Justin

Night Shift: This is like Lovecraft but with actual good characters and comprehensive vocabulary! 7/10

Graveyard Shift - RATS. Probably should not have read in a loud café for the true immersion, but still kinda spooky - just doesn't feel very unique. Just big carnivorous rats. 7/10

Night Surf - oh boy, a post-apocalyptic drama about overcoming prejudice after the wake of a virus from “Hong Kong” that was downplayed as just a flu. 7/10 in retrospect to current events

I Am The Night - it's a slightly spooky body horror with a narrator descending into insanity, but it's not exactly scary or well written. Not much of consequence happens - the character dynamics weren't explored enough for it to make an impact to make it feel like anything did. So...eh. A very low 6/10

The Mangler - Seems like an experiment to make a mildly scary machine scary and it worked with the amount of mystery surrounding it. Was I scared? Not particularly, but it was well written given the concept. Interesting ending too. 7/10 (which if anything, this book has been consistent in delivering 7/10 stories)

The Boogeyman - 6/10. One of the more “serious” and non-pulpy horror stories here, but it doesn't make an impact like it's supposed to for me. Probably the minority in this, was wondering what the point was aside from making the reader feel miserable - up until the end which I found sort of cheap. Not a great horror story, but a sad tragedy.

Gray Matter - 7/10. A little disappointed since this was supposed to be THE best story out of the bunch. But aside from that ending, the story wasn't any better from the rest. Great ending though holy cow, and the way it builds up to that ending was cool. But it didn't exactly scare me.

Battleground - 7/10. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be read as a dark comedy and honestly, it's pretty funny imagining toy soldiers absolutely destroying this dude. Man just can't catch a break.

Trucks - 6/10. Arguably the weakest story here. I get King's schtick to make the not scary scary, but sentient trucks taking over the world is far too much of a stretch for me. It's written fine, but there wasn't enough time to develop either the concepts or characters.

Sometimes They Come Back - 8/10. Actually a really thrilling and interesting character study about a man who abides by the law and is still haunted, almost arbitrarily, by gangs. Very interesting story, my personal favorite thus far.

Strawberry Summer (8/10). Surprise favorite thus far, so quaint and restrained in talking about the terror - which makes it scarier that the narrator has grown cold to it. I just really liked the vibe the story was giving off.

The Ledge - just a good story, and then that ending hits and it satisfies that primal instinct for revenge. One of the rare King endings where it's actually really really satisfying and outclasses the rest of the story. 7.5/10

Lawnmower Man - 7/10. I actually don't know what to rate this, but reading this literally minutes after watching some Chainsaw Man actually made this 10x more entertaining. Idk what tone this was going for, but imagining a Lawnmower Man drawn in the way of Chainsaw Man gave me a good laugh.

Quitters Inc - 9/10. Best story so far. Don't want to say more than that to preserve the story but this is the one that I am walking away from feeling a bit shaken. Taps into a now newfound fear of mine.

I Know What You Need - 6/10. It's good, but lacks that extra stuff that makes this story stand out from the usual fare. The protagonist is too passive and the romance as a result isn't very convincing, which is the point but it doesn't make the ending have that impact it should have had.

Children of the Corn - 7/10. Evil children can be scary, but the concept runs thin even for a short story. Typical scary cult story, but it is an interestingly macabre idea for it to revolve around Christ like that. Other than that, it's just another typical good story.

The Last Rung on the Ladder - 7/10. Surprisingly somber and bereft of any supernatural horror, it is probably the most out of place story in this collection. It's melancholic and tragic, but it just doesn't develop the deceased character outside of the tragic incident. It's still a good story nonetheless.

The Man Who Loved Flowers - 6/10. Interesting concept, but a little half baked in execution. Caught me by surprise but just lacked the build up for that ending.

One For the Road - 7/10. Another story that falls into the “it was good camp”. It builds the mystery as to what the secret is (even though I knew it bc of Salem's Lot's concept) and actually builds interesting foreshadowing around it. It's just the story itself isn't great and the climax isn't long enough to justify it. Still good.

