some people read an awful lot, but don't read very well. deep reading is itself a skill. being able to untangle the threads of theme, subtext, characterization, narrative style, and more are all things that it takes time and intentional engagement to learn.
if you've ever watched a movie with your film buff friend and chatted about it afterwards, that friend might have pulled hours more of conversation out of the same 90 minutes of screentime, and wondered how the fuck they did that - it's not raw intelligence, it's a skill that's been honed. And I learned a lot about film from talking to friends who knew about film, and reading critique by film scholars
literature works exactly the same. so if you want to get more out of your reading, there are things you can do to train that.
Find a book or short story you think you've got a pretty good grasp on, preferably from a widely read & respected author like Ursula K Le Guin or Ray Bradbury (if you're new at this don't swing for the Toni Morrison or the Samuel Beckett yet unless you feel very comfortable with the complexity of the text - the point is to develop a complicated new skill on good foundations). Then go to JSTOR, create a free account, and look up criticism on the story you've chosen. Find something that looks readable to you and at least somewhat interesting. Read that article, and look at what that writer got out of the same story you've read that you didn't get. Do you see the critic's points? Did they teach you something about the text? Go reread that story and see if the criticism has changed how you read it. Are you seeing more? Are you thinking about the implications of a line that you hadn't noticed before? Does the story feel richer now?
there are other more involved ways of finding criticism. Learning to use academic databases, going to your local library to do interlibrary loans, finding critical voices you appreciate; these are all useful subskills. Literacy isn't just being able to read words, it's being able to read words in context and think about what they tell you about the text, the author, or the time and culture in which the text was produced. Literacy is the skill of being able to look at the world with open eyes and think clearly about how its parts are connected. It'll change your life
this keeps getting shared around and ive seen some different tags responding differently so i just want to make some important clarifications and distillations
you don't have to read more deeply if you don't want to (but i'd recommend it, i genuinely think it makes you a better person)
if you want to learn to read more deeply, the resources are out there. try to find critical literature (that is, academic writing that analyzes the text) on works your familiar with so you can get a sense for how to do that analysis too
learning to deep read literature can help you deep read many areas of your life
writers tend to put a lot of work into their stories. if you learn to read that work you'll (probably) appreciate the stories you love even more. And if not, then you'll have developed your taste. This too is worth doing
my best tip for anyone trying to get back into reading is to remember that you can read books to avoid other responsibilities in ur life and it can become a vice if you play your cards right
Summary: Forced by her stepmother to attend a ball, Kate meets a prince... and decides he's anything but charming. A clash of wits and wills ensues, but they both know their irresistible attraction will lead nowhere. For Gabriel is promised to another woman—a princess whose hand in marriage will fulfill his ruthless ambitions.
Gabriel likes his fiancee, which is a welcome turn of events, but he doesn't love her. Obviously, he should be wooing his bride-to-be, not the witty, impoverished beauty who refuses to fawn over him.
Godmothers and glass slippers notwithstanding, this is one fairy tale in which destiny conspires to destroy any chance that Kate and Gabriel might have a happily ever after.
Unless a prince throws away everything that makes him noble...
Unless a dowry of an unruly heart trumps a fortune...
Unless one kiss at the stroke of midnight changes everything.
***Full review below.***
CONTENT WARNINGS: references to suicide and sexual assault, explicit sexual content
OVERVIEW: I was interested in exploring historical romances that did fairy telling romances that weren't Beauty and the Beast. My search led me to this series, but rather than skip to the retellings I wanted, I figured I'd just read them all in order. The first is a Cinderella retelling, and while it was just fine as a typical romance, as a retelling, it didn't quite dazzle. Still, there were things I liked, so overall, this gets a middle-ish rating from me.
WRITING: James's prose is about what you would expect of the genre. This isn't me knocking it - rather, I'm noting that the prose is quick, easy to get through, and goes straight to the point. Romance readers will thus find it familiar, and wiring to meet audience expectations is not a bad thing.
PLOT: The plot of this book follows Kate, a 23-year-old daughter of a lord who has been relegated to the role of a servant after her father's death. Kate's stepsister, Victoria, is engaged to a man named Algernon, but if order for them to marry, they must obtain approval from Algernon's uncle - the imposing Prince Gabriel. The prince is hosting a ball to announce his own engagement, so it is the perfect time to cozy up to him; unfortunately, Victoria develops a skin infection and cannot go. Kate is roped in by her stepmother to pretend to be Victoria and go charm the prince in her stead, but things get complicated when she and the prince start catching feelings for each other.
