Christopher John Francis Boone knows all the countries of the world and their capitals and every prime number up to 7,057. He relates well to animals but has no understanding of human emotions. He cannot stand to be touched. And he detests the color yellow.Although gifted with a superbly logical brain, for fifteen-year-old Christopher everyday interactions and admonishments have little meaning. He lives on patterns, rules, and a diagram kept in his pocket. Then one day, a neighbor's dog, Wellington, is killed and his carefully constructive universe is threatened. Christopher sets out to solve the murder in the style of his favourite (logical) detective, Sherlock Holmes. What follows makes for a novel that is funny, poignant and fascinating in its portrayal of a person whose curse and blessing are a mind that perceives the world entirely literally.

John Milton's Paradise Lost is one of the greatest epic poems in the English language. It tells the story of the Fall of Man, a tale of immense drama and excitement, of rebellion and treachery, of innocence pitted against corruption, in which God and Satan fight a bitter battle for control of mankind's destiny. The struggle rages across three worlds - heaven, hell, and earth - as Satan and his band of rebel angels plot their revenge against God. At the center of the conflict are Adam and Eve, who are motivated by all too human temptations but whose ultimate downfall is unyielding love.Marked by Milton's characteristic erudition, Paradise Lost is a work epic both in scale and, notoriously, in ambition. For nearly 350 years, it has held generation upon generation of audiences in rapt attention, and its profound influence can be seen in almost every corner of Western culture.

The Divine Comedy describes Dante's descent into Hell with Virgil as a guide; his ascent of Mount Purgatory and encounter with his dead love, Beatrice; and finally, his arrival in Heaven. Examining questions of faith, desire and enlightenment, the poem is a brilliantly nuanced and moving allegory of human redemption. Dante Alighieri was born in Florence in 1265 and belonged to a noble but impoverished family. His life was divided by political duties and poetry, the most of famous of which was inspired by his meeting with Bice Portinari, whom he called Beatrice,including La Vita Nuova and The Divine Comedy. He died in Ravenna in 1321.

The journey begins at sea in 1766, with a boy named Billy Marvel. After surviving a shipwreck, he finds work in a London theatre. There, his family flourishes for generations as brilliant actors until 1900, when young Leontes Marvel is banished from the stage.Nearly a century later, runaway Joseph Jervis seeks refuge with an uncle in London. Albert Nightingale's strange, beautiful house, with its mysterious portraits and ghostly presences, captivates Joseph and leads him on a search for clues about the house, his family, and the past.

