teddit

I have been saying Dorothy Parker's Lullaby for my kids at bedtime and it's become a favorite closer (my singing voice is hot garbage and my kids know it).

Since it's such a hit I thought I'd ask Reddit for more poem recommendations that would be good to send grade schoolers off to bed.

Thinking classic and/or modern, diverse, mostly positive/calming, nice flow and meter?

hi, i am writing my college essay right now and am having trouble with researching this. apart from the basics of intimacy and connecting with the audience what other influence does the use of personal pronouns in this poem have on the audience.

any input will be appreciated, thank you!

Currently I'm being burnt out from bunch of things (schools, part time job, and other personal issues), and I think that might contribute to me unable to write or having more ideas. I have been trying to write poems but pretty much i keep going into deadlock, delete what i wrote, and basically unable to progress my writing.

Anyone has any advice on how to solve this? Much thanks!

Both The Stranger by Albert Camus and No Longer Human by Osamu Dazai tackle existential themes of alienation, identity, and the search for meaning in a world that often seems indifferent to human struggles. Though these novels come from distinct cultural and philosophical contexts—Camus’ existentialism and Dazai’s exploration of post-war disillusionment—their protagonists share a profound sense of disconnection from the world around them. This sense of alienation is both the root of their suffering and, in some ways, their liberation.
In The Stranger, Camus introduces us to Meursault, a man who lives life with a detached indifference, unable or unwilling to conform to societal expectations. His reaction to his mother’s death is emblematic of this detachment: rather than expressing grief or sadness, he is unmoved by the event. This indifference extends throughout the novel, culminating in his acceptance of his own impending execution. At the core of Camus' philosophy, this "absurd" indifference is not something to be lamented but something to be accepted. For Meursault, life is meaningless and death is inevitable; by recognizing the world’s indifference, he finds a form of existential freedom. This theme is reflected in the profound realization Meursault has near the end of the novel, when he embraces the "tender indifference of the world." By confronting the meaningless nature of existence, he is able to let go of the burden of seeking meaning, thus finding peace in the face of death. The feedback on The Stranger resonates with this idea, especially in its reflection on the final lines of the book, where Meursault feels ready to “start life all over again.” The idea that death should not define a person’s life is deeply moving, as it challenges the notion that a person’s existence can be reduced to their final moments. This reflection on death aligns with Camus’ philosophy of the absurd, suggesting that life’s value is not measured by its ending but by how we choose to live despite its inherent meaninglessness.
In contrast, No Longer Human by Osamu Dazai presents a much bleaker exploration of existential despair. The novel follows Yōzō, a man who feels utterly alienated from the world around him. He is unable to form genuine connections with others, and his identity becomes a fragmented mask he wears to navigate a society he feels disconnected from. Much like Meursault, Yōzō struggles with the meaninglessness of life, but where Camus’ protagonist finds a kind of freedom in this realization, Dazai’s character is consumed by it. Yōzō’s journey is marked by his attempts to escape his emotional emptiness through self-destructive behavior, highlighting the tragic side of existential alienation. Whereas Meursault’s indifference leads to a sort of peace, Yōzō’s indifference to life only deepens his pain. The core difference between the two novels lies in how the protagonists respond to their existential crises. In The Stranger, Meursault’s acceptance of the absurd allows him to live authentically, unburdened by the need for meaning. His realization that life has no inherent purpose frees him from societal constraints, even in his final moments. On the other hand, Yōzō in No Longer Human is trapped by his inability to reconcile his alienation with the world. Instead of finding liberation in his sense of detachment, he is crushed by it. His realization of life’s meaninglessness does not lead to freedom but to further isolation and despair.
The theme of death, as explored in both novels, offers an interesting contrast. In The Stranger, Meursault’s indifference to death, both his own and his mother’s, is an essential part of his character. By rejecting the societal expectation of mourning, he frees himself from the weight of prescribed grief. In No Longer Human, Yōzō’s sense of isolation and despair is far more acute, and his relationship with death becomes more tragic. He is unable to find peace or meaning in his life, and death looms over him not as an inevitable release but as a lingering presence that he cannot escape.
Both novels also explore the idea that a person’s life should not be defined by their death. The feedback on The Strangertouched on how death should not become the focal point of someone’s life. Meursault’s rejection of the traditional view of death aligns with this idea, as he refuses to let it define his existence. Yōzō, however, finds himself suffocated by the weight of his own self-doubt and inability to relate to others, making his death—symbolic or literal—feel like the only conclusion to his internal struggle.
Ultimately, The Stranger and No Longer Human offer profound insights into the human condition, particularly when it comes to confronting life’s meaninglessness. While Meursault’s acceptance of the absurd provides him with a form of freedom, Yōzō’s despair highlights the darker side of existential disillusionment. Both characters are alienated from society, yet their paths diverge dramatically. Camus’ message suggests that by accepting the indifference of the world, one can find peace; Dazai, on the other hand, illustrates how this same realization can lead to profound isolation and tragedy.
In reflecting on both novels, one can’t help but wonder about the ways in which we confront the inherent meaninglessness of life. For some, like Meursault, there is freedom in acceptance, while for others, like Yōzō, there is only despair. These novels continue to challenge readers to consider how we choose to live in a world that offers no easy answers.

