u/lexiebeef

I just finished "The Bell Jar" and really want to share my thoughts and read everyone else's. Coming into this book, I knew it was about depression and I knew Sylvia Plath took her own life when she was quite young, but I wasn't prepared for all the emotions reading it.

First of all, let me just say that I don't think I've ever related so much to a character as Esther Greenwood, and I do not mean this as a compliment to myself at all. She is complex, she is flawed, she has a lot of work to do. And just like me, she is strong minded, she was a genious in school and then struggled to make friends, she sounded rude when she didn't mean to, she was mean and treated others as inferior without meaning to do it. All this was very relatable to me, a 26yo woman, for the better and for the worse, and this was the first time I saw a character like this.

Now, there are definitely somethings I thankfully don't share with Esther/Sylvia Plath, like the infinite amount of racist remarks, fatphobia, her treatment of other girls (the definition of a "not like the other girls")... While reading the book, I decided to look at this with the silver lining that our society evolved to a point where just reading this makes my blood boil. Racism is definitely not over, but writing things like these nowadays would not be acceptable anywhere, thankfully. I will also add here the insanity that was the medical treatment for depression back in the day, because even though I studied it in history class, it's still insane to read about shock therapy and lobotomies irl (not so fun fact, the inventor of lobotomies was my country's first nobel prize, insane)

I also think it's important to discuss the theme of this book: depression and mental health. This was the most realistic depiction of depression I've ever seen in a book and it was heartbreaking. Knowing Sylvia Plath wrote this book while going through depression and her first suicide attempt (and just before taking her own life) just made it all the more real, reading this book you know the author is describing something she was going through herself. I really like that Esther wasn't just a perfect girl who was then sad and mean; she was flawed the whole book, with good moments and bad moments, and her moments of spiraling were so raw that I had to stop reading often.

Another thing I would like to adress is the feminism in the book. Esther was a feminist in some ways: against being forced to marry a man, against patriarchy, against inequality between men and women. She wanted to be a strong, independent woman and that was pretty cool to read. However, I think it's quite obvious that she wasn't a perfect feminist. As mentioned, she constantly criticizes and feels superior to all the girls in her life. She also has quite a toxic relationship to men in general, which I guess would steam from Plath's difficult relationship with her husband (though the book was written before his affair I think). It's an interesting topic to discuss an imperfect form of feminism.

In general, I liked the book. I didn't love the structure of the book with the back and forths because it got confusing at parts, but I also kind of assumed it's to show how the brain of a mentally ill person works. Im also quite curious to watch the movie coming out in 2027, I do think Billie Eilish fits the character of Esther

I just finished "Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov and I need to share my thoughts because this was absolute bonkers (in the best way possible). For context, I love Russian literature and I love absurd books, so I knew there would be a very high chance of me loving this book. However, nothing could have prepared me for the wild journey of reading this book lol.

I honestly don't even know how to start. From Chapter 1, I was obsessed with Woland, the devil. He is quirky, mysterious, kind of scary. Then, he starts telling the story of Jesus Christ (from the POV of Pontius Pilate) and I immediately knew this book was going to be a wild ride. And then, of course, in Chapter 3, Berlioz - who I thought would be the main character of the book - is beheaded by a tram and stars a whole sequence of insane events (I particularly loved the dark magic show led by Koroviev and Behemoth where they take some poor dude's head off, they accuse a super important man of cheating on his wife and then give money and fancy clothes to everyone, which all disappear after a while and every woman just goes home completely naked).

And then, when I thought the book was absolutely insane, Part II started and Margarita became a literal witch and her maid (also now a witch) started riding naked on a flying pig and being menaces. There were also mermaids and a half-goat/half-man thingy at one point, of course. But THE ABSOLUTE BEST PART of the book was the Satan's ball. I had to google who some of the guests were, but the devil throwing a party to all the worse and more evil people that ever existed was hilarious. The whole ball was such a funny image, I need to see it in a movie.

