avatarPagebound Royalty Badge

acidicchaos

30s. She/Her. Polygenre-ous Reader. IDK why the curtain was blue, but I NEED to hear your theories! It's always that deep and reading IS political. 2nd Reading Goal: ≥10% nonfic (9/1: 13%) 🌱🌷🐝

47634 points

0% overlap
Fever Dreams & Strange Realities
Every Villain is a Hero
Supporting* Women's Wrongs
Best of @SimonBooks Debut Women's Lit
Botanical Horror
Classics Starter Pack Vol I
Fictional(?) Dystopian Societies
Dark Academia
Sapphic Across Genres
Achillean Across Genres
Classic Literature from the United States
Blood Suckers
My Taste
Bunny
Chain-Gang All-Stars
Piranesi
The Plans I Have for You
Yesteryear
Reading...
Shady Hollow
33%
Jesusland: Stories from the Upside Down World of Christian Pop Culture
0%
The Art of Subtext: Beyond Plot
70%
A Companion to the Crying of Lot 49
6%
Heir (Heir Duology, #1)
25%
Fruit Fly
0%

acidicchaos commented on a post

1h
  • Yesteryear
    Thoughts from 25%

    What a miserable life you have to have to think such nasty things about other person 😱 I'm horrified.

    15
    comments 5
    Reply
  • acidicchaos commented on acidicchaos's update

    acidicchaos made progress on...

    10h
    The Art of Subtext: Beyond Plot

    The Art of Subtext: Beyond Plot

    Charles Baxter

    70%
    26
    2
    Reply

    acidicchaos made progress on...

    10h
    The Art of Subtext: Beyond Plot

    The Art of Subtext: Beyond Plot

    Charles Baxter

    70%
    26
    2
    Reply

    acidicchaos commented on Sffgoblin's update

    Sffgoblin completed their yearly reading goal of 15 books!

    10h

    Sffgoblin's 2026 Reading Challenge

    15 of 15 read
    The Six Deaths of the Saint
    The Tea Dragon Society
    The Magic Fish
    Garlic and the Witch
    Mooncakes
    Garlic and the Vampire
    Through Gates of Garnet and Gold
    19
    2
    Reply

    acidicchaos commented on FeralAcademic's review of EYETOOTH

    11h
  • EYETOOTH
    FeralAcademic
    Sep 03, 2026
    EYETOOTH
    5.0
    Enjoyment: 5.0Quality: 5.0Characters: 5.0Plot: 5.0
    🥩
    🩻
    ❤️‍🩹

    NO NOTES

    22
    comments 10
    Reply
  • acidicchaos commented on a post from the Pagebound Club forum

    12h
  • What books were written by men after 1989 that have intentionally unlikeable MCs?

    I have been really interested in reading intentionally unlikeable main characters (MCs) this year and now I'm wanting to dig into some "data" around reader ratings/perceptions about books with intentionally unlikeable MCs. So I searched through PB Club for posts talking about intentionally unlikeable MCs and pulled the book titles mentioned in those threads so I could start digging into ratings/reviews.

    (Note: I'm grouping authors who use she/her pronouns on their website as women and authors who use he/him pronouns on their websites as men.)

    Here's the problem: When I started looking over the raw data I've pulled so far, I realized two things: One - these threads have overwhelmingly referenced books that by women and Two - when people referenced books written by men they were often classics.

    Currently the average year published for books written by women is 2017 where books written by men is 1974.5. Yikes This data is just for fun/learning, buuuuuut now that I have seen potential issues in the data - I can't unsee it.


    The ask So I'm coming to PB club again for help! What books were written by men (authors who currently use he/him pronouns) from 1990 to present day where the general understanding is that the main character was written to be intentionally unlikeable? If it's close too 1990 that's fine too - I would rather err on the side of more data than less considering the data is a bit of a mess right now. My goal is to have all of the books in the final dataset to be referenced/recommended by Pagebound users, cause I trust that y'all aren't bots... everywhere else is suspect at this point.

    I'm only planning on doing simple quantitative analyses buuuuuuuut if you wanna share any of your thoughts on unlikeable characters, why you usually like reading about them/usually don't like reading about them, what makes an unlikeable character enjoyable/tolerable for you vs when you DNF or give it a low star rating - I definitely won't complain!!