The Woman in the Room - 8/10. Surprisingly realistic horror to end off on. Used the narrative trick of ending off a section mid sentence a bit too much, but it also is intentionally disorienting. A very painful scenario that I'm surprised made it in this collection, as it's not horror but instead a frighteningly realistic situation. Good story.

So even if the average is a 7/10, it is very consistent in delivering the scares and the concepts elevate it above its execution, if that makes any sense. My time spent with this book was time well spent.

While it is respectable that the play tries to reach for all these concepts, takes a surprisingly self-critical examination as to the entire situation between Miller and Monroe as a thinly veiled allegory, taking this play on its face value - it's just bad.

The story being told out of order stymies so much of the emotional impact as there is not much of a reason for it to be out of chronology; as the reader tries to piece the story together, it flips into another subplot, and then another. Confusion does not enhance the experience - there is no need for it to be frantically confusing aside from Miller probably wanting to put all the emotional beats together all at once to make the protagonist seem even more miserable than he already was. It only makes the story more opaque and distances the reader from the characters even more.

The story is so maudlin and melodramatic, tastelessly touching on the concepts of the Holocaust and then The Red Scare, just to add to the fact that this is a “serious” story that no one is allowed to critique only for it to pivot about a relationship drama between two awful people. If this is a thinly veiled allegory for how Miller treated Monroe - it is no apology, but rather a self-flagellation for his behavior. And yet it still has the audacity to tacitly place some blame on Monroe for her death - just absolutely narcissistic and disrespectful to the situation.

Not going to lie that there is some value in taking the perspective of those who are not mentioned often in the history textbooks and I'm not going to discredit the fact that this book plainly states that it has a thesis that will bias the book as a whole.

But the fault lies in the fact that the book is propaganda - obfuscating facts and never painting a nuanced picture of a situation or a person as a whole. It goes out of its way to only state the bad things that every President does, and when it does concede that there is some good, it does so in passing only to have more negative things to say. At this point, it is not interested in telling facts - it is interested in telling ideology as to why America is bad, inherently evil, and not hearing any debates as to what may be a good rebuttal. It is binary in the fact that if you do not agree with what he is saying: you are either on the right side of history or on the side of oppressors.

The fact is, that I agree with what a lot of the book is saying. But the book is so relentless and aggressive with what it says and tries to paint anyone in the government as a dictator that I cannot advocate for this book.

Getting to listen to Cumberbatch's commanding baritone he has coupled with that posh accent is worth it in of itself. He nails the inflections of every character in each story, stealing the waning attention I had pertaining to the story onto his voice.

It was indeed Sherlock Holmes fan fiction, where I only sort of paid attention to the content of the stories due to my interest burning out real quick, but even while I was mindlessly doing my tasks, I was thoroughly entertained by Cumberbatch's voice.

(I've really got to learn how to focus on audiobooks)

I am not going to pretend and say that Malcolm X was not a complicated man. I am not going to lie and say that I even agree with a lot of the ideas he puts forth, in fact I find many of them wrong, in fact most of them repulsive. They were radical then and viewing them from the lens of today - they are outright wrong. He was a pro-segregationist and villainized all those who were not the same skin color as he was, collectively calling white people “white devils” and advocating for violent militancy in order to achieve the goals he intended, under the guise of a distorted form of Islam.

So why might I like this book? Why do I consider it one of the most interesting pieces of literature that surpasses a level of intrigue of most fiction I read? When these very ideas probably have left a lasting scar on the Civil Rights movement, why was I absolutely enthralled with each passing minute I read?

Even though X reaches the wrong ideas, through the naked and candid honesty, I wouldn't blame you if you agreed. Because of how articulate and intelligent he was - there was not a single moment during the book did I ever think the conclusions he came to were out of left field or absurd; each thought was the culmination of many others, shaped by a society that wronged him and born into a group that he believed only wanted to comply instead of fight back. He saw his own culture assimilate and emulate the oppressors rather than stand ground and take pride. If the idea he presents be radical, so be it. But one cannot deny that it was a logical conclusion he came to, no matter how wrong it is now. I had to do a double take many times as I found myself agreeing on an almost instinctual level, before taking a step back and acknowledging that these ideas were extreme.