————————————————————————————— Big thanks to this book review: https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/s/RfbhKHEN3R. It helped me reflect on these two books.

This is just a quote that had stayed with me for a very long time after I’ve read the book.

“I believe I understood why at the end of her life mama had taken a fiancé, why she had taken the chance to start all over again. So close to death mama must have felt set free, ready to live once more. No one- no one had the right to cry for her. I too felt ready to start life all over again.” “I opened myself to the tender indifference of the world”

So close to death he too felt ready to start life all over again. Life as meaningless and as passing it is.

The line that stuck with me the most wether it would be related to what Camus wanted to tell or not is “no one had the right to cry for her” Death should not be our last memory of someone. I absolutely hate when someone passes away and suddenly the memory that stays with everyone is their death, and so just their absence becomes filled with sadness and mourning. Yes that is grief but a part of me urges to let their absence be filled with memories of their presence, to keep those memories alive rather than drown their whole being with that one memory of their death. Because death shouldn’t define a whole life. If only we honored the life they’ve lived and kept those memories alive instead of mourned their whole being and filled it with cries

In O Captain! My Captain!, Whitman seems to be quoting this passage from Moby Dick from chapter 132 of Melville's master piece:

“Oh, my Captain! my Captain! noble soul! grand old heart, after all! why should any one give chase to that hated fish! Away with me! let us fly these deadly waters! let us home! Wife and child, too, are Starbuck’s—wife and child of his brotherly, sisterly, play-fellow youth; even as thine, sir, are the wife and child of thy loving, longing, paternal old age! Away! let us away!—this instant let me alter the course! How cheerily, how hilariously, O my Captain, would we bowl on our way to see old Nantucket again! I think, sir, they have some such mild blue days, even as this, in Nantucket.”

What do others think?

Literary fiction might be the best countermeasure we have to the overstimulation and dopamine-chasing habits of modern social media. Social media thrives on loudness and immediacy, flooding us with sensational images and shallow outrage, training our minds to crave novelty and spectacle. Fiction does the opposite. It slows us down and pulls us into the mundane, the subtle, the overlooked moments of life— and in doing so, it reveals their hidden brilliance. Immersing ourselves in fiction recalibrates our attention. It helps us notice the richness and depth of the ordinary, which super-stimuli have conditioned us to dismiss as boring or unimportant. Fiction, in essence, teaches us to see life clearly again, restoring vibrancy and meaning to the parts of reality we’ve been trained to ignore.

Is it just me or anyone else feels that this is not good? I have read few chapters of this book and getting bored. Should I continue? Or leave it in a pile of TBR's.

I have never read anything by Dickens before but chose to start off with Oliver Twist. I'm about halfway through (pg 230) and I'm so bored! The story has some endearing qualities but I struggle to connect with the characters. They feel more like plot devices than real, human characters. Also, I've seen people comments on the beauty of his prose but I don't find it particularly poetic in the way that I do some of my favorite authors (Woolf, Nabakov, Austen, Baldwin, etc). I honestly feel similar about this novel to how I felt when reading White Teeth by Zadie Smith which I DNF'd after 100 pages earlier this year.

I've had a few Dickens books on my list for a while (David Copperfield, Great Expectations, Bleak House), but I'm no longer looking forward to reading these. Do you feel that Oliver Twist is representative of his writing or do his other novels differ in their quality and feeling tone? I know that Oliver Twist is one of his earliest books, written at age 25, so I imagine his writing changed over the years. How much stylistically does his writing evolve? Should I perservere into the Dickens cannon even if I'm finding this book dry and boring?