    Brief glimpse at the very rough data so far

    • Overall, readers like books unlikeable MCs! Average star score rating per book range from 3.38 to 4.21 (average is 3.86).
    • The average book in the current dataset has predominately 4 or 5 star reviews: 5 stars 32.04%, 4 stars 35.82%, 3 stars 21.52%, 2 stars 7.40%, and 1 star 3.21%

    Statistically significant results on the very rough data with a small sample size pretty much everything might change once I get more data HOW TO READ CORRELATIONS (skip if you're familiar... unless you are a math teacher/good at explaining stats cause idk how to explain stats. I'll edit this post with your explanation - I did my best 😭 😭 😭 😭) If you aren't familiar with p values, p stands for probability and it ranges from 0-1. I'm using p ≤ 0.05 as the cut off for results that are statistically significant. You can think of p ≤ 0.05 like this: if there was really no relationship between these two things (variables), how often would random luck alone give us a pattern this strong? When p = 0.05 that is 1 time in 20 times it was actually random luck. The smaller the p the harder it is to explain this pattern away as a coincidence.

    r is probably going to be easier to understand with the actual data examples below, but r ranges from -1 to +1. Use the - or + to understand the direction of the pattern on a graph. A negative number means as one variable increases, the other variable decreases (like going down a slide). A positive number means means both variables increase together (like climbing up a set of stairs). The closer to 1 (positive or negative) the closer the data points on the graph fall on a perfectly straight line. -0.5 or +0.5 you can see the pattern, but there are exceptions (some data falls above or below a perfect line).

    (Math teachers - I swear I tried really hard, stats was my worst subject in grad school, please go easy on meeeee 😭)

    OKAY BACK TO THE DATA

    • There is a negative relationship between year published and percentage of the reviews being 5 stars (r = -.64, p = 0.008) -> older books have a higher percentage of 5 star ratings.
    • But those newer books have more 4 and 3 star ratings than older books, so people aren't angry about these books and "review bombing" them with 1 or 2 stars, the books are just more "okay" (3 stars) or "good" (4 stars) than "great" (5 stars) -> 4 stars (r = +0.58, p = 0.019), 3 stars (r = +0.54, p = 0.030)
    • The more popular a book is (in terms of total number of reviews) higher the percentage of 5 star reviews (r = +0.51, p = 0.042). I suspect one classic is driving this relationship, but if you want to take a guess at which one it is - feel free to guess if you want haha
    56
    comments 69
    Reply
  • acidicchaos is interested in reading...

    12h
    Pleasure Activism: The Politics of Feeling Good

    Pleasure Activism: The Politics of Feeling Good

    Adrienne Maree Brown

    21
    2
    Reply

    acidicchaos commented on notbillnye's update

    acidicchaos commented on Bulle's update

    Post from the Pagebound Club forum

    13h
  • What books were written by men after 1989 that have intentionally unlikeable MCs?

    I have been really interested in reading intentionally unlikeable main characters (MCs) this year and now I'm wanting to dig into some "data" around reader ratings/perceptions about books with intentionally unlikeable MCs. So I searched through PB Club for posts talking about intentionally unlikeable MCs and pulled the book titles mentioned in those threads so I could start digging into ratings/reviews.

    (Note: I'm grouping authors who use she/her pronouns on their website as women and authors who use he/him pronouns on their websites as men.)

    Here's the problem: When I started looking over the raw data I've pulled so far, I realized two things: One - these threads have overwhelmingly referenced books that by women and Two - when people referenced books written by men they were often classics.

    Currently the average year published for books written by women is 2017 where books written by men is 1974.5. Yikes This data is just for fun/learning, buuuuuut now that I have seen potential issues in the data - I can't unsee it.


    The ask So I'm coming to PB club again for help! What books were written by men (authors who currently use he/him pronouns) from 1990 to present day where the general understanding is that the main character was written to be intentionally unlikeable? If it's close too 1990 that's fine too - I would rather err on the side of more data than less considering the data is a bit of a mess right now. My goal is to have all of the books in the final dataset to be referenced/recommended by Pagebound users, cause I trust that y'all aren't bots... everywhere else is suspect at this point.

    I'm only planning on doing simple quantitative analyses buuuuuuuut if you wanna share any of your thoughts on unlikeable characters, why you usually like reading about them/usually don't like reading about them, what makes an unlikeable character enjoyable/tolerable for you vs when you DNF or give it a low star rating - I definitely won't complain!!


