r/books

I’ve been seeing this book everywhere lately and I’m really on the fence about picking it up. I loved her memoir, but I've heard such mixed things about this one, some people say the writing is raw and honest, while others think it’s a bit too much or tries too hard to be edgy. I usually like books that don't sugarcoat things, but I don't want to waste my time if the plot doesn't actually go anywhere.

For those of you who have read it, did you actually enjoy the story or was it just the hype that kept you going? Would you recommend buying it now or should I just wait for the paperback?

I enjoy reading but I have a problem where I fall asleep if I read for more than 30 mins. I can feel my eyelids close and I then need to nap. This happens during the day so it’s not a night time thing. I’ve been consistently getting 8 hours sleep so I don’t think it’s because of that. I am really into the books I’m reading so it’s not from boredom. It’s annoying because I would love to spend a Saturday reading, but if I try and do that I feel like I’m wasting the day napping. I can watch TV or scroll on my phone without any sleepiness. It’s not narcolepsy. It only happens when I read. I have ADHD which may be part of it, but I’m medicated. I usually read on my kobo. Any advice appreciated!

There's been a lot of articles and posts lately about the decline of mass market paperbacks. I've definitely read my fair share of books in this format (like most of us I bet). I'm not very sentimental about the format's decline. I like them, but I have developed vision problems that make pretty much any other format/sizing easier to read. That said, I still find myself reading them under an enlarger because of the shear volume of stuff produced in this format. And I think they are sort of fascinating reflections of popular genres. I could be wrong, but I associate the popularity of genres with the paperbacks I see on thrift store or used bookstore shelves. 50s/60s: mysteries, westerns, and sci fi. 70s: spy fiction and horror. 80s: romance, fantasy. 90s: military and legal thrillers.

These genres are always popular, but I associate them with these decades mostly because of the paperbacks I've been looking through all my life. Often the work was produced with an eye towards marketability, but there's a lot of craft and fun to be found. BUT THERE'S JUST SO MUCH OF IT. Do you all have any little known books that you've found randomly and really liked? The sort of stuff that probably won't wind up on a syllabus; by authors who probably wrote one of these a year? Particularly I'm interested in Westerns because I've never really been able to get into them but they were massively popular. I mean the Louis L'amour tier stuff, not like Lonesome Dove. With so many written for so many decades... there's gotta be a few really good ones right?

Recently I’ve taken up reading at a cafe for a few hours every weekend. While typically I’ve only ever had one non fiction and one fiction book going at once, I decided to read Crime and Punishment exclusively at the cafe.

And while that turned out to be a very good choice, it did take me a hell of a lot of time to read, since it was my cafe book.

I’d like to stick to my sort of “penguin classic” theme I set for myself with my first book, so does anyone have a good one? Some vaunted book, something truly considered to be *literature*.

To those who are looking to do something similar, I’d recommend short stories. If I hadn’t just completed a read through of Poe and Lovecraft for Halloween the past two years, I’d recommend reading their works. Nice short stories, and reading Poe is genuinely rather rewarding. One of my all time faves.

I’d also recommend getting a nice thick Sherlock Holmes book, I think there are a few different imprints that do collections to Sherlock Holmes books. Agatha Christie gets an honorable mention here (although tbh I think her books shouldn’t be set aside for a leisurely weekend read, I typically can’t put those down!)

Let me know what you all think makes for a good “cafe book”! I’m interested to see what you guys would pick.

It is rare that Salter is ever mentioned on this sub and I wondered what the consensus is. To me, he is one of the greatest American writers of the twentieth century. I find his prose to be gorgeous and very moreish when reading. Richard Ford once declared that he “writes American sentences better than anyone”. He was a master novelist and was possibly even better at short stories.

I met the man at a reading a few years before he died and he blew me away with his sharpness and speed of thought. He was nearly 90 at the time and I feel privileged to have shake his hand. To me he is a quintessential American author, someone I would put up with Cormac McCarthy and Hemingway.

Anyway, opinions?

I want to outright state that I don’t hate this novel. There are books that are bigger hypocrites, books that made me far angrier, books that are just worse. Notes on an Execution still is disappointing, it still doesn’t fully deliver when it comes to its themes, but it’s at least a 2.75/5 for me. So, in the “okayyyy” range with regards to how I felt!

