>2 star is supposed to be "it was ok" which is an opinion that should happen relatively often,

I'm not so sure. That 3-star midpoint of "I liked it" is generally the minimum expectation people have when going into a book, because who picks up a book they think they won't even like? And, more so, who keeps reading a book when they've realized it's falling short of their expectations?

>I know a decent amount of people dislike The Name of the Wind for various reasons,

I think this really highlights why the rating distribution seems to skew unnaturally high: books are long and complex, and readers can easily have very specific problems with a book while still having an overall 3-star experience because they're rating the entirety of the book.

Personally, I almost never give out 1-star reviews because it's unusual that I finish a book I actively dislike. 2 stars is typically my lowest, because even if I don't like a book, there usually has to be something interesting about it to keep me reading. And then I'm happy to give 3 stars to any book I liked overall, even if it's not something I'm super enthusiastic about.

>If you look at the distribution of ratings you'll see 1 and 2 stars are almost never used.

That's because most people read books they expect they'll at least like, and the traditional publishing process does a relatively good job of filtering out the really unreadable stuff.

I can guarantee you that if people picked books at random then the ratings distribution would look a lot different.

Amazon reviews are completely unreliable because they're often reviewing the physical product and the service they received and not the content of the book. Plus each edition etc. of a book has its own page.

Goodreads is the gold standard imo for measuring whether a book lives up to reader expectations, and that can be very helpful. (The exception is for classics assigned in school because the readership is no longer self-selecting.)

Lol what? How is this ironic?

But feel free to list your favorite authors in your flair too, nobody's stopping you...

>I think people who like to read tend to have broader minds

I strongly disagree with this.

This sub loves to think that reading is an inherent mark of superiority, but it's not. In fact, readers can be some of the most narrow-minded people out there: look at how many readers only stick to specific types of stories in a specific genre about a specific type of character, or look at how many readers simply do not read critically or deeply even if they do read widely. There's nothing wrong with any of that for people for whom reading is a hobby....but it's not a hobby that in and of itself confers superiority.

>I don't think that people are successful in their career because they read n pages.

But this agree with.

No, not really.

I mean, reading a lot as a kid definitely helped develop strong language skills, but I don't think that's really been furthered in a way that helps my career by continuing to read as an adult. And I'm sure my reading benefits me as a person, which indirectly benefits my career, but there are a number of alternative hobbies that I could pick up that would do the same or similar. Like, there are probably lot of people for whom reading is not the best way of "reducing stress" or "sparking creativity."

Perhaps it would be different if I was reading nonfiction aimed at professional development and my specific industry, but I don't. Reading is a hobby and I'm happy with that.

More than you might think (unless you're listening to a bland narrator, but that approach seems to be out of style for obvious reasons). You're listening to a performance, after all, and any performer brings their own interpretation to the role, regardless of how careful they are to follow the direction given by the author in dialogue tags and context.

Think about watching musicals or plays performed by a different cast and how different they can be. Or think of movie adaptations or remakes (depending on how much was changed); for instance, you can find YouTube compilations comparing the same scene in different Pride and Prejudice adaptations, and they're saying the same dialogue and going for a similar effect but the characters' personalities feel very different.

One of the defining features of the mystery genre is that the mystery is solved at the end (just as one of the defining features of the romance genre is that the couple is together and happy at the end). An ambiguous ending wouldn't have gone over well with most readers and would be a marketing nightmare. If she'd wanted to do that, she probably would have had to market it completely different (maybe as lit fic?) with rewrites to match.

I can tell you it's definitely not Robin Buss—his translation was first published sometime in the 2000s.

The only translation I would recommend reading is the Robin Buss translation, which is widely acknowledged to be far and away the best unabridged version. The translation you have could be only slightly inferior, or it could be very bad and/or abridged and/or Bowdlerized.

I don't have one. I mean, there are definitely cover styles that repel me as a potential reader—ones that feature shirtless men, teen girls in fancy dresses, anime characters, etc.—but that's because I don't read those genres and those covers are completely successful in communicating that to me as a potential reader. In other words, they're good covers.

I suppose, then, the covers I dislike are covers that misrepresent the novel, intentionally or not. That's not a style, but it's as close as I'll get.

On the other hand, my favorite style is probably anything pattern-based. Think Coralie Bickford-Smith's gorgeous Penguin covers, or the original Barbara Plume hardback designs. I find them visually more interesting then a more traditional picture, and it takes an incredible amount of nuance to hint at a novel's tone, themes, etc. when working in a very abstract style.

You're going to have to give some examples.

Better yet, OP's teacher should stop overusing the word "symbolism."