    Brief glimpse at the very rough data so far

    • Overall, readers like books unlikeable MCs! Average star score rating per book range from 3.38 to 4.21 (average is 3.86).
    • The average book in the current dataset has predominately 4 or 5 star reviews: 5 stars 32.04%, 4 stars 35.82%, 3 stars 21.52%, 2 stars 7.40%, and 1 star 3.21%

    Statistically significant results on the very rough data with a small sample size pretty much everything might change once I get more data HOW TO READ CORRELATIONS (skip if you're familiar... unless you are a math teacher/good at explaining stats cause idk how to explain stats. I'll edit this post with your explanation - I did my best 😭 😭 😭 😭) If you aren't familiar with p values, p stands for probability and it ranges from 0-1. I'm using p ≤ 0.05 as the cut off for results that are statistically significant. You can think of p ≤ 0.05 like this: if there was really no relationship between these two things (variables), how often would random luck alone give us a pattern this strong? When p = 0.05 that is 1 time in 20 times it was actually random luck. The smaller the p the harder it is to explain this pattern away as a coincidence.

    r is probably going to be easier to understand with the actual data examples below, but r ranges from -1 to +1. Use the - or + to understand the direction of the pattern on a graph. A negative number means as one variable increases, the other variable decreases (like going down a slide). A positive number means means both variables increase together (like climbing up a set of stairs). The closer to 1 (positive or negative) the closer the data points on the graph fall on a perfectly straight line. -0.5 or +0.5 you can see the pattern, but there are exceptions (some data falls above or below a perfect line).

    (Math teachers - I swear I tried really hard, stats was my worst subject in grad school, please go easy on meeeee 😭)

    OKAY BACK TO THE DATA

    • There is a negative relationship between year published and percentage of the reviews being 5 stars (r = -.64, p = 0.008) -> older books have a higher percentage of 5 star ratings.
    • But those newer books have more 4 and 3 star ratings than older books, so people aren't angry about these books and "review bombing" them with 1 or 2 stars, the books are just more "okay" (3 stars) or "good" (4 stars) than "great" (5 stars) -> 4 stars (r = +0.58, p = 0.019), 3 stars (r = +0.54, p = 0.030)
    • The more popular a book is (in terms of total number of reviews) higher the percentage of 5 star reviews (r = +0.51, p = 0.042). I suspect one classic is driving this relationship, but if you want to take a guess at which one it is - feel free to guess if you want haha
    56
    comments 69
    Reply
  • acidicchaos commented on acidicchaos's update

    acidicchaos commented on StJust's review of Who Ate Up All the Shinga?: An Autobiographical Novel (Weatherhead Books on Asia)

    20h
  • Who Ate Up All the Shinga?: An Autobiographical Novel (Weatherhead Books on Asia)
    StJust
    Sep 02, 2026
    Who Ate Up All the Shinga?: An Autobiographical Novel (Weatherhead Books on Asia)
    4.0
    Enjoyment: 4.0Quality: 4.0Characters: Plot:
    🌿
    🏙️
    🏫

    It's hard to rate and review a memoir, so I'm mostly doing this by comparing what I was most interested in as a reader vs what the book gave, and the overall writing.

    Firstly, Park is coming from a perspective that is new to me: someone who was born in Japanese-occupied Korea and was a teen at the beginning of the Korean War. This puts her in a sort of in-between generation: she exclusively learns Japanese in school and is taught loyalty to the emperor, and her peers struggle with the abrupt change back to Korean-ness later on. I adore reading things like this from perspectives I've never seen, so that right there was super compelling for me.

    The descriptions of her childhood were real, funny, touching, and alien all at the same time, and I had a good time reading those sections even though they weren't always that interesting, to be perfectly honest. We spend a long time talking about her childhood habits and impressions of those around her, and a lot of time traveling between her home village and Seoul. The character of her grandfather was really interesting, as a representation of an older generation who clung to pre-occupation Korea and certain traditions from the previous century. Park is able to showcase his learned flaws (open misogyny, classism) without condemning him too much, and also while showing his human side.

    It takes a very long time for anything to start happening in terms of the politics around Park. The school sections were kind of tedious, and it would have been nice to have some indication of the tension and buildup from the end of WWII to the beginning of the Korean War, because it kind of seems to come out of nowhere. This is likely because, as a tween/early teen, it probably did almost come out of nowhere for her. I was surprised at how quickly and easily WWII was passed over, although the bits we got were really interesting to see from a Korean perspective. When the civil war comes, it does so kind of slowly - people are in denial and want to go on with life as usual.