He experienced injustice first hand and brings many anecdotes as to why the ideas he presents must be. Yet, he makes no attempt to clean his own image - as he makes no qualms about showing his petty anger and tendency towards violence. One can see through the candid prose as to how intelligent he was - not only a gifted writer, but also someone who has immersed himself in countless books. It only adds to his ethos: he is a flawed man with these “perfect” ideals who experienced injustice that has molded him into what he is. It makes some of his lesser moments more forgivable. When he talks about the history of mankind, he talks about it through the lens of white men who were molded to commit evil atrocities against all other races. When he talks about science, he talks about why other races are inferior to the black man. All these can be forgiven because to him, he wholeheartedly believes it and uses it to drive more of his passion in the world to help others. An editor trying to please the public may have removed this content, but this only adds to the complexity of X - where he is both right and wrong to extreme degrees.

Yet - he changes many times over. He goes through many rebirths and recognitions of his own beliefs - so many times he went back on what he believed with the same devotion and passion as before. It only adds to the complexity of the man, where in a span of a few weeks, he ceases to be the same man he was at the beginning of the book. So many times does his faith become question and his beliefs put into check. I was astonished to see just how much he was able to accomplish and how far he was able to take his radical ideas and imbue it with such powerful rhetoric. Yet a lot of his efforts cease to stand as he grew into this person he was.

Malcolm X is still a controversial man that I still have trouble coming to terms with after reading this book. I came to understand the other side of the Civil Rights movement much more than I did before; Martin Luther King Jr. is viewed as the face of the movement and rightfully so, with the ideas of nonviolence and integration becoming vindicated by history, much to X's chagrin. However, reading this book made me understand the frustrations that many must have felt during the Civil Rights movement and how slow it must have felt, giving too much leeway to those who commit injustice. It doesn't make what X said right but at the very least, I understand.

What struck me about this book is 1) how unabashedly queer this book is, not even subtext - just full on gay which was a nice thing to see be treated as normal and 2) how funny this book is. This book takes its time in the first half, really letting these character dynamics shine through in perhaps the most human way possible. They downplay the horror by making jokes without sacrificing the sincerity of the characters - it's not like the MCU where it uses bathos to defuse tension, it really is to augment the depth of these characters because it is human nature to make jokes about things. It was nice to see a book not afraid to show that side of humanity. It put these characters front and center as they all have depth in their own ways and elevates them from the usual fodder.

But what makes me not enjoy this book as much as many others do is the fact that it is just not scary. It tries to do the likes of Poe or Blackwood where much of the horror is within the minds of the characters, but there's a good chance that what is happening is real - something I've grown to not like. I want a story to go big or go home - not toe the line of what's real or what's not as things appear and disappear the following chapter without explanation. It dilutes the horror just a bit because I feel as if it was just cheating me a bit by playing both sides. In the cases of Poe or Blackwood, they earn their scares because of the prose that winds to a tension and it is told from the perspective of an unreliable narrator - something that is not the case here.

While I appreciated the attempts at characterization, it seems to focus so much more on the horror; I wanted to learn more about these characters rather than what was going on in the House.

From this book ALONE, it launched Superman into one of my favorite characters of all time - perhaps my all time favorite comic book superhero ever. The word “boring” to describe Superman be damned, because this reinvigorates the familiar story of an alien coming to earth by skipping that part entirely, instead focusing on his early career on donning the red cape. This is the perfect introduction to those dismissive of Superman being an overpowered super being, focusing on what makes him great - his personality. Mark Waid allows this to be the forefront; it is not about the battles he faces, but the hope he brings to the world. He has genuine joy in helping and inspiring hope, but he also has insecurities and fears despite his powers. And despite meeting men who see to take advantage of his abilities and kindness, such as Luthor who contrasts Clark in nearly every way, he always comes victorious through his virtue.

