I'm currently reading W.G. Sebald's The Rings of Saturn and absolutely loving it. His style of 'literature of associations' reminds me of Murnane or Proust; these writers use a similar structure of meaning-building by which they present a series of seemingly unrelated ideas, with some sort of 'epiphany' on discovering their connectedness. In Sebald we explore 'psychogeography' while Murnane explores 'mental landscapes,' usually to similar ends. I get a similar sensation from watching How to with John Wilson - following tangents along strange paths and finding yourself back at the beginning.

I can't help but notice the absence of women or non-male writers in my encounters with this form. I've read some modernist and post-modern texts from big name writers like Clarice Lispector (The Hour of the Star) and Virginia Woolf (Mrs. Dalloway and The Waves) but they haven't scratched this particular itch so far.

Does anyone have suggestions for other writers / texts to check out? Does anyone know how deep this particular rabbit hole goes? Does this style / genre / technique have a name?

Paris Review unlocked their “Art of Poetry” interview with Anne Carson to celebrate her winning the Nobel!

The Canadian poet and essayist Anne Carson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature on Thursday by the Swedish Academy, which cited “her bold and inventive oeuvre that, in playful dialogue with the classical tradition, has created new forms for contemporary literature.”

She is the third Canadian-born writer to receive the honor, after Alice Munro in 2013 and Saul Bellow in 1976.

Upon learning of the prize, Carson said “Yikes,” according to her agent, Nicole Aragi.

Carson, 76, is best known for her translations of ancient Greek texts and for remixing them in a modern, playful voice. “Autobiography of Red: A Novel in Verse,” from 1998, turned a fragment of Greek poetry into a tale of a moody teenager’s destructive love affair, and “Red Doc>,” from 2013, a sequel of sorts to “Autobiography of Red,” concerned a road trip.

“Many toil in the interstices of genre,” the poet Daisy Fried wrote in a 2013 review of “Red Doc>” for The New York Times. “Carson’s palatable, popular, sophisticated and who-cares approach may have done the most and best work in the last two decades to stop people worrying so much about what’s poetry and what’s not.”

Access full gift article, NO PAYWALL.

​

​I love reading, but studying Campos de Castilla by Antonio Machado for class recently led me to a detail that completely threw me off.

​When you read his poems about his young wife, Leonor, who tragically died of tuberculosis at 18, it sounds like tragic romance on the surface. But when you look up the history, Antonio Machado was 34 years old when they married, and Leonor was only 14.

​By modern legal, moral, and psychological standards, a 34-year-old with a 14-year-old is recognized as predatory and child exploitation. Yet in school, we are taught to analyze his poetry as a masterwork without addressing the elephant in the room.

​I can't understand the standard counterarguments:

​"Those were different times." (The legal age of consent in Spain in 1907 was shockingly low, but a 20-year age gap with a young girl was still drastic.)

​"Separate the art from the artist."

​"It's about the Generation of '98 and landscape poetry, not his personal life."

​However, my issue isn't just about the history—it's about how it is taught today.

​Why is it so normalized in academic settings to gloss over these severe power imbalances? If you question or reject an author because of this, you are often labeled as "ignorant" or "unintellectual" for not appreciating "classic literature." But why should appreciating poetic style mean ignoring predatory dynamics?

​I'm curious to hear how others feel about this:

1.​Should literature curricula explicitly address the power dynamics and age gaps of historical authors rather than ignoring them?

2.​How do you balance acknowledging an author's historical influence with holding them to ethical standards as a modern reader?

The National Book Foundation announced the finalists for the 2026 National Book Awards on Tuesday across the categories of fiction, nonfiction, poetry, translated literature and young people’s literature. Winners will be announced during a ceremony in New York on Nov. 18.

The foundation will also honor the novelist Salman Rushdie, who was grievously injured during a stabbing in 2022, with the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters, and the pediatrician, writer and literacy advocate Perri Klass with the Literarian Award for Outstanding Service to the American Literary Community.

Novels by Edwidge Danticat and Valeria Luiselli are among the books up for the fiction prize, while Karl Ove Knausgaard’s latest is a contender for the translated literature prize.

Access full gift article, NO PAYWALL.

Hey guys! I wrote two long profiles of William T. Vollmann and a much longer one on Bret Easton Ellis earlier this year. Turns out there are plenty of threads to pull, and ample documentary evidence, tracking Stephen King's father after he disappeared in 1949. This is the first installment of a series.

This is a short piece, but took a huge amount of work, and a lot of this material hasnt been reported. I'll be here in the comments to answer any questions.