Ignoring the fairy tale stuff, the general plot works fine as a romance. I think the stakes were high enough and I enjoyed the banter between Kate and Gabriel. There was also some exploration of whether duty or personal desire was more important, so I appreciated that bit of nuance.
As a fairy tale retelling, however, it felt perfunctory. Kate being a (temporarily impoverished) lord's daughter was fine, but I just personally have little patience for Cinderella figures actually being secretly rich. It strips the nuance away from portrayal of class and focuses instead on individual slights, which was the case here. The glass slippers were also awkwardly forced in and the ball was less dramatic than I think it could have been. The most redeeming aspect was Kate's godmother, who was fun to watch and who did some work to steer Kate in the right direction.
CHARACTERS: Kate, our heroine, was fine but I had some subjective gripes with her inner thought processes. Kate claims to care a lot for her family's tenants and servants, but as the book went on, it was clear that she thought of herself as separate from them. We don't get any meaningful look at the working class, and Kate doesn't really give a good explanation of why she felt she couldn't abandon them before but decides it's ok to do so later.
The same can be said of Gabriel, the Prince, who must marry for money to keep his employees and tenants fed. Gabriel is also someone who is presented as caring for the lower classes - he even has an interest in archeology, particularly artifacts that shed light on everyday people's lives (rather than kings). However, he is clearly held apart from the lower classes. His excuse is a little better than Kate's: his title means that he can't really escape expectations and responsibilities. Still, it was frustrating to see two characters introduced as working class champions only to have rich people problems eclipse their supposed desires.
Supporting characters were fun. I liked Henry, Kate's godmother, who has been married 3 times and cares not for propriety (to a point). I enjoyed the way she acts to secure a future that Kate wants and offers love and praise to make up for the years it was withheld. I also enjoyed Victoria, Kate's stepsister, and Effie, a "rival" at the prince's festivities. It would have been easy to make both characters vain and competitive, but James is good at making them sympathetic. I do think the book was a little hard on Mariana, Kate's stepmother. I'm fine with portrayals of an evil stepmother, but Kate (or James herself?) largely condemns her for things that Kate and/or Henry and/or Victoria do, so it felt hypocritical.
ROMANCE: The romance between Kate and Gabriel was fun. I liked that a lot of it focused on authenticity, with both characters feeling like the other gives them a reprieve from the roles they have to play to the outside world. Their banter was playful and witty, and I enjoyed the barbs that Kate slung. At times, Gabriel could get a little too alpha male for my tastes, but it wasn't as bad as many many other romances.
I do wish James had incorporated more of the Cinderella story to make things more complicated. Gabriel figures out almost rifgt away that Kate isn't Victoria, so they share a secret in a sense. While I did like that this gives them some shared intimacy, I also think that if Gabriel didn't actually know who Kate was, more of the Cinderella stuff would feel applicable and the ethics of falling in love (which might mess up both character's plans) would be more problematic.
TL;DR: A Kiss at Midnight is a fine historical romance with a heroine that doesn't let a prince's title dazzle her. The fairy tale elements did feel uneven, however, and the focus on wealth was just something I personally have much sympathy for.
Our Numbered Bones. By Katya Balen. Harper Via, 2026.
Rating: 4/5 stars
Genre: literary fiction
Series: N/A
Summary: This is the story of Anna, a writer struggling with life and death. She escapes to the salt marshes to try to write, remember, forget. Whilst she is there, the body of an ancient bog woman is unearthed in the mud. The discovery lays Anna bare. She and this woman from thousands of years ago are linked, through trauma and bodies and men and loss. As the archaeologists gently uncover the woman, Anna too finds her layers being peeled back and examined. She is forced to confront the root of her grief, and in doing so try to find peace in her past, present, and future.
***Full review below.***
CONTENT WARNINGS: grief, suicidal ideation, blood, injury detail, stillbirth/death of a child
OVERVIEW: I picked this book up at random during an independent bookstore sale. I'm always up for stories about bog bodies and archeology, so I bought this book hoping for the best. Fortunately, I thought this book was worth my time. Though I sometimes struggled with the writing style, I think the character work and exploration of grief was well-executed.