This is a subtle coming of age story late in a man's life, about someone learning to embrace his identity not only as a superhero, but his roots as humble man who comes from a small farm raised by loving parents. He does the impossible by remaining modest and kind on top of his abilities, and that is as inspirational as any other story out there. We can all be at least a little like Superman.

Pale Fire makes all the writers in the world look bad. One part beautiful poetry, the other part a manic analysis of it.

Nabokov is able to create a beautiful poem that meditates upon death, the afterlife, and the fear of being forgotten that is authentic enough to be from himself rather than from the point of view of a fictional character. The poem itself is heartfelt and touching as it is existential about what it means to have lived a meaningful life that has experienced tragedy in-between. It's heartfelt. It's worded soundly, with such profound lines such as:

“I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
By the false azure in the window pane”

But Nobakov manages to find a way to make this even better in a way that comically mocks scholarly literary criticism; through careful deliberation of every line in the 999 line cantos, through the point of view of an insane fan, he annotates the poem to find meaning that doesn't exist. The reason why the book is so long is that the rest of the pages following the poem are footnotes that analyze the poem that tell a story in itself, through connections. The connections are tangible at best and rambling and comically wrong at its worst. Through the extensive use of footnotes, he manages to tell multiple stories that are spurred off a few lines of poetry that barely connect - one a random kingdom that may not exist, another about his experiences with the author himself, and what leads to the author's demise.

He is able to defile an “autobiographical” poem in a way that enhances the reading experience without taking away the brilliance of the former. If the poem was anything less than okay or even slightly tongue in cheek, the book would have lost its impact. For the book to work as a whole, every part had to be great. It is through the critique of literary analysis that the book's nature shines: creating a memorable poem first that could be read on its own and a memorable experience that pokes fun at what was written.

I am not usually a fan of poetry - having read much of Shakespeare and having taken a chance on Sylvia Plath's poems as well, much to my disappointment. Pale Fire's poem was one of the few to actually move me emotionally, as well as impress me. He made a poem that is touching in his third language (with difficult vocabulary) and may as well have been a joke. This book has multiple layers to it - the forward, the poem itself, the annotations (which make the bulk of a novel), and the index - all equally brilliant in of itself.

Nobakov is able to make every sentence dense with allusions, such rich vocabulary, and a poetic structure. It is not an easy book to read, but it is a rewarding experience to have read. It may be a book that I appreciated more than I enjoyed, but those feelings are incredibly close together.

Felt like he was running through the gamut of ideas this premise lends because there weren't many surprises to this, however I must commend the book for being very well written without calling attention to its prose. There weren't any fancy words to distract from the simplicity of the word choice, but it's enough to paint a very thorough picture of what is going on.

I just think this book is more of a novelty than anything profound because I struggle to walk away from this book thinking there was anything more to it. It does address ageism but it doesn't go too much in depth. It skips over what could have been interesting - but it is a short story after all.

Well, off to watch the movie eventually.

I never thought I could be just so bored by a children's book. I expected whimsiness and adventure, but really most of the book is just dialogue between a few characters who bicker and ultimately say the same thing.

It all just feels so contrived and written on the fly - even if it's a kid's book, I expected some logic to follow through. It just felt like a bunch of random events happening, stretching the already thin premise even thinner. None of the characters go through a significant change or really suffer any consequences, it's just a bunch of things happening. Even the titular character James, who is just alluded to have had a rough childhood, really just stays the same and there's no quirkiness to supplant it. I can't even recall a moral for the story - it really just feels like things just happen and the characters simply react instead of taking agency.

Not exactly a book I'm going to be rushing to show my children. I will say though, I always do get a laugh out of the bits of dark humor with killing off people in absurd ways. Unfortunately that doesn't stay consistent through the book.

My feelings about this book (or this entire philosophy in general) are a bit mixed; I respect so much of it, but I can't say that I agree with all of it. I can say however, that I will be surely changing up my mindset (maybe lifestyle) after reading this book, and that is perhaps the most important takeaway from this. I may not agree with his aggressive stance on disassociating yourself with a near cosmic point of view, becoming apathetic to the arts and sensual pleasures to focus on yourself and well being. Adhering to the laws of stoicism sounds burdening, where enjoyment of life would be hampered by the lack of pleasure or socializing - even with the stress he places on community relationships, I just don't buy that it will be helping you make many friends.