English modernist writer known for use of stream of consciousness

حتی نمی‌دونم از کجا باید شروع کنم راجع به این کتاب بنویسم. اول بگم که حتی نمی‌دونم به کدوم ادیشنِ کتاب باید امتیاز بدم. من مخلوطی از پنج ادیشن مختلف را خوندم: ای‌بوکِ ترجمه‌ از روسی به انگلیسی کنستانس گارنت، بعد آدیوبوک همین ترجمه با چاپی متفاوت، بعد چند فصلی آن وسط را از روی ترجمه روسی به فارسی مهری آهی خوندم، بعد از اون نسخه چاپی انگلیسی ترجمه پوی‌یر و والاخانسکی را خواندم، (خواندن این‌ها، حدود نصف بیشتر کتاب، نزدیک دو هفته وقت گرفت) و در نهایت نصفِ دوم کتاب را ظرف دو ساعت و نیم از روی ترجمه‌ی انگلیسی به فارسیِ احد عقیلیان، چاپ نشر مرکز خوندم. می‌دونم کار مسخره‌ای کردم، ولی به هرحال پیش اومد. از میان همه این ها ترجمه احد عقیلیان را خیلی دوست داشتم و سریع خوندم (طبعا چون به زبان مادریم بود)، ولی نثر و نوشتار ترجمه انگلیسی را بیشتر دوست داشتم (با این‌که کند پیش می‌رفت) و از بین اون‌ها هم ترجمه گارنت رو ترجیح دادم. ملموس‌تر بود. حالا برم سراغ خود کتاب. اولاً من اصلا کی باشم که بخوام به داستایفسکی نقد وارد کنم؟ اصلا از این مسئله که به کتاب پنج ندادم و چهار دادم خجالت می‌کشم. ولی چیکار کنم که لذتِ خوندنش برام پنج ستاره‌ی کامل نبود. خیلی سر خوندنش زجر کشیدم و بارها حوصله‌ام سر رفت و بار ها  چند صفحه رو روزنامه‌وار خوندم که به جاهای هیجان‌انگیز تر برسم. مدام منتظر بودم داستان طی یک سیر صعودی هیجان‌انگیز تر بشه؛ ولی نشد، و جذابیتش صرفا طی یک سیر سینوسی بالا پایین می‌رفت. شاید اشکال از منه که توی داستان همش به دنبال «کشش» و جذابیت می‌گردم. واقعا این ایراد بهم وارده. توی گودریدز چرخیدم و چندین و چند تا ریویو از این کتاب خوندم که همه بدون استثنا به نبوغ نویسنده و به شاهکار بودن این کتاب اشاره کردن. و بعد نشستم فکر کردم ببینم چرا من اونقدر حظ اعلا از این کتاب نبردم؟ انقدر من خنگم؟ و بی‌سواد؟ یعنی کتاب رو به طور کلی دوست داشتم، ولی واقعیت اینه که اون‌جوری که همه می‌گن به نظرم نبود! خیلی خوندم که می‌گن کتاب ما رو به اعماق تیره و تاریک ذهن راسکلنیکف می‌بره، ولی من رو که نبرد! درست، به افکارش برد، ولی جوری نبود که من کاملا مجذوب و غرق افکارش بشم. داستان برای من توی فضای بیرون می‌گذشت تا تو سرِ راسکلنیکف. شخصیت‌ها دیالوگ‌های طولانی می‌گفتن و من همش منتظر بودم راسکلنیکف تنها شه و به فکر فرو بره و من توی تار و پود افکارش گیر بیفتم و باز هم این طور نشد. نمی‌دونم. کمی از خودم ناامیدم که نتونستم اونجوری از کتاب لذت ببرم که ظاهرا هزاران نفر برده‌ن. حالا راجع به قسمت هایی که دوست داشتم:  قسمت‌های موش و گربه بازیِ بازرس پارفیری با راسکلنیکف حقیقتاً جزو جذاب‌ترین قسمت‌های داستان بودن. از بودن شخصیت‌های زن قوی و خوبی مثل دونیا و سونیا هم لذت بردم. از کل پروسه‌ی قتل، فرار کردنش از محل، خوابی که دید و صحنه‌ی مراسم ختم مارملادف هم لذت بردم. صرفا به طور کلی می‌تونم بگم اگه از حوصله سر رفتن های در طولِ خوندن بگذریم، از کل کتاب و فضاش و دیلماهاش لذت بردم. *اسپویلر در ادامه* اما بیشترین چیزی که نظرم رو نسبت به کتاب مثبت کرد، پایان بندیِ خوب و امیدوارانه و قشنگش بود. من همش انتظار داشتم راسکلنیکف رو بکشن. وقتی نکشتنش انتظار داشتم تو زندان دیوانه شه یا خودکشی کنه. ولی اون عشق و امیدی که ته داستان داشت، اون اطمینانی که داشت که این هفت سال می‌گذره و زندگیِ جدیدی بعدش شروع می‌شه، این که سونیا رو دوست داره و به امیدش زندگی می‌کنه، این که هنوز یه شانس دوباره، یه فرصتی وجود داره و زندگی به تهش نرسیده، این‌ها خیلی زیبا بود و باعث شد واقعا داستان رو دوست داشته باشم. الان به نظر خودم خیلی ریویوی سطحی ای نوشتم و حس می‌کنم اصلا عمق کتاب رو نفهمیدم. ولی چیکار می‌شه کرد دیگه!

