I normally reread a book when a new one in a series comes out and I want a refresh, or a book I like a lot after several years when my memory of it fades a bit. It can feel a bit more like I’m reading it for the first time again because the details aren’t as vivid in my mind. I know what will happen, but not all the details as to how type of thing. I haven’t ever had an annual read though so I’m interested in what makes the cut for those of you that do and why. submitted by /u/quiet_sesquipedalian [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/pearloz [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/GonzoDT [link] [comments]

NOTE: Also posted on /r/WarCollege. To steal somebody else's joke, I am a trained military historian - never doubt my dedication to ruining my own day... Actually, the book isn't that bad or triggering, and I say this as a Russian Jew, and as somebody to whom the Holocaust remains an open wound. This is a book about the court case in which a discredited military historian named David Irving attempted to put the Holocaust on trial and discredit it...and the result is absolutely unhinged. My background, though, for reading this book is a bit different than most others. I do have a minor legal background - I was a researcher at a struggling law firm (which, sadly, failed due to the lawyer's rapidly declining health, and I regret to say that people were hurt by it) when I was defamed, and ended up suing a media company in Superior Court...and because I didn't have the tens of thousands of dollars to pay a retainer, I had to represent myself. I'm pleased to say that I was successful (by the time they settled I may have managed to cost them around a million dollars in legal fees), but that was probably only because I had been trained by a lawyer. It's not an experience I would willingly repeat - it was probably the most stressful year of my life, and that includes people calling for the death of Jews since October 7, 2023 - but it does give me some real life experience in this very kind of case (albeit in a Canadian court of law). So, I'm going to structure this review in two parts: the history, and the law. The History In military history, we frequently have to deal with "poisoned wells." Basil Liddell Hart twisted the course of WW1 scholarship for decades, and the German generals perpetuated a myth of the "clean Wehrmacht" in WW2 scholarship for even more decades. But in an odd way, neither of these can really be considered malicious. Liddell Hart honestly believed what he was saying (he was just psychologically incapable of admitting he was wrong when he very clearly was), and the German generals were trying to save their own skins by shifting blame (they didn't so much deny that the Holocaust happened as washed their hands of it and passed all the blame onto Hitler and the SS). But, with David Irving, we have a very malicious case of poisoning the well, and this lawsuit brought out the shocking degree to which this was the case. Irving had started as a reputable independent military historian. His early books about the bombing of Dresden and Hitler's side of the war were quite well received, to the point that John Keegan considered Irving's Hitler's War to be the best account on the topic, with one qualification: a highly problematic level of Holocaust denial. But, that was how Irving was seen for much of his early career - a credible researcher with some uncomfortable and wrongheaded views, who was responsible for discovering and bringing numerous important documents to light. This changed, however, as the 1980s and '90s pressed on. Irving's Holocaust denial went from a uncomfortable side note to a key feature. Irving gave talks at white supremacist events, making openly racist statements and belittling Holocaust survivors. By the time Deborah Lipstadt published her own book on Holocaust denial in 1995 (with the British edition appearing in 1996), his reputation was arguably in tatters, and all because of his own actions. He was, as a lawyer might say, "the author of his own misfortune." As Lipstadt notes (in the book I'm reviewing, not the one she was sued over), however, he was also highly litigious, relying on the British legal system's handling of defamation actions to shut down criticism. The British legal system is quite odd in that when a defamation action occurs, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the alleged defamatory claims are true (as opposed to the plaintiff having to prove that they are defamatory). This means that Irving could sue people for calling him out and have them quit, even when he was the one lying through his teeth. And this actually had a chilling effect on historical writing, with some publishers being unwilling to publish work attacking Irving because they were afraid of the legal action. As Lipstadt put it, Irving "pulled [her] out of a line to be shot." What he didn't expect was for her to defend herself, or that she would get the support she did from her publisher and the community at large. To carry out the defence, Lipstadt's legal team brought together a team of experts to prove that Irving was lying about the Holocaust by misrepresenting documents. One of the more remarkable discoveries was that this had been going on in his earlier works as well. This shocked Richard Evans, who wrote a roughly 800 page report in which he ultimately declared that Irving was no historian at all. Here's a couple of examples of how the distortions worked: In his book about