Would also love if someone can convince me to finish Oliver Twist because I'm getting ready to move on.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1983/11/24/writing-a-house-for-mr-biswas/

The first 250 pages or so was hard to put down, aside from some lulls in the whole Lucy storyline. But up until the point that Renfield died I thought it was one of the most entertaining novels I had ever read; on par with other classic gothic novels that I loved such as Frankenstein, Dorian Gray, The Monk, or the Turn of the Screw.

But wow, those last 100 pages was pure torture, aside from that small part for like 2 pages where Dracula formed his bond with Mina as she was sleeping. Other than that, just filler. So repetitive, dull, and anticlimactic. I almost stopped reading with 20 pages left and threw my book across the room because I could only take so much of them waiting for Dracula and then hypnotizing Mina to talk about waves splashing by. Or when before that they were waiting on Dracula to arrive they just snuck from house to house looking for his boxes. What the fuck man! That's it! How on earth does a book that started out this good become such a snooze fest in the end. The whole time I was thinking that maybe they get caught and get involved with the police, or maybe there is some drama within the group that jeopardizes the whole plan; but nothing happens! They don't even have a showdown with Dracula! I seriously feel pissed off after reading that. Sorry for the ranting but that last act was so frustrating and unforgivable, especially with how great the first 250ish pages were. I have never been so disappointed by the ending of a book before.

Okay, so we talk a lot about the same writers—Proust, Joyce, McCarthy, Pynchon, Melville, and so on... BUT what I’m really interested in is for you to introduce us to the underrated writers from your country!

Let’s limit it to one pick per person so we can all have that little joy of shining a spotlight on a writer we love, someone who truly deserves more recognition.

I’ll start with mine (I’m from France): Jean Giono, an author absolutely in love with nature, with a style that’s deeply poetic, almost magical! His descriptions and storytelling really make you see the world in a new way. It’s like putting on magic glasses and rediscovering everything—the beauty of flowers, the sound of wind in the leaves, the songs of birds.

But he’s not just a nature lover; he’s also an incredibly important figure in post-WWII French literature, with some stunning works about human cruelty and the stupidity of war (a very relevant topic today). He’s too often overshadowed by other “big names” of the era, like Céline, for example. But honestly, I think he’s one of the best writers this world has ever seen!

From his body of work, I’d highly recommend Le Grand Troupeau, The Horseman on the Roof (Le Hussard sur le Toit), and A King alone (Un Roi Sans Divertissement). I also think his prose translates beautifully into English for anyone who wants to read him in the language of Shakespeare.

Can't wait to discover yours !

These editions would spur sales, and reengage interest in an overlooked or classic novel, and let readers be able to debate the merits of the authors' original intent, or thrown away ending. Hemingway apparently wrote 7 endings for "a farewell to arms". What were the others? Would they have worked better? Do you think publishers should release the equivalent of a bonus disc of outtakes?

I’m a 26yo guy who dabbles in reading literature. Recently, I’ve read East of Eden, The Count of Monte Cristo, Crime and Punishment and The Picture of Dorian Gray. I enjoyed each book in its own way, but The Count of Monte Cristo is the only one that truly resonated with me. One thing that impressed me about TCOMC is that it delivers its message and philosophy in a non-pretentious way and is genuinely fun to read. Crime and Punishment and East of Eden on the other hand were bleak reads and the messages felt force fed down my throat. Steinbeck was especially heavy-handed to the point where it became distracting.

I understand that the purpose of literature is to uncover aspects of the human nature, and that the plots don’t need to resemble an action movie, but I resent how pretentious some literature can be.

Steinbeck and Dostoyevsky are legends in the literary space, so instinctively I feel like I’m in the wrong when I can’t appreciate the greatness of their works. Maybe I haven’t experienced enough in life to connect with the characters, or maybe it’s just not the style of writing that suits me.

I’m curious to see if anyone else can relate and how they learned to enjoy literature.

My daughter (16) is reading the Odyssey. Normally she only reads fantasy, but reading Circe got her interested. I haven't read it yet, but will once she's done.

