What are you reading in 2025?

[Ralif Redhammer]

Every so often I like to go back and read some classic fiction. Just about done with this one, and it was an enjoyable short read
View attachment 411702

The Incompleat Enchanter is a fun read. It's swashbuckly, witty, and light. But it also shows an understanding of a variety of folklore and tales. And hey, how many fantasy stories star a psychologist?

 

[Sacrosanct]

The Incompleat Enchanter is a fun read. It's swashbuckly, witty, and light. But it also shows an understanding of a variety of folklore and tales. And hey, how many fantasy stories star a psychologist?

One thing I like about those books from the 60s and 70s is that they are less than 200 pages typically. It makes a quick read. A great option if you want to read a book quickly

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Eh. At least Lin's stuff has something resembling pacing and a plot. To me that's the only real mark of a good writer. Writing the most beautiful sentences known to humanity is irrelevant if the story isn't engaging enough on its own to keep the reader awake.

I guess the thousands and thousands of ”books” in the Harlequin romance series are right up your alley then, and the AI-written future of literature looks bright!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I guess the thousands and thousands of ”books” in the Harlequin romance series are right up your alley then, and the AI-written future of literature looks bright!

Are they not books because you don't like the content?

 

[overgeeked]

Are they not books because you don't like the content?

You might be surprised just how common that attitude is. Or you might not.

This is one of the major reasons I despise the pretension of academia and so-called critics of literature, film, art, etc. It always comes from a place of snobby elitism and a need to look down one's nose at others rather than an actual love of books and literature. Henry Miller and Anaïs Nin wrote out-and-out smut, yet they're considered literary darlings by most. Such a weird double standard.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Henry Miller and Anaïs Nin wrote out-and-out smut, yet they're considered literary darlings by most.

Well, sure. They used semicolons. You can't be literature without semicolons.

 

[Alzrius]

You might be surprised just how common that attitude is. Or you might not.

This is one of the major reasons I despise the pretension of academia and so-called critics of literature, film, art, etc. It always comes from a place of snobby elitism and a need to look down one's nose at others rather than an actual love of books and literature. Henry Miller and Anaïs Nin wrote out-and-out smut, yet they're considered literary darlings by most. Such a weird double standard.

To quote something I heard/read somewhere sometime:

"The public wants critics to tell them what's good. Critics want to tell the public what 'good' means."

 

[Retros_x]

"The public wants critics to tell them what's good. Critics want to tell the public what 'good' means."

Which is the reason why it is stupid to just look at review scores. If you want to rely on reviews by critics its so important to actually read those reviews to know the reasons, WHY they think something was good or bad, what their definition of good is and if its different of what you like. Even better when you have a "rooster of critics" in your feed from them you know that you can actually assert based on their reviews if you want to buy something or not.

I experienced multiple times that I loved a book/movie/game that had mediocre reviews overall or a bad metacriticscore/goodreads avg., but I bought it because a good review pointed out why they liked or disliked it about it and it aligned with me - or not. I also had moments liked "Oh he hates the slow burn pacing of that character-focuses crime drama, but I actually love those so I might give it a chance" - Their review was like 3/5, but for me the review was a recommendation to buy.

 

[Richards]

Several posters have recently commented on their having reread favorite books, and it got me to thinking about what book I had read the most times.

It isn't even close. I have no doubt read The Monster at the End of This Book (Starring Lovable, Furry Old Grover) literally hundreds of times. First to my younger brother, then five years later to my younger sister (sometimes multiple times in one sitting). Then, when I was married and had kids of my own, to my two sons, and soon after to my step-granddaughter, who we raised for four years while her mom went through a nasty divorce and got back on her feet. Then, some 20 years later, once my nephew became a part of my immediate family, to him and eventually to the kids in his preschool. (And then I was asked to return for the afternoon sessions.) I even wore a dark blue shirt, dark blue jeans, and a red foam ball on my nose when reading to the preschoolers, and I added the sequel, Another Monster at the End of This Book (Starring Lovable, Furry Old Grover and Equally Lovable, Furry Little Elmo) to the mix, imitating the Grover and Elmo voices. (That startled the preschool teachers the first time I did it.)

I'm sure once my boys start having kids of their own, I'll be adding to the "times read" tally. But I don't think I'll ever break my record with any other book.

Johnathan

 

[Nellisir]

I guess the thousands and thousands of ”books” in the Harlequin romance series are right up your alley then, and the AI-written future of literature looks bright!

That's...certainly a take.