I’ll give this book the credit of actually liking it—from the start. Lately, I’ve been speeding through my TBR and pushing myself to finish books I didn’t even enjoy. I got into it quickly, maybe because I find myself naturally gravitate toward dark, eerie stories about women unraveling (The Bell Jar, Girl, Interrupted). The Virgin Suicides had been sitting on my list for a while and was defintitly my cup of tea. I couldn’t get my hands on a print copy, so I ended up listening to the audiobook. The beginning pulled me in right away—it had that haunting, dreamlike feel I enjoy. But somewhere in the middle, I found myself zoning out. The ending was... fine. I could say I was slightly content with how it all wrapped up. What really got under my skin was the narration. The story is told from the perspective of neighborhood boys looking back on the Lisbon sisters’ lives and deaths. Hearing about the girls only through the boys’ memories was both refreshing and unnerving. We never actually know the girls; we only know how they were seen. That voyeuristic lens made me uncomfortable. The sisters felt less like real people and more like untouchable myths~ tragic & unrelatable. Final verdict... hours spent on it not lost

I wasn’t familiar with Shirley Jackson beyond watching (and loving) The Haunting of Hill House, but this title had been on my radar. I picked it up spontaneously one Friday afternoon as a palate cleanser—and read it in one sitting. Dark, eerie, and atmospheric in that slow-creep way that reminds me why I love horror, thrillers, and books that promise a plot twist. But… where was the plot twist? Still, it left me unsettled in the best way. The ending lingers—quietly tragic, almost tender, and so very strange. Just found out there’s a movie adaptation and I LOVE the cast, so I’ll be watching that tonight.

I can see myself rereading it again in 5-10 years. I’ll appreciate it more once I read all the authors Woolf references and sit with her ideas a bit longer. But even without reading the work of everyone she referenced, I still felt her. It’s not a long read, but it’s dense with meaning—part essay, part lecture, part her stream of thought. I wish I read it in print. It would have allowed me to soak it more. Some passages really hit, others I want to return to with a better understanding. Definitely one to revisit. Possibly the first read of this year that I felt this way about. See in few years

I remember reading Animal Farm at university and finding it both unnerving and brilliant—it immediately made me want to read 1984. Somehow, over the past ten years, I picked it up twice and stopped just a few chapters in. This year, I’m committed to finally reading everything I’ve been meaning to, so I gave it another go. Even early on, though, I could tell I wasn’t fully engaged. I’ve read a lot of dystopian fiction—propably inspired by 1984—and it now takes a certain kind of narrative to really hold my attention. For me, 1984 might have worked better as a short story or a series of essays (though from literature graduate point of view, I would argue that the slow, oppressive pacing is intentional if only to mirror the autmoted lives of people in 1984) The characters lacked emotional depth, and for a book that strips people of their humanity in order to exert control, the glimpses of humanity we are given—mainly through love and songs—feel underdeveloped and unconvincing(intentional again? maybe the characters are more symbolic than anything but still) While I appreciate its historical significance and the concepts Orwell introduced, the execution left me feeling so very detached. I’m glad I finally finished it, but I feel older and not for the impact it had on me but for stealing my time.

This is one of those books where I saw everywhere for so long that I figured 2025 is the year. The opening was promising: a fire, a town steeped in order, the kind of structured setting that immediately pulled me in.. I liked the idea of Shaker Heights, a place where everything had its place, its rules. I would in theory love to live in such place. But as I kept reading, my interest faded. Maybe it was because I had just finished The Kite Runner, a book so deep it scarred me for days, but Little Fires Everywhere felt... underwhelming. I had expected something sharp, something with an edge—perhaps a Sharp Objects-style unraveling of dark secrets. Instead, I got what felt like “white people problems.” I dare say I enjoyed The House Maid more and it didn't have much subsense either. I'm not sure why I'm disappointed. I suppose I really wanted to like it. I would give the tv adaptation a go though. It does feel like it would make a better show than a book

I hate that there is a reason for this book to exists.. The contrast between the before and after.. and the reality a child born in war lives in.. abandoning a home for the unknown.. painful.. I have no words..

I suppose I expected much more from it going in. I related to the narrator's feelings at times.. at others it felt that a completely different person was speaking.. I wondered if the author stuffed it with all possible scenarios to make it relatable for everyone.. It reads like a transcript rather than a reflective memoir and personally I thought it was written on a surface-level.. it didn't quite engage me emotionally?

The thing about books with a lot of hype is that I always feel like I’m treading carefully when reading them. I saw people annotating so much that I ended up reading it slowly, overthinking if I was missing something that would ruin the expericne. The first 180 pages were good albet the character introductions felt somewhat stretched. In general I found that there were many filler scenes and overly detailed descriptions of mundane moments that, at times, felt unnecessary and took from moments that are. My second criticism was the assumption that Persian literature is written in Arabic and wondering due to that if the scene with the Palestinian and the references to iraq and Hussain were well-crafted or another mistake. That being said, I fairly enjoyed Tartt’s characters. They were deeply flawed, but that was part of their appeal. There’s a certain charm in how pretentious and detached they are, making them fascinating to observe. I was invested even when the pacing drags. Did I enjoy the atmosphere of intellectual arrogance, obsession, and moral decay? yes.. how the characters were so disconnected from reality? sure.. I love me some morally ambiguous characters but it did not feel like the 5 stars read I expected it to be and I wonder if I read it without the hype if it would have been. I'm sad I'll never know

حصلت على هذا الكتاب كهدية من صديقة، واستمتعت بقراءته. الكتاب قصير وبسيط، وكل فصل يتناول آية واحدة من سورة يوسف ويربطها بجانب من الذكاء العاطفي. أعجبني أسلوب الطرح، لكن في بعض الأحيان تمنيت لو كان هناك المزيد من التفسير وشرح الكلمات.. في نظري كان التركيز أكثر على تدبر الكاتب.. كاتب يناسب الاباء للتعلم من النبي يعقوب وكيف تعامل مع ابناءه

I vividly remember the beginning and end of The Song of Achilles and I imagine I will vividly remember Circe too. She is relatable that I often forgot she is a sorceress in a greek methodology context. Not a spoiler but now in my 30s I fully comprehend Pasiphaë speech about Circe efforts to be good daughter, to do right, and to endure hardship with grace do not guarantee her love, praise or a just outcome. At least it would not bring her disrespect and harm but as a woman that's not the truth of how the world works. A woman's kindness and sacrificial behaviour would not always bring her reward or protection. If you give, those who only take will expect more and punish you or leave when you stop. Pasiphaë was one self-absorbent character but that speech was mature and painted circe as naive. Probably the most powerful speech in the novel..