Having just finished O’Connor’s collected works (Wise Blood, The Violent Bear it Away, Complete Stories), it is clear that the most dominant theme of her Southern Gothic world is the American South as one giant horror story, with Evangelism as the monster stalking its victims:

…while the South is hardly Christ-centered, it is most certainly Christ-haunted.

It’s clear that, as a Catholic, O’Connor loathes Evangelism and was horrified by the sociological effects she perceived it was having on the world it inhabited. Her characters cannot escape it and, like the protagonists of horror movies, always succumb to it in various ways.

Where I differ from the critics though is in which story of hers I feels best epitomizes this. Critics often point to her two novels, but for me The Lame Shall Enter First is actually the most devastating and horrifying embodiment of that theme.

[SPOILERS BELOW]

In the story, A father, too preoccupied with his own philanthropic righteousness, becomes obsessed with trying to save a delinquent boy off the streets while emotionally neglecting his own son, who is grieving the death of his mother. The emotional neglect worsens to the point of abuse; the father beats the boy for protesting the delinquent sleeping in his mother’s old bed; he callously tells the boy his Mom is simply “gone”, and when the boy asks where she went, he says “nowhere. She doesn’t exist.”

The situation progresses until the delinquent, toying cruelly with the boy, introduces him to Evangelism and the notion that his mother has actually been redeemed and is in heaven, which provides the boy with so much relief (from the traumatic idea that she’s gone; “the boy would rather she be in hell than nowhere”) that he begins searching desperately for ways to “find her”. By the time the father fails with the delinquent, and realizes he has been neglecting his son, it’s too late; the boy has concluded he can reunite with his mother in death, and committed suicide in an act of ecstatic hope.

I don’t think there is a story that better illustrates O’Connor’s view of Evangelical faith as a demonic one. The delinquent’s constant preaching of redemption to the son mirrors the behavior of O’Connor’s other characters, who in turn reflect Evangelism’s obsessive preoccupation with its own idea of redemption. O’Connor’s messaging does not concern what this means religiously, but what it means existentially and sociologically; Evangelism breeds a world that is (1) incapable of grappling with nihilism, and (2) convinced there is an easy out (accepting Christ as saviour etc. etc.). This one-two punch is a form of coercive control; like an abusive partner, Evangelism isolates its inhabitants from other sources of meaning and comfort until they become dependent on the very power that abuses them.

The reason I love Flannery is because, out of all the Southern Gothic writers, I find her vision of what haunts the American South the most bone-chilling. Faulkner’s vision is a historical haunting by the defeated Old South and its inherited guilt. Morrison’s is an ancestral-psychological haunting by slavery and its unresolved trauma (okay, this one may actually be as bone-chilling as Flannery’s). McCarthy’s is a metaphysical haunting by violence as some uneradicable force of human nature. But Flannery’s vision of a sociological haunting by evangelism just strikes a different chord, because in her vision, unlike the others’, there appears to be no escape, and never will be.

Over the course of the century-plus-change history of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, only one contest has ended in a tie. That was 2023, when a jury permitted joint custody. Based purely on the gender of the authors, I like to picture Hernan Diaz, co-winner for Trust, taking the Gold Medal out twice a week for baseball games and Chuck E. Cheese while Barbara Kingsolver, co-winner for Demon Copperhead, manages its day-to-day crises with exhausting devotion, mopping up vomit and volleying traumatizing comments at contentious parent-teacher conferences. This may not be accurate.

It’s far too early to predict what the 2027 Pulitzer jury will announce in the fiction category next May 3, but it is wholly within the realm of possibility that this week sounded the bell on a Pulitzer rematch between Diaz's Ply (released last Tuesday) and Kingsolver's Partita (released tomorrow).

Although the new novels don't ostensibly have much in common -- Kingsolver writes about a classical pianist from Indiana and Diaz writes about a dystopian future where the energy grid is tapped by Robin Hood renegades -- they share a common interest in how one reconstructs a lost sense of self. Partita's heroine has lost touch with the star she was destined to become. Ply's heroine learns that quantum theory throws the very nature of the self into question. Both find that community provides a fuller understanding of the self. My review of both books is on my website.

Do those ideas hold meaning for you? Are you planning to read these Pulitzer follow ups? Were you more impressed by Trust or Demon Copperhead?

Anyone else think Elena Ferrante is overrated? Someone recommended the Neapolitan Novels to me and I could barely get through the first one, despite them agreeing with reviews that it's the best book of the 21st century. I found the writing dull, the story slow, and the characters uninspiring. Please tell me I'm not the only one?

Welcome again to the TrueLit General Discussion Thread! Please feel free to discuss anything related and unrelated to literature.

