#book i wouldnt read again

[topracticemyenglish]

Books I woudn't read again

This post is inspired by a video that Pam Gonçalves made on her youtube channel.

Don't Tell Mummy by Toni Maguire

This book tells the story of Toni Maguire, a woman who was sexually assulted by her father since she was 6. She even got pregnant when she was 16, and yes, it lasted 10 years. Her father used to tell her that she couldn't tell her mom, because otherwise, her mom wouldn't believe in her and would hate her forever. Unfortunately this was true and when she found out about her pregnancy, her mom chose to stay by her father's side.

This book is very hard to read because of it's subject, sexual abuse is something very hard for me to read and especially in children.

Holocausto Brasileiro by Daniela Arbex (Brazilian Holocaust)

This one was another one that I honestly read fast, but it was very hard to read. This book's kind of a complaint about a "mental hospital" that used to have in Barbacena. The place was awful and very sad. Every minority used to go there, gays, women, black people, people with some mental illness and so. Once they got there, they were treated like garbage in the worst possible way.

I used to feel so sad for these people and the need to get into the book and help them, but unfortunately I couldn't. The place eventually was shut down, but it was too late, lots of women already had been raped and lots of people already had been killed in there.

There's a documentary about it and it's so sad. The people that used to work in there used to laugh about it, about what they did and it's revolting.

Let's Go Play at the Adams by Mendal W. Johnson

I heard about this book in a video and everyone used to say that it was the most disturbing book they ever read and I wanted to read, but I don't know why.

This one was one that I deeply regret buying it. It's so awful. I do think the author has some mental illness, because who in their right mind would write about this????? The story is horrible, the writing is horrible and it's only purpose was to shock people. And it's really disturbing, I got really fucked up reading it.

1984 by George Orwell

I read this book because everyone says that it's amazing. It's great indeed. The begining is great, but by the end of the book, it starts to get very disturbing. The main guy is arrested and tortured by the police and everything is just horrible to read. It's very explicit, just like Let's Go Play at the Adams and very uncomfortable to read. However, the whole concept is very good and clever, so I do understand the hype around it.

But to me, the main problem was that I had just finished reading Let's Go Play at the Adams, so it was too soon to read about torture again and it was really hard for me.

Audition by Ryū Murakami

Audition I honestly haven't finished reading. This book has a famous movie. It's about a man who makes this fake audition to find a girlfriend. So when this gorgeous woman comes in, he fells in love immediately, but she hides a secret that he's not ready for it. She's a psychopath and by the end of the book she starts to torture him.

I didn't finish, not because she was torturing him, I didn't care about him, the problem was that she cut the dog's leg and that I don't accept. So I gave up.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

This was another one that I haven't finished. This one is very famous, I don't know why. It's about a grown ass man who falls in love with a 12-yeard-old girl. He rapes her and they have a "relationship".

This one is another one that I judge the author as well. Why he had the idea to write this?? Was he a pedophile too??? I think so, because just a pedophile could have this idea.

Obviously it's a horrible book as well and I couldn't pass the middle of it.

[holland-vosijk-antari]

wonder how many people in red london would have white or grey london heritage? surely people made some Connections back when there was open travel between londons? besides, all it takes is one particularly slutty antari a hundred or so years ago laying pipe in more than one london to make quite a bunch of descendents.

[queenerdloser]

i just finished dark heir

[featherymainffins]

Can anyone who knows Uglies explain what the hell changed that just 10 years ago it was considered great and groundbreaking and now I see nothing but people saying that it's dumb and uninspired and has no point or meaning?

[lordharmony]

i don’t think i can talk about everything positive about veilguard until i talk about how utterly dismal the trans representation in this game is. yes, especially with taash. because yeah…i do think it being bad is not something to ignore like i see so many people on here say you should “because any rep is better than none.” anytime gender came up while playing veilguard i had a massive pit in my stomach, and i came in with the maybe the most open mind about it. i know for some it was the first time they've seen a non-binary character in a video game and that's why they're less harsh than i am. that has never been the case for me, i have non-binary and trans characters i very much enjoy and don't need to rely on one game to do the job for me.

but this conversation always turns into “oh you just hate non-binary people that’s why you have a problem with taash!” actually i think the game itself has a problem with non-binary people given all they could say about it is “you’re non-binary if you hate being a woman.” or talked about clothes. that’s about the extent we get to explore gender identity in this game. well that and “trans people valid.” we need to shelf the word valid for a while i think. i wish trans rep wasn't written primarily for a cis audience all the time, because i'm so tired of getting talked down to in a conversation i don't need to have.