WRITING: Balen's prose is almost stream-of-consciousness. Sentences are short and choppy and are mostly fragments. Some paragraphs are longer while others are run-on, standalones. The chapter endings contain passages that I think are supposed to be poetry.
I don't think this is an objectively bad style - it just isn't one I personally enjoy. Too many short sentences make the pace feel both robotic and rushed, and the poetry had meaningless rhythm and line breaks. I prefer prose that is more sustained and melodic.
PLOT: The plot of this book follows Anna, a thirty-something year old novelist with writers block on account of profound grief. To help her get back to writing, Anna goes on a retreat, occupying a cottage near a bog. One day, a body is found, and as Anna becomes more fascinated with the body and the archeologists who arrive to study it, Anna starts untangling her own emotions.
The overall plot is fairly simple and not a lot happens. But I think trying to pack more in would have hurt the book. This story is focused on Anna and her grief, and though there are some highs and lows with how she interacts with people, everything is in service to exploring her emotions.
I like the way Balen uses the bog body and the archeological dig as a prompt for self-reflection. Anna feels a connection to the body, thinking of the person it must have been and how death has changed her. The book also spends some time thinking about various topics such as violence, women's suffering, and the ethics of digging up corpses, even for science. As a result, I felt like Balen really humanizes the bog body and strikes a good balance between thinking of it as a person without letting the overshadow Anna's arc.
CHARACTERS: Anna, our narrator and protagonist, is hard not to feel something for. Her grief is overwhelming and oozes through each page; it's messy and imperfect and selfish at times, so I felt like Balen did a good job making it feel debilitating. Overall, Balen's character study was moving, and I appreciated the way the book traced a thread between Anna and the past.
Supporting characters are complex enough without stealing attention away from Anna's story. I felt for Anna's husband, JP; while drowning in his own grief, he tries so hard to be there for Anna and she pushes him away. I also liked the friendship Anna strikes yp with the archeologists, especially one named Jen. Jen was great at seeing the bog body as a person but she really became a favorite when she prioritizes Anna's well-being over her own fame and career. The other archeologists were fine; they didn't have a whole lot of screen time, but it was enough.
TL;DR: Our Numbered Bones is a moving exploration of grief and does a wonderful job humanizing people from the past. While I personally didn't enjoy the writing style, I was moved by the story and characters.
We made this for an event with the Writers' Guild of Alberta to fight the book bans in our province. Feel free to use it, and if you want to fill in the "support a trans author" square, consider becoming a paid patron of Making Queer History!
With the rise of bad reading comprehension and anti-intellectuslism, I figured I'd post some of the things I think about when reviewing a book. My goal is to help others think about books more deeply than just "I liked it" or "this sucked." No pressure - this is all just for reference if desired. It's also non-exhaustive, so please add more questions when you do this on your own!
Also, I must clarify: this is different than how I would evaluate a book for, say, an academic article/literary analysis. If people want to know about that, just ask!
Also: Evaluating books is subjective. Most of the things below have no "correct" answer, so please don't think I'm trying to lay out "the correct way" to review a book.
In no particular order:
Big Picture: What does the blurb/marketing say this book is about? Does it match what the book is actually about? What is the overall goal of the book? What was the author trying to do vs what does the book actually do? How can you tell? Is the book supposed to have a "message" or is it supposed to be pure entertainment? Does it have a moral? Does it need one? Is this author inspired by other pieces of media? How does the author transform that inspiration into something theirs (or not)? Read any author's notes - does the book meet the goals they set out for themselves?
Genre: What genre is the book? Does the book adhere to or sunvert genre conventions and expectations? When expectations are subverted, does the story do something interesting or does it feel empty? How might adhering to genre expectations actually make the story better? Would fans of a particular genre be disappointed by this book or would they appreciate it? Does the author seem to love the genre or are they trying to "fix it?" Does it seem like the author is widely read in that genre?