Humans today enjoy unprecedented levels of power and an increasingly god-like status. The great epidemics of the past – famine, plague and war – no longer control our lives. We are the only species in history that has single-handedly changed the entire planet, and we can no longer blame a higher being for our fate.But as our gods take a back seat, and Homo Sapiens becomes Homo Deus, what are we going to do with ourselves? How do we set the agenda for our own future without pushing our species – and the rest of the world – beyond its limits?In this vivid, challenging new book from the author of Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari examines the implications of our newly upgraded condition, from our dogged pursuit of status and happiness to our constant quest to overcome death by pushing the boundaries of science. He explores how Homo Sapiens conquered the world, our creation of today’s human-centred environment, our current predicament and our possible future. And, above all, he asks the fundamental questions: Where do we go from here? And how will we protect this fragile world from our own destructive powers?

100,000 years ago, at least six human species inhabited the earth. Today there is just one. Us. Homo sapiens. How did our species succeed in the battle for dominance? Why did our foraging ancestors come together to create cities and kingdoms? How did we come to believe in gods, nations and human rights; to trust money, books and laws; and to be enslaved by bureaucracy, timetables and consumerism? And what will our world be like in the millennia to come? In Sapiens, Dr Yuval Noah Harari spans the whole of human history, from the very first humans to walk the earth to the radical – and sometimes devastating – breakthroughs of the Cognitive, Agricultural and Scientific Revolutions. Drawing on insights from biology, anthropology, paleontology and economics, he explores how the currents of history have shaped our human societies, the animals and plants around us, and even our personalities. Have we become happier as history has unfolded? Can we ever free our behaviour from the heritage of our ancestors? And what, if anything, can we do to influence the course of the centuries to come? Bold, wide-ranging and provocative, Sapiens challenges everything we thought we knew about being human: our thoughts, our actions, our power ... and our future.

Brave New World is a dystopian novel by English author Aldous Huxley, written in 1931 and published in 1932. Largely set in a futuristic World State, inhabited by genetically modified citizens and an intelligence-based social hierarchy, the novel anticipates huge scientific advancements in reproductive technology, sleep-learning, psychological manipulation and classical conditioning that are combined to make a dystopian society which is challenged by only a single individual: the story's protagonist.

Alternate cover edition of ISBN 0553213695 / 9780553213690"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect. He was laying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments on top of which the bed quilt could hardly keep in position and was about to slide off completely. His numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes." With it's startling, bizarre, yet surprisingly funny first opening, Kafka begins his masterpiece, The Metamorphosis. It is the story of a young man who, transformed overnight into a giant beetle-like insect, becomes an object of disgrace to his family, an outsider in his own home, a quintessentially alienated man. A harrowing—though absurdly comic—meditation on human feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and isolation, The Metamorphosis has taken its place as one of the most widely read and influential works of twentieth-century fiction. As W.H. Auden wrote, "Kafka is important to us because his predicament is the predicament of modern man."