[jenna-louise-jamie]

thinking about yassen gregorovich instead of sleeping (because i love him) and how he is a catalyst. yassen stabbs ash -> ash kills john rider -> ian rider raises alex -> yassen kills ian rider -> mi6 blackmails alex into becoming a teenage spy.

i have so many thoughts that i can't properly articulate. obviously this is a simplified chain of events, but yassen and his choices set off a chain reaction of the world's most unfortunate dominos. especially when you read russian roulette. to be clear im not necessarily trying to blame him for everything because that feels very mean. he was also just a 14 year old kid when everything in his life went wrong, just like alex. only difference being yassen literally had no one.

i think i should write an essay about this because i haven't even gotten into my thoughts about what yassen and alex's dynamic would look like past eagle strike. i would imagine it'd be similar to ellie and joel from the last of us part 2.

where obviously yassen loves alex and alex on some level cares for yassen back but struggles to reconcile that with the fact that yassen is responsible for his uncle's death. a very unforgivable act. it would be so messy and complicated and angsty, because on one hand here is an adult who truly cares about him and has a connection with him through his father. yassen could tell alex about john, and trust that yassen truly wants whats best for him. but he killed ian, and he cannot take that back.

while alex reels from those feelings, yassen is also trying to reconcile his love of alex with the knowledge that he on some level is responsible for the suffering alex endured at the hands of mi6. and possibly even the fact that alex's godfather is the one who killed john and helen.

[aromistic]

holy SHIT

[theafrochick]

Other Enders Game anon is wrong, all religions and cultural differences are shunned at battle school, there’s literally a novella about it called “The War of the Gifts”. And while there is an element that Enders shouldn’t be holding onto his launchie friends, Alai also isn’t supposed to be continuing to be Muslim/anything other than a good faceless IF soldier

It’s annoying that people are trying to insist you just “don’t get it” bc u don’t like the book. Like I like the book but I think most of ur criticisms have been fair.

👀 /gen

[infinitelyweary]

Louis Unreliable Narrator Rant

It rly does piss me off bc some ppl with 100 percent sincerity refer to Louis as “a liar”. I keep scrolling past a fanfic on ao3 that called him “the duke of deception” or some shit

What does Louis ever lie about???

(besides armand/rashid but a. obvs that was an armand decision since armand is The Canonical Liar even though ppl don’t always act like it for some reason, and b. that doesn't concern Louis's veracity in telling the story of his past cuz armand/rashid is in the present)

Anything Louis gets “wrong” about his story are details he’s suppressed due to trauma/misremembered/or interpreted differently from others ("lestat") due to his state of mind. None of these things are lying. Unreliable narrator does not mean LIAR bc thats not how stories work. MEMORY IS A MONSTER is the tagline of his story. MEMORY IS A MONSTER - You FORGET, it doesn't. Not "MEMORY MAKES YOU LIE ABOUT THINGS" or "LYING IS A MONSTER" or "LOUIS LIES A LOT AND LOVES IT BC HE'S A MONSTER"!

~Louis' more prominent discrepancies:~

-Was it raining: He doesn't remember. Not a lie

-Claudia's reaction after Lestat's "death": Louis is demonstrably traumatized by the attempt to kill Lestat and has repressed some of the aftermath of that night due to that trauma. He literally doesn't remember Claudia's objections/choking her. When Daniel points out that she sounds upset with him in her diaries, those memories come flooding back - as we see in little jarring bits of flashback. Those jarring flashbacks are Louis REMEMBERING WHAT HAPPENED. If Louis was purposefully "lying" those flashbacks wouldn't resurface in that way: the show is (very effectively) presenting that information in the same way you would be confronted with a traumatic memory. Louis is visibly rattled by this and has to run and kneel in his traumagarden to process this bc HE LITERALLY HASNT PROCESSED IT BC HES BEEN REPRESSING IT FOR 80 YEARS Not a lie