But what I will take away is that life is too short - in his words, a “fraction of infinity taken away in an instant” - to be concerned with the opinions of people whom will never affect the way I live if they approve of my lifestyle or not. With the amount of stress he places on the brevity of life, of course you have to make the most of it - build a lifestyle that will make you reach your peak physically, mentally, and spiritually. I just can't agree with the logical extreme he takes.

I am so tempted to give this a perfect score on the basis of that ending alone - it is a perfect summation of everything this book has been building towards, with the perfect amount of rancor and optimistic satire. One of the few times I felt like clapping at the end of the book for just how happy it made me feel, somehow turning all the bizarre circumstances that happened into the book into something poignant.

It's just that there is a lull in the middle - with pacing issues that really took away from my enjoyment. It feels as if there was a lot of wheel turning at the expense of characters. Some of the humor also really misses due to the cultural barriers, with the use of British slang and an overuse of Casablanca references (which I love, but man...). It has so much to say but at the same time, it gets a little lost in the plot.

However, if the rest of the books somehow surpass the quality of this - I am ready to read the rest of the series. It takes itself seriously just enough that it doesn't become a full blown farce, while keeping the levity needed for a story this absurd.

Listen to the audiobook narration by Dion Graham: it elevates what is possibly one of the most engaging stories in American history, into something even better. When it comes to the speeches, the narrator NAILS the inflection and tone of MLK. Especially the “I Have a Dream Speech” where I found myself nearly in tears in hearing how it was described and how it impacted every single person in the audience. The book is not afraid of dramatizing events, but does it tastefully using primary sources and quotes that makes it as authentic as it is emotional. It reads like a novel. The narrator makes it even better.

King is an easy figure to deify; his place in history is shrouded in tragedy and reverence. He boasts the claim of being the only civilian to have a federal holiday named after him and for being the reason several civil rights legislation were able to be accomplished. But it is wrong to say that this man was perfect. Even as a man of God who was thrust into the nation's spotlight that demanded a spotless record to represent the Civil Rights Movement - he was a serial adulterer, often egotistical, and made mistakes that history has washed away in favor of not tarnishing his legacy. This book uses new evidence and interviews to show the side of King that is not shown to the public. While he is far from a bad man, he does succumb to temptation and the pressures that are oft born in the crucible of unexpected fame. Sometimes, someone has to make decisions that are bound to upset people who do not deserve to be wronged for the greater good.

In an attempt to remain morally ambiguous, all characters become reprehensible through their actions which consequently, induces a sense of apathy to any of the events without a single likeable character to relate to. Moore's anarchist biases are so pronounced through the novel that it becomes obvious - not debatable, not ambiguous - where his ideals truly lie. V is barely a character, but instead a bundle of political beliefs that he sporadically spouts alliteration advocating anarchism and violence.

In fact, most of the characters themselves are caricatures and ciphers rather than actual people - which makes that entire first book almost insufferable to read due to how blatantly Moore makes his characters to be as propaganda pieces. He dehumanizes the government, making them all undeniably horrible people that you side with V's ideas of anarchy since there is no other choice, making his side almost holy in comparison. It is with the extreme endorsement of anarchism that the book runs into ethical problems, seemingly endorsing torture and violence in support as long as the ends are justified. Mental rape happens, only for it to be brushed off after the girl realizes how great anarchy really is (?).

The book doesn't challenge you, nor does it want to ask you a question to convert you to its side. It masks moral ambiguity with strawmanning and propaganda, making anarchism seem like the answer to all.

Still didn't hate it for some reason, probably because I stretched this reading over the course of 1 month. But it is so obviously a flawed book that I can't imagine rereading this.

Got overly sentimental and optimistic at the end, but the book speaks the truth: people are inherently kind and that cynicism is the laziest heuristic to have. It is so easy to simply assume the worst in people, but it often takes less than courage to be kind - it is our default, perhaps marred by social barriers inherent in society.