Dresden, Irving cited a real document about the fatalities - the actual report stated they were around 25,000 dead. This got passed on to Goebbel's propaganda ministry, who added a zero to the end. Irving then cited the real document (with around 25,000 dead) while quoting the propaganda number. In a two-day meeting with the leader of Hungary (at least, my recollection was that it was Hungary), on the first day Hitler acted conciliatory and stated that the Hungarian Jews did not all need to be shot. By the second day, this conciliatory phase had passed, and Hitler demanded the extermination of all of Hungary's Jews. In his account, Irving moved the conciliatory moment from early in the first day to the end of the second day, making it appear as though the conference had ended with Hitler stating that the Hungarian Jews did not actually need to be murdered. Irving's entire body of work was littered with these distortions. And, he got away with it for as long as he did because people (and this includes historians) have a basic belief that if there's a citation, it's legit. It wasn't until the trial and Richard Evans chasing down Irving's sources that the degree to which academic fraud was taking place became clear. This brings anything Irving is cited about in into doubt, and keep in mind that Irving was a respected historian during the 1970s, and even into the 1980s. Even now, years after the lawsuit that discredited him, his work can be found in the bibliography of recent books like Kursk: The Greatest Battle, by Lloyd Clark, and The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany, by Ian Kershaw. This creates a large, David Irving-generated minefield through which military historians of WW2 will have to navigate for years to come. But, for me, what was truly shocking was a discovery after the trial and the appeals. Irving had been defeated and driven into bankruptcy, and the court was now in a position to force him to relinquish property to pay his legal bills. It was during this process that it was discovered that he had a number of historical documents from the Third Reich which proved the truth of the Holocaust - documents he had never referenced or released. The deceptions were indeed deliberate and malicious - not the shifting of blame that the German generals had done out of self-preservation, but the actual distortion of history for ideological gain. The Law As I said, I've been a self-represented plaintiff in a defamation action. So, there's a degree to which I understand why Irving was there. His reputation was in tatters, the publishers who had once accepted his books were now rejecting them, and had Lipstadt been lying about him, he would have had a strong case against her. But, Lipstadt was not lying about him, and his actions in the courtroom were absolutely unhinged. Now, Lipstadt is not a lawyer, nor does she have a legal background. So, there's a lot of things about the proceedings she recounts that she didn't quite understand (and, if you haven't spent time in that world, you wouldn't understand), and caused her considerable distress at the time. If I have one criticism of her lawyers, it is that they did not explain these things to her. So, there are a number of instances where the judge appeared to be helping Irving. This is, in fact, what he was required to do. I was lucky in my legal action - I had been trained by a lawyer. Most have not been, and this places them at a severe disadvantage when presenting their case. It falls upon the judge to even the playing field by helping the self-represented litigant through the process, and to make sure that their argument is being presented with the greatest possible accuracy. Please note, this does not mean the judge is taking their side, nor is it a sign that the judge is going to in his or her ruling. It is just a helping hand to get all of the cards on the table so that the judgement can consider all of the facts of the case. What Irving did with this help was hang himself. Repeatedly. He was forced to concede points that he then walked back, was caught out in distortion after distortion, and even tried to present the gas chambers of Auschwitz as being a fumigation chamber and an air raid shelter for the SS. His story and excuses repeatedly changed. In his closing statement, he even referred to the judge as "Mein Fuehrer." Reading Lipstadt's summary with my "legal researcher" hat on, it's hard to believe that outcome was ever in doubt. Irving was just not a credible plaintiff. But, he was also deceptive in ways that one might not expect. During the disclosure and discovery phase, he received Richard Evans' report, which he then posted on his website. Now, to be clear, this can be a reasonable tactic to get the truth out. During my libel action, I posted all of my filings and the defence filings I received online (with contact information redacted, of course). However, having done this and then received negative press quoting the report, Irving then tried to suggest in court that somebody in Lipstadt's legal team had violated confidentiality by leaking the document (and this backfired when it was pointed out that the one who had published it was Irving). And this was not the only case of this type of deception - during an appeal (by which time he had finally smartened up and hired a lawyer), he introduced new evidence, which was accepted by the court, only to then withdraw that evidence and later claim that he had never been permitted to present it at all. The legal term for