i LOVE this insistence on anti-gatekeeping. that's not exactly what she calls it, but the idea that we need to go into conversations with kindness, patience, and grace, because gatekeeping via callouts only forces people to turn toward the right. this is a conversation that i think is hard to talk about because it is so nuanced, and it's an uncomfortable one to have because it requires self-reflection and interrogation

many activists talk about the ways that the right utilizes populist sentiments and tribalism to influence people further down the pipeline. belonging is a political force - many hateful groups on the right recruit by making people feel welcomed before they are fully ideologically converted

a lot of liberal spaces (or leftist spaces that still utilize more liberal habits) do the exact opposite. someone arrives with half-formed politics, imperfect language, anxiety, defensiveness, or difficult questions, and the first response is very often suspicion, if not complete exile. it might feel morally satisfying, but it's self-sabotage politically

when we expect people to be perfect and learned before they are welcome, are we leaving room for anyone to join? this especially links back to what Ross said in an earlier chapter, that call-out culture is "not an invitation for growth but an expectation that you have already grown"

there are obviously limits to this. not everyone is required to meet hatred with kindness and forgiveness, and not everyone should be expected to do something as extreme as Ross is doing by reaching out to proud white supremacists. the question Ross is asking is not "should we name harm", but rather, "what tool are we using, toward what goal, with what effect?"

"gatekeeping" in the form of ideological boundaries has its place. especially as leftists, it's important to name beliefs and talking points that still serve state interests. but how that naming is done is important. especially when it comes to people who are very clearly curious and want to be on our side, people who are putting in effort, who does it serve when we gatekeep with call outs and cancellation?

i think this issue is especially prevalent in online spaces where everything becomes a performance. call-outs, even when couched in "call-in" or gentle language, often serve the purpose of emotional release or ego management. it becomes about "proving" that you're "one of the good ones" because the status boost of being "correct" feels good, or even just the simple emotional release of being angry feels good. the online space amplifies this to the extreme because the correction is public, instantly gratified, and identity-confirming

that's why Ross's frame of kindness is incredibly radical here, because she positions kindness and forgiveness as a strategy against reactionary capture. her framework is telling us to ask before we act: what is our goal? if the goal is to help someone learn, public shaming might not be the right tool. sometimes exclusion is necessary, but if exclusion becomes the primary proof of our politics, then we are building an enclosure, not building a movement

Yesterday was hugs, rainbows and so much love!

There’s something really special about stepping into a space that doesn’t just tolerate people but genuinely welcomes them. Pagebound has that kind of energy. It feels alive with curiosity, empathy, and an easy openness where people are excited to share what they love and just as excited to hear what others are reading.

For me, reading has always been a fairly solitary thing in my family, something I did quietly in my own little world. Finding a community where that same hobby becomes connection instead of isolation has been unexpectedly grounding. Like… oh, this is what it feels like when your “quiet thing” gets to be shared and celebrated.

One of my favorite things about Pagebound is how infectious that spirit is. People show up eager to learn, excited to share, and genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives. I’ve discovered books I never would’ve picked up on my own, been exposed to ideas I hadn’t considered, and found myself thinking more deeply because of conversations here.

Stepping into Pride month with that kind of space just hits differently. There’s a softness to it, but also strength, a reminder that stories matter, voices matter, and the people behind them deserve to be seen and heard fully.

So as we hit the halfway month of the year, I’m feeling grateful for the stories, the discussions, and the people who make this space what it is. What a joy to find a corner of the internet that feels welcoming without trying too hard about it. Just genuine people, talking about books, being curious, and showing up as they are. Here’s to the rest of 2026, may it be filled with more curiosity, connection, empathy, and finding books that expand our worlds. 📚🏳️‍🌈✨

I feel like I can sense a 3rd breakup act looming over me 😔

How do you guys cope with adding a 4.5+ star rating book to your dnf shelf, a book that you ONLY heard good things about?

I had to dnf six of crows last month because I was not enjoying it at all and it is still bothering me a lot. It makes me sad whenever I see the pink DNF highlight over it. I just feel like I’m missing out on so much, but at the same time I know that I cannot force myself to like a story that I did not like.

I don’t know if I should give it another go? but then that would be forcing myself to read it just because I can’t accept the fact that I’m like.. a part of the 0.5% that didn’t like the story 😩

How do you guys deal with this?? 🥲

do i finish this actually? it is so hard to listen to ngl 😭 i literally cannot decide if i hate it or if it’s gonna be good just a little cringey? idk idk idk . i’m listening to it so i will likely finish it, but likely not very enthusiastically 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

Here wo go. I am scared because the book is huge, but also excited.

the fact that this book immediately starts with the lore drop that the government of canada has fallen because of wolf shifters. sorry to canada ig