Imo the huge misunderstanding that spawned the "the curtains are blue" meme boils down to English teachers overusing that word (same with "foreshadowing," but that's another can of worms). Blue "symbolizes" sadness; standing on a hill "symbolizes" isolation. It implies that authors are using this ridiculous, elaborate secret code to get their message across and that this code is the heart of the text.

In reality, the word "symbolism" is (usually) being used by teachers as a lazy shorthand that skips over the core reason the purported "symbolism" is being used. The curtains are blue because that color sets the tone of the scene to accentuate the character's sadness; Holden stands on the hill because he has set himself apart from his peers due to his isolation. This is a much more concrete and approachable way to discuss literature.

Some books definitely are chock full of symbolism that needs to be discussed as such, eg The Scarlet Letter and The Great Gatsby. But in most other books, what teachers reductively call "symbolism" is actually a variety of concrete literary techniques that need to be unpacked.

>Not sure why this is getting downvoted

Probably because it sounds insane lol

Not saying it is (or isn't), but it sounds like a step above throwing a book in the dishwasher.

I guess the archives where you worked don't use RFID tags?

This is my second favorite novel of hers, enjoy!

Edit: To expound on this a bit, it's very much a coming-of-age novel with Natalie trying to come to terms with reality (and leave behind the world of daydreams that she lives in), cope with a growing sense of disillusionment as she realizes that adults are also generally a mess and are often terrible people, decide who she is/wants to be, and find out how to relate to her family and the rest of the world now that she's "all grown up." It's very much a weirder version of The Bell Jar, but I liked and connected with it much more.

Of course, it's also about >!dealing with trauma following sexual assault!<, which I'm very grateful not to relate to.

I really liked the sequels. They were different, and I don't think they're quite as innovative as The Giver, but they were entertaining and explored meaningful themes. Especially Gathering Blue with how it handles disability.

The big "reveal" at the end was just so so so bad.

>It certainly wasn't a fame riding situation.

Well arguably it was, but by her publisher/agent/family. It seems like Lee was taken advantage of so that other people could make money.

A lot of people I think realize this, hence it being a controversial release as you pointed out, but a lot of other people just came away with "Atticus is a racist" and that's it.

I do think the manuscript is an interesting insight into her creative process, but it should have been published as such and not as "the never-before-seen prequel to To Kill a Mockingbird!" It also should not have been published until after her death. The audience should have been primarily other writers and academics—not everyone who read TKAM in high school and has little or no understanding of what the manuscript is (and, more importantly, is not).

Yep, it very much has the vibe of "well the map says we're here so I guess that rock kind of looks familiar?" Finding out the compass was messed up clears up the mystery.

I think Verne is just expecting readers to put it together themselves, but he could have stated it outright.

Axel doesn't actually recognize anything when they "return." They're all a bit confused. He's trying to get his bearings and keeps seeing things that he thinks could be familiar landmarks, but every time he takes a few more steps and sees that they aren't, or they realize if they're where they think they should be finding their own footprints from a few days ago but they aren't. They eventually conclude that they must have returned far down the coast, but can't quite figure it out. It's page 201 in the Wynne translation.

Yes, that's the whole point of that "twist": they were on the right path all along.

Lol, total coincidence as I haven't read the book :)

>it seems she’s determined to write a chapter from every single character that gets mentioned in passing.

This is an artistic choice. You might as well ask "how much blue is too much for a painting?"

If you think she used too many, that's a fair critique. But there are plenty of books that successfully use a ton of different perspectives to tell their story.

>Today, I want some feedback.

Reading between the lines, was this a book that you wrote? If so, badgering people you know into reading it is incredibly poor form and is not going to get you any useful feedback—it's just going to alienate your friends and family. If you want feedback, there are subs like r/BetaReaders for that purpose.

If this wasn't something you wrote....then it's still rude to expect your coworker to read it. At that point it's no longer a gift to her, but an obligation that you imposed on her for your benefit. If she reads it and wants to talk about it, she'll let you know. Otherwise, don't badger her about it.

The thing to understand about Wuthering Heights is that the majority of it is told as a story-within-a-story, primarily through Nelly (one of the servants) telling Lockwood (the new tenant you meet in the opening chapter) what happened. The characters that Lockwood meets in between Nelly's storytelling sessions are intended to be slightly ambiguous (who are they? how did they get here? who married who?)—Bronte is essentially giving you some puzzle pieces to try to put together on your own as the story unfolds.

However, it's okay to be confused about the characters in the "current" (Lockwood) timeline. As long as you keep track of who's who in Nelly's storytelling (and that in and of itself is a bit of a challenge), you'll enjoy the novel.