Prose: What kind of sentence structure does the author use? Is it varried or repetitive? How descriptive is the prose and do the descriptions make sense? Do the sentences seem to flow together or do they feel robotic and choppy? Does the author use complex verbs? Does the author convey all their ideas clearly? If the prose is unclear, is that the point? Does the author tell more than show? If so, does "telling" serve the story or does it feel shallow? Is there figurative language and is it complex? How atmospheric is the book? Does the pace feel uniform or varied? Does it slow down and speed up in appropriate places? Is the pace maybe meant to be slow (and if so, how does that relate to the contents of the book)? Does the author's writing style feel unique? If not, is that a good thing (given the genre expectations or overall goal)? Does the author use the same words over and over again? Does repetition feel purposeful or irritating? Is the author overexplaining things or leaving enough room for reader to infer things themselves? Does the author use language to establish mood? Does the mood enhance the story/reading experience? Does the author use the story to meditate on certain themes? What conclusions (if any) do they come to about those themes? Are those conclusions simple or complex? If they are simple, do they need to be more complex or are they fine as is?
Plot: How is the plot structured? Is it simple or is it complex? Does that level of simplicity/complexity work or does it feel mishandled? How can you tell? Does it feel like the scenes build on one another or do they feel random? If they feel random, does that serve the story the author is trying to tell? Is the plot relatively linear? If not, how do things like flashbacks, multiple POVs, and/or multiple timelines serve the story? Does the plot meander? Does the meandering enhance the story or does it feel tedious? Does the author build suspense? If there is no suspense, what drives the story? Are there sufficient stakes for the story the author is trying to tell? Does the ending feel earned? Is there some ambiguity and if so, does the ambiguity actually make the story more complex? Are there subplots? Do the subplots feel purposeful or do they feel random? Do any scenes feel like "padding" to make the book longer? Are those "filler" scenes compelling? Do they give the reader/characters moments of rest or do they feel tedious? Is the plot predictable? Is predictability the result of deliberate foreshadowing, genre conventions, or cliche? Conversely, if the book is unpredictable, is that a thrilling experience or a frustrating one?
Characters: Do the characters feel like individuals or do they feel like archetypes? If they are archetypes, does that work well for the genre or for the goals of the book? Do the characters feel three dimensional or flat? Does every character need to be three dimensional? Do characters change over time or are they stagnant? If they are stagnant, does that enhance or detract from the story? Do side characters have their own arcs? Do side characters need their own arcs? Do side characters only exist in the context of the main character(s) or do they feel like people in their own right? Do side characters detract from the main character's arc or enhance it? What motivates the characters to act? Are they motivated by an internal force, external force, or a combination? Are they active or passive? Does being active or passive enhance the plot or is it annoying? What makes the main character compelling? Are they an appropriate choice for the story the author wants to tell?
Content stuff: What potentially triggering things are in this book? How does the author handle them? Is the author endorsing a particular thing or depicting it for other reasons? How can you tell? Does the author seem to have unconscious views or biases that affect how readers interact with the story? How can you tell? Are some triggering things part of genre expectations? Do they make the story more complex/compelling or do they feel inserted for shock value? How can you tell? If for shock value, does that shock enhance the story or make it more exciting? Or does it feel empty? Are upsetting tnings meant to have an emotional effect that enhances the goals of the story? Is the author writing upsetting things based on personal experience? Do they actually need to? Does the book have content warnings? Does the author seem serious about their content warnings or do they treat them as a joke?
Worldbuilding: How does the author depict their world? Are they trying to be "realistic" or are they experimenting more? Do all the elements work together or do they feel haphazardly applied? Is the worldbuilding complex or is there just enough to make the plot work? Does it actually need to be more complex/simplified for the story to work better? What biases inform the way the author structures their world? How does the world affect the story and/or the way we read the book? Is the worldbuilding applied in service to the story or does it seem to distract from it? Do the characters feel like they belong to the world? If not, does that feel purposeful?
Relationships: Do characters interact in ways that feel natural? If not, is that on purpose? Are characters emotionally invested in one another? If not, is that the point? How does the author show that characters care for one another? Is it compelling or trite? Does the author take certain shortcuts to emotional intimacy? Are those shortcuts OK given the genre/context or do they feel like they deprive the story of depth? How might the author be externalizing internal conflict/emotions?
Smut: Are we having a good time? If not, why? What are the power dynamics between the characters? How does that affect the way we read the spicy scenes? Does the author use any stereotypes? If so, how does that affect the way we read the book? Are the spicy scenes unique or cliche? Do they need to be unique for the story to work? What things are being eroticized? Do those things reflect any biases or are they all in good fun? Are we actually meant to find an erotic scene sexy or is there another purpose? How can you tell?
