r/literature

I'm curious: if you had a major publisher want to make an anthology of short fiction chosen by you, to show what kind of person you are, what would the ToC be?

1. Laird Barron, "Tiptoe" or "The Forest"
2. George Saunders, "Puppy"
3. Thomas Ligotti, "The Bungalow House" or "Our Temporary Supervisor"
4. Joe Hill, "Pop Art"
5. Faulkner, "A Rose for Emily"
6. T.E.D. Klein, "Petey" or "Children of the Kingdom"
7. Karl Wagner, ".220 Swift" or "Where the Summer Ends"
8. Michael Shea, "The Autopsy" or "Uncle Tuggs"
9. Bruno Schulz. "Street of Crocodiles," or "The Cinnamon Shops"
10. Kelly Link, "Stone Animals"

I recently read Virginia Woolf’s essay on Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, and what struck me most was not the Brontës, but this passage:

“The characters of a Jane Austen or of a Tolstoi have a million facets compared with these. They live and are complex by means of their effect upon many different people who serve to mirror them in the round. They move hither and thither whether their creators watch them or not, and the world in which they live seems to us an independent world which we can visit, now that they have created it, by ourselves.”

This feels completely true to me. Maybe this is why Austen and Tolstoy remain so loved and captivating: their characters are never just one fixed thing. They are reflected through many people, situations, misunderstandings, and social relations.

A person, in their novels, is not a segment, but something like a multicolored, multiform, curved mirror. No single view exhausts them.

Do you agree with Woolf? Is this one reason their characters feel so vivid and alive?

What are your thoughts about the divine Leo Tolstoy? Apart from War and Peace and Anna Karenina, he wrote lots of other stuff like short stories, and non-fiction such as 'What I Believe', 'The Three Questions', 'The Kingdom of God is Within You', etc.

He was even corresponding with Gandhi and gave him the keys on how to resist with non-violence to colonial rule in 'Letter to a Hindu'. That's how great the divine Leo Tolstoy is. He was also for vegetarianism and so much more. Anyone here read anything by him rather than his big novels? Take ffir example his pacifism and unyielding love for mankind and hatred of war.

Leo Tolstoy about the absurdity of war, from "What I Believe" Chapter 10:

"Leaving their parents, their wives and children, they go in their buffoon attire, blindly submissive to some superior whom they hardly know; cold, hungry, worn out by a march above their strength, they follow him like a herd of oxen to the slaughter. But they are not oxen – they are men! They cannot help knowing that they are driven to slaughter, with the unsolvable question, ‘Why must I go?’ And with despair in their hearts they go on, many dieing off through cold, hunger, and infectious diseases, until those who are left are placed under bullets and cannon balls, and ordered to kill men whom they know nothing about. They kill and are at last killed themselves, and not one of those who kill their fellow- creature knows why he does so."

Every time I see someone call Percy Jackson and Katniss Everdeen an “unreliable narrator”, I *immediately* get irritated- and yes those are the examples I’m using because this is what I see the most often

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t an unreliable narrator a character/voice in a story that either outright lies, lies by omission, and or paints the narrative in a dishonest way to *intentionally* mislead the reader ?

I keep seeing people call these first person characters “unreliable” simply for being biased or not knowing the whole truth- but a character being biased doesn’t make that character unreliable, it just means they’re not objective/omniscient, which is practically EVERY first person character, isn’t it ??

It really fucking confounds me, a character being insecure and us reading them having those thoughts doesn’t make them “unreliable” because they’re “not telling the truth”, they’re not trying to mislead the audience, they just have low self esteem- “Percy Jackson is an unreliable narrator because he thinks he’s a loser when he’s actually not”- that’s not what an unreliable narrator is 🫩

It’s even more aggravating in the case of Katniss when the whole og trilogy has a constant theme of propaganda- and clearly shows that every character, INCLUDING KATNISS, has their biases BECAUSE of the environment they live in -no Katniss isn’t “unreliable” because she’s “a better archer than she says she is” or because “she doesn’t realize she’s in love with Peeta”- that’s not what an unreliable narrator is 🫩, these characters have their biases/perspectives BECAUSE of who they are/what they’re going through, not because they’re trying to mislead the audience