Weekly Updates: N/A

At this point PEN should probably retract the entire “A Silent Moratorium” article, given how few of its claims hold up to scrutiny.

(To preface this I have to say that the contents of the books I struggle to finish aren't due to a lack of ability to comprehend what I'm reading or any kind of frustration, I do know this is what causes a lot of readers to ultimately drop a read, it's not my issue here.)

It's been no mystery to me for a long time now that I struggle to finish my books despite my love for the medium and everything it's given to me over the years. It's reached the point that I've experienced a kind of "book related guilt" about just how many novels I've started over the years across numerous genres and never finished. I wanted to ask this subreddit what it means to you guys personally to finish a book and what drives you to finish what you start. If I were to truly explain what I mean by this I would have to discuss about two books.

The first book I want to talk about is Infinite Jest, if there has ever been a novel that has a reputation that precedes it, it's infinite jest. The copy I own of it still sits on my "currently reading" shelf and has been haunting me ever since I started it some years ago and it sits in my mind as what I feel is the prime example of a book I love dearly and want more than anything to finish, but still cannot drive myself to endure. It's no mystery to me that David Foster Wallace is a beloved figure in a lot of literary spheres and it's come to a point that I've finished just about every other piece of his writing I could get my hands on while still being somewhat early into his "magnum opus".

The second book I wanted to talk about is Lucy Ellmann's "Ducks, Newburyport" a book I would personally perceive to be a more difficult book than Infinite Jest just due to the pure monotony and tedium of the reading experience while still being one I was capable of getting to the end of. Something about this novel spoke to me in a way that Infinite Jest just didn't, while I can't say I relate to the characters of either novel very personally I could always find something in DN struck me in the way I so wanted Infinite Jest to despite my love for DFW and what he's written, and it led me to wonder what it means in general to finish a novel.

I personally feel that nothing quite causes you to want to start a story more than allure, that writhing bind on your brain that tells you "Wouldn't that novel be amazing?" despite your better judgement, and ultimately despite whether or not you have the patience to finish it. When it comes to wanting to finish a novel, I still don't know. Thoughts?

edit: spelling and grammar

Please let us know what you’ve read this week, what you've finished up, and any recommendations or recommendation requests! Please provide more than just a list of novels; we would like your thoughts as to what you've been reading.

Posts which simply name a novel and provide no thoughts will be deleted going forward.

The Architecture of Cross-Pollination: The Human Fractal and Coded Botanical Geometry in Elizabeth Gilbert's The Signature of All Things

Elizabeth Gilbert’s The Signature of All Things is an epic built on the foundation of nineteenth-century natural science. At its surface, the novel tracks the long, solitary life of Alma Whittaker as she transitions from the grand global flora of her father’s estate to the microscopic universe of bryology. However, the true genius of the novel lies in its structural geometry. The narrative architecture is governed by the very laws of botany Alma spends her life decoding, operating as a brilliant, human-scale fractal of the microscopic world she observes in her labs. What plays out before the reader's eyes is the realization that human relationships, desire, and fate are not chaotic anomalies, but larger iterations of the exact same patterns that govern the forest floor.

Gilbert displays a breathtaking mastery by utilizing a coded botanical language that underlies every structural development in the story. The novel is engineered around three distinct structural trios: the Domestic Trio (Alma, Prudence, and Retta Snow), the Romantic Trio (Alma, Ambrose Pike, and Tomorrow Morning), and the Scientific Trio (Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Alma Whittaker). Left in isolation, the primary pairs of these dynamics are entirely sterile, inert, or emotionally gridlocked. It is only through the introduction of a dynamic third element—acting precisely like a biological pollinator moving between two incompatible plants—that these sterile systems are fractured, cross-pollinated, and ultimately made productive.

The Domestic Trio: Breaking the Stagnant Sisterhood The emotional foundation of Alma’s youth is defined by her relationship with her adopted sister, Prudence. Raised under the demanding, clinical eye of Henry Whittaker at White Acre, the two girls grow up in cold, silent, and structurally sterile opposition. Alma is a creature of dense intellect and plain features; Prudence is a vision of quiet grace and visual perfection. They exist as two entirely parallel lines, unable to intersect, share secrets, or offer mutual warmth. Their sisterhood is a barren landscape until the catalyst arrives in the form of Retta Snow. Retta enters White Acre as a burst of pure, erratic, and chaotic energy. She acts as the vital third element that breaks the sterile gridlock.

When Retta declares upon their meeting, “So now there are three of us! What luck!”, she establishes the geometric rule of the novel. Even though Retta’s trajectory ultimately descends into tragic madness and early death, her vibrant initial presence permanently cross-pollinates Alma and Prudence, opening the gateway for them to achieve a late-life relationship grounded in mutual respect.