Personal reactions: What are my personal feelings about the book and how are they separate from the things I can observe objectively? If I don't like something, is it due to personal taste (as opposed to something the autnor/book did)? Can I still recognize good things even though I might not like the book? Are my feelings informed by past reading experiences? Am I biased?
A couple things I take as "givens" when I read:
Sex, violence, power imbalances, etc. are not inherently "bad." It all depends on how these things are used.
Depicting something does not automatically mean endorsement of the thing. Sometimes it means the opposite.
Complexity is not the same thing as "good."
Everything should feel purposeful, but "purposeful" is not the same thing as advancing the plot.
Author intentions only matter so much. They can explain writing choices, but they do not take precedence over how a reader feels.
Writing a bad book doesn't automatically make the author a shitty person. Sometimes they're just a shitty writer.
There is probably more, but this is just a start. Hope it helps!
Japanese Gothic. By Kylie Lee Baker. Hanover Square Press, 2026.
Rating: 2.75/5 stars
Genre: historical fiction, horror
Series: N/A
Summary: October, 2026: Lee Turner doesn’t remember how or why he killed his college roommate. The details are blurred and bloody. All he knows is he has to flee New York and go to the one place that might offer refuge—his father’s new home in Japan, a house hidden by sword ferns and wild ginger. But something is terribly wrong with the house: no animals will come near it, the bedroom window isn't always a window, and a woman with a sword appears in the yard when night falls.
October, 1877: Sen is a young samurai in exile, hiding from the imperial soldiers in a house behind the sword ferns. A monster came home from war wearing her father’s face, but Sen would do anything to please him, even turn her sword on her own mother. She knows the soldiers will soon slaughter her whole family when she sees a terrible omen: a young foreign man who appears outside her window.
One of these people is a ghost, and one of these stories is a lie.
Something is hiding beneath the house of sword ferns, and Lee and Sen will soon wish they never unburied it.
***Full review below.***
CONTENT WARNINGS: drug abuse (specifically sleeping aids), bullying, blood, child death, murder, references to sex trafficking, animal death, self harm, suicide, violence, gore
OVERVIEW: I really enjoyed Bat Eater and Other Names for Cora Zheng, so I was excited to read more from this aurhor; but unfortunately, I don't think Japanese Gothic was as well done. I wouldn't say it's Gothic at all, but a kind of historical time travel story mixed with some horror elements. But genre isn't my biggest complaint; not only is the writing less lyrical than the prose in Bat Eater, but I felt like the characters were shallow and the plot was a little too all over the place to feel purposeful and coherent.
PLOT: The plot of this book occurs in two timelines. In the present day, Lee Turner has come to live at his father's house in Japan following the murder of his roommate. Lee doesn't remember killing his roommate, but he flees to Japan to avoid suspicion. Meanwhile, in the same house in 1877, Sen trains with her samurai father, the last survivor of a failed rebellion. One day, both Lee and Sen notice a light coming from their closet doors, and they find that they can communicate with one another across time.
WRITING: Baker's prose is ok in this novel, but I wouldn't say it dazzles. It conveys its ideas just fine, but I ultimately felt it overexplained certain things and could have shown in places where it told. On top of that, there were some descriptions that felt repetitive (like the salty taste of blood) and a pace that seemed to drag at times.
As a side note, the way this book is written made me think it would have worked better as a film rather than a novel. I can't quite put my finger on a reason, but I will say there are a lot of "jump scares" and sudden vision that I think would pack a bigger punch visually as opposed to a prose description.
There were a lot of things I enjoyed in this story. For one, I liked the "time travel" element and the way characters could step into each other's worlds. It was also fun to see them navigate their relationship and try to figure out how they could communicate, and some of the horror imagery was quite memorable and unsettling.
However, there were also some things that I think were poorly handled. For one, the murder of Lee's roommate was relegated to the back burner and honestly could have been taken out altogether. Instead, Lee's preoccupation with the disappearance of his mother could have been the entire focus, and the story would not have been substantially changed.
I also think Baker missed a lot of opportunities for building dread. Without spoiling anything, I will say that the reveal towards the end to explain what happened to Lee's mother was disappointing. We don't see Lee's noticing much that would cause him to start questioning the past, so the reader can't really piece things together with him.