It makes me confused as to what people mean/what people want- Is an unreliable narrator really just a character that “doesn’t tell the truth unequivocally no matter what” to some people ? Do people want characters that are more “objective”? Why ? That would make books significantly less fun to read, right ?? 😭

I dunno, I feel like in general I’m seeing people misuse literary terms on social media all the fucking time and it’s genuinely starting to irk me 💀 like if you aren’t sure what it means just look it up ? I’m getting really tired of people not understanding what words mean 😭

EDIT: For some reason, I literally cannot see the comments, idk why and it’s a shame but 🤷🏾‍♀️ I mean shit, idk what to do about it

anyways, I see (some) of what people are saying about intent, so I double checked my definitions, and it’s seems like more of a sliding scale then an exact descriptor- and atp I might be being pedantic, but the reason why I say they’re “biased” but not “unreliable” -despite the fact that being non objective by definition can make a character unreliable, is because I feel like calling any character that has any amount of bias or doesn’t know the whole truth (yet- or ever) -makes practically every first person character an unreliable narrator ?

Because then it would seem like the only way to have a “truly reliable narrator”, is if they knew everything right off the bat, were right all the time, and were completely non objective, and I really can’t think of any characters like that ? I can’t even think of a way for a character to be a “truly reliable narrator” and still have an arc, dramatic irony, etc etc.- so maybe they don’t have to be aware of the fact that they’re not as “true” as they believe themselves to be-

but I still feel like calling characters having moments of insecurity, or being dense-examples of them being unreliable narrators is a stretch, because if that’s all it takes, then any character with any minor flaw is unreliable, and I just don’t believe that to be the case 🤷🏾‍♀️

Edit 2: nvm I can see the comments now ! Don’t know wtf happened but they’re back lmao

I recently read Beatlebone and quite enjoyed it. I know there's the whole discussion about using real people as fictional characters, but this is a novel where John Lennon has a conversation about death and the afterlife with a talking seal.

I found it quite entertaining, imaginative and yes, even Joycean, which I know is a cliched thing to say about an Irish novel.

Any thoughts on Barry, this book, or his other books?

When Candide speaks to the Commandant in Paraguay, he refers to Westphalia as ‘filthy’ (dirty in other translations). I really don’t understand why.

It‘s a very minor detail so I haven’t found much about it, yet it makes little sense to me. Candide still follows Pangloss’s philosophy, so would surely still consider Westphalia divine.

I’m just a bit confused and would like to see if anyone had thoughts on it

I’m new to reading more classic literature and I mostly picked East of Eden because it was so popular on tiktok but I really enjoyed the novel. The central themes forced me to confront some aspects of my own life. However, I was kinda annoyed by the navel gazing musings and philosophy queries. They felt contrived, like I feel that there are more seamless ways to express that in your writing. Like don’t pose the question, make me pose the question and then give me the answer. I also loathed his portrayal of female characters… Im willing to reserve criticism for some of his more harmful depictions of certain characters due to the time period. But it seemed like every female character was reduced to a rigid archetype with no nuance or growth. Liza was a religious zealot, cathy/kate was a literal supervillain with no true nuance besides contrition at the end of her life. I feel like abra’s character was more realized but not entirely. I’m skeptical of picking up another steinbeck novel.

Hey folks,

I'm curious about your favorite detective, or other mystery solving protagonist. Who is your favorite? Could be from things you've read, although I'm perfectly happy with characters from television and film as well. Hell, I'll even take a radio play.

What I want to know, though, is what you like about them! What do you find so compelling? So intriguing? So fun, or relatable, or whatever else, about them?

One stipulation: don't just say that they're good at solving mysteries! Or that they're very clever! Or perceptive, or that they know a lot, or anything along those lines. Yeah; so do all the others! That's kind of the most basic requirement for a literary character who solves mysteries. I want something more unique about them.

So, what comes to mind?

So I read the Secret History before this book. I loved it. Honestly, I think it was the best book I’ve ever read, 18M. It just…hit different. Like the plot, and how all the characters tied to the plot etc.