I don’t know what to do with these stars anymore. I give stars to books and then I think, ‘god, you give five stars to everything, people will think you are terribly undiscriminating’ – so then I give four stars or even three stars to some books. Then I look back and it turns out that that I’ve given four stars to Of Human Bondage and honestly, how could I possibly have thought it was a good idea to give that book less than five stars? It is the absurdity of human conventions that has us doing such things.Now, that is what is called a segue, from the Italian ‘seguire’ – to follow. For the last thirty years I have studiously avoided reading this book. I have done that because for the last thirty years I have known exactly what this book is about and there just didn’t seem any point in reading it. In high school friends (one of them even became my ex-wife) told me it was a great book about a man condemned to die because he was an outsider. Later I was told that this book was a story about something much like the Azaria Chamberlain case. A case where someone does not react in a way that is considered to be ‘socially appropriate’ and is therefore condemned.But after 30 years of avoiding reading this book I have finally relented and read it. At first I didn’t think I was going to enjoy it. It didn’t really get off to the raciest of starts and the character's voice – it is told in first person – was a bit dull. He is a man who lives entirely in the present, how terribly Buddhist of him – although, really there doesn’t seem to be all that much to him.My opinion of the book began to change at his mother’s funeral. I particularly liked the man who kept falling behind in the march to the cemetery and would take short cuts. Okay, so it is black humour, but Camus was more or less French – so black humour is more or less obligatory.I really hadn’t expected this book to be nearly so funny as it turned out. I’d always been told it was a ponderous philosophical text – and so, to be honest, I was expecting to be bored out of my skull. I wasn’t in the least bit bored.A constant theme in my life at present is that I read ‘classics’ expecting them to be about something and they end up being about something completely different. And given I’ve called this a ‘constant’ theme then you might think I would be less than surprised when a read a new ‘classic’ and it turns out to be completely different to my expectations. I’m a little more upset about this one than some of the others, as I’ve been told about this one before, repeatedly, and by people I’d have taken as ‘reputable sources’ – although, frankly, how well one should trust one’s ex-wife in such matters is moot.I had gotten the distinct impression from all of my previous discussions about this book that the guy ends up dead. In fact, this is not the case – he ends up at the point in his life where he has no idea if he will be freed or not. The Priest who comes to him at the end is actually quite certain that he will be freed. Let’s face it, he is only guilty of having murdered an Arab, and as we have daily evidence, Westerners can murder Arabs with complete impunity. The main point of the book to me is when he realises he is no longer ‘free’. He needs this explained to him – because life up until then had been about ‘getting used to things’ and one can 'get used to just about anything'. But the prison guard helpfully informs him that he is being ‘punished’ and the manifestation of that punishment is the removal of his ‘freedom’. Interestingly, he didn’t notice the difference between his past ‘free’ life and his current ‘unfree’ one. The most interesting part of the book to me was the very end, the conversation with the priest. The religious often make the mistake of thinking that Atheists are one thing – I’ve no idea how they ever came to make this mistake, but make it they do. Given that there are thousands upon thousands of different shades of Christians – from Jesuit Catholics to Anti-Disney Episcopalians – it should be fairly obvious that something like Atheism (without any ‘organised’ church or even system of beliefs) could not be in anyway ‘homogeneous’.I am definitely not the same kind of Atheist as Camus. To Camus there is no truth, the world is essentially absurd and all that exists is the relative truth an individual places on events and ideas. This makes the conversation with the priest fascinatingly interesting. To the priest the prisoner who is facing death is – by necessity – someone who is interested in God. You can play around with ideas like the non-existence of God when it doesn’t seem to matter (life is long and blasphemy can seem fun) – but surely when confronted with the stark truth of the human condition any man would turn away from their disbelief and see the shining light.Not this little black duck. Now, if I was in that cell I would have argued with the priest too – but I would not have argued in the same way that Meursault argues. No, I do not believe in God, but I do believe in truth, and so Camus’ arguments are barred to me.Meursault essentially says, “Look, I’m bored, I’m totally uninterested in the rubbish you are talking – now go away”. Now, this is a reasonable response. What is very interesting is that the priest cannot accept this as an answer. The world is not allowed to have such a person in it – if such a person really did exist then it would be a fundamental challenge to the core beliefs of the priest. So, he has to assume Meursault is either lying to him or is trying to taunt him. But it is much worse – he is absolutely sincere, he is not interested in this ‘truth’.I don’t know that the world is completely meaningless, it is conventional rather than meaningless. That those conventions are arbitrary (decided by the culture we grew up in) doesn’t make them meaningless, it makes them conventional. I don’t think I would like to live in a world where people go up and kill Arabs pretty much at random and with impunity, but then again, we have already established this is precisely the world I do live in. My point is that it would be better if we did adhere to some sort of moral principles and that these should be better principles than ‘he should be killed because he didn’t cry at his mum’s funeral’. Camus is seeking to say that all of our ‘moral principles’ in the end come to be as meaningless as that – we judge on the basis of what we see from the framework of our own limited experience. And look, yes, there is much to this – but this ends up being too easy.The thing I like most about Existentialism, though it isn’t really as evident in this book as it is in the actual philosophy – although this is something that Meursault is supposed to have grown to understand (sorry, just one more sub-clause) even though this wasn’t something I noticed at all while reading the book, was the notion of responsibility. I didn’t think in the end Meursault was all that much more ‘responsible’ for his actions than he had been at the start. But I do think that ‘responsibility’ is a key concept in morality and one that seems increasingly to be ignored.Better by far that we feel responsible for too much in our lives than too little – better by far that we take responsibility for the actions of our governments (say) than to call these governments ‘them’. I’m not advocating believing in The Secret - but that if one must err, better to err on the side of believing you have too much responsibility for how your life has turned out, rather than too little.So, what can I say? I enjoyed this much more than I expected – but I’m still glad I waited before reading it, I really don’t think I would have gotten nearly as much out of it at 15 as I did now.

