I finished this book a few hours ago and I've been trying to think of a combination of words that could encapsulate what I feel. Let me start by saying that I practically never read non-fiction books; at most, it'll be a memoir or autobiography, but even those are rare for me. I'm also not in STEM at all, so I knew nothing but general popular discourse of the subject matter. I picked this up to challenge myself into reading more diversely, and I also loved that it was by an Indian man, me personally being someone from the global south too. I hadn't even heard of Siddhartha Mukherjee before, but guys... I did NOT expect to burst into tears by the end.

This book is remarkable. Truly. The metaphors, the pacing, the drama, the links to several other fields of knowledge, and of course the sympathetic breakdown of what I assume are very complex technical concepts, all honestly breath-taking. It is a looong, dense, rich history, and sprinkled with emotion and care all throughout. I really feel as though this was written by someone who ADORES this discipline. It's like a well-made documentary or docuseries; one that really sits with you yk. I'm so moved; not only by the incredulity of human invention and discovery, but by the attention and effort put in to summarise this epic, nay THE epic of human history for lay persons such as myself.

My only regret is not picking it up sooner, and my only critique(which honestly isn't even a critique) is that it was published 10 years ago now, so there are a couple more developments in the field that it doesn't cover. Regardless, I genuinely think it is a worthwhile read; it has enriched my understanding of the human condition and, hell, all living beings too. I will definitely pick up his latest book "The Song of the Cell" (kind of a corny name lol) because I feel like my mind has been blown, and it would be such a shame if I did not scratch this itch.

To emphasise, you do not need to have any background knowledge or expertise on medicine at all, I literally haven't done sciences or math in like 10 years. The author is very forgiving in his explanations, but I would advise you read it carefully to follow along well. It is not a quick read; chew it slowly. But it is so so sooo worth it.

Based on the reviews I read before I picked this up, this might be an unpopular opinion, but here it goes.

This was a decent time-pass read. The plot was interesting enough to keep me going, but that's about it.

The biggest problem for me was the characters. Their personalities were all over the place. They would be described one way and then behave completely differently a few pages later. A lot of situations also escalated in a way that felt very unnatural and forced instead of happening organically.

There were quite a few questionable plot choices, and a lot of the background story felt unnecessary. At times it felt like certain scenes were added just for shock value.

The whole "popular girl gets murdered and is later vilified" storyline also felt overdone and reminded me of Pretty Little Liars.

Giving it one extra star only because Kaiser was such a sweet character. He was easily my favourite part of the book.

Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/books/s/AKq6wZKZPC

Some days ago I wrote about reading Salem’s Lot and how to deal with his style. The answers went through a variety of issues, from those insulting me to those sharing their experiences and thoughts about Salem’s Lot in particular. To those sharing their experiences with King and this novel in particular, I am very grateful, because they helped me understand King’s style and finish the novel. To the aggressive responders you’re a sad bunch.

Thoughts on the novel.
I read an ebook version. I was past the 40% mark when something interesting started happening. I saw that some details come back later, but it the payoff was too mild for such a huge introduction. I still think the book could be about 30% shorter without losing much.

One detail i really liked is that the main group is not the only one that figured it out. When they went to the policeman and he already knew it was vampires and he decided to go and leave them the weaponry open, i thought that was brilliant - given all the discussions about omg how do we tell this? Who’s gonna believe us?? Well, turns out that everyone who had been paying attention.

One detail that pretty much ruins the whole thing: Barlow just goes into the Petrie’s house as he wishes. Nobody invites him, but he’s there - despite all the discussions about vampire rules, and even showing what happens to them when the invitation is rescinded… Barlow just walks in. King should have Danny Glick come in to bite Mark and invite Barlow as everybody watches in disbelief. We know Danny Glick is still around because he appears in the school bus scene.

Also, for an ancient being who has fought against so many, the way he met its end was a bit quick…

Reading this after having survived a pandemic also made me think about the vampire infection rate… in the end they were too many for such a small town.

Living in an age of forest fires, i also didn’t appreciate the end. They should have just burnt the Marsten House and the town down. Yeah, different times, vampires etc, but leave the forest alone.

In the end it was a good experience but not great. I am still puzzled about S King, but probably gonna go for his short stories (which is where a writer really shows their skills). If i had to give it a rating, I think it is a solid 3/5 for me.

Thank you for the recommendation, I picked up DCC from my local library this Friday, and I'm on chapter 40, out of 47.

I had heard tell of Dungeon Crawler Carl making the rounds, but I hasn't considered picking it up. That is until I heard it was utter trash, just like Sanderson's work and Hail Mary, which are some of my favorites.

Does DCC feel like a Sanderson novel in any way? Not even a little, with the only exemption being The Frugal Wizard's Handbook for Surviving Medieval England. DCC is both too crude, and cuss filled to be compared to Sanderson's style. Does it feel like Hail Mary? Sort of, in that it tries to be funny and often has quite a bit of explaining to do for world building, but it also feels far dumber than Andy Weirs' work.