But I sure have a lot I’d love to discuss…

Undermining its own central plot and themes

I understand that Ansel is the focus here. However, the central premise of the book is to be something that “de-centers the serial killer,” and that’s just blatantly not showcased. It wants to be this feminist reframing of a genre, and it doesn’t fail at that in EVERY way, but that goal is for sure constantly undercut by the actual structure and narrative.

Ansel remains the center of the novel. He is at the forefront of all of these women’s lives. He is one of (if not THE) primary thoughts in their heads. Every woman in this novel is defined by him. Lavender’s life is his prelude, Jenny’s life is a reaction, Saffy’s life is consumed by him, etc. We are told that they all have their own lives, but when do we really ever see that beyond being told about the twins’ childhood? I think they were perhaps the only characters to receive at least an attempt at a life that doesn’t revolve around Ansel (at least, out of the POV characters), but is that good enough?

The philosophical core of the novel

I can show some leniency here because we are meant to sort of roll our eyes at Ansel’s thesis and his manifesto. But we’re also meant to take it to heart since it ends up being one of the central themes. I’m reminded of the concept of “timshel” in East of Eden. “Thou mayest.” We all have a choice. Sin lives within all of us, but it’s up to us to decide how to act. I’m not sure how I feel about the narrative acting as though Ansel’s thesis is a revelation. Does the text genuinely believe that this idea is his own unique invention? Are we meant to roll our eyes at him? Surely we are meant to believe to some extent that it is a new concept, otherwise how would he have been able to even pursue it academically to that extent? Would the other characters not have heard of this broad concept? It is not inherently poor writing for Ansel to feel this way and believe it is unique, but its delivery in the novel feels a little naive.

I think also that particular theme isn’t even explored well here. We are told again and again that Ansel chose his path, but I can’t help but feel that his agency is severely undermined. The women in this novel constantly reflect on their own choices and how they shaped Ansel. Yes, that’s only natural. Yes, our environments impacts us and the choices we make. However, the book primarily has the women ask “what if scenarios?” about how Ansel would have changed based on their actions. In a way, it feels like the book is blaming these women. What if I hadn’t exposed him, what if I hadn’t abandoned him, what if I had reached out sooner… Again, natural questions to ask. Especially when delving into the psyche of a killer. BUT ! This is meant to be a feminist take that focuses on the male serial killer’s own actions. So why does it almost suggest that the women are to blame? After all, other characters who had similar childhoods turned out great! (I’m being sarcastic). Ansel enjoys asking the what if questions too, but it’s usually never regarding his own actions. It’s more so just imagining a different world, so in a sense it feels like he’s partially absolved of responsibility.

Side note about environments

I think this book does not discuss the importance of setting enough. Setting in a novel is another character; it’s another factor that impacts and shapes characters deeply. Maybe I’m just biased from having recently read books like East of Eden, Grotesque and Wuthering Heights where this is a concept that is key, but I can’t help but feel like surely the setting is important too? What was Ansel’s environment? Beyond his parental situation. How did that impact him, how did it impact other characters? The purpose of Notes on an Execution is in part to go into the inner psyche of the killer and the women in his life. Why not touch more upon their physical environments? They are mentioned, but it feels like just as minor set dressing. Not as something that impacts the characters.

Problematic gender politics

Moving on. For a feminist novel, this sure likes to rely on bio-essentialism and problematic gender politics. It could be worse. But yikes.

Saffy comments on how women have “an ask for suffering. It was the scariest thing about being a woman. It was hard wired.” Hard wired?? I could see this book making the argument that it is only “hard wired” into women to be submissive and desire suffering due to society and the patriarchy. But that’s not really the context of this quote at all. It seems to imply that it’s a desire from birth. I recently read Grotesque by Natsuo Kirino, and that book follows many similar concepts of women having been murdered, following the POV of the sister of one of them, the POV of the killer, and of some other characters. I find that novel to be far more effective, especially in its feminist themes. It too looks at the way in which women may have internal beliefs about themselves and their worth that are harmful. It does so without relying on “this is just how women all are meant to be,” instead it delves into the society that made a woman this way. A society we don’t learn much about in Notes on an Execution (perhaps only touched upon by the misogyny Saffy faces at her job, or the abuse Lavender experiences…but these are never shown in a light that relates them to this quote.).