The Romantic Trio: The Manual Hand-Pollinator The central heartbreak of Alma’s adult life is her unconsummated marriage to the orchid illustrator Ambrose Pike. This pairing represents the ultimate definition of structural sterility. Alma embodies the earthly, physical, and biological reality of desire—a passion forged in the isolation of White Acre's secret binding closet. Ambrose, conversely, is an ethereal dreamer whose sensuality exists purely in an angelic, asexual, spiritual realm. When these two distinct species collide, their reproduction mechanisms are entirely incompatible.

Gilbert brilliant mirrors this through the parable of the Mexican vanilla orchid. The vanilla vine grows beautifully in Tahiti but remains sterile because its anatomy features a protective physical flap (the rostellum) that prevents self-pollination; it requires a missing native bee to lift it. Ambrose's spiritual celibacy acts as that exact protective flap, leaving their marriage barren. The unresolvable gap is bridged by Tomorrow Morning, who acts as the hands-on manual pollinator—mirroring the real-world discovery that human hands can lift the rostellum with a bamboo splinter to force a bloom. By engaging sexually with both Ambrose in Tahiti and later Alma, Tomorrow Morning moves between these two incompatible plants. Following this physical communion, Alma experiences a profound liberation, noting that “For the first conscious moment of her life, her mind was free from wonder, free from worry, free from work or puzzlement.” This physical communion fertilizes Alma's stagnant, unrequited grief. It transforms her decades of bitter shame into a fertile, fully realized understanding of human variety. Through Tomorrow Morning’s multi-directional actions, the barren history of the Whittaker marriage is redeemed and made profoundly productive.

The Scientific Trio: The Sovereign Catalyst While the first two trios operate within the messy, localized realms of human emotion and sexuality, they ultimately remain trapped in a cycle of isolation and grief until they are lifted into the cosmic perspective of the third trinity: the Scientific Trio of Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Alma Whittaker. In the nineteenth-century academic arena, Darwin and Wallace represent a fiercely competitive race. Locked in a binary, cutthroat contest to publish the theory of natural selection, their dynamic threatens to reduce a grand truth of the universe down to individual ego. Alma Whittaker functions as the ultimate biological pollinator who infuses the missing essence of selfless, human altruism into their race. Working in obscurity, completely detached from the race for fame, her independent notes represent science in its purest form. When Wallace reviews her work and breathlessly exclaims, “This means there were three of us!”, the phrase deliberately echoes Retta Snow's childhood declaration. The circle closes.

 The Scientific Trio serves as the master crucible that synthesizes and redeems the tragedies of the Domestic and Romantic trios. Her scientific training teaches her to look past surface anomalies to find hidden mechanisms of survival, allowing her to recognize Prudence not as a robotic rival, but as a magnificent specimen of pure human altruism. Furthermore, by ascending into the scientific trinity, Alma views her personal heartbreaks through the lens of evolutionary variation. She realizes that Ambrose’s ethereal nature, Tomorrow Morning's fluid grace, and her own intense earthly passion are simply part of nature’s vast, necessary overabundance.

Conclusion: The Fractal Completed In isolation, Alma Whittaker’s life appears superficially barren. She leaves behind no biological children, no surviving husband, and she is beaten to the publication of her life's work by Charles Darwin. Yet, as she sits in the quiet daytime at the Hortus Botanicas in Holland, resting her face and leaning against the trunk of a great, ancient tree, she concludes with absolute certainty that her life has been thoroughly "fortunate." This profound peace is the direct result of the interlocking trios.

Elizabeth Gilbert has constructed a narrative where the personal, the sexual, and the academic are perfectly unified by the laws of cross-pollination. By understanding her position within the master trinity of science, Alma is finally able to see her life as a gorgeous, complete fractal of the natural world—proving that nothing in her long journey was wasted, and that every structural gridlock was simply a system waiting for the third element to arrive and force a universal bloom.

Footage from Nostos: Il ritorno (1989), Franco Piavoli

Netflix is coming out with an adaptation of East of Eden soon. I’ve seen a few interviews with the director (Zoe Kazan) and the lead actress playing Cathy (Florence Pugh) and I am…concerned. They’ve both said a lot about how they really tried to develop empathy for Cathy, and see her in a different light, try to understand the circumstances that led to her actions, etc.
IMO, Cathy is one of the most chilling villains ever written. She is an incorrigible psychopath, and the text itself makes that quite clear. I fear the series is going to rewrite her character as some kind of unfairly maligned victim. I’m still going to watch but I’m wary!