I did really enjoy Sen's storyline, though, and the relationship between Sen and her father. I could very much feel how desperate she was to please him, to feel valued, and I do wish more of that complexity had been explored via the plot points.
The progression of events in the plot also felt a little strange in that scenes didn't seem to build on one another in meaningful ways. The protagonists aren't really unraveling a mystery together or making discoveries that parallel their personal arcs. Things just kind of happen, which means I didn't go through the plot feeling much suspense.
Also, as a minor note, I say this is a "time travel" story only because I feel like that descriptor is more applicable. The plot actually tries to figure itself as a ghost story, but either I'm not understanding something about ghosts in Japanese culture or Baker really dropped the ball because a lot of the "ghostly" things didn't feel so.
CHARACTERS: Lee, our present day protagonist, was kind of interesting in that he was haunted by the disappearance of his mother. I liked his recurrent phobia of the suitcase and how that popped up in some of the errier moments, and I liked that he was considering using the "time travel" of the house to figure out how to reach his mother. I do think, though, that his arc with his roommate was dead weight and much more work could have been done to explore his relationship with his father. Doing so would have made a nice parallel with Sen's story and would have given them something to bond over.
Sen, our 19th century protagonist, was much more interesting, in my opinion. I liked her desperate desire to be seen, especially by her father, who she reveres but is also cruel. Baker does a good job showing us how Sen doesn't feel like she fits in and how her remains with her family members are fraught.
Side characters are ok but I feel like they contributed little. I liked Hina, Lee's dad's girlfriend; she was a caring presence in Lee's life and I liked the way she pairings herself as Lee's protector. However, once we find out who she is, her actions seem a little strange and her sudden exit from the plot feels like an unfinished thread.
Sen's father was well portrayed as a strict and cruel man, adhering to "tradition" in ways that feel harmful rather than honorable. He felt a little more layered in that he was constantly demanding more of Sen but had these glimpses of showing approval. I wish Baker had taken more time to examine their relationship, as it was the most compelling part of the novel for me.
Lee's father was barely a character even though he should have been a bigger player. Sen's family was fine; they were mainly there to exclude Sen and be terrorized by the father, but they didn't distract from Sen's arc, so it was fine.
TL;DR: Japanese Gothic is more of a historical time travel story than a Gothic tale, and though it has some good imagery and a compelling 19th century character, I ultimately thought the plot didn't really unfold in a way that made sense.
Next up someone is going to claim that the Narnia series isn't kids books.
Kids books is probably not the best way to word it, you can enjoy them at every age, including your childhood, as you get older you may find new truths in them, but they're still good for any age.
I want you to understand this. I NEED you to understand this. My mother read me the hobbit as bedtime story, and I started pushing myself to read before pre-school so I could in fact read the hobbit for myself instead of having to wait for bedtime.
I didn't do so right away but jesus wept I PUSHED myself to learn to read SPECIFICALLY so I could read The Hobbit! It is, in fact, a children's story! And children only see page count as 'there is a lot of this fun story to read!'
God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer. By Bart D. Ehrman. Harper One, 2008.
Rating: 4/5 stars
Genre: history, study of the Bible, religious studies
Series: N/A
Summary: In times of questioning and despair, people often quote the Bible to provide answers. Surprisingly, though, the Bible does not have one answer but many "answers" that often contradict one another. Consider these competing explanations for suffering put forth by various biblical writers:
The prophets: suffering is a punishment for sin
The book of Job, which offers two different answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it; and suffering is beyond comprehension, since we are just human beings and God, after all, is God.
Ecclesiastes: suffering is the nature of things, so just accept it.
All apocalyptic texts in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament: God will eventually make right all that is wrong with the world.
For renowned Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, the question of why there is so much suffering in the world is more than a haunting thought. Ehrman's inability to reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of real life led the former pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church to reject Christianity.
In God's Problem, Ehrman discusses his personal anguish upon discovering the Bible's contradictory explanations for suffering and invites all people of faith—or no faith—to confront their deepest questions about how God engages the world and each of us.
***Full review below.***
CONTENT WARNINGS: discussion of the Holocaust (including deaths of children), discussion of war (including injury), discussion of violence against women
I don't think I need to explain myself at this point. If you've been reading my reviews, you know the esteem I hold for Ehrman and his work.