But the Goldfinch felt really underwhelming to me. Like at the beginning I really enjoyed reading Theo work through his troubles and everything, but as the book went on I started to lose more and more interest. I feel like it could have been cut in half and it still would have had the same effect. I know a lot of people like the long winding sentences and rich imagery, but I still feel like TSH had that too and it managed to hit a different spot? I just feel like the book did not need to be that long. I’ve been reading it on and off for months and I only just finished it now. The last two pages seemed to philosophically make more sense to me, Theo wondering about how life shapes us, if we are truly free to pick who we are (which I kind of disagree with him on this topic, but I understand where he’s coming from) etc. But I just feel like the book would have hit a lot harder if it just wasn’t so long and sprawling and all over the place. What do you guys think? I’m moving onto The Little Friend next.

I’ve always felt different after a really focused reading session, so I did a brain scan before and after 20 minutes of uninterrupted reading (I work for a neurofeedback company and have access to EEG equipment):

- fast brainwave activity linked to mental busyness and overactive thinking became less widespread after reading.
- my fatigue index dropped quite a bit, which usually points to the brain feeling less mentally drained.- engagement stayed high, meaning my brain didn’t become sleepy or sluggish, it stayed alert.
- my brainwaves also became more state-dependent: more active when engaged, calmer when resting. That’s generally a healthier pattern than feeling mentally on all the time.

This made me want to read more....so if you needed motivation to pick up a book today, maybe this is your sign.

(this is just an n=1 curiosity experiment, not a scientific study or medical claim. I just thought the shift was interesting)

Currently reading a trending novel, in 1st-person past tense, which is super conventional.

Usually though, while technically past tense ("I swung my sword and struck the monster's hand aloft"), most narration places you in the active moments of events unfolding, evoking a sense of things happening before your eyes in present tense. "She trembled, her fingers broke the wax seal, the envelope sprung open."

The book I'm reading doesn't do this. It's 1st-person past as usual but the narrator is recounting dramatic events in actual like, it has already happened in the past while he's narrating. Like it happened off the page. "Two hours later, we'd found a few groups of enemies that weren't too hard to dispatch, and had been searching around for a couple more hours."

I want to express this difference in "present" past tense vs. "actual past tense of past tense" but I lack the language to name the different conventions.

Is there a term or accepted language to describe what I mean? Like JRRT wrote LOTR in the past tense but the rhythm of your experience evokes present tense. A lot of modern mainstream books seem to get to a scene, reference the actual past before the book or between chapters, and that's how the characters kinda teleport from obstacle to obstacle.

Yeah so, does the traditional pseudo-present past tense narrative style have a more specific name? Is there better language to describe the difference?

thank you, cheers

I’ve been on a big kick with Krasznahorkai, a kick I have not experienced with any other author in a while, other than maybe Bolano.
So far I’ve only read Satantango, Melancholy of Resistance and just finishing up Herscht 07769. Krasznahorkai is the master of creating the structure of feeling for modern day. His books are in no way a comfort, however I do get this odd comfort in the atmosphere. That someone is able to see and vocalize exactly what it feels like to live in the modern day. Specifically the way fascist thoughts and actions seep into a community without any notice, or if the notice is there it’s completely apathetic.
The towns in the three novels I’ve read by him are towns hunkered down, calloused, and waiting for the end of the world to come. But there communities don’t see, the world has already ended for them, they are already living amongst the ruble, they’re two steps behind and seemingly unable to notice that it’s time to pick up the pieces and start over.
The world won’t end over night in these novels; it’s a slow decay that he’s a master of noting, and I’m just absolutely floored at someone’s ability to write like this.

Hey guys, I recently started reading Borges after many recommendations. After reading Funes and Tlon, I can't help but think that Borges is heavily influenced by Buddhist philosophy? In Funes, the curse of attention to details reveals the constant flux of the universe and the stable notion of a noun doesn't make any sense, similar to Buddhist emphasis on impermenance. Tlon's focus on idealism seems very Buddhist. The notion of existence being reducible to one's current mental state and with the past/future merely existing in the abstract. The idea that causality seeks to exist because there is only the current moment, and the use of language that denotes a continues process rather than a single noun, and the notion of a single entity, or the mind-at-large via consciousness all seems so Buddhist that I'm sure there's some influence?

Apologies to the Borges devotees, I have literally no context of the author so sorry if all of this may seem painfully obvious.

I recently read 2666 and feel like I just didn't get it. I've seen it highly praised, and I'm struggling to see it. The book was bleak as hell for me.