    So the pacing was a bit off for me, and I would have liked more wider context about the leadup to the civil war from her perspective, but I get why we don't have that. Once the war does come, though, I was really enthralled: Park's exploration of ideology - especially from the point of view of young people like her and her brother - was both nuanced and realistic, and showcases how easily led people are and how these kinds of divides can sneak up on a community. Chance plays a huge role in the last third of the book, and we see how tiny choices and random events can have huge impacts in such a heightened context.

    I found her views on leftism particularly interesting, because even though Park had been taught that anything "left" is horrible for her whole adult life (and this comes through a bit), she's still able to respect her former leftist self and her brother/his peers for what they were trying to do. It feels like she's warring with her inner impulse that says she should condemn anything that's even leaning towards the bogeyman of Communism, because she might still have some tendencies in that direction herself. More than anything, though, she comes off as a realist: she's not naive enough to think that most people in Seoul in the 50's made any kind of deeply ideologically-driven choices, but rather they made the choices they thought would serve them best to survive the situation. She herself consciously chooses to turn her back on some ideals because they're not practical for her time and place. I respect that a lot, and I think she did a wonderful job of conveying these nuances.

    In terms of the writing: this is a translation, and in some ways it definitely reads as one. There are a lot of English idioms that sound strange to me coming from someone like Park. But as a translator myself, this tells me that her writing style is heavily colloquial and makes free use of idioms and in-group references, and I think the translators did a good job of getting that across. It almost comes off as listening to a granny chatting about her youth. Park is funny and descriptive; her writing is engaging and easy to read. At the same time, she's able to weave in themes really well, and when she's reflecting on the big issues of her youth it doesn't read as heavy handed. We get a lot of profound discussion of those issues even though her writing is always fairly light.

    Overall I really enjoyed reading this memoir, but I'm not sure everyone will. I have a strong interest in history, so I mostly enjoyed the sections about her life as a child, but anyone who's more interested in the politics and war of it all would struggle to get through the first two thirds, I think. IMO it's worth a read just for the last third that explores the outbreak of war in Seoul, but anyone who would be interested in a slice of life in occupied Korea would enjoy this book.

    (Also note: I wanted to put a flag emoji here to help people looking for Korean lit, but this book doesn't sit easily as being labeled North or South Korea. Park spends the whole book traveling between her country village in what's now North Korea and Seoul for school, and she's not firmly one or the other. She spent the rest of her life in South Korea after the partition, but this books deals with her youth and I don't think it's fair to put an anachronistic label on it.)

    11
    comments 2
    Reply
  • acidicchaos commented on cornontherun's update

    cornontherun made progress on...

    20h
    Fervor

    Fervor

    Meg Smitherman

    100%
    10
    4
    Reply

    acidicchaos commented on Empanadita's review of How to Be Eaten

    20h
  • How to Be Eaten
    Empanadita
    Sep 02, 2026
    How to Be Eaten
    4.0
    Enjoyment: 5.0Quality: 3.0Characters: 4.0Plot: 3.0
    🗯️
    📹️
    ⚖️

    This is more about the horrors of society than a classic horror story. I didn't find it very suspenseful nor frightening and I honestly appreciate that! But if you're looking for something more than body horror, this probably won't satisfy you.

    Enjoyment I enjoyed the retold fairytales very much! The book was also surprisingly addictive to me and I found it hard to put down.

    Quality The women's stories were interesting comments on the horrors of society and what it means to tell your own story against victim blaming, the discrediting of women, true crime / reality tv voyeurism, and generally sexism and patriarchy. The only thing that didn't really work for me is the overarching story on how and why they're coming together in this therapy group.

    Characters If you're looking for likeable characters, you might want to look somewhere else... Some characters and their stories left me rather uncomfortable but even then they generated lots of sympathy in me for what they had and have to endure.

    Plot Even though I'm not made for horror or suspense books, I think at some points there was great potential to dwell a bit more into the dread and mystery. Like, sometimes things were resolved too quickly in my opinion. Also, the ending that comes with the overarching story didn't do it for me, I was expecting something more out of it - still, I enjoyed the women's stories very much and was quite hooked by the book.

    9
    comments 2
    Reply