r/literature

Currently reading a trending novel, in 1st-person past tense, which is super conventional.

Usually though, while technically past tense ("I swung my sword and struck the monster's hand aloft"), most narration places you in the active moments of events unfolding, evoking a sense of things happening before your eyes in present tense. "She trembled, her fingers broke the wax seal, the envelope sprung open."

The book I'm reading doesn't do this. It's 1st-person past as usual but the narrator is recounting dramatic events in actual like, it has already happened in the past while he's narrating. Like it happened off the page. "Two hours later, we'd found a few groups of enemies that weren't too hard to dispatch, and had been searching around for a couple more hours."

I want to express this difference in "present" past tense vs. "actual past tense of past tense" but I lack the language to name the different conventions.

Is there a term or accepted language to describe what I mean? Like JRRT wrote LOTR in the past tense but the rhythm of your experience evokes present tense. A lot of modern mainstream books seem to get to a scene, reference the actual past before the book or between chapters, and that's how the characters kinda teleport from obstacle to obstacle.

Yeah so, does the traditional pseudo-present past tense narrative style have a more specific name? Is there better language to describe the difference?

thank you, cheers

So I read the Secret History before this book. I loved it. Honestly, I think it was the best book I’ve ever read, 18M. It just…hit different. Like the plot, and how all the characters tied to the plot etc.

But the Goldfinch felt really underwhelming to me. Like at the beginning I really enjoyed reading Theo work through his troubles and everything, but as the book went on I started to lose more and more interest. I feel like it could have been cut in half and it still would have had the same effect. I know a lot of people like the long winding sentences and rich imagery, but I still feel like TSH had that too and it managed to hit a different spot? I just feel like the book did not need to be that long. I’ve been reading it on and off for months and I only just finished it now. The last two pages seemed to philosophically make more sense to me, Theo wondering about how life shapes us, if we are truly free to pick who we are (which I kind of disagree with him on this topic, but I understand where he’s coming from) etc. But I just feel like the book would have hit a lot harder if it just wasn’t so long and sprawling and all over the place. What do you guys think? I’m moving onto The Little Friend next.

I’ve always felt different after a really focused reading session, so I did a brain scan before and after 20 minutes of uninterrupted reading (I work for a neurofeedback company and have access to EEG equipment):

- fast brainwave activity linked to mental busyness and overactive thinking became less widespread after reading.
- my fatigue index dropped quite a bit, which usually points to the brain feeling less mentally drained.- engagement stayed high, meaning my brain didn’t become sleepy or sluggish, it stayed alert.
- my brainwaves also became more state-dependent: more active when engaged, calmer when resting. That’s generally a healthier pattern than feeling mentally on all the time.

This made me want to read more....so if you needed motivation to pick up a book today, maybe this is your sign.

(this is just an n=1 curiosity experiment, not a scientific study or medical claim. I just thought the shift was interesting)

I’ve been on a big kick with Krasznahorkai, a kick I have not experienced with any other author in a while, other than maybe Bolano.
So far I’ve only read Satantango, Melancholy of Resistance and just finishing up Herscht 07769. Krasznahorkai is the master of creating the structure of feeling for modern day. His books are in no way a comfort, however I do get this odd comfort in the atmosphere. That someone is able to see and vocalize exactly what it feels like to live in the modern day. Specifically the way fascist thoughts and actions seep into a community without any notice, or if the notice is there it’s completely apathetic.
The towns in the three novels I’ve read by him are towns hunkered down, calloused, and waiting for the end of the world to come. But there communities don’t see, the world has already ended for them, they are already living amongst the ruble, they’re two steps behind and seemingly unable to notice that it’s time to pick up the pieces and start over.
The world won’t end over night in these novels; it’s a slow decay that he’s a master of noting, and I’m just absolutely floored at someone’s ability to write like this.

Hey folks,

I'm curious about your favorite detective, or other mystery solving protagonist. Who is your favorite? Could be from things you've read, although I'm perfectly happy with characters from television and film as well. Hell, I'll even take a radio play.

What I want to know, though, is what you like about them! What do you find so compelling? So intriguing? So fun, or relatable, or whatever else, about them?