this is, I believe, a "vexatious litigant," and I am amazed at the patience of the British judges as they handled him. The Consequences This book documents an important moment in the historiography of WW2 - this was the moment that Holocaust denial was dealt a devastating blow, and one of its most insidious proponents properly discredited. But, it's also a warning about the dangers of historical revisionism. Now, strictly speaking, I would probably count as a revisionist - my research and findings on the rise of the Cult of the Offensive are at odds with what was the standard view on the topic for a very long time, and the pendulum is swinging in my direction. And this is what historical revisionism can be very good at - correcting the historical record when it's wrong. But, in the wrong hands, it can have the opposite effect, becoming propaganda for those who would distort the historical record for its own end. David Irving was defeated, but there are plenty like him out there (and right now, I have seen signs that Soviet atrocity denial has been gaining steam). As Lipstadt wrote, Irving was not the important part - defeating him, showing the falsehood of his ideas, was. So, great reading, and I strongly recommend it. submitted by /u/Robert_B_Marks [link] [comments]

I just finished re-reading Their Eyes Were Watching God with my seniors, and the more I re-read it, the more I feel sure that she dies at the end. One of my classes was ADAMANT that she survives, but my other classes were more divided. The first time I read it I refused to believe she dies because I love her and want her to live, but having read it now 5 times I can't help but feel she dies (as much as it pains me).... I think this for a couple of reasons. For one, the language in the final chapter (and throughout the book, honestly) is giving "I'm at peace and can now pass on." Particularly the symbolism of pulling the horizon in like a great fish net, and seeing Tea Cake dancing around her with the "sun for a shawl". The book is also a complete retelling of her life, which is akin to the "flashback" some people say they've experienced during near-death experiences. For two, the rabies. In 1937, the dominating school of thought was that rabies can be transmitted from person to person (hence the doctor saying Janie shouldn't sleep in the same bed as Tea Cake). While we now know that human to human transmission through biting is virtually impossible, they didn't know that when this was written. It never states that Janie received treatment from the doctor. Though symptoms often show up very quickly (as with tea cake), they're often delayed several months, even a year. So even though Janie seems lucid, it's possible she carries the virus in her and that it will eventually show itself (not realistically, of course, but again, Hurston didn't know this when the book was written). The language in the last chapter though, to me, suggests that she will eventually get rabies and die (joining Tea Cake in heaven). I feel like Janie accomplished what she wanted to accomplish--true love and autonomy. Not only this, but in sharing her story with Phoeby, she ensures that her narrative will live on forever to inspire future generations of women to live for themselves. Janie dying after accomplishing her goals seems poetic in a sad, but meaningful, way. I think it likely that Hurston left this ending open for us to come to our own conclusions. What do you all think? submitted by /u/Old_Lab9197 [link] [comments]

I've been reading a book on KU and it's not great. I like the story but the style is dull. I can't explain exactly why. Only one review stated that the book was dull but in a nice way. I used to review books and hated writing negative reviews and I'm wondering if that's the case with this book Most of the reviews are five stars but it's definitely not a five star book. The plot meanders and there's info dumps. So I wonder if they're too nice to be honest I know I was submitted by /u/Great-Activity-5420 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/-TheLoneRangers- [link] [comments]

I was given this book as a gift and initially didn’t love it since the first 100 pages are this messy romantic scenario before the book turns into a more dynamic story about two families developing alongside each other. There’s one detail in the book that’s driving me a bit crazy. I think it happens twice, once pretty early on and the next quite late in the book where a character is having some deep emotional thing and perceives the words being said around them as “onion” Does anyone know what this means?? Or any other thoughts on the book? submitted by /u/BafflingBinturong [link] [comments]

Mbote readers, This is our monthly discussion of the literature of the world! Every Wednesday, we'll post a new country or culture for you to recommend literature from, with the caveat that it must have been written by someone from that there (i.e. Shogun by James Clavell is a great book but wouldn't be included in Japanese literature). Today is Independence Day in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to celebrate, we're discussing Congolese literature! Please use this thread to discuss your favorite Congolese literature and authors. If you'd like to read our previous discussions of the literature of the world please visit the literature of the world section of our wiki. Kutonda and enjoy! submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [comments]