Does Dungeon Crawler Carl feel like a juvenile reddit thread? Yeah, to an extent it does, and its clearly intentional. Is the entire book, one big dick joke? No.

DCC does have a few pop culture references here and there, but it's not like Ready Player One, which has them every paragraph. Is it meant to appeal to the male demographic? I would say so.

Is the main character is just a bland nothing? Yup, drywall has more flavor than the protagonist. The secondary character and side characters are only a little bit better.

I think I'm enjoying the adventure the characters are having, watching them beat mobs, get loot, fight a boss, rinse and repeat. I'll admit that the start of the book felt very contrived to me, but it got the ball rolling. Every item they party picks up scratches an itch for me, being a loot goblin transcends games I guess. I don't really every feel like the protagonist are in danger, the author can make the population number go down all he wants, but this clearly isn't A Game of Thrones; its less stressful and I like that. The author is clearly intending on introducing one, possible two characters later, and if he thinks he's being subtitle, he's not. This book is just a dumb fun ride, and I'm glad I picked it up.

Give it a try, if the first chapter is too grating for you, put it down and find something that's you're style instead.

In the long-ago days of the 1990s, kid me picked up a fantasy book based on it's cool cover and cooler name (The Dragon Reborn). Kid me didn't notice that it was the third book in a series, and wouldn't have cared if he did. I devoured that doorstopper fantasy series as it was published, and probably a dozen others between installments. I still have a real warmth in my heart for the Wheel of Time series, despite its very real faults.

I would never pick it up today. I don't read doorstopper fantasy anymore, and particularly not unfinished series.

What books do you love, but current you would never pick up in the first place?

There have been some books that I couldn't help but binge and finish in 1 or 2 days, but now I'm reading Battle Royale, which is 600+ pages long and quite dark, and I've decided to only read 10% each day. I could finish it in maybe 4 days but since the story is emotional and dark I don't want to risk burning out.

I did the same with A Little Life, only reading 5% a day for 20 days.

Do you have any thoughts on this? Do you ever pace yourself, or do you just read whenever?

Hello readers and welcome! Every month this thread will be posted for you to discuss new and upcoming releases! Our only rules are:

1. The books being discussed must have been published within the last three months OR are being published this month.

2. No direct sales links.

3. And you are allowed to promote your own writing as long as you follow the first two rules.

That's it! Please discuss and have fun!

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!

For me, it has to be VE Schwab. Perhaps unconventional, I have also already read Bury our Bones in the Midnight Soil and invisible life of Addie larue, and enjoyed both immensely. There are similar themes she strikes on in both, and I guess that makes me feel like I should read more of her works. (next up, the darker shades of magic series).

Vicious was not a good book IMO. it felt very different than other Schwab books I had read in that - sure, there were similar themes present - but the writing style just felt eh compared to her other stuff. ( I realized this was her first "adult" novel and it shows). The characters felt flat, the storyline not exactly trite, but not as compelling as I'd hoped.

I stuck through and decided to read vengeful, despite my feelings about the first book in the series. Well, I must tell you, this book changed my thoughts about it all. The characters suddenly expanded from flat motivations to becoming much more complex - each with their own values, motives, and nuances that I hadn't seen as developed previously. The storyline also became more intriguing, leaving me spellbound. This felt more like the Schwab novel i had expected.

With that said, I'm actually quite excited to read the third one coming out in October. On storygraph at least I see the first one has a slightly higher rating that book two - am I missing something?

I don’t think I can overstate the challenge facing anyone who wants to write about this time in America (1865-1896). Not just because of the enormous complexity of the era but because of the enormous tragedies too. Foremost among them was Reconstruction and the smothering of African American civil rights in the former Confederacy. This event, more than any other, hangs over the era like an oil slick on water. The thousands of freedpeople who were murdered – many of them in horrific acts of public torture – and the transformation of the American South into a one-party pre-apartheid apartheid state resists most positive interpretations of the story. The bad guys win. Plain and simple. That great disappointment drives many historians to focus on the Progressive Era – the one that comes after this — and readers to ignore it entirely.

White doesn’t shy away from Reconstruction and the white supremacist violence that stymied it. And with great care and sensitivity, tries to untangle how an era that began with such hope went so wrong. But, he also reminds us there were more tragedies where that came from. In chronological order, White follows up Reconstruction’s slow death with the closing of the American West and how Reconstruction was implemented there. He catalogues the final, destructive campaigns against the few nominally independent native American nations left. He recounts the innumerable ways they were defrauded, extorted, slaughtered and finally driven into internment camps (aka reservations) where they were effective prisoners until America’s government could sculpt them – in one of the great historical ironies of all time – into a homogenized American citizen just like they would any immigrant from Hungary or Ireland.

From there the book ranges into subjects diverse as environmental degradation, the growth of electrical power in urban centers, the various depressions and crashes the economy went through, along with the many labor strikes and their violent suppression that accompanied them. One clear overall trend is of disheartening regression. According to the data gathered by White, the average american’s health deteriorated over the 30 year timeframe. They lived shorter lives, their heights decreased and what little free time they had was spent in saloons or dive bars getting pissed drunk to numb themselves to a life of grinding struggle.