There were many, many, many other insane/amazing/hilarious/weird/bonkers moments, the whole book was so wild. But the best, I gotta say, is the devil’s gang. I love Behemoth the cat (imagining him with his glasses and being a little demon burning shit all over is hilarious), the short guy with one tooth Azazello, the tall diva Korovyev and the always naked woman Hella. They are all hilarious and I had so much fun seeing them causing chaos in Moscow so much haha.

Now, Im pretty sure the book is a whole criticism of Soviet Union. The devil targets individuals who are corrupt, greedy, adulters, abuse their power... It's also a criticism of cowardice of institutions (Pontius Pilate). Im sure I missed a lot of the most contemporary criticism, because Im just not knowledgeable enough about the specifics of Soviet Union. But I just gotta say I loved it. I just didnt want it to end. A 5/5 for me (though I wouldnt recommend it to anyone, you need to be a specific kind of person to enjoy this wild ride lol). I love the differenv vibes of the Moscow story and the Pontius Pilate story. Oh, and the end of the novel is one of the most beautiful endings ever!

I just finished reading "I Who Have Never Known Men" and my brain is still spinning. For context, I started the book knowing I would have questions that would remain unanswered. As someone who didn't like "The Memory Police", I thought I would have a similar feeling. But boy, I was wrong, this book became one of my favourite reads of the year.

First of all, I love the plot idea. 40 women were somehow abducted and ended up in a cage somewhere, always being guarded by very strict men. I thought the descriptions of life in the cage were brilliantly done, from the MC being jealous of the other women who knew about the outside world, to how the women adapted to their awful circumstances. It also broke my heart to know they couldnt touch each other and couldnt even kill themselves, as much as they tried. They had nothing to do but live each day like the other, adapting to this reality somehow.

Then, we have the second part of the book, when the women - full of hope - manage to leave the cage. Seeing the women lose hope was, for me, the most devastating part of the book. And then, they found another cabin full of dead women. And another. And another. And another. Thousands of cabins full of dead people, who starved to death cause they couldnt even kill themselves. Just devastating. And then the women just die, one after other, losing lovers and friends (PS: I love the lesbian/bi representation in the book, it's so subtle but so sweet knowing that at least some of the women found their person).

Lastly, the third part, where the MC is just all alone. It's devastating to think that she was never alone for the first 15 years of her life, not even for one second, always with the other 39 women and under the guards' watch. And then she lives the last 20 years completely alone in the world. Just her and the bodies. Devastating. Also, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE BUS SCENE?? It almost gave me a heart attack, it made my head spin with so many theories, it was crazy.

Speaking of theories: I know there isnt a right answer, but I want to hear what you guys theorized happened in the book. In my interpretation/imagination, there were some kind of aliens who abducted random humans from Earth to make some kind of experience/research. They took them to another planet (which isnt Earth, cause the nature is different, there arent any animals, the stars are odd...) and bundled them up in groups of 40 random people. I dont know if anyone here read Slaughterhouse-5, but I imagine it was kind of like when the tralfamadorians had human zoos for research of humans in that book. The guards are some human-like aliens; they use gas masks because they cant breathe the same air as the humans do (maybe theyre aliens from a third country, neither this one or the earth?). Then, on the day of the sirens, there was some climate disaster that made everything on the surface die (humans, the soil became sterile...). I believe this part to be true because the guards all had the same book on gardening, which made me think the soil probably wasnt sterile before the guards died. Oh and the bunker where the MC ends belonged to the master alien who supervises this whole thing lol.

I've read "Allegory of the Cave" by Plato during Philosophy class a decade ago and it really stuck with me. Now, 10 years later, I unwittingly read (and loved) several books inspired by it.