I wanted to read something lighthearted after reading 'Dracula' and decided to dig into 'A Man Called Ove'. The book starts off on a funny note and after reading classics for a while, the writing seemed a bit chill. The book is nothing to boast about in terms of writing if I am being completely honest (in my humble opinion) but it did make me cry rivers by the time it ended while I had a constant smile on my face. It is immersive and I felt like I was a part of Ove's world, especially in the latter half. Cent percent recommend it to seasoned as well as new readers. I would call this book a Mac Ruby Woo of the literature world. Liked by all and universally flattering. Some highlights of the book for me were: -Ove! The man is reliable, dependable and made of steel it seems. Life was never easy for him but he kept going through it till the love of his life, his wife, passed away. -The equation of the kids with Ove and how the eight-year-old called him grandad on her birthday. -Rune and Ove's friendship and how they always had each other's back and were also at each other's throats at the same time. -The scene where they defeat authorities and save Rune. -Satisfying end. Ove does not take his life and instead dies naturally, after curating a well thought will. His funeral is well attended by 300 people and depicts the full life he lived, the connections he made and all the love he spread and got in return! Have you read the book? What was the most heartwarming part for you? Let's discuss more in the comments please! submitted by /u/Waste_Project_7864 [link] [comments]

If there's going to be a description provided for a character, especially something that could be important to the plot such as condition or health or size, please provide it straight away. If a character is supposed to look a certain way, provide it ASAP (though in a nice way or very briefly) or else I'm seeing what I want to see. I've read many books where I have an image of a character whether it's just a few snapshots or a full blown movie scene, and about 100 pages in there's some random mention about a trait that goes against what I was imagining or, worse, this whole breakdown of how I'm supposed to see this character. It's not the end of the world but it really takes me out more than I would like it to. I spend the rest of the book imagining what I want anyway but then the scenes feel so clunky because my brain snaps between my version and author's version. In the book I'm reading now, a character was fully described long after I've already developed them in my head and now every other scene suddenly is very loyal to the character description so now I can't imagine it with the character I've become close with and it is throwing me off. And it sucks because everything else is so smoothly done and things are really picking up with great scenes, great pacing and I would be going through it like a movie if it wasn't for this. And this is common, or maybe I have bad luck. Name something worse. submitted by /u/MoistCurdyMaxiPad [link] [comments]

Lawmakers are taking up library books as conservative activists around the state pore over material in young adult and teen library sections for sexual content...They have focused specifically on books exploring LGBTQ+ issues that are written for young people, though some books dealing with issues like drug use are also under the microscope. submitted by /u/PsychLegalMind [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/rjonny04 [link] [comments]

Having recently read Joyland And Later I've now finished up King's Hard Case books and I'm a little disappointed. I had seen some pretty negative reactions to it being mentioned but wanted to try for myself and still feel let down. It's certainly not the worst thing I've read and don't feel as annoyed as some people are but still found it kind of dull. I did really like the characters and the overall mystery was OK but I neve found it engaging which for all it's faults even Later had me interested. Of the 3 Joyland is by far my favourite but this has still left me disappointed although am willing to give it another try at a later date. submitted by /u/McgriffTheCrimeOwl [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/zsreport [link] [comments]

{Everything below is from the perspective of someone whose has not read the entire series. I've only read book one with no spoilers so far. I dont mind spoilers of saying the name of a character who appears later and basic info etc, But please don't spoiler any plot points.} I just finished Red Rising via the Graphic Audio edition{don't hate me but I liked more than the og Audiobook. I was going back and fourth for a bit.} And bloodydamn I am in love. It’s been ages since a story grabbed me like this. The Graphic Audio format made it even more immersive; it felt like a movie playing in my ears with all the voice actors, sound effects, and music. I found myself holding my breath during the intense scenes and even tearing up at the emotional ones. Darrow’s journey had me hooked from the start, and I rode the full rollercoaster of emotions--joy, anger, heartbreak, hope--sometimes all at once. What really hit me was the emotional weight of Darrow’s story. Pierce Brown’s worldbuilding sucks you right into the tunnels of Mars, where an the coolest red people in the galaxy live in oppression and lies. As a reader, you feel the claustrophobia and injustice that Darrow and his family endure. Darrow’s life as a lowRed--slaving away in the mines believing he’s helping build a better future for