You can spend all day for free in a public library; the only limitations are that they often do not open until 9 or 10.

Indeed, and I love Dostoevsky, but this is one of the main reasons that Nabakov was not a fan, and taught his Russian Lit students that D was a lesser Russian writer. I enjoy him more than Tolstoy, for instance, but I understand the critique.

I thought it was very well written, and I enjoyed the parts about her life. I am not, generally, a fan of the "true-crime" genre, but since this subverted the genre, I enjoyed it, though it is perhaps this same subversion that many of you object to.

At the very least, her work and notes led directly to finding the Golden State Killer, which has been well documented. Without Michele's work, he likely would not have been captured.

Utopia was different, which was nice, it didn't feel like a David Mitchell book like the others, particularly Bone Clocks and Cloud Atlas do. I love the latter books, but I would welcome any work from him, regardless of the presence or lack of the quasi-magical realism of some of his books.

The other book that does not have these elements is probably Black Swan Green; his most traditional novel.

Upstart Crow is wonderful, and so too are both the novelist and the actor.

Just read this, the main character is such a horrible human, yet the story is compelling.

I would like to experience Bovary-ism, for sure.

The fact that she can love her parents after everything they did to her is pretty amazing, and perhaps connected to the fact that she was able to write about it.

I agree entirely, I love Lolita even though Humbert disgust me because I don't have to relate to the protagonist to enjoy reading. And I think most real humans are morally ambiguous at some point or another, so characters without deep flaws are unrealistic and poor writing.

I agree with everything you said, actually, "challenge our perspectives..." which is exactly the point of good literature, beyond entertainment, it forces us to confront unpleasant realities, and by proxy, ourselves.

This is a valid point, syllabi are still often weighed heavily toward men; that doesn't detract from the book; however. I think a book from a teenaged girl's POV should indeed be taught; if you have any suggestions, please let me know; I know I have read some, and they've been great, but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

Why do we have to like a character to enjoy a book, or to recognize why it matters? Yes, Holden is whiny, he's meant to be, but in terms of being disaffected and thinking everything is phony, most teenagers experience this (though perhaps not at Holden's level) at some point, so his stance is a universal one. This book was written in the 50's, when their were few real ways for teenagers to rebel; they were expected to fit a specific mold, and never question authority, so Holden does not fit in the world in which he lives (again, a feeling many of us, teenagers and not, can relate to).

Catcher is not even close to my favorite book, but there is a certainly a reason it stands the test of time.

Indeed, but bear in mind, most of that goes toward publishers etc, and if we compare it to other forms of entertainment (a 2 hour movie, for instance) a book which might take many hours to read is worth it (and supports the existence pf authors)

If you have a record store nearby, go there and talk to them, they will be honest and not try to sell you something absurd, but yeah, for a couple hundred, you can get something that meets your needs for sure.

Yep, that is what they do, Ive seen it happen, best not to. Also, impolite to smoke indoors, people have allergies ashma etc. unkind to expose people unwillingly to smoke in any form.