For example, these are some books that I've read lately that, despite being quite different, all include people who are ignorant of reality and get blinded/hurt by the truth/reality:

- In Brave New World, people are conditioned to be always happy, ignoring the truth by taking somma and being controlled by the government (they can't read books for example or know anything about the past). >!Then, you have characters who escape/see the real world and see pain, tragedy, hate, just like the prisoners in the Cave. One character (John) tries to teach the ignorant citizens of real life and that's basically his demise.!<

- Flowers for Algernon is perhaps the most obvious example. Charlie is intellectually disabled, ignorant about most things, but is a happy person. The operation he undergoes >!makes him super smart; he leaves the Cave and learns about human cruelty and sadness and tragedy. After Charlie's intelligence decreases again, he goes back to being ignorant (just as Plato warned that going back to the Cave will blind you).!<

- In Piranesi, >!the main character lives in his perfect bubble of ignorance. When he goes to the outside world, the truth is hard, he learns about murder and tragedy. This one is kind of different because he doesn't want to leave his perfect place and doesnt come back to teach anyone about the real world (there isnt anyone jn the House), but I still think the point is similar. Also, here, you even have another side of Plato's work: the theory of the forms, where the statues represent ideas from the real world.!<

There are probably many more others, but I thought it was so interesting that, without making it on purpose, 3 of my most recent reads ended up being inspired by the Allegory of the Cave.

Just finished "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut, my third Vonnegut of the year (I've read Slaughterhouse-5 and Mother Night already). And what a book, what a brilliant mind Vonnegut has to make us think about the core of humanity while giving us the most random scifi stories.

For those who haven't read, the book is about Jonah, an author who wants to write a book about the day the first atomic bomb was dropped, but not about Japan or the American government - he wants to write about the day of the scientist who invented the bomb (a fake character, not one of the actually real life scientists). This is the background only for a short part of the book, as Vonnegut then takes us on an adventure through a "banana republic" (somewhat based on Guatemala with United Fruit, or any Latin American country exploited by US companies) and ice-9, a chemical that freezes all water it touches.

In my interpretation of the book, there are quite a few key criticisms made by Vonnegut, which I would like to discuss within this community:

1. The book criticizes intelligence without morals; like the fathers of the atomic bomb who were so focused on the science part that they didn't care much about the moral consequences. The same happens with the invention of ice-9, >!which was invented to solve the problem with the Marines and quite literally ends up killing all humanity. !<The book was written at the peak of the Cold War, just months after the Cuban missile crisis, which I think influenced this whole thing. More broadly, the book is a criticism of humanity, who is always trying to destroy itself; the more progress we make, the more likely we will just all kill each other.
2. There's a big criticism of colonialism and exploitation by western countries of Latin American countries. I think this one is quite a obvious conclusion. Guatemala v. United Fruit Company (now Chiquita) was happening as the book was being written. San Lorenzo being a nation with basically no government that was taken over by a fruit company owned by Julian Castle's family is not a subtle comparison, and in true Vonnegut way, he uses absurdity to criticize real life.
3. The most interesting issue touched by Vonnegut is the weaponisation of religion for control. Bokononism is a made up religion that is openly made up of lies. But still, it's the only thing giving hope to the people of San Lorenzo. It's mentioned several times throughout the book that colonization (or whatever you want to call it) led to no progress in the lives of San Lorenzians. They were still hungry, poor, overworked. But the government used religion (and the prohibition of religion) to control the population. It's a very interesting dynamic between the government and the religion, one I will be thinking about for a long time.
4. Criticism of patriotism/nationalism. Finally, I think it's fair to say that several of the side characters who consider that being American is their kavass, their group of connected people, are examples of Vonnegut's criticism of blind patriotism. Being born in the same country doesn't connect people, says Vonnegut, it's just an arbitrary connection.

Now, Im curious about everyone's thoughts. For me, it's becoming harder and harder to choose a favourite Vonnegut book, this man was a genious.

It took me a long time to finally read Remains of the Day. I had never read Ishiguro before and for some stupid reason, I thought I wouldn’t like it. Boy, was I wrong. Remains of the Day quickly became my favourite book of 2026 and one of my favourite books ever.

So, first of all, let me say I’m a big Downton Abbey fan, so I loved the old butler, maid, lords vibe of the book. But the reason why this book is so amazing is that it uses this old English house setting as a plot device to talk about the major events of the 20th century. And more than that, it does so in a way that’s very different from most books about the 20th century.