Mars--felt so real and unjust that I was burning with anger on his behalf. When his wife Eo sings that forbidden song of freedom and is executed for it, I literally had to pause the audio because I was nearly sobbing. That scene broke me. Eo’s dream of a life where their children can be free absolutely shattered Darrow--and me too. As a Black reader, the oppression of the Reds struck a deep chord. Their pain, the way they’re kept ignorant and exploited, the way hope is a dangerous act--it all felt deeply relatable and familiar in a gutwrenching way. Darrow’s grief an fury after Eo’s death, and his resolve to rise for his people, gave me chills. I felt like I was right there cheering {and crying} for him. Darrow’s transformation from a humble, broken Helldiver of lykos into a determined rebel infiltrating high society--it’s inspiring and harrowing. The Institute trials, the friendships and betrayals, the moments where Darrow’s Red heart shines through his Gold exterior! it was such a wild ride. This story made me think hard about freedom, sacrifice, and what it means to break the chains of an unjust system. Now, here’s where my brain started poking at something. Red Rising portrays a future society that’s supposedly post racial--the old Earth concepts of race and ethnicity have faded, replaced by this Color caste system. Pierce Brown has mentioned that he didn’t want to focus on race as we know it; the Society isn’t divided by Black/white/Asian/Latino, but by Colors {Gold, Red, etc.} that were genetically engineered for specific roles. In theory, that sounds awesome--a future where skin color isn’t a source of division. But {and this is a big “but” for me}if this world is truly beyond race, why do so many characters look so...European? Wouodnt people be mixed to the point racial features and phenotypical differences should be moot? Everyone some shade of brown or or something. Reading Red Rising, I couldn’t help noticing that virtually every character we get described has features that read as white coded. Darrow himself, as a Red, is described as having pale skin, red hair, and even an Irish accent (the audiobook nailed this). His fellow Reds in Lykos are mostly the same. Then he gets carved into a Gold, and lo and behold, he ends up with golden/blonde hair, tan skin, and dazzling amber eyes. Basically, he goes from looking like one kind of white guy to another kind of white guy {just taller and buffer}. Most Golds we meet have light or golden hair, light eyes, and are often described with words like “pale,” “ivory,” or “fair.” Cassius, the Bellonas, tidus, the reds at large etc…I pictured them all as white because the author basically role me so. They are gold but if there's one movie white actors would be cast. If I fan casted Lovie Simone as Mustang, people would look at me crazy. I actually think Mustang was one of the characters who brown didnt explictly describe as pale, I distinctly remember him saying she had a heart shaped face like lovie. But every other desfription was just describing a white woman, you know? So it's like, I thought that her heart-shaped face, you know what I'm saying, would be just like Lovey Simone. But I would look crazy if I tried to fan cast Lovie Simone as Mustang, you know? Folks would get mad And Lovie Simone wouldn't even get the audition to play Mustang. Because in our world, these gold people are largely described as being of some type of European, maybe Mediterranean descent. And if there are these Caucasian looking peope all around therefore should be golds who are black, asian, Hispanic. Crazy the golds didnt invent a new gold language I guess a vaguely posh English accent was good enough for the superior golds. Anyway I'm gettgn side tracked. There were no Golds {or Reds} I encountered in Book 1 that had clearly dark brown skin or Afro-textured hair or broad noses or full lips--none of the features that look like me or many other people of color in our world. You can name 30 named characters In book one who are red or gold or whatever but through out the whole zeroes can you name ten black people? 6 Black golds? 4 asian reds? And that started to nag at me. In a world that’s supposedly beyond color heh, it felt like everyone was still basically European-coded in appearance. Why are there no obviously Black-coded characters among the main cast? Where are the people with kinky/coily hair or deep brown skin? It’s like the Society said “we don’t see race,” but instead of a vibrant mix of physical traits, we got a pretty homogenous {and Eurocentric} image of humanity. I want to clarify, I’m not saying Pierce Brown had to include a character with dark skin just to tick a box. But when every major character’s description could basically fit a white European person, it stands out--especially to a Black reader like me who was scanning eagerly for someone that even remotely resembled my people. Especially since I deeply reasoned with the themes of This story. It reminds me of how some fantasy/sci-fi fans react when a Black character shows up in a story--like casting a Black elf or a Black Stormtrooper, and certain folks lose their minds claiming “but this world is supposed to be colorblind” or “it breaks my immersion.” The irony here is that Red Rising actually had the chance to show a truly colorblind future, yet it defaulted to what feels like white as the norm. A “post-racial” future that visually reads as almost all-white isn’t really beyond race at all--it’s just erasing part of humanity. It’s as if the book quietly