One stipulation: don't just say that they're good at solving mysteries! Or that they're very clever! Or perceptive, or that they know a lot, or anything along those lines. Yeah; so do all the others! That's kind of the most basic requirement for a literary character who solves mysteries. I want something more unique about them.

So, what comes to mind?

I recently read 2666 and feel like I just didn't get it. I've seen it highly praised, and I'm struggling to see it. The book was bleak as hell for me.

I liked the part about Fate and the part about Amaltafino. Amaltafino's was depressing though and I didn't really understand what I was supposed to get out of it. I liked that part about the geometry book hanging in the yard, but was overall confused.

I thought it was cool how each part tied together in some way. Like you meet Amaltafino and then read about him and then read about Fate who meets his daughter then you read about Haas who plays a major role in the murders then you loop back to von Archimboldi. Like that was cool, but I don't think I got the significance of the connections.

In the part about the murders, what was the deal with the kid cop? Is it that he's trying in a system that's broken?

I feel like I just have way more questions now that I've finished the novel and would love some help understanding what I read.

I read Heaven by Mieko Kawakami just after her Breasts and Eggs (which I reviewed here three weeks ago).

This book was harder because of the harsh bullying it depicts. Knowing the theme, I knew it wasn't a pleasant read, especially since I dislike scenes with unfair suffering in general. I read it anyway to continue exploring this author's work. Whenever I reached those scenes, I just had to pause for a few hours to regain some stamina and then resume reading. It was still a worthwhile read, and not as taxing as other novels dealing with worse abuse.

The two main distinctive strong points of Kawakami's craft that I'll discuss are the natural yet surprising unfolding of the story and its immersive scenes.

It's easy to summarize what's happening, plotwise. There's not much to say, but I'll leave that aside as what matters is execution. Nothing comes across as contrived or forced. There are hardly any chance events, save for one that remains fairly plausible. This coincidence sparks a conversation that could have arisen in many different ways, so it only stands out as such (a coincidence) for a critical reader (who notices it as an exception).

Overall, this first strength of her craft makes the events unfold naturally. It's not as if the author is leading the reader by the hand through a preplanned tour like a typical house viewing. Despite this organic flow, the plot still develops in unexpected ways. It often caught me off guard, and I really didn't know where the story was heading. I do not mean that the reader feels lost, or that the writer jumps erratically from one thing to another. It is consistent, but it does not follow a conventional pattern. Combined with a bit of restraint, this creates an effect I appreciate, and I wanted to share this as one of the author's memorable gifts that doesn't call attention to itself but shines quietly.

Her other strength is the ability to immerse us in each scene with the protagonists. In comparison, other stories often make us feel conscious of ourselves as readers, as the story plays out before us. Even setting aside the cases of stories that feel like a written version of a movie, there are still competent stories whose authors know how to take advantage of the written medium, closing the psychological distance between us and the protagonists, etc., but this does not always guarantee deep immersion. With Kawakami, it doesn't feel as if we are merely reading a story, much less in a conventional way. She is not unique in this respect, but it is worth noting as rarer among newer contemporary writers (though my sample may be too small to judge fairly).

One more thing: in this novel too, Kawakami uses the technique I noticed in Kawabata's works, the 'hold' on the payoff. I explained that in my previous post about another novel of hers. A short example will do. The main character (narrator, M) and the other main one (F), both teenagers, make physical contact for the first time. Then, they look into each other's eyes really close, start pressing their hands together, and... cut! The narrative moves on to the next chapter, starting something completely different. We will never know how that moment resolved. Presumably, nothing relevant happened. I'm not bothered by this technique; it's fine, really. I can see only one downside: merely noticing it can become distracting (a criticism that could apply to any uncommon writing technique).

Another example involves the picture the title refers to. I won't spoil it, but I'd like to know if anyone has seen a deeper meaning in it.

Lastly, although I refrained from comparing Heaven with Breasts and Eggs, I can't help mentioning the most striking difference. The latter offers a lot to think about, many secondary themes, many insights, and one may realize and learn a lot while reading it. Heaven, by comparison, doesn't offer much beyond its main theme, and I am not especially interested in the mechanics of bullying.