-Could Claudia dream or not: She wrote in her diary that she couldn't and he believed her. Not a lie

Then the trial flashbacks

(For the sake of argument I’ll assume "Lestat’s" versions of events we see flashbacks of in the trial are more accurate depictions than Louis’ original descriptions bc that is essentially the way they are framed and Louis tells Daniel to use that version in the book)

ALTHOUGH IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE: THESE ARE ALSO A PART OF LOUIS’ DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS!!!! Lestat is not present at the interview, Louis is. Lestat is not turning to the camera and breaking the fourth wall to tell us his version; Louis says that as Lestat spoke he felt transported back to those events and was seeing them differently. That's why we see them in flashback. We cannot have a true flashback from Lestat's perspective in s1-2 bc Lestat is not here to tell his story (and it would break the entire structure of the show). Any flashback we see is Louis' recounting. In the case of the trial, Louis is literally recounting Lestat recounting a version of events that Louis is then recalling and processing with added context (this show is a mindfuck).

So even the more “”TRUE”” version ppl like to use as evidence of Louis’s “”lies”” is also coming from Louis!!!!! Louis is the one correcting his own account!!!

The show is built around Louis telling Daniel/the audience his story. Anything we see of the past storyline (New Orleans-Paris) comes from Louis's mouth or Claudia's diaries (and sometimes Armand). Lestat is not a part of any of this. People who frame Lestat is some truth-teller revealing the "REAL story" behind Louis's "lies" is forgetting that Lestat is not part of the interview. Any ""truth"" Lestat tells is coming from LOUIS.

Some quotes from 207 bc I don't have a disc drive on my macbook to screenshot my blu-ray lol

This is our transition into the first nola flashback

<Armand: Lestat stood on that stage, took all the familiar pieces of Louis's life, defiled them, bent them into a Lestat-shaped effigy.>

(Including this to show that even though Armand is co-narrating this part of the story, Armand was ready to discount everything Lestat said. He frames Lestat as taking 'familiar pieces of Louis's life' aka the events as Louis recalls them, and 'defiling and bending them' aka changing/misrepresenting them to make Lestat look better. Any representation of "Lestat's perspective" being valid/"true" is coming from Louis's mouth)

<Louis: But some...Some of it now...

Daniel: What?

Louis: I remember...being out of my body at the time. I was in Paris, but also in New Orleans. Lestat took me there.>

The flashback is Louis remembering things differently, not Lestat's own memory.

-Claudia's turning: Louis's and "Lestat's" account actually don't differ that much. Lestat has a few extra lines of dialogue and is more emotional, Louis tries to turn Claudia himself and begs more profusely, but the basic events are the same. Louis brings Claudia in as she is dying, begs Lestat to turn her and Lestat does it. Louis was near hysterical in this moment so he didn't recall it with complete accuracy. Not a lie!

<Lestat: But he was in a terrible panic. Guilt had seized reason. Claudia on the ledge of death.>

...

<Louis (at the trial, to Claudia and the audience, looking visibly confused): It's not how it happened.

Louis (in Dubai): It is how it happened. I didn't think it at the time. But...yeah.>

As Louis realizes he misremembered events, he corrects himself. We see him do this several times over the series. We also see him insist he wants to get "every detail right" and "wants to remember". Where are people seeing a lying liar who delights in lies???? The whole purpose of the interview is "truth and reconciliation"?????????

-Coffin room exchange: This is one of the most traumatic events in the series/Louis's life so I think it goes without saying that he wouldn't be able to recall it with complete accuracy BUT ALSO!! We see the domestic abuse in 105 recounted from Claudia's perspective. We go from Louis narrating Claudia's diary entry about realizing she was made to be Louis's sister, to her returning home and the ensuing violence as it was witnessed through her eyes. She can hear snippets of an argument but was not privy to what happened in the coffin room. The only part of this that is from Louis's recollection is when Lestat takes Louis into the sky, and we return to Claudia's perspective after Louis is dropped.