I feel jealous about all the people who managed to really have a profound experience reading this. After forcing myself to read all this - I just feel like I understood half of it, intimidated by the absolute density of the work and the ambition the book reaches.

It is a philosophy book first, a novel second, and it truly takes its time to discuss these massive philosophical topics. The plot takes a backseat and it makes no qualms to devote pages upon pages to whatever the topic of the chapter is. Most of it is way beyond my understanding and in typical Dickensian fashion, is way more verbose than needed (though that can be due to the translation).

This is definitely a great book - but a book I do not feel as I was prepared for. This is not a beginner's introduction into classics for sure. Maybe one day I will build up myself to take a proper chance at this once again, but for now I am relieved that I got to accomplish at least finishing this book.

I am split with this: the book was not very well written (with the translators keeping the typos with the good old fashioned [sic] when it didn't make sense), using plain prose and jumps between perspectives many times in scenarios that ruin the tension. One of my pet peeves is embedding action in dialogue - which it does many times over.

However, it was a very good story that I feel is ripe for an adaptation to fix these errors - especially with the entire story based around sound and music.

It's one of those times I really anticipate watching a book be improved upon by an adaptation.

The Gunslinger, even when revised, is an incredibly flawed introduction to the (supposedly) greatest fantasy works of all time - famously denounced by King himself. The novel manages to be entertaining in spite of its flaws, with an interesting fantasy western post apocalyptic world and an interesting dynamic between a cowboy and a child.

But oh boy does this novel make some hard left turns with some head scratching decisions; almost bordering on parody with its uber serious tone and absurd situations that King tries to cover up with overly complex explanations. But King is also guilty of failing to explain concepts of his world where many were confused (including myself) at these passing references to things not explained. I knew what ‘ka' was going into this book (its magic system), but the book refuses to go further in depth as to what it even means even despite its prominence in the book. It becomes a word that adds flavor to the world rather than a concrete concept. The characters themselves feel like they were written around this world, feeling like archetypes that have hints of characterization.

The book also feels disjointed with its nonlinear structure, probably in due part to its origin as a collection of short stories weaved to become a novel - where in to continually jumps around in chronology for extended periods of time. There is so much time spent wandering in a desert bereft of anything interesting, only for it to flashback for an extended amount of time before re-entering the present. Not helped by King's prose (who I usually think to be an excellent writer), which in here sometimes comes across as crude and often a bit juvenile (referring to the gunslinger's want to be a part in an orgy with his parents (???)). It isn't entirely unreadable, but there are some jarring moments that make it something wildly different from what I have read from King.

The Gunslinger is an uneven read, however mercifully short and briskly paced. It does not reach the heights that King would reach beyond his sophomoric effort, but it is still a mildly entertaining read that is an essential introduction to the rest of the series - hopefully, his magnum opus. I am interested in seeing what is next.

Really only advocated for two policies - and they are good policies.

The book doesn't do much steelmanning but it does provide some good evidence to advocate for the policies. Problem is that I was already for Universal Basic Income prior to this, so I did just nod my head along with the book and a lot of the justifications it made, I knew before hand. But it is a good book to have a conversation with someone who decries it as “socialism” or “impractical”

But when the book advocates for open borders, I am still a little bit unconvinced. Walking away from the book with “I think I should do more research” is probably not the book's intended effect. This is a controversial issue so it does not really apply to American problems as opposed to how it is in Europe because there are a lot of talking points that the book ignores.

But overall, it was a good quick read.

I truly understand where the praise of this book comes from, but for me personally I didn't find it as satisfying as I thought it would be. For the latter half of the book, I already have heard all the advice Frankl describes as “logotherapy” from my own personal experiences unrelated to the book; it felt like I was reading an echo chamber of my beliefs, something that didn't really change my perspective from where it already was before about what a meaningful life was.

However, what did impress me was how Frankl describes what it means to suffer but with a purpose - to not cling onto false hope, but to find meaning within the suffering that makes survival more rewarding. That was truly impressive, and I only wish there was more of that in the book.