The novel is worth reading for the experience it creates: immersive, at times uncomfortable and tense, and uncommon.

Just finished Steinbeck's The Pearl and HATED the ending. Anybody agree with me? Or disagree with me?

The story follows a pearl diver , Kino, and explores man's purpose as well as greed, defiance of societal norms, and evil. Steinbeck's inspiration was a Mexican folk tale, which he had heard in a visit to the formerly pearl-rich region in 1940.

What are you reading?

"There is a kind of sadness that comes from knowing too much, from seeing the world as it truly is. It is the sadness of understanding that life is not a grand adventure, but a series of small, insignificant moments, that love is not a fairy tale, but a fragile, fleeting emotion, that happiness is not a permanent state, but a rare, fleeting glimpse of something we can never hold onto. And in that understanding, there is a profound loneliness, a sense of being cut off from the world, from other people, from oneself."

-Virainia Woolf

CW: grooming, obviously

Even years after reading it, I'm still really moved by Remedios Moscote's story line in the book. Gabo doesn't reach for essentialism or individual responsibility. Colonel Aureliano Buendia is not some monster lurking in alleyways who snatches up young girls in Stranger Danger PSAs. He's a regular man (in the general sense I mean none of the Buendias are normal) who has the power and authority to take advantage of a young girl. Furthermore, he has an entire support network that will help him. Both the Moscotes and Buendias "train" Remedios to be a wife. They keep her confined in the house, isolated to the point where seemingly her only friend is Jose Arcadio Buendia. They briefly acknowledge how young she is before quickly waving it away for their own gain/comfort. The whole thing is written in a very matter of fact and mundane way. The grooming and death of Remedios Moscote is one that bares collective responsibility--it couldn't have happened without the support of both families and Gabo stresses that. As a grooming survivor and someone who has a family that has been rife with sexual abuse for generations now, it's really relatable to me. I see myself and so many of my female relatives reflected in Remedios. The storyline is honestly decades ahead of its time, its still really groundbreaking now. Its why I was honestly disappointed by the way it was adapted for screen. What I appreciated still definitely exists in some sense, but there is a toning down of the most horrible elements to keep Aureliano and the Buendias more likable.

Hi,

I’m 40yrs old and I realised recently that I’d never read any Jane Austen.

I thought I’d remedy that so I looked on the internet and everyone seemed to recognise Pride & Prejudice as the best place to start, so I started reading it.

Reader, I’m 100 pages in and I’m so bored. Can someone help me as to why this is such a classic? It’s just people gossiping and wittering away in different drawing rooms. I wouldn’t mind if it was funny or witty but it’s just gossip.

I should add I’ve never seen any TV adaptations of it so don’t really know the story.

EDIT: thanks for the responses. I think I’ve maybe been reading it in a bit of a standard blokey way and Seems like there’s a whole layer of humour and wit that’s going over my head. I’ll crack on with the rest and try to be a bit better at getting the subtleties.

I love Tolstoy deeply, which is why The Kreutzer Sonata left me with a strange sense of disappointment. It is probably the only work of his that I have real problems with.

What I miss here is the openness I usually associate with Tolstoy. In his greatest works, every character seems to exist from within. Even when Tolstoy has strong moral concerns, the world of the novel remains larger than any single idea. In The Kreutzer Sonata, the opposite seems to happen. The story feels shaped by the need to express a thesis, and everything is drawn toward that thesis.

Pozdnyshev is not a flat character. He is vivid, tormented, contradictory, and in the second part, when he tells his personal story rather than theorizing about marriage, sex, and the social habits of the upper classes, he becomes painfully human. There are moments where it is possible to understand him, even to feel some compassion for him.

Still, the text never really opens beyond him. We remain trapped inside his voice, with only a silent listener beside him. His vision is partial, obsessive, and distorted, yet no other perspective is allowed to stand beside it with equal force. The result feels strangely unpolyphonic for Tolstoy.