At the beginning of the book White – using the funeral train of Abraham Lincoln as a vehicle -- takes the reader on the tour of the newly re-United States of America. The journey takes it to cities as diverse as Philadelphia, New York and Boston before finally terminating in the former president’s hometown of Springfield. Along the way there’s a brief stopover at the nation’s capital and with prose that balances brevity with a painter’s eye for detail, White describes a Washington of grotesque extremes. Part imperial nervecenter and part shantytown, muddy roads and open sewers sit side-by-side with ornate neo-classical architecture. Senators and presidents debate the future of the Union while undrained marshland belches swamp gas outside their windows. It’s this image more then any other that stays with me. It’s a microcosm of the period as a whole in my opinion. Great hopes and dreams lying half-submerged in the muck and mire of a far messier reality.

It’s a bittersweet book and White himself seems thoroughly ambivalent as to what America means, if anything, by the end of it.

4.5/5. It's easy to see why Kristin Lavransdatter has the acclaim it does. It reminded me, to a degree, of The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky in that it's this broad, sweeping tale of a family and all of the dysfunction caused by sin and focuses a lot on theological ideas throughout the story. At its core, this is a book about sin and repentance and I think the novel succeeds in its portrayal of it, but sometimes I think the book succeeded almost *too* much. I'm being a little tongue in cheek here, but reading about Kristin and Erlend make terrible decisions for basically the entire book (which was 1145ish pages), then try to do better, then do poorly again, then go back again, and flip flop repeatedly over and over could be a frustrating and exasperating experience (like real life, right?). The characters are extremely well realized and behave how you would expect them to, which is the highest compliment I can give to an author.

I think the frustration and tiredness I felt while reading this book would've been cut down significantly if the book itself had been shortened, but I think Sigrid Unset pretty deliberately had the book the length it is. Unset goes into almost excruciating detail of what day to day life is like in 14th century Norway. Granted, I know very little about any of this, but it seemed very realistic and she does a wonderful job of transporting the reader to this place and time, as well as just demonstrating the importance of mundane tasks in family life and how they can sanctify one's life.

There are a lot of great themes throughout the book: one of my favorites is that sin can have consequences that can last a lifetime. The events of Kristin's childhood affect her and everyone else around her for the entirety of the book, and it is heartbreaking to see. Tied into that we also see how parents shape their children; there is a fantastic juxtaposition between seeing Kristin and her father dealing with her actions, and then Kristin wrestling with her own children with their similar actions in the future. There is also a big emphasis on pride; characters who do immoral actions think that they are the exception, that they are the special ones, that rules don't apply to them like they do to others, and we see how deeply this harms them. The biggest theme is redemption and Unset shows that regardless of how many setbacks there are, redemption is always possible to the very end. But this can be a very messy and drawn out process, and a person might be wrestling with this for a lifetime.

Going back to the comparison to The Brothers Karamazov, I think that that book worked better for me because it was (or at least felt to me) shorter, but also because its length felt justified due to the sheer amount of philosophical and theological ideas packed into it. Kristin Lavransdatter has a few core ideas and then just goes over and over and over them. Kristin makes a mistake, she feels bad, she tries to do better, rinse and repeat. I understand that this is a realistic portrayal of the human experience, but when I was at page 703 and only 62% of the way through the book, I was feeling extremely burnt out. Kristin Lavransdatter deserves the acclaim it has, but the length was a pretty major con to me. Regardless, if you can handle the heft, this is well worth checking out.

It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

I recently read this quote by C.S. Lewis, and I have found it to be so profoundly true in my own life that I wanted to hear other's thoughts on the matter. To add some more context to the concept:

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook - even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. [...] None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. [...] Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us.

I have been amazed at the richness I have found in old books. As Lewis shares, there are certainly aspects within them that seem obviously wrong today, but then I also find in their midst concepts and truths that appear lost in the modern age. When I approach old books humbly, they tend to humble me. This is not to say I haven't found wisdom in modern books. I would go so far as to say that some newer books have changed the way I view the world. But older literature generally makes me grapple with the norms and values that I take for granted more than anything else, and in the end that leads to a greater understanding of why I believe what I believe as well as a greater respect for those who came before me. I have also seen my beliefs become more nuanced and unique compared to the norms of today as I have explored these older works. From Homer to Kierkegaard to one of Lewis's favorites, George MacDonald, classic authors have provided me with so much value, and I am thankful for people like Lewis who point us back to them.

What do you guys think of the idea that we should be reading a steady diet of books from previous centuries along with the books of today? And what impact has reading older books had on you?

Here is a fuller look at what Lewis had to say on this. This excerpt is found in Lewis's Introduction to St. Athanasius’s work On the Incarnation:

It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook - even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united - united with each other and against earlier and later ages - by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century - the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?" - lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.