said “Race doesn’t matter…as long as everyone looks kind of white.” That makes me uncomfortable, because it ends up reinforcing the idea that white is the default or “neutral” state of being. As a reader, I can only imagine characters based on the descriptors the author gives me. And when those descriptors overwhelmingly point to white or light-skinned people, it does jar me out of the story, despite how much I love it. I found myself asking, In this massive Society spanning all of humanity, why don’t any of the heroes or villains noticeably reflect non-European ancestry in their appearance or culture? Pierce Brown clearly drew on a lot of historical and cultural influences for the Society--especially Greco-Roman and European ones. The Golds have a conquering Roman vibe {their houses are named after Roman gods, their mottoes and titles sound straight out of a Latin class}. The accents and languages we encounter {at least in the audiobook} are primarily Irish for lowReds and a more semi posh English for Golds. We hear about Golds quoting Roman philosophy, singing old war songs, using call-signs like “Reaper,” and so on--but we don’t hear much {or anything} drawing from African, Indigenous, Middle Eastern, or Asian cultures in the main story. It stood out to me that even though this is the future, the Society’s aesthetic and “feel” is very much old-school European. The dominance of European history and culture is still there, just repackaged into space. So it’s hard for me to feel like this world truly left racial and ethnic classes behind, when effectively the ruling class and even the underclass {in Darrow’s colony} look and sound like various shades of Europeans. While the characters looks didn’t reflect much Black presence, the story itself deeply resonated with Black history and experiences and the expriences of various opressed peoples too the irish, indigenous folks etc. I don’t know if Pierce intended it this way, but as a Black reader I picked up on so many parallels between the plight of the Reds and the specific history of Black Americans {and other oppressed peoples}. Honestly, it’s one of the reasons the story hit me so hard emotionally. A few examples that really struck me are like how The lowReds live essentially as slaves. They’re trapped in dangerous mining jobs for the profit of others, kept in line with brutal punishments. They toil from childhood to death, believing falsely that their labor is noble and necessary. This reminded me of the justifications slaveholders used--telling slaves that hard work and obedience were their lot in life, sometimes even that it was for a greater good. The way the Reds are used up and thrown away by the Society is painfully similar to how enslaved Black people were exploited for labor. The Reds are deliberately kept ignorant of the truth. Darrow and his people don’t even know that Mars has cities and a sky; they think they’re alone working to make Mars liveable for future generations, when in truth Mars is already thriving for the elites. This is a huge lie to keep them docile. That immediately made me think of how slave owners in America forbade slaves from learning to read or getting any education, to prevent them from gaining knowledge that could lead to rebellion. Keeping an oppressed class in the dark is a classic tool of oppression--and it’s on full display in Red Rising. As a Black reader, that aspect gave me chills. It’s like a sci-fi take on the same cruelty my ancestors faced. Eo’s execution scene haunts me. She is whipped and hanged for singing a song – essentially lynched for an act of defiance and hope. This parallel was like a punch to the gut. In Black American history, we know countless Black men and women were lynched or violently punished for even perceived slights or acts of resistance against an unjust system. Eo’s only “crime” was hoping for freedom and daring to voice it. That image of her singing as the noose tightens...it’s something I can’t get out of my head, because it mirrors the horrific punishments used on Black people who dared to dream of a better life. It underscored the sheer evil of the Society in a way that felt very historically real to me. The fact that Eo’s song is what sparks Darrow’s entire revolution is so meaningful. In the face of oppression, music has often been a subtle form of rebellion and hope. Slave hymns were so imortant and spoke to the resilience of Enslaved African Americans. They used spirituals and songs to express sorrow, hope, and coded resistance. Eo’s song, carries that same power--it’s deadass a vessel for her people’s pain and their longing for liberty. It was a beautiful nod intentional or not to how the oppressed have always used art and music to keep their hope alive. I felt that connection strongly, especially listening to the audiobook where the song is actually performed--it gave me goosebumps. we primarily see Reds in the mines, but the Society has others the high reds. It was giving house slaves vs field slaves. They cook, they clean, and--for the more progressive Gold familes--raise their children as nannies and housekeepers. That scenario immediately reminded me of how Black women {during slavery and well into the 20th century} were forced into roles like mammies, nannies, and housemaids for white families--caring for the children of the very people who oppressed them. It’s a subtle parallel, but it hit home. The Society’s elite literally rely on the labor of lower classes to raise their kids and run their households, just