The coffin room exchange was omitted in Louis's original telling because it isn't in Claudia's diary entry. If you think about it in-universe, Louis is reading Claudia's diary to Daniel describing the violence breaking out - then they go into the coffin room, Claudia is slumped on the floor outside the room trying to catch her breath, and then Lestat bursts through the wall with Louis - when Claudia watches Louis taken into the sky, Louis would naturally feel the need to fill the gap of 'what happened' before he plummeted to the ground, bc Claudia is certainly wondering what happened in her diary entry. It wouldn't necessarily make sense for Louis to interject over Claudia's entry (describing her feelings at hearing them through the wall, being convinced the violence was over and attempting to recover and then her fear at seeing violence break out again) to say "hey also me and Lestat exchanged words in the coffin room", there just isn't a natural narrative gap there like there would be for Louis/Lestat vanishing into the sky.

But I think more likely Louis doesn't remember the coffin room exchange BECAUSE we see a flashback of it in 207 and as I've established, these flashbacks are Louis remembering things. They are not a direct line to Lestat's memories, because Lestat is not in the interview to recount his own memories, and even a memory he recounts during the trial is being recalled by Louis in the Dubai present. Outside of Claudia's diaries, we only ever have access to Louis's memories of things (barring 205). There is a clear slant towards Lestat's POV in the coffin room memory, so I think it's safe to assume it's Louis recalling the memory as Lestat presents it during the trial. Part of why I think this is the basic framing, but also there are a couple lines of dialogue from Claudia's POV in 105 that we don't hear in 207 specifically when she is sitting outside the coffin room:

this part we hear in both POVs

<Louis: It's okay. We're done. It's over. Stay where you are, okay?>

this part we only hear in Claudia's POV

<Louis: We had it out*. We just...[coughing] need a moment here. [coughs] Just...[gasps]>

The second dialogue time-wise lines up with a moment in Lestat's 207 POV when Lestat is panting on the ground and sitting up for a few seconds and all we hear is silence before he says "You're gonna leave me." The show could have had Louis's second dialogue here muffled or in the background or something but it omits Louis's words entirely to show that this is Louis's recollection of Lestat's remembered version of events, and is not entirely "accurate" either. Why would Lestat focus on/acknowledge Louis comforting Claudia in this moment, when he is thinking about Louis leaving him? He wasn't thinking about that, and his POV reflects that. I don't think the show forgot these extra lines or something, cuz they have the script and easily could have inserted them in the space where Lestat is silent but they did not. A deliberate choice to show Lestat's account is not the omnipotent "truthful" account, but is just one perspective.

(We also know that the coffin room exchange was included in the trial script to make Louis less sympathetic to the audience, because when Lestat says "I am burdened with my maker's temper" Santiago corrects him back on course by saying "Uh, no. You were teased until you toppled." The coven wanted this exchange in the trial script to frame Lestat's drop as an escalation brought on by Louis aka to victim-blame him and make Lestat look less culpable. So even if this is "truth" it is being presented with bias)

Also it is interesting that we get no reaction shots/commentary from Dubai Louis during this entire part. We see Paris Louis once before the "You're gonna leave me" starts and he's shaking and looking confused as Lestat speaks, but there is no assertion on Louis's part of "this is how it happened" or not the way he did with Claudia's turning. We don't even get a shot of Dubai Louis again until after Lestat goes off script to take accountability for the violence.

It actually looks like Armand was the one narrating this entire part to Daniel (Lestat's account of the violence-the coffin room exchange-the apology) because the next time we cut back to Dubai, when Armand tells Daniel that the projections went off-sync, Daniel is already sitting facing Armand and Louis is sitting silently with his hands in front of his mouth. It looks like Dubai Louis hasn't spoken at all since he told Daniel to go with Lestat's version of Claudia's turning. He doesn't speak again until Daniel asks him what he thought of Lestat's apology.

I'm not totally sure what to make of Louis's silence here...because I don't think Lestat fabricated the coffin room exchange. I think because this comes on the heels of "You should go with Lestat's version" of the other flashback we see, this is another instance of Louis going oh, okay I guess it happened like that, you can put that in the book too. But it is a more significant departure from what we were previously shown than Claudia's turning, so idk why they don't have Louis comment on it at all. Either way, Louis doesn't object to what Lestat is saying, which is at least a passive acknowledgement of the events as he presents them as reflected upon by Louis after the fact so NOT A LIE!