I liked the part about Fate and the part about Amaltafino. Amaltafino's was depressing though and I didn't really understand what I was supposed to get out of it. I liked that part about the geometry book hanging in the yard, but was overall confused.

I thought it was cool how each part tied together in some way. Like you meet Amaltafino and then read about him and then read about Fate who meets his daughter then you read about Haas who plays a major role in the murders then you loop back to von Archimboldi. Like that was cool, but I don't think I got the significance of the connections.

In the part about the murders, what was the deal with the kid cop? Is it that he's trying in a system that's broken?

I feel like I just have way more questions now that I've finished the novel and would love some help understanding what I read.

I read Heaven by Mieko Kawakami just after her Breasts and Eggs (which I reviewed here three weeks ago).

This book was harder because of the harsh bullying it depicts. Knowing the theme, I knew it wasn't a pleasant read, especially since I dislike scenes with unfair suffering in general. I read it anyway to continue exploring this author's work. Whenever I reached those scenes, I just had to pause for a few hours to regain some stamina and then resume reading. It was still a worthwhile read, and not as taxing as other novels dealing with worse abuse.

The two main distinctive strong points of Kawakami's craft that I'll discuss are the natural yet surprising unfolding of the story and its immersive scenes.

It's easy to summarize what's happening, plotwise. There's not much to say, but I'll leave that aside as what matters is execution. Nothing comes across as contrived or forced. There are hardly any chance events, save for one that remains fairly plausible. This coincidence sparks a conversation that could have arisen in many different ways, so it only stands out as such (a coincidence) for a critical reader (who notices it as an exception).

Overall, this first strength of her craft makes the events unfold naturally. It's not as if the author is leading the reader by the hand through a preplanned tour like a typical house viewing. Despite this organic flow, the plot still develops in unexpected ways. It often caught me off guard, and I really didn't know where the story was heading. I do not mean that the reader feels lost, or that the writer jumps erratically from one thing to another. It is consistent, but it does not follow a conventional pattern. Combined with a bit of restraint, this creates an effect I appreciate, and I wanted to share this as one of the author's memorable gifts that doesn't call attention to itself but shines quietly.

Her other strength is the ability to immerse us in each scene with the protagonists. In comparison, other stories often make us feel conscious of ourselves as readers, as the story plays out before us. Even setting aside the cases of stories that feel like a written version of a movie, there are still competent stories whose authors know how to take advantage of the written medium, closing the psychological distance between us and the protagonists, etc., but this does not always guarantee deep immersion. With Kawakami, it doesn't feel as if we are merely reading a story, much less in a conventional way. She is not unique in this respect, but it is worth noting as rarer among newer contemporary writers (though my sample may be too small to judge fairly).

One more thing: in this novel too, Kawakami uses the technique I noticed in Kawabata's works, the 'hold' on the payoff. I explained that in my previous post about another novel of hers. A short example will do. The main character (narrator, M) and the other main one (F), both teenagers, make physical contact for the first time. Then, they look into each other's eyes really close, start pressing their hands together, and... cut! The narrative moves on to the next chapter, starting something completely different. We will never know how that moment resolved. Presumably, nothing relevant happened. I'm not bothered by this technique; it's fine, really. I can see only one downside: merely noticing it can become distracting (a criticism that could apply to any uncommon writing technique).

Another example involves the picture the title refers to. I won't spoil it, but I'd like to know if anyone has seen a deeper meaning in it.

Lastly, although I refrained from comparing Heaven with Breasts and Eggs, I can't help mentioning the most striking difference. The latter offers a lot to think about, many secondary themes, many insights, and one may realize and learn a lot while reading it. Heaven, by comparison, doesn't offer much beyond its main theme, and I am not especially interested in the mechanics of bullying.

The novel is worth reading for the experience it creates: immersive, at times uncomfortable and tense, and uncommon.

Just finished Steinbeck's The Pearl and HATED the ending. Anybody agree with me? Or disagree with me?

The story follows a pearl diver , Kino, and explores man's purpose as well as greed, defiance of societal norms, and evil. Steinbeck's inspiration was a Mexican folk tale, which he had heard in a visit to the formerly pearl-rich region in 1940.