like how American society was built on the backs of Black and brown domestics and caregivers for generations. Even after slavery, many Black Americans became sharecroppers, locked in a cycle of labor with the promise of “one day you’ll earn your own plot”, a promise that was often a manipulative lie. In the same way, the Reds in Red Rising work with the promise that they’re making a better world for their children. Darrow genuinely believes if he works hard enough, his kids or grandkids will walk on the surface of Mars. It’s a cruel lie, just like many sharecroppers were never meant to truly rise out of their situation. That parallel hurt, because you see how hope is used as a tool to keep the Reds in line, much like false hope was used to placate oppressed people in our world. Perhaps the most striking parallel for me is Darrow’s entire arc of "passing" as a Gold. He undergoes extreme genetic carving to physically become one of the ruling class--a literal impersonation of the oppressor to subvert the system from within. As fantastical as that is, it resonates with the real concept of codeswitching {and even racial “passing” in history}. Black people have long had to “code switch” aka modify our speech, behavior, even appearance, to survive or succeed in predominantly white spaces. Whether it’s using a different accent/dialect at work, or {n history} some lighter skinned Black individuals passing as white to escape discrimination, it’s a survival tactic. Darrow lives this to the max to the extreme he must hide every part of his Red identity and perform Goldness convincingly, or he’ll be killed. When I listened to him learning how to dress, speak, and carry himself like a Gold, it clicked for me – this is sci fi code switching under life or death stakes. The tension of him hiding his true self is something marginalized people can relate to, even if our stakes aren’t literally execution like his. It’s one of the most powerful themes in the book to me. All these parallels made Red Rising feel personal to me, beyond just a cool scifi story. It’s why I say I loved the book--it moved me and made me feel seen in an unexpected way. The struggle against an unjust society, the pain and the hope, the idea of rising up--those are themes that truly resonate with the Black experience {and many other fights for justice too}. I have to give Pierce Brown credit for capturing those universal oppression themes so well. The Reds’ suffering and defiance rang true and earned my heart. That’s why it’s a bit frustrating that, for all these clear thematic connections to Black history, I didn’t actually see any Black characters represented in the world’s visual landscape. The Graphic Audio production even doubled down on certain coding, the lowReds all speak with Irish accents in the audio which, to be fair, matches Darrow’s canon accent per the books I believe. It gave a real “oppressed Irish miners” vibe to the Lykos clan. I loved the performances, but I couldn’t help noticing what was missing--we didn’t hear any characters with, say, African or Caribbean accents, or African American Vernacular English, or really any non-European accent or dialect anywhere. The cast of voices and cultures on display were distinctly Euro-centric. That creative choice made the absence of other ethnic influences even more obvious. It’s like the story borrowed a lot from the Irish struggle (for the Reds) and the Roman Empire/British aristocracy (for the Golds), but glossed over how, in a future society of billions, we’d realistically have influences from all peoples. As a Black fan, I kept waiting for even a minor character who talks or looks like they might descend from my part of humanity, so far, I haven’t really found that. I want to be clear, I’m not writing this post to attack Pierce Brown or imply Red Rising is a bad book. Not at all. If anything, I’m this passionate because I adore the story so much. Consider this post a kind of love letter and a critique rolled into one. I love this book to death--it made me feel seen in some ways, and in other ways it made me notice what was missing. I genuinely believe Pierce Brown had good intentions by envisioning a future without racism {in the traditional sense}. The goal of a colorblind society is noble in theory. But it’s also a tricky thing to execute in fiction, because if you don’t actively portray diversity, “colorblind” can easily slide into “everyone just defaults to white.” I think that’s what happened here, perhaps unintentionally. It doesn’t make Red Rising a terrible book at all--but it’s something I, as a black reader, have to wrestle with. It’s that feeling of loving a story while wishing it had done one thing a bit differently. I’m curious if anyone else noticed this dichotomy. Did any of you feel the same way about the physical descriptions in Red Rising? Especially my fellow Black readers how did you imagine the characters? Did it bother you that the book doesn’t explicitly include Black or brown-skinned protagonists, or did you interpret the vague descriptions differently? I know some fans say, “Well, race doesn’t exist in this world, so who cares what skin color they are.” I get that viewpoint, but as I explained, it does matter to me what imagery is being conjured, because I can’t help but see the patterns from our own world. Like If race as we know it is not important in this world anymore, why isn't there a more diverse spread? Like if you're telling you race is not important but everyone still is vaguely European, some