This book is one of his earlier ones, and I think it tackles an interesting problem: why does suffering exist? Each chapter offers a discussion of the Bible's many answers, showing how writers thought of suffering in different ways at different times. The result is a thorough explanation about how there is no one, "right" answer, and that presents a problem for people who want a nice, tidy response.
Interspersed with Ehrman's analysis are a few stories and reflections, most about suffering in history and in his family's lives. They're meant to illustrate how no one answer can make suffering seem "better" - if suffering happens to punish sin, that's insulting to the victims of, say, the Holocaust. If suffering exists because we have free will, then that doesn't explain deaths from natural disasters. Personally, I think it's a much more honest approach to the Bible, to show where it doesn't apply to our own lives and times. And to show where it is imperfect and falls short of what modern day Christians (specifically) want it to be.
My main criticism is that at times, some of this book felt repetitive. Maybe this isn't a problem if you don't read a lot of academic work or if you need some repetition to help you solidify an idea. But personally, I felt like I grasped ideas ok and wanted Ehrman to move on or build on his points more quickly.
TL;DR: Despite some repetition, God's Problem did a good job showing how the Bible's answer to why suffering exists is neither comprehensive nor satisfactory. Rather than feeling like an attack, this book instead portrays the Bible as deeply human.
One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This. By Omar El Akkad. Borzoi, 2025.
Rating: 4.5/5 stars
Genre: memoir
Series: N/A
Summary: On October 25, 2023, after just three weeks of the bombardment of Gaza, Omar El Akkad put out a tweet: "One day, when it's safe, when there's no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it's too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this." This tweet has been viewed more than 10 million times.
As an immigrant who came to the West, El Akkad believed that it promised freedom. A place of justice for all. But in the past twenty years, reporting on the War on Terror, Ferguson, climate change, Black Lives Matter protests, and more, and watching the unmitigated slaughter in Gaza, El Akkad has come to the conclusion that much of what the West promises is a lie. That there will always be entire groups of human beings it has never intended to treat as fully human--not just Arabs or Muslims or immigrants, but whoever falls outside the boundaries of privilege. One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This is a chronicle of that painful realization, a moral grappling with what it means, as a citizen of the U.S., as a father, to carve out some sense of possibility in a time of carnage.
This is El Akkad's nonfiction debut, his most raw and vulnerable work to date, a heartsick breakup letter with the West. It is a brilliant articulation of the same breakup we are watching all over the United States, in family rooms, on college campuses, on city streets; the consequences of this rupture are just beginning. This book is for all the people who want something better than what the West has served up. This is the book for our time.
***Full review below.***
CONTENT WARNINGS: xenophobia/racism, genocide, war, injury detail, child death, death of a parent
This book has been on a bunch of lists pertaining to the politics of the last 5+ years, so I picked it up when it became available at my library.
It's hard to evaluate something that talks about human suffering in so plain and stark of terms; it doesn't feel right to say El Akkad did X well or should have done more about Y. Instead, I think it's fair to say that El Akkad has a message, and that message is delivered in ways that one cannot help but be moved by. The indictments against the West are more than fair, and reading this book prompts us (especially in the United States, but also all countries that have committed atrocities and supported Israel) to look in the mirror and decide what we are going to do when we witness the genocide of Palestinians.
El Akkad accomplishes all this not through facts and statistics and history, but through personal anecdote. The personal nature of the stories means that everything feels more human, and on some level, that heightens the horror. But that's really the point - what's happening in Gaza is nothing short of a moral failure for humanity, and El Akkad wants you to feel it, to be unable to make excuses for looking away.
I think I should caution readers that this book offers no concrete solutions, nor does it look forward with much hope. It would be unfair, I think, to expect that of this book. But I do think it's worth talking about, not so people can avoid confronting the West's moral failure and Palestinian suffering, but because I do think activists need to avoid burning out. Reading this book is an exercise in bearing (small) witness to atrocity, and it's essential that we not fall into such despair that we are unable to fight.
TL;DR: One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This is a powerful indictment against the West, neoliberalism, and the hypocrisy of governments. It offers a deeply personal and human account of Palestinian genocide, calling on us to risk our privileges in order to take a moral stand.
"The America I loved still exists, if not in the White House or the Supreme Court or the Senate or the House of Representatives or the media. The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries."