Anyway Louis has basically never lied in his entire life so I'm gonna need ppl to stop calling him a liar :)))) it would also completely undercut the main fucking theme of the first two seasons for Louis to be characterized as a ~~~~liar~~~ vs. a person who is being Monstered by Memories so if you call Louis a liar you are calling Rolin Jones a liar and I'm gonna tattle on you to Sir Jones so he won't let you watch the show anymore <3

*netflix subtitles this as "we had enough" but that doesn't sound like what he's saying to me and the netflix subs match the AMC subs which are notoriously inaccurate so!

[bugcadaver]

i just wanna read but my options in this house r either 1) my room, which is nice n private but only has my bed to sit on, or more preferable The Floor, or 2) the front room, which has a comfy chair n lamp set up, but family come in n out of which is extremely distracting

if i wanna b able to read more than a sentence at a time it's gotta be my room But i'll probably b too uncomfy to focus anyway.. bleeehh

also this house is So unfriendly to device use, which ig is good. every room has massive windows so bright sun all day, n all the blinds/curtains got torn down but not replaced. plus all the window settings r rotted or filled w asbestos so its not worth putting new ones up atm

i moved in in august n the idea was have the house liveable by xmas but lol @ that happening. obvs i can't fix anything myself or organise getting some1 to do it.. the fam's gotta take out loans to repair the house 2 sell it but everyone's got 100 other things to deal with first.. i'm just here helping keep the place sort of tidy in the meantime. god i'm already sick of it tho, the 2 months not paying rent have been nice but id like my own space asap

(...gotta find a new roommate, gotta find an affordable apartment somewhere i can get to work)...aiya.. i just want like a 1bedroom house out of the city, man

[lesbianraskolnikov]

I dont agree that crime and punishment could never be perfectly adapted but as I always say. German expressionism or animation. There is no other choice im sorry.

[samarecharm]

Akira being like, obsessed w loyalty, but having it as a positive(ish) trait is so fun to me. He doesnt outright say it or ever ask for it, but theres like an unspoken bond between the thieves and himself. He asks for it (demands, really) because he gives it in return. Its the classic ‘ride or die’ mentality; he demands trust and loyalty bc he 100% trusts his team. He would not have baited himself into what would be considered his literal death if he was not COMPLETELY and UTTERLY faithful to his team and the cause. He trusted them to fulfill their end of the bargain no matter how difficult that wouldve been for them. And because of their mutual faith in each other, leader to team and team to leader, they all managed to make it out and live another school year.

He has very little regard for his life but hes not necessarily reckless. Hes calculated. And while hes a bit out of sorts in the beginning with all of these new ideas and concepts, he quickly finds his footing later in the year. And bc he is assembling a team of people who are loyal to Him, he can afford to be loyal right back to them. He can afford to be risky if the risk is mitigated by having his team follow up on his actions. This team has to run like a well oiled machine; any hiccups will get the rest of the team caught or worse; hurt or killed.

Ryuji inadvertently sets this trend, bc he is Ride or Die at heart and he somewhat influences Akira on this matter. And its why he is so reluctant to truly incorporate Goro onto the team (at first). Goro IMMEDIATELY clocks Akiras leadership as something heavier than simply ‘i lead this group to keep everyone on the same page’, but he wrongly assumes Akira has some sort of Thing about power. Theres no real power trip; he is not okay with limiting his teams voices on any matter. His ideas are not the end all, be all of any plan; hes Not Shido. I can imagine how tough Saes Palace was for everyone, but they needed to have unwavering faith in each other to pull off such a mindblowing plan.

I dunno where else im going w this, i just like thinking of Goro feeling some kinda way about Akira (and the thieves) unanimously declaring him as the leader of the thieves fully knowing what shady things theyve done up until this point. Someone who claims to change peoples hearts is deciding who gets to keep their free will or not, and to have a team basically say ‘yes hes our leader and we would die for him’ does NOT look good to anyone! Especially to someone who is quite literally killing people on behalf of someone Very Bad! Who then Dies for it!

[yuridovewing]

damn that sibling post really resonated with yall, didnt it

[loverboybrightsideghost]

my love of annotating VS my love of the library...FIGHT!!!

[mattynmarns]

scheduled an appointment with my advisor AND signed up for an extra class to get support on my CS classes basically i WILL survive this next quarter even if it kills me!!!!!!!

[jiishwa]

does anyone have any really good book recommendations? preferably books where romance is not at the center of the plot?