kind of way, like I'm just not understanding, it takes me out of the story. I’d love to hear how others read it. Maybe I missed a description and some characters was actually meant to be of african descent. At the end of the day, I had an amazing time with Red Rising. It’s the kind of story that sticks in your bones and makes you think for days. The very fact I’m here writing this long post shows how much it made me feel. I’m excited to continue the saga--I’ve got Golden Son ready to go--and I’m crossing my fingers that as the world expands, we’ll maybe encounter a wider array of cultures represented or referenced at least physical appearances in the Society. Regardless, I’m invested in Darrow’s fight and I can’t wait to see what happens next for him and all the characters I’ve come to care about {Sevro, Mustang, even Cassius, I have feelings about that whole situation!}. Thank you for reading this massive wall of text. I know it was a lot, but I had a lot of emotions to pour out. This book gave me so much joy and also sparked this critical discussion in my mind--and I needed to get it all out in writing. If you’ve felt similarly conflicted or have thoughts, I genuinely want to chat! This fandom seems really passionate and thoughtful from what I’ve seen, so I’m hopeful we can have a great discussion about these themes. Tldr; Red Rising = AMAZING book that stole my heart; it also left me with some big questions about representation in a “post-racial” future. I’m a loving fan with some critiques, and I hope that’s okay. I haven’t been this emotionally moved by sci-fi in a long time. So yeah, I’m a newly minted Howler!!! and I’m absolutely itching to dive into the next books. Red Rising reminded me why I love reading, it transported me, shook me, and gave me characters I care so much about. Thank you, Pierce Brown, for that. Can’t wait to hear your perspectives. Alright, Howlers, stay bloodydamn fantastic and Hail Reaper! On to Golden Son I go! submitted by /u/DoubleVforvictory [link] [comments]

On Sunday, the Chicago Sun-Times published an advertorial summer reading list containing at least 10 fake books attributed to real authors, according to multiple reports on social media. The newspaper's uncredited "Summer reading list for 2025" supplement recommended titles including "Tidewater Dreams" by Isabel Allende and "The Last Algorithm" by Andy Weir—books that don't exist and were created out of thin air by an AI system. The creator of the list, Marco Buscaglia, confirmed to 404 Media that he used AI to generate the content. "I do use AI for background at times but always check out the material first. This time, I did not and I can't believe I missed it because it's so obvious. No excuses," Buscaglia said. "On me 100 percent and I'm completely embarrassed." submitted by /u/a_Ninja_b0y [link] [comments]

I've been discussing this with a few friends lately, and after coming up with some really interesting ideas, I'm curious to know both if others like the idea (and/or have done it already) as well as potentially gaining some new inspiration for genres/authors we haven't considered yet. The idea is simple. Make a "trilogy" of books with the goal of them all fitting together in some sort of meaningful way. There are only two rules. All three books must be written by different authors. They can't be intentional continuations or prequels/sequels of the same story arc/characters (for example, it would be against the rules to include both Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea). The last piece of the puzzle is the reading order! The rationale behind putting any one book before/after the other leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and potentially leads to entirely different discussions depending on which books have already been read prior to the next. To put an easy example out there, this was the first trilogy we came up with and the order we think fits best. 1984 (1949) by George Orwell We (1924) by Yevgeny Zamyatin Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley We is often cited as a critical inspiration for Orwell's more well-known piece, but the thought is that We would be better to read after 1984 because it would be fun to retroactively discover where Orwell's ideas may have originated and/or where he chose a different direction. We also thought it would be fun to start with the post-WWII novel and then reach back to the post-WWI novel. Brave New World comes last as a more capitalism-oriented dystopian, and highly contrasting piece to the first two reads. Would this be a book club idea that you'd consider participating in? Would you change anything about the rules? I'm all ears for either active participation or active criticism! submitted by /u/PsyferRL [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/mkbt [link] [comments]

Welcome readers, Have you ever wanted to ask something but you didn't feel like it deserved its own post but it isn't covered by one of our other scheduled posts? Allow us to introduce you to our new Simple Questions thread! Twice a week, every Tuesday and Saturday, a new Simple Questions thread will be posted for you to ask anything you'd like. And please look for other questions in this thread that you could also answer! A reminder that this is not the thread to ask for book recommendations. All book recommendations should be asked in /r/suggestmeabook or our Weekly Recommendation Thread. Thank you and enjoy! submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [comments]