On Sundays She Picked Flowers. By Yah Yah Scholfield. Saga Press, 2026.
Rating: 4.5/5 stars
Genre: horror, lgbtqia+
Series: N/A
Summary: When Judith Rice fled her childhood home, she thought she’d severed her abusive mother’s hold on her. She didn’t have a plan or destination, just a desperate need to escape. Drawn to the forests of northern Georgia, Jude finds shelter in a house as haunted by its violent history as she is by her own.
Jude embraces the eccentricities of the dilapidated house, soothing its ghosts and haints, honoring its blood-soaked land. And over the next thirteen years, Jude blossoms from her bitter beginnings into a wisewoman, a healer.
But her hard-won peace is threatened when an enigmatic woman shows up on her doorstep. The woman is beautiful but unsettling, captivating but uncanny. Ensnared by her desire for this stranger, Jude is caught off guard by brutal urges suddenly simmering beneath her skin. As the woman stirs up memories of her escape years ago, Jude must confront the calls of violence rooted in her bloodline.
OVERVIEW: I picked this book up on a whim after seeing it on a display at my local indie bookstore. I'm glad I did; this book was much, much better than what I was expecting, and a very impressive debut. Scholfield is a master at delving deep into character interiority and their prose is something to be savored. I can't wait to read more from them.
WRITING: Scholfield's prose is perfectly balanced between showing and telling, and I love the way they structure sentences into something descriptive and melodic. It's clear that Scholfield has an ear for what sounds good, and the visceral, raw language made the story all the more vivid and moving.
PLOT: The plot of this book follows Judith "Jude" Rice, a forty-one year old Black woman who escapes her abusive mother's house in the 1960s and takes refuge in a haunted house in the woods in Georgia. There, she makes a home for herself and meets a mysterious woman named Nemoira, who brings out Jude's best and worst tendencies. Jude thus has to grapple with her growing desire for Nemoira as well as her own past and generational trauma.
This story is largely about Jude's journey and her complex feelings about her family. Scholfield is brilliant at tackling large, oftentimes dark themes and handling them with care and respect, all while maintaining complexity and facing it head on (rather than simplifying or avoiding the difficult questions).
I also liked the atmosphere around all the places where Jude lives - both her mother's house and the house in the woods. Both are haunted in their own ways, and Scholfield makes each feel unique and loaded with history.
Scholfield is also good at writing violence and blood and gore, meaning that none of ot feels senseless and all of it feels emotionally weighted. Parts of this book are hard to read because they are graphic, but never did I feel like Scholfield was doing it for the sake of empty shock. It all felt rooted in the body, which I think played an important role in Jude's journey and how she felt existing in her world.
CHARACTERS: Jude, our protagonist, is interesting and sympathetic and one cannot help but want to follow her. I think this is because Scholfield does such a good job making her feel complex; Jude is a victim but also has violent anger problems of her own. She craves companionship, yet her relationships are all fraught. She knows what was done to her was wrong, but she still loves the people who hurt her. Watching Jude work through all these conflicting feelings made her story compelling, and Jude herself felt grounded and flawed in all the ways I like seeing in characters.
Nemoira, the mysterious woman, was interesting to analyze in relation to Jude. I don't want to say much about her because I don't want to spoil anything in my review, but I really like how Nemoira was used to both get Jude to examine herself and to free Jude from some of her past.
Jude's aunts - Vivian and Phyllis - were also complex and flawed in ways that I think made the exploration of trauma more nuanced.
And lastly, Jude's mother, was simultaneously sympathetic and abusive, continuing a cycle of violence and trauma. I appreciated the way her story was handled, and by the end, I thought the way she was viewed by Jude her aunts was more meaningful than simply condemning her.
TL;DR: On Sundays She Picked Flowers is a powerful tale about abuse, generational trauma, and finding connection amidst it all. Scholfield's prose is atmospheric and perfectly balanced, giving her characters depth and complexity that is both unsettling and satisfying.
the idea that a sex scene in fiction is fundamentally useless/simply for audience titillation UNLESS they’re fucking infodumping exposition while they bone or something is so funny and myopic to me. like, you really genuinely believe for real that there is NOTHING to be gained about your understanding of a story or characters simply from how they approach and engage in sex? really for real?
ellievsbear
discoholicmusic
izzy806
vaporwave
snowghoul
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
