Nota

This book contains gore, relatable activist backstories, the lowest sins of humanity described from a compassionate side. It has interesting views of God and existence and analyses works of an interesting author which now I want to read, haunting word images about which I will be thinking about.

There's no hope for us. We vilify and insult the weakest and it's been continuing since forever, we insult the weaker by comparing them to the weakest and since committing terrible atrocities we are determined to commit more. If we end one war then we humanely continue another, we sleep on the victims forever.

It's so wild how people do not see connections between all cruelty and somehow compartmentalise it so that it's all separate. Violence against minorities is wrong and the animals are the biggest minority, people can't get convinced that they are even the same as us.

If we live in a society which treats its weakest people this badly then how is it strong at all? It's a ruin, if most people can live with a logic error this big it's hopeless to think that they are not committing all sorts of other cruelties all the time. They are not even doing the bare minimum.

I am not sure how many meat eaters would dare to read this one, but this feels very supporting to read as a vegan. There's a bunch of vegan/vegetarian history I knew nothing about in it and I suppose I should go on a journey to find out a lot more. I feel that animal activists books really speak to me in a voice like no other and that I should seek out more from it.

I want to read books by vegans for vegans, it is sickening how many of the books don't contain the basic moral of not eating the animals. I love that this book exists, I love that at least there are people speaking up about all the pain that animals go through and that they record it. The X-ray vision is real.

Thank you so much for writing it and being a voice for the animals.

The horror of this book is subtle and it popularized the concept of haunted house horror. Because the character exploration is its focus, it is more sad than scary.

Welcome to the Hill House, not sane, alone, might stand for another 80 years or so.

The writing style is odd and dream-like, purposefully hiding information, also it's a book from the 1950s, so in general, the way the characters interact can put people off. The novel takes away a lot of things you might want to know like character descriptions, only leaving you with the color of their sweater, the descriptions of the Hill House itself, you only vaguely understand how it is supposed to look. It sometimes jumps the scene forward, disorienting.

The atmosphere, the characters (the main character especially) are lovely. However, some characters that are introduced later on do not serve the plot. The ending is great, there's a build-up to it and it's bold.

There's something very familiar with the horror and sadness in this book for me, so it really worked. A lot of it is spent on the characters simply anticipating the horror and not a whole lot happening, but you also get to find out about the characters when they simply chat.

Disclaimer: I haven't read any Greek mythology before so I can't compare this book to the original myths, I have heard that Achilles was originally crueler, but I'm glad the main characters were made into better role models. The author repurposed this one side character to create a discussion on a sexual assault which I am okay with, even though it might not be accurate to the myth.

Take a dip into a reimagined ancient myth, through the sea, an olive jar storeroom, and a rose quartz cave. Reexperience an idealized childhood bond that you never had through the eyes of someone who could never forget it. A fairytale, a legend “The song of Achilles” focuses on two boys, Achilles, and Patroclus, growing up and then facing the realities of war, and the expectations of their current time period.

“I saw then how I had changed. I did not mind anymore that I lost when we raced and I lost when we swam out to the rocks and I lost when we tossed spears or skipped stones. For who can be ashamed to lose to such beauty? It was enough to watch him win, to see the soles of his feet flashing as they kicked up sand, or the rise and fall of his shoulders as he pulled through the salt. It was enough.”

You can feel how much they care for each other, a simple kind of love, noticing small things, being happy for spending time together. A fig, a lyre, a pomegranate, sandalwood, and salt. There are a ton of symbols that are tied to the characters. The book is rich in descriptions.

“I did not have time to look away before he said, softly, but distinctly, “Catch” a fig leapt from the pattern in a graceful arc towards me. It fell into the cup of my palms, soft and slightly warm. I was aware of the boys cheering.”

Knowing about Greek myth is unrequited, and there's material to reference the figures mentioned at the back of the book.

As they grow up, the book gets sadder and more brutal, the characters' flaws become more visible, and get taken advantage of. You don't get too in-depth with the characters, but the ones that need to be are rounded well enough.

“He is a weapon, a killer. Do not forget you can use a spear as a walking stick, but that will not change its nature.”

I have cried a ton while reading both happy, and sad scenes, this book can take you emotionally to a lot of places if you let it. I look forwards to reading more greek inspiring stories, and more from this author.