"At ev'ry Word a Reputation dies" "The Battle of the Beaux and Belles" by Aubrey BeardsleyOne of the wittiest poems ever written, and one of my very favorites from my college English literature studies. "The Rape* of the Lock" (first published in 1712) makes good-natured fun of a real-life situation: a 21 year old Baron, Lord Robert Petre, rudely snipped off of a lock of hair from Arabella Fermor, a lovely young lady of his acquaintance, without her consent. Arabella was incensed (the situation wasn't helped when Lord Petre went and married someone else the next year), and the fall-out was causing a feud between their two prominent families.  Alexander Pope's friend John Caryll suggest that Pope write a humorous poem about the event, in the hope that it would help everyone involved to lighten up. I'm not sure he succeeded there, but this poem did make a lot of other people extremely happy.What dire Offence from am'rous Causes springs, What mighty Contests rise from trivial Things, I sing -- This Verse to Caryll, Muse! is due...Pope wrote a mock epic version of the story, with Arabella (or Belle) renamed as Belinda. Say what strange Motive, Goddess! could compelA well-bred Lord to assault a gentle Belle?Oh say what stranger Cause, yet unexplored,Could make a gentle Belle reject a Lord?The poem follows the elaborate epic literary traditions of classics like The Iliad and Paradise Lost, but subverts them: it has supernatural beings (Bella's rather ineffective fairies), the arming of the heroine for war (with clothing, jewelry, etc.), a descent into the underworld, and an epic battle (of the sexes) where the heroine slays men with her eyes. The juxtaposition between grand ideas and trivial concerns is delightful:Whether the Nymph shall break Diana's Law, Or some frail China Jar receive a Flaw, Or stain her Honour, or her new Brocade, Forget her Pray'rs, or miss a Masquerade, Or lose her Heart, or Necklace, at a Ball...This poem is a bit on the long side for modern readers, and some parts are more interesting and amusing than others, but it's worth taking the time to savor it and delve into its humor and subtler meanings.*"Rape," by the way, didn't have quite the meaning in the 1700s that it does now. I remember my English professor talking about this, and Shmoop agrees: Words are a lot like snowballs in that respect: as they roll through history, they gather layers and layers of meanings. In the 18th century, in Pope's day, "rape" also meant to carry away or take something from someone by force... "Rape" did have a sexual connotation, but in no way as strongly as it does now. By using it in the title as the verb to describe what happens to Belinda's hair, Pope is playing on both layers of meaning: seizing something by force and personal violation.Reportedly Arabella Fermor was quite charmed with this poem until she realized (or, more likely, it was pointed out to her by friends) that there are some rather risqué double entendres in the poem. Oops.

Hailed by The New Yorker as "rich in understanding and insight," Kokoro — "the heart of things" — is the work of one of Japan's most popular authors. This thought-provoking trilogy of stories explores the very essence of loneliness and stands as a stirring introduction to modern Japanese literature.

Books

More lists by Shadow Walker

Open World

Psychological horror

Surreal

Indie Games

Authors

Cosmic horror

Erotic

Shows

Horror Books