I think my favourite part is that there’s no good or bad characters in the book. Mr. Stevens, our protagonist, is a workaholic who misses out on the pleasures of life to prove he is worthy, that he has dignity like his father. He loses on a great love with Miss Kenton, he barely stops to see his father before his death. And he is blindly loyal, firing the Jewish housemaids just because Lord Darlington asked him, with no further questions.

And speaking about Lord Darlington, I believe he’s the most interesting character in the book. I love that he is a morally grey character, I think there are good points and bad points to be raised. I really appreciated how, after WWI, he decided to improve the terms of the Versailles agreement, I think we all can agree that was a good deed. What he did during WWII is what raises questions: do we think he was naive and thought improving the relationship between Germany and the UK could prevent WWII or was he a Hitler supporter and a antisemite? I think a bit of both, though I lean to the second more.

All and all, this book exceeded every expectation I had. I also love that the language of the book was easy and the story was very easy to follow. It’s a brilliant book but quite accessible, which isn’t so common. I’m now very eager to read other Ishiguro books, and can’t recommend Remains of the Day more.

It took me a long time to finally read Brave New World but Im quite happy I didnt read it earlier in life. Im still trying to gather my thoughts on this book and Im very curious of how other people have interpreted it.

So first of all, let me start by saying that Huxley was way ahead of its time. The whole society he built - a society where every the individual doesn't matter and you are very much replaceable, where capitalism is what moves society, where people do everything to only feel the good parts of life - is something we see in 2026. The fact that he wrote this book just 20 years after Henry Ford created the assembly line is kind of insane tbh and I think the world building is clearly the biggest strenght of the book. Also, writing this openly about sex, including between children, religion, politics and State propaganda and drugs in 1920s was very brave, even though the UK was of course more open than other countries back then.

The second point I want to make is that the book is not an easy read at all. Not so much in terms of content, but in terms of language and pacing. Im not an English native, but usually read everything in English and this book had so many words I've never heard of before. And the pacing is my biggest beef with this book. I think its suppose to be on purpose tbh, just like an assembly line, everything happens fast, there's no time to focus too much time on an individual character. But it did make it harder to read and Im still not 100% sure I got everything correctly and there's some characters Im still confused about (Henry Foster, for example, I dont get this character at all).

Now, the part I want to ask about is people's thoughts on John's character. He's of course supposed to represent the exact opposite of the people who were conditioned since birth to be part of the new society. But he is the exact opposite, meaning that - in my opinion - he is his own kind of extremist. While the "civilized people" want 100% comfort and happiness, he seems to want 0%, to prove to God he is worthy. He allows himself zero satisfaction, he ignores Lenina's advances, he doesnt try somma, he prefers to isolate himself from society and torture himself. He's flawed on his own way, which I quite liked in the book: Huxley doesnt give us any character who is the beacon of morality, who we should want to be like. He gives us two-sides of the same coin, though I guess Bernard Marx and Helmholtz are somewhere in between the two.

Finally, Im curious to know whether anyone has seen the BBC adaptation. The book is paced so fast and with so many technical/old words that Im kind of confused about some parts and would love to see an adaptation of it, but only if there is one that is actually good.

Just finished Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut. Earlier this year I read Slaughterhouse-5 and was so intrigued about the character of Howard Campbell (who appears in both books) I had to read Mother Night.

For those who don't know it, Mother Night is written in the form of a confession of an American who wrote propaganda for the Nazis during WWII (Howard Campbell). The book's first pages are already amazing, as Vonnegut makes an editor's note for the book as if Howard Campbell had really existed; very Vonnegut of him.

The book has a lot of amazing things. First, the fact that you dont know what to think of the MC. He did terrible things and was indirectly culpable of the death of so many Jewish people. >!But he did it as an American spy. Does this make him a better person? Was he really a spy? Do we believe he is a reliable narrator? And most of all, does being a spy make his propaganda okay? Doing something terrible for a good reason makes it not terrible?!<I think the last pages gives some of these answers, but in Vonnegut's fashion, it's not 100% certain. Speaking of the last pages, I think this book has one of the best finishing sentences.