The most interesting part of the book was Frankl's memoir about his experiences in the concentration camp, where his best writing was found. How he describes the situation, his thoughts, and how it revolves around a central theme of trying to find a purpose in all of this was captivating.

If Catcher in the Rye was able to capture the internal monologue of a moody teenager going about his day, Nine Stories was able to capture the small every day lives of very different people through natural sounding dialogue and subtext - so much subtext.

It is hard to define a common theme throughout each of these stories, but if there is one thing that kept on appearing - it was subtext. Stories will feel as if they just sort of happen, but it is up to the reader to mine out the meaning from the story which contains so much with so few words. It is rewarding, but it warrants a second read for someone to truly appreciate it. If Catcher in the Rye told a lot about the themes and feelings of the character, Nine Stories showed a lot but does not explain. While these stories were not written at the same time, Salinger's talent as a writer shines through with the economical use of words. Nothing is wasted. With the exception of one, they all almost read like small plays that probably could not be performed due to the sparse amount of description.

Anyways, here are my raw initial thoughts that I took in my year-long journey to read all these stories. Notice how I slowly began to appreciate the style as it went along. Maybe I can revisit these.

Reviews:
1) “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” - interesting story, but way too enigmatic and dialogue based for my taste. The story is gross without bringing attention to it - but not sure what it all meant and didn't walk away wanting to. But good story even if it is so purposely vague 7/10

2) Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut - an interesting short story that is a microcosm of the emptiness of suburbia, but with such an unlikable main character that's a sexist, racist, and an abusive mom. It is an unpleasant read, but it is an interesting one once viewed through a different context. 7/10

3) “Just Before the War... - Gonna be honest, this is way too much subtext that I can't enjoy the text as much as the rest. It was good, but really simple and even the character arc was really simple. It's quaint, but this one isn't mind-blowing even though it was probably the most minimalist story thus far that got its point across. low 7/10”

4) The Laughing Man - this is definitely the worst story so far (imo). Tells a story within a story, but only one of them is interesting and the other is fine - but is told so sparsely (continuing with the plain prose) that it's not engaging. Don't know why these two interconnect with each other either. It's fine I guess, but nothing extraordinary. 6/10”

5) Down at the Dinghy - a sweet story about motherhood and complying with a child's imagination, as naïve as the are, in spite of a society that can be cruel and harsh. The ending was sort of touching in a way - and it didn't go the easy route of conedming prejudice explicitly, but rather subtly. 8/10

6) For Esmé - I feel like I should like this more, but as for every story here thus far, I just don't get the emotional impact. The story is cute, but it's way too simple for me to appreciate it. It's predictable, but executed well - but I've yet to feel an emotion other than “that was a good short story”. 7/10 (but a good one)

7) Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes - it's a really good story and shows Salinger's talent for writing dialogue that feels authentic. But I can't say much more than that aside from wondering what the message is. On the surface level though, it is a very interesting story that is executed well - but feels like there could have been more to it. 7/10

8) De Damuier-Smith's...

Surprisingly a funny short story about a guy that is pretentious as hell and his ego destroying him. Unlike any of the other stories here, it is not so steeped in subtext and is pretty blunt with how narcissistic the main character is. It's probably my favorite short story out of all these. 8/10


9) Teddy - 10/10

Honestly, this is worth reading all the stories for itself. I would never have expected a philosophical conversation between an 11 year old and a college Professor to be this endearing, engaging, and surprisingly profound without it even being pretentious. Somehow Salinger writes an intelligent young man without it being caricature

And that ending good lord. Awesome story

Blood Meridian was my second attempt at reading McCarthy. I've enjoyed No Country for Old Men, with a slight preference in the movie adaptation's favor, but found the prose and writing style of the book to be an interesting take on how a book could be written: short, minimalist prose that heightens the tension in a grim, nihilistic world. My wish was granted - only it succeed so well that I found myself never wanting to read another one of his books.