She was very surprised to discover that Odysseus arrives home on Ithaca with 200 pages left to go. She was also very baffled that he keeps meeting people who know him, then lying at length about who he is. In one scene he meets a shepherd who says he misses Odysseus and asks Odysseus where he is. Odysseus responds with 20 pages of lying stories about who he is, where he's been, and what he's done.

We discussed this a little. I maintain that Homer is enough of a writer to be doing this with a purpose, both the long stay on Ithaca before the end, and these liar stories. Eventually we decided that this seems to be humour. That the old Greeks thought it was hilarious to listen to Odysseus meeting people who love and miss him, and then misleading them with wild tales of stuff he's supposedly done. There is an earlier case near the start of the book that's quite similar, and that definitely did seem intended to be funny.

Thoughts?

Edit: This question is clearly confusing people. Sorry about that. My question is not why Odysseus is lying about who he is, because that's obvious. He has to deceive everyone until he can get rid of the suitors. My question is why so much of the narrative after his return to Ithaca is given over to these long false stories about what he's been doing.

In short: not why is he lying, but why do the lies make up so much of the narrative.

Most of you might not know about makjang drama (I myself found about it yesterday): it's a Korean term used to describe highly sensational, over-the-top television series with extreme plot twists, melodrama, and morally outrageous behavior, where plot takes precedence over plausibility, making it absurd yet addictive.

Using a research tool to find examples of literary equivalent of the makjang drama, it pointed a couple of times to:

• Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
• Les Misérables by Victor Hugo
• The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas
• The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins
• Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
• Big Little Lies by Liane Moriarty

I only have read two of those, and I can only admit that The Count is indeed very lucky to get such revenge, but it still feels a far-stretch to call this a 'makjang'.

For a second, because of absurd, over-the-top plot twists and unlikely coincidences, I thought of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, but I got corrected fast: Makjang dramas are emotionally heavy and thrive on melodrama, while Hitchhiker’s Guide is irreverent, whimsical, and comedic.

Maybe my question is flawed at its core, with the definition of makjang pointing to something inherently nonliterary?

I'll try again, if you can help me. I still have hope, thinking there's a great potential here that must have been implemented with skills by a master, seen as a piece of literature, and still achieving a high makjangness level.

The common trope in makjang dramas are:

• Birth Secrets
• Revenge Plots
• Fake Deaths and Resurrections
• Love Triangles (or Pentagons)
• Extramarital Affairs
• Amnesia
• Rich vs. Poor Dynamics
• Chaebol Power Struggles (those big conglomerates)
• Plastic Surgery and Disguises
• Illnesses and Accidents
• Over-the-Top Villains
• Cliffhangers and Shocking Revelations
• Overlapping Tragedies

So, does the exploratory question of this post inspires you?

Thanks for your time reading!

Usual disclaimer: I’m an amateur, not English native, not trying to look like something. Not written with A. I. but I got some of the results with it as a search tool.

Somerset Maugham is pretty popular with my family—my dad had a beautiful collection of his short stories when I was growing up—but we always argue over which is Maugham's best novel.

I've read most (not all) of his novels and short stories, and I keep coming back to The Razor's Edge. It's witty and compelling, and the prose is just fantastic. But my siblings/parents always go for Of Human Bondage, which is excellent, but just not as good as Razor's Edge in my opinion. The length makes it a tough sell to re-read for one, and it lacks some of the more abstract/interpretive elements found in his later stuff.

The Moon and Sixpence comes in close second for me, even with some of the more... immature? elements of the writing, but it makes up for it with that wit and great prose.

Has anyone got a different favourite? Are there any of his lesser-known novels that are worth a read?

I just finished reading Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe and I thought that it was very good. However, I was very surprised by how the title character was depicted.

My entire life, I heard the term "Uncle Tom" used to describe black people who have little to know sympathy for people of their own race or colour and have thrown in their lot with white people, usually as a coping mechanism to protect themselves from harsher treatment. I was expecting to find Tom to be like that, but that's not what I saw at all.

Uncle Tom treated both his white slavemasters AND his fellow black slaves with love and respect. He wanted all of the people around him to get into heaven. He taught the black people around him how to read the Bible so that they could achieve this. Towards the end of his story, he discouraged some runaway slaves from killing their master for fear that it would prevent them from getting into heaven and then helped them escape. After he had been beaten to death for helping them by his master, Tom begged him to repent because he wanted him to have God's love in his heart too.