Another thing I liked about the book were the side characters. Reverend Dr. Jones and his gang of Nazi friends were such interesting characters. They're obviously there to be compared to Howard and it's such a smart way of making us have different thoughts about the MC. Bernard B. Ohare was also so interesting, particularly as he is another character that also appears in Slaughterhouse-5, in a very different ligth.

All in all, Vonnegut continues showing me his brilliance. Im probably reading a third book of his this year, though I havent chosen it yet. He's becoming one of my favourite authors, and I liked Mother Night even more than Slaughterhouse 5. I love that his books are about war, but theyre funny and sometimes silly. I couldnt recommend it more.

I don't usually read romance novels, but "In Memoriam" really caught my eye. The book is about two 17yo British boys in love with each other who end up fighting for their country in WWI.

One thing about this book is that it really emphasises how young the soldiers were (and are) in different wars. The age to volunteer was 19 in the beggining of WWI (lowered to 18 at one point) but it was very easy to go around this age requirement, and kids were often pressured to. An example of this pressure (which I didn't know about) was the white feather movement - a movement to give white feathers to any man who looked of age to fight but wasn't fighting, so as to call them cowards and pressure them to join the war efforts.

Other points I found particularly well-written and hard to digest were the "In Memoriam" sections in the middle of the story, where you could see all these 17 and 18 year old boys listed in the casualty list; it really broke me, as someone who is much older. Lastly, I also really liked the depictions of PTSD in the book (shell-shock as they called it). It's devastating to read, I can't even imagine how it is to live through life in the trenches and come back home, and try to live life as nothing happened. Just devastating.

In general, I really liked the book, I wouldn't call it a masterpiece, but it's a great read. I would say the parts that I didn't love were that some of it was pretty unrealistic (particularly the lack of>!of homophobia, every single person was so okay with the guys being gay, which would be great, just not super realistic.!< The sex scenes were also not super realistic, but I wasn't reading the book for them, so I wasn't super bothered. Oh, and their damn names. Gaunt and Elwood are terrible names for main characters, Gaunt only reminded me of Harry Potter lol.

All in all, I really liked the war parts of the book. I thought it was a good description of how awful the war is, how young every kid is, and how many people just died (reading that the battle of Somme took 20k British lives in one day was devastating; I knew it was a big number, but 20k is just unimaginable). The romance part was sweet, but I didnt think it was the best part of the book, it felt a bit childish, though I do admit that it makes sense for the love between two 18yos to be childish.

I spent the last couple of days going through both "The Death of Ivan Ilyitch" and "Master and Man", after having read both War and Peace and Anna Karenina in the last few years. I think the most interesting part of this journey for me was understanding how Tolstoy's writing changed before and after his religious "crisis" (conversion?).

Starting with The Death of Ivan Ilyitch, I think this is the most obvious post-conversion self-insertion of Tolstoy. He writes Ivan as a man who always does what he believes is the proper thing but for the wrong reasons (for his own sake, to be part of society, to be loved...). I saw somewhere that Tolstoy almost wrote Ivan as what he would have become if he never converted and tried to abandon his old way of being. I thought the difference between this self-insert and Pierre Bezukhov/Levin (both self-inserts from War and Peace and Anna Karenina) really demonstrate how Tolstoy changed his views of himself, which I thought was pretty interesting. The descriptions of chronic disease, especially how we all just never expect it to happen to us and just prefer to ignore sick people, really hit home, a lot to think about death (and the meaning of life).

However, I've got to say that my favourite of the two was Master and Man. I had never heard of this story but the edition of Death of Ivan Ilyitch I read had both stories. Tolstoy is so great at atmosphere building that I read the story in the hottest August day and still felt like I was in the midst of a snow blizzard in Russia. My favourite quote has to be "He lay and thought about the one and only thing, the single object, the sole reason, the joy and pride of his life - he thought about how much money he made and how much he could still make" lol. Ive been thinking and I believe Tolstoy thought his older self as Vasilly, but>! the fact that Vasily ended up sacrificing himself for Nikita shows Tolstoy believed he could and should also change and become a better person. I!< just loved this story, its so short but such an interesting read.