Regarding other weird bio-essentialism takes, this quote stands out: “there was nothing like the love you had for your own child. It was biological. Evolutionary.” It feels odd for a novel in which so many characters were in foster care to suggest that the love a parent feels for a child they bore is stronger than the love they may feel for one they adopted. Is that a lesser love according to this novel? Is DNA the end all be all? A lot in this book seems to suggest that DNA is the strongest bond, something even evidenced by Blue. It’s a bit of a narrow take in a story that wants to explore complex human connections.

Miscellaneous

I have some other minor issues too, mainly regarding the overwriting. There are too many flowery metaphors for my taste, ones that often do not improve my reading experience. It sort of contributes to the performative feeling in general.

I also don’t really enjoy the graphicness of the sex scenes. Of course, they aren’t full on “smut book” levels, but we don’t need the details of Ansel grabbing the breasts of the woman he’s with and how they feel. This feels less like an exploration of power and more like stepping into the voyeurism that the book aims to critique. It wasn’t a massive part of the book, but it was enough to make me raise my eyebrows.

I’ll end my review with just a moment of irony. Perhaps this was meant to be ironic in some way, perhaps not. There’s a moment in which a character cites her vote for Obama as evidence of her inherent goodness. Even though I understand why this was mentioned, it still made me laugh. It’s almost like a gesture toward moral complexity that the book isn’t actually interested in exploring. It is a gesture of self-congratulatory morality. “I made the better vote, therefore I’m a good person.” The more complicated realities are ignored. Maybe it was the “better vote,” but it’s almost like performative virtue signaling in a book that itself is performing depth that it cannot maintain.

(edit: grammatical mistakes)

Welcome to our weekly recommendation thread! A few years ago now the mod team decided to condense the many "suggest some books" threads into one big mega-thread, in order to consolidate the subreddit and diversify the front page a little. Since then, we have removed suggestion threads and directed their posters to this thread instead. This tradition continues, so let's jump right in!

The Rules

• Every comment in reply to this self-post must be a request for suggestions.

• All suggestions made in this thread must be direct replies to other people's requests. Do not post suggestions in reply to this self-post.

• All unrelated comments will be deleted in the interest of cleanliness.

---

How to get the best recommendations

The most successful recommendation requests include a description of the kind of book being sought. This might be a particular kind of protagonist, setting, plot, atmosphere, theme, or subject matter. You may be looking for something similar to another book (or film, TV show, game, etc), and examples are great! Just be sure to explain what you liked about them too. Other helpful things to think about are genre, length and reading level.

---

All Weekly Recommendation Threads are linked below the header throughout the week to guarantee that this thread remains active day-to-day. For those bursting with books that you are hungry to suggest, we've set the suggested sort to new; you may need to set this manually if your app or settings ignores suggested sort.

If this thread has not slaked your desire for tasty book suggestions, we propose that you head on over to the aptly named subreddit /r/suggestmeabook.

• The Management

The book just dropped out of my hands.

I read HTL first and right at the end you learn the narrator is called Casey. Well goddamn, that's not even her name. Really that's all I came to say. I think as more people work out that W&L is also part of the story of Casey, they will have a WTF moment like I just did

Some time ago, I read a chapter of a book on scientific methodology within social sciences. In the first chapter, they discuss the reading and organization of text – whether in notes, summaries, or other ways of dissecting the text –, regarding the reading of the text, they talk about the reader's behavior; one of these aspects that most hinders me during reading is attention. Other issues, such as identifying a main point in the author's text – for composing summaries –, which is demonstrated, according to them, through a trail of argumentation left by the author, as the author argues to support the logical sentence that follows from such arguments or the reverse, is something I can already visualize in texts. Now, about attention, this is basic to have in textual reading. How could I ascertain the author's main point without reading with attention; that reading that is mixed with diverse daydreaming away from the book's pressing issues? I'd like to know if there's any practice you have to stay focused on reading.