This is clearest in the treatment of the wife. Tolstoy knew how to give women extraordinary inner depth. Anna Karenina and Natasha Rostova are obvious examples. Here, instead, the wife seems reduced almost entirely to the position of someone subjected to another person’s gaze, judgment, and violence. She is not granted the fullness that Tolstoy was so capable of giving.

For that reason, I find The Kreutzer Sonata powerful, disturbing, and memorable, yet also unusually narrow. It feels less like one of Tolstoy’s worlds and more like a brilliant mind forcing a whole story to serve an idea.

And you?

I finished it today, and I was amazed at how tragic it is but also how emotionally and morally conflicting I feel.

Like obviously he was mentally ill, but there’s just something about how idealistic Don Quixote was, that’s so intoxicating but cynically you have to realize, how his impulsivity hurt people

It’s just extra fucked up how, right when Don Quixote is about to do something truely heroic where innocent people won’t get hurt. (Ala, saving the I think a Prince or something from Turkish pirates) Sanson comes around as the knight of the white moon and gets Don Quixote trapped by his own morals, after losing the joust.

At first he is sad but being the idealist he is, he decides him and sancho, but also the people he cares about but also the people who have been trying to stop him. The priest, Sanson, the bartender his niece and housekeeper. He thinks they can all be Shepards and practice a good chivalric life that way.

Then like he gets home and depressed, and he snapped out of his knightly delusions but he’s also somehow left with the memories of everything he did. It’s like the depression caused him to come back to reality and the depression from realizing what’s he’s done kills him.

What’s sadder is like he almost rebukes everything in his death bed and pour Sancho who only joined Don Quixote out of pure greed, is weeping, for no matter what fights the pair got into, or how Ridiculous the situation was Sancho was always loyal, and kinda cared and even got to live out his dream even if it was only 10 days of being a governor.

It makes the Shepards fantasy hurt in 2 ways, one he was thinking about everyone he cares about including the people that are trying to stop him, two it’s almost like at the shock of realizing that he can’t go around in his knightly errands, caused him to grip for whatever, slot in the world he could fill that he feels is noble. Mental self preservation.

I don’t really know how to feel.

I walked into this booking thinking it was about someone trying to bring a better way to his contemporary world, but also he’s objectively mentally ill.

It’s like Din Quixote is stuck in a world that doesn’t fit him, and that’s why he went mad in the first place not just because of books.

It’s the contradiction that gets me, cause the moments where Don Quixote acts but no one gets hurt it’s like the mad man, has more morals than the sane.

I think, that, arguably Sancho is the protagonist more than Don Quixote, it’s almost like Don Quixote thinks he’s the main character but it’s Sancho story, especially in the second volume.

Sancho is the change Don Quixote wanted to put into the world.
Sancho isn’t flawless or becomes a saint by the end of the story. He does change, and Don Quixotes teachings rub off on him combining with his simpleness and peasant lived experience

But compared from the beginning, by the time Sancho is Governor and even before and after, he has changed he speaks out even against Don Quixote, Sancho when he is governor despite his lack of education, he does rule with a chivalrous intent, he rules based on common sense and compassion.

(With the exception of the one guy he has tossed into jail because he was running from the guards and the guy was like “I didn’t do anything, and just becuse you say im going to jail I’m not going” )

This is what I mean when I say Sancho is changed mostly for the better but isn’t some saint, he’s still cap

Don Quixote couldn’t change his world, but he did change the world of some people especially Sancho Panza.

This book is more than a satire, and it’s more than a comedy. It covers so many themes, and moral dilemmas from both its time and today.

I think overall, the book asks us, how do we deal with a world that isn’t what it should be?

By the end I couldn’t help but think of a Beatles song.

“The Fool on the hill” from Magical mystery Tour

“And nobody seems to like him, they can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings
But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round (oh oh oh)
'Round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round
And he never listens to them, he knows that they're the fools
They don't like him
The fool on the hill sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round”

I ask this because I find myself disappointed whenever the storyline and the characters of the novel do not touch some deep metaphysical questions and dilemas. Like, the breaking point of utilitarianism. The moment when the number of sacrificed lives becomes to great to be tolerable and pushes hero to change his moral ground. Not that many books provide this sort of stuff.