It is so overly serious and cynical to the point it is nigh parody, making everything grim and gloomy that everything about it just becomes nullifying to read even the most gruesome of parts. It is almost as if the author is trying to hard to make a point about the “truth” of the genre, but completely swings too far to a side that it becomes a laughable attempt. There was not a single character that had an ounce of humanity which makes it hard to care about anything that's going on. The judge was the only interesting character, but that comes at the expense of every other character who does not nearly get enough attention - which includes the protagonist himself.

It is entirely possible to create a narrative that deconstructs the western by showing everyone at their absolute worst, but it substitutes critiquing the genre with nuance instead with overt descriptions of violence that it becomes overbearing and numbing. It definitely is not a “realistic” narrative McCarthy creates, but it also is not a very convincing one either.

The writing style is overtly dry and lends itself to incredibly bad pacing issues. So much of this book was describing scenery, making the plot move at such a glacial pace. You can sense that the world is being described as bleak and uncaring, but it comes at the cost of the narrative. There is not much of a balance between the setting and the story.

The way the author withholds information is so disorienting at times that it makes it hard to follow, and especially suffers during the action sequences. Much of this book is declarative statements strung together to act as a sense of urgency, but it just doesn't work for a book this long. Much of it seems structure-less, almost repetitive with the events that take place. Perhaps it is to comment on the neverending cycle of violence, but it also does not make for an engaging story.

This marks the longest I have ever went in a book before stopping completely - with only 75 pages left. Apparently the ending is good, but I just don't care enough to continue.

Even then, I still have faith in the author. If this is his magnum opus, this is more of a misstep that I just don't enjoy. The brilliance of No Country for Old Men keeps me hopeful to read another one of his works.

First time actually reading Poe (rather than listening to it), and I have finally realized what makes Poe so great - the prose. He manages to weave a simple story into something that is only subtly terrifying, through the exploration of the mind of a mad man it becomes even more so.

The way Poe distorts things with subtly, gives the impression of madness. The story would not work from a different perspective, the horror comes from the thoughts of the narrator rather than the events themselves.

Somewhere in Giovanni's Room, there is a great story. But it falls short of having an emotional effect due to the pacing being constrained by its length, not allowing for the main relationship to have much weight to it.

It doesn't feel rushed, but more unearned in how the two fall in love with each other; it is a product of lust rather than something born out of intimacy and connection due to their social isolation. None of the characters are as fleshed out as they should be. Giovanni doesn't have much character to him for much of the book, falling into the unfortunate archetype of the manic pixie dream boy who lacks any depth until the last third of the book. David's character is only interesting when he's not with Giovanni, where he struggles with the shame he feels for loving another man and the impending doom he bears with his fiancee coming to visit. But there is not much of a connection between these two - the plot almost mandates they fall in love too quickly and skims over much of the crucial aspects of how that came to be.

The pacing is the problem with the book. It is much too short to give the depth that is needed for any of these relationships to flourish. The emotional beats are there, and if the previous chapters didn't suffer from the issues it had, it would have been effective. It would have been devastating. I felt cold for not feeling much during these brutally emotional moments of cowardice and despair, but I could exactly pinpoint why. This goes to show how great Baldwin is at his craft - his prose his excellent, with every sentence so dense with information but with the craft of a poem. He can take some of the most mundane moments of everyday life and make them full of meaning. The first chapter especially - which prepared me to expect a novel that would become one of my all time favorites - manages to weave in so much about David's life. The way sex was written didn't remind me of smutty literature, but instead something that was a beautiful augmentation of love; how it is awkward, but the connection between the two could be felt that it was inevitable. The act itself was described in a way that didn't glorify the details, but the emotions involved.I was almost in tears by the end. I understood where David came from, his guilt about loving a man and disappointing his father by telling him. It was heartbreaking, but unfortunately the book does not keep the emotional momentum it had in the first chapter.

I can appreciate Baldwin's craft - but I cannot find myself enjoying it. I can appreciate the fact that he made same-sex love a universal story, where the focus isn't on hiding, but on embracing the human aspect of love, but I wanted more. I didn't get enough of the relationship to really feel the impact it wanted to have, and behind Baldwin's beautiful prose and raw emotion, was a story that was simply too short on the intimate details.