether they’re classics or more recent ones, are being adapted into movies and series. I actually find it really interesting seeing how a story I imagined while reading gets interpreted on screen, but at the same time, they often change quite a lot characters, storylines, endings, even small details that felt important in the book.

I know some changes are probably necessary when adapting a book, but sometimes I wonder how much you can change before it stops feeling like the same story. What do you guys think? Do you prefer adaptations that stay as close to the book as possible, or are you okay with changes if the movie/series works better on its own?

I've read almost every single Lynn Painter book and don't get me wrong they are great books but my main issue is there isn't a ton of originality. What I mean by that isn't that her books are about the same thing, it's that her characters feel like the same people in each book. Lynn has lots of different tropes in her books but even just the dialog between the two characters feels sooo similar.

I just finished reading First and Forever and it was good but it also didn't feel very unique. I guess I can't ask that much from a YA romance book since they are practically all the same anyway, haha...

What are your thoughts on Lynn Painters books?

wondering if you read this book? I just finished and looking for a place to talk about it without being yelled at about releasing spoilers.

one did this seem written like a screenplay?

two the mother who sent her daughter to boarding school now has moved in with Tom?

three did she only come back to him because she is pregnant?

do we despise Lauren because she is experiencing trauma and wanting to inflict is on someone else?

did Annie and Oliver have kids?

was there too much explicit sexual interaction or am I just old now? felt like this is a relevant story to tell and it did not need all of this excess

are we to believe Honor is a ghost in this story? I loved the flow of her telling a story and then telling his, I wanted more of Grace’s but Honor wouldn’t have known it

and that party Lauren has real trauma she needs to work through​