In another topic, I need to air my grievances cause I read the Pasternak Slater translation and the notes were so annoying. Im assuming it's supposed to be a more academic translation but like half of the editor's notes were "Tolstoy made date/patronymic/historical... inconsistencies", which really distracted me from the story. Especially since I read Peavear and Volkhonsky's translation of Anna Karenina and an amazing translation of War and Peace to my language, this one really disappointed me.

I spent the last couple of days going through both "The Death of Ivan Ilyitch" and "Master and Man", after having read both War and Peace and Anna Karenina in the last few years. I think the most interesting part of this journey for me was understanding how Tolstoy's writing changed before and after his religious "crisis" (conversion?).

Starting with The Death of Ivan Ilyitch, I think this is the most obvious post-conversion self-insertion of Tolstoy. He writes Ivan as a man who always does what he believes is the proper thing but for the wrong reasons (for his own sake, to be part of society, to be loved...). I saw somewhere that Tolstoy almost wrote Ivan as what he would have become if he never converted and tried to abandon his old way of being. I thought the difference between this self-insert and Pierre Bezukhov/Levin (both self-inserts from War and Peace and Anna Karenina) really demonstrate how Tolstoy changed his views of himself, which I thought was pretty interesting. The descriptions of chronic disease, especially how we all just never expect it to happen to us and just prefer to ignore sick people, really hit home, a lot to think about death (and the meaning of life).

However, I've got to say that my favourite of the two was Master and Man. I had never heard of this story but the edition of Death of Ivan Ilyitch I read had both stories. Tolstoy is so great at atmosphere building that I read the story in the hottest August day and still felt like I was in the midst of a snow blizzard in Russia. My favourite quote has to be "He lay and thought about the one and only thing, the single object, the sole reason, the joy and pride of his life - he thought about how much money he made and how much he could still make" lol. Ive been thinking and I believe Tolstoy thought his older self as Vasilly, but >!the fact that Vasily ended up sacrificing himself for Nikita shows Tolstoy believed he could and should also change and become a better person. !<I just loved this story, its so short but such an interesting read.

In another topic, I need to air my grievances cause I read the Pasternak Slater translation and the notes were so annoying. Im assuming it's supposed to be a more academic translation but like half of the editor's notes were "Tolstoy made date/patronymic/historical... inconsistencies", which really distracted me from the story. Especially since I read Peavear and Volkhonsky's translation of Anna Karenina and an amazing translation of War and Peace to my language, this one really disappointed me.

I've just finished Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter by Vargas Llosa, and it was one of the most original ideas I've seen. The book is divided in 2: the even chapters follow the main plot line about the romance between Marito and Aunt Julia, as well as the friendship between Marito and the odd scriptwriter Pedro Camacho; the odd chapters feature short stories >!(which are the stories written by Pedro Camacho).!<

I gotta say I was much more interested in the odd chapters and the short stories, which get increasingly more confusing and intertwined between each other (for reasons explained in the book), which gets very funny. The stories get so wild in the end, and are very entertaining. They also make the book entertaining and never flat, as all the stories are very different from each other.

I did love the descriptions of Peru in the book. I've never been, but now I really want to. The music and dances and pisco sour, it seemed amazing.

The main storyline of Aunt Julia and Marito was my least favourite part and the reason why I thought the book was a 3.5/5. I just thought the story was somewhat boring, which I think is due to the fact that it's a true story. I personally also thought it was kind of odd that Vargas Llosa wrote a book about his ex-wife when he was already married to another person (who was also his cousin/ex-wife’s niece?), but who am I to judge lol.

If you’ve read it, what did you think?

I've just finished Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter by Vargas Llosa, and it was one of the most original ideas I've seen. The book is divided in 2: the even chapters follow the main plot line about the romance between Marito and Aunt Julia, as well as the friendship between Marito and the odd scriptwriter Pedro Camacho; the odd chapters feature short stories >!(which are the stories written by Pedro Camacho).!<

I gotta say I was much more interested in the odd chapters and the short stories, which get increasingly more confusing and intertwined between each other (for reasons explained in the book), which gets very funny. The stories get so wild in the end, and are very entertaining. They also make the book entertaining and never flat, as all the stories are very different from each other.