I for some reason thought to myself to finish this even though I obviously did not like it! I shouldn't have! But this is an existentialist work and I loved everything Simone De Beauvoir wrote so I thought oh it will get better!

Dull, repetitive, mundane reflections of a vain character who in turn sees everything to be vain. An attractive face which I no doubt he possesses is a stone in his imagination rolls eyes There are some weird descriptions of women. Like—

“nestling in lace; and the woman picturing her bosom under her blouse, thinking: “My titties, my lovely fruits,” smiling mysteriously, attentive to the swelling of her breasts which tickled . . . then I shouted and found myself with my eyes wide open.
Had I dreamed of this enormous presence? It was there, in the garden, toppled down into the trees, all soft, sticky, soiling everything, all thick, a jelly.”

And it doesn't get better at the end! I mean it gets different I suppose, but barely better. This feels like a barebones philosophy lesson disguised as a barebones fiction book.

This is one of those books from which I come feeling worse after having read them. I need my fix of good work and I need it now! Hopefully the next one will cleanse me.

Now I wonder if Simone was held hostage or is this one of his earlier works or something, maybe his philosophy is better? I bet he made a great case study for her.

I had this false impression this would be a deep study of disgust and the various ways it can be depicted and be interesting, and it was none of those things. The disgust was how bland the protagonist is and very limited in language and ideas.

I finished this masterpiece. It's kinda like a textbook with little comedy sprinkled at the start and the end, some enthusiasm around philosophy, history and science injected. The plot and the dialog kinda sucks and the book itself points out that it's one huge monologue.

Sophie for the most part just replies in snarky ways or just generic replies “Yes.” “Tell me more.” “Let's look into it.”. I don't remember the exact words but it's basically that and then a guy tells her a bunch of simplified philosophy which is not even a good way to learn it if we are being honest. The way we learn is with details and brushing off large time periods without much care won't help the memory. I was somewhat familiar with these philosophers because I read a similar book before, but without the fiction, literally “the philosophy book”. There are definitely parts I kinda looked over just because there was so much surface information coming in.

But I dunno, I appreciate it and probably need to read a couple more books like this, not this same one tho. It would probably be even better if I just read the philosopher's themselves. I liked hearing Sattre's influence, I really disliked his first work, but since he made such an impact his later work must definitely be better, I hope.

But really why you would appreciate this is the philosophical urge to invent terms, the love of complaining to mom, the white crow books of alternative universes. Mom has learned that people cannot fly, but she doesn't understand anything really. I am in possession of some philosophical allegations.

I like the feminist tone despite the book containing mostly men, it's like hey look at those men now you can do better, you go girl. I love the mention of the one and only Simone De Beavoir even though the book technically could have mentioned lots of other women philosophers and more eco philosophers. This is not that focused on current times tho and I suppose the author wanted to cover the essentials which they did.

I am not sure why I want to rate this textbook 5 stars, but I really have no reason not to. Maybe that party at the end was too lavish and opulent... hmmm... consumerism much?? K, but like it's a good book, there's information that I need to encounter, some thoughts and history explained in a way I should have probably encountered by this point which only speaks to my ignorance about these topics. But you know twitter or now X exists and I am learning so you see who is winning. Did I do good dad? Thanks.

After reading this I feel such a mission and debt to environmentalists because I really see that their books and all if you look up aren't really taking that off when the information they provide is so invaluable. I wanna know about philosophy and science, but all the eco stuff... I should look into it.

I struggled to continue this book a bit because I lost a friend while reading it and that put me into a self-reflective spiral and what my life means which this sorta is about. I don't appreciate Darwin and his gene spreading philosophy, but the other thoughts by the greats I love. I think they were a bit envious of me branching out into science and not into occult stuff which I love because there's a chapter here on not believing new age philosophies and what they try to sell with all the religions.

Quotes:

““You haven't gotten yourself mixed up with drugs, have you, dear?”
Sophie was just about to laugh, but she understood why the question was being brought up now.
“Are you nuts?” she said. “That only makes you duller'.””

“Only priests and monks read the Bible because it only existed in Latin. But during the Renaissance, the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek into national languages.”

“She ended with a paragraph on the fact that everything people do can be used for good or evil. Good and evil are like a white and a black thread that make up a single strand.
Sometimes they are so closely intertwined that it is impossible to untangle them.”

I really like this last one. Counterpoints. Twilight. Ying, yang. It haunts my thoughts lately.