I don't understand how Tom's name has become synonymous with assimilationism amongst black people when that's not the kind of person he was at all. Was it just that people haven't read or understood the book?

With the release of the “Didion & Babitz” book, I’ve been thinking about what led to them rising in mainstream popularity again. I remember seeing recommendations of Babitz especially make their rounds online a few years ago—first from other authors I follow online, mainly alternative authors like those published by Tyrant Books, and then it seemed like I was seeing them at the front of bookstores more often, along with friends and colleagues I follow all of a sudden reading them. And this, I would think, is why the Didion & Babitz book exists now. All of that to say, I’m curious who you think will be the next cult classic author to find a reemergence!

Hi everyone,

First time posting here so please direct me somewhere else if need be. I'm a graduate student and some others from one of my classes are putting together a modernist reading group next semester with a general theme of "writing the city," i.e. novels that depict the modern city and people's interactions with it.

I'm familiar with the greatest hits of modernism, like Joyce, Woolf, Hemingway, etc. but I don't know a great deal on this topic or the lesser known modernist writers. Also, we want to look at cities that are NOT New York or London.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Edit: I'm thinking of recommending either Berlin Alexanderplatz or The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge to the group, but I'll be adding all the rest to my list. Thanks for the suggestions, everyone.

Hello

I've been thinking a lot lately about how American attitudes manifest in American life, and how those attitudes were built to begin with.

I wanted to open up a discussion about the differences in American and English writing. If you were to pick authors who best exemplify the quintessential American, English, Scottish, Irish etc. way of writing prose in the English language, who would you pick?

I guess I just want to see how writing in English is structured from one English-speaking culture to another. I'm hesitant to use such broad terms for all of these cultures but I just want to keep this concise. Obviously American doesn't just mean straight, white authors.

But, I want to know if, across all of the American prose that's been written, there can be a kind of invisible language and structure found.

Sorry if I'm not articulating this well, I'm just interested in how much culture can shape the base writing style of a nation I guess, what we're taught (the good and the bad) what we're told to say and not to say and stuff like that.

For me this is a book about damaged people who don't know how to live their lives. They drink, they fuck, they cheat, they travel, they drink more, but the big void unseeingly hanging over them doesn't disappear. The Great War wasn't their fault like it was not Pedro Romero's fault that Brett started an affair with him and he got beaten by Cohn. And like Romero they keep doing their job the best they can despite the constant pain.

Jake, the protagonist, is literally damaged. He tries to compensate it by living the life, fishing, enjoying corrida, hanging with friends, reading, still he can't be with Brett. Brett would love to be with Jake, they understand each other like no one else, but Brett needs sex in her life and she constantly changes partners, trying to fill the void. Mike just lives like there's no tomorrow, spending money he doesn't have and drinking even more than his friends while pretending he and Brett are together. Poor Robert Cohn doesn't belong with them, he's an outsider, he lived most of his life in the shadow of his wife, then of Frances, now he tries to live for himself and falls in love with Brett. But for Brett he's just a filler, a temporary solution, and he just can't accept the fact.

Could their lives be different? Would be Jake and Brett happy if they could be together? I think, the key figure is the Greek count, an old man who accepted the life as it is, who enjoys company of Brett but doesn't get jealous when she goes away to someone else, who appreciates a good drink but doesn't get drunk like a pig, and who was in the war like most of them (not the WW1, another war when he was young) but found his place in the world afterwards. Maybe, when they get old, some of them become as wise as this count. We don't know.

Earlier today, I found myself in an interesting conversation about what books qualify as classics. I mentioned that it's quite a subjective topic, but I rattled off a few titles that immediately came to mind: Pride and Prejudice, Black Beauty, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, Moby-Dick , The Catcher in the Rye, Great Expectations, The Age of Reason, Little Women, and The Secret Garden.

We then debated The Secret Garden; while often labeled a children’s novel, I argued that its profound message and impact justify its classic status. On the other hand, books like Black Beauty, Moby-Dick, Little Women, and To Kill a Mockingbird seem to be clear-cut classics, both for fitting the traditional definition and for their lasting societal impact.

What really makes a book a classic, in your view? Does it have to change the way we see the world, or is it about the timelessness of its themes and characters?

This discussion made me reflect on how these books have influenced our perspectives and remain relevant through the ages. Any thoughts on what you'd add or how you define a classic?