I did love the descriptions of Peru in the book. I've never been, but now I really want to. The music and dances and pisco sour, it seemed amazing.

The main storyline of Aunt Julia and Marito was my least favourite part and the reason why I thought the book was a 3.5/5. I just thought the story was somewhat boring, which I think is due to the fact that it's a true story. I personally also thought it was kind of odd that Vargas Llosa wrote a book about his ex-wife when he was already married to another person, but who am I to judge lol.

I've also discovered that the real life Julia wrote a book in response to this one, and Im curious if anyone read it. Is it good? Is it very different from this one? Do you recommend it?

I was thinking about this earlier andif I had to recommend a book from Portugal to someone I would recommend either:

- "The Maias", from Eça de Queirós: One of the most famous classics in Portugal, a multigenerational saga about an aristocratic family of the 19th century. It has a huge plot twist, which really shocks everyone who reads this book, so beware of spoilers.

- Blindness, from José Saramago: From our only Nobel prize winner, Blindness is the most disturbing book I've read, but it's brilliant. Saramago really was the king of dystopias that explore the core of humanity and Blindness is amazing. Saramago did write without paragraphs, which takes like 30 pages to get used to, but its really worth it.

So based on this, I was thinking: what book(s) would you recommend from your country (either because the author had your nationality or mostly resided there or was set in your country). Very curious about the answers!

In my very long Goodreads TBR, I keep a tag for books by Nobel Prize laureates. I’ve read works from seven laureates so far (Selma Lagerlöf, Albert Camus, John Steinbeck, Gabriel García Márquez, William Golding, José Saramago, and Mario Vargas Llosa) and have many others on my TBR.

Now, I dont add books just because they are from laureates, but I have noticed I've really come to trust the judgement of the Nobel committee, as Ive thoroughly enjoyed the books from these authors. I feel that, when choosing the next books to read, I will keep in mind authors who won the award (for example, I want to start Remains of the Day soon, in part because its been recommended to me, but also in part because of the prize).

So I am curious how much do you trust the Nobel prize when choosing what to read next, and what did you think of the laureates you've read so far

I’m almost finishing Blindness by Saramago (so no spoilers of the end please) but I can’t help but compare it to Lord of the Flies. I loved both books btw, so this is just a comparison for the sake of discussion, as I’m wondering if others have seen the similarities.

They both focus on a group of people isolated from the rest of society (for very different reasons, of course) and how they deal with this isolation. Blindness features a group of mostly adults, while Lord of the Flies has a group of children. But they both answer the same question of “how would people behave if there was no system, no hierarchy, no sense of society?”.

And a lot of the answers are the same. They both include a group who takes over and uses force and violence to get on the top of the food chain, while others remain logic and following the rules of society. Hygiene is something that in both books people stop really caring about. There are in both characters who act individualistically while others help each other, trying to behave as humanely as possibly.

I just thought this was such a fun comparison of both books, especially cause the they honestly didn’t act much differently, despite one featuring kids and the other adults. Just thought it would be something nice to discuss

One of my long-term goals is to read a book from every EU country. It's not something Im actively working for already, but something I want to have in mind when choosing my next book. Meaning, I don't want to read books I won't like just to complete the list but I do want to maybe incorporate them in my TBR and read ones that I find interesting.

In terms of my taste in books, I love the classics, my favourites being War and Peace and Crime and Punishment. I also love dystopian books, but no fantasy (except LOTR and ASOIAF). I love a book with morally grey characters, where every person feels real, not just good or bad. Im okay with a bit of romance in my books but don't love a book that's strictly a romance.

These are some of the books from EU countries I've read or have in my TBR, I would really appreciate suggestions from others that I can start incorporating in my TBR (as you can seem I still have a long way to go, but this is not something for the next few months, but for the next few years). Thank you!