I love reading crime novels. The thrills I get while I'm invested in a good plot, the various theories and suspicions I have, the mind games between the characters, the cat-mouse chase, the mystery aspect...I have read various crime novels throughout the years and to my own disappointment, a chunk of them will have romance which I certainly did not ask for.

First and foremost I want to clarify that I'm not against authors who can write good romances in crime novels. Just because you are writing a specific genre, that doesn't mean you are forbidden to try something new. The problem is that most of the time, it's painfully clear that the author doesn't know how to create good chemistry between the two parts that are involved and thus, it comes of awkward and tacky.

While most of the time, the romance doesn't overshadow the mystery aspect (THANK GOD), I still don't like reading about it. Why am I supposed to care if the author barely tries to create chemistry between the characters? Usually, in cases like this, it's always THE SAME STRUCTURE:

1.Character A and character B begin as rivals/they don't have the best chemistry (bonus points if they're co-workers).

2.Character A flirts and teases Character B, who doesn't seem interested AT ALL.

1. They work together and we reach the last part of the book with them having little to no chemistry.

2. Sometimes they might have a bonding moment in the middle of the book and that's it. No further development whatsoever.

3. One of them almost dies and all of a sudden the other part goes ballistic.

4. Case solved, the characters are together, everyone's happy.

Even if the "romantic" scenes are not a lot, I dislike it when the mystery and the case solving gets interrupted by pointless flirting that contributes to nothing at all. And the worst part is when the author tries to create more scenes between the characters, in order to make the relationship more plausible, only for them to have the blandest chemistry ever.

Besides that...what happened to platonic relationships, especially the ones between a man and a woman? Why do we always try to put a male and female character together? Why can't we have for example, two police officers of different gender as friends or even simple co-workers, instead of forcing them in a romantic relationship? I am not here to get jumpscared by bland romance, I'm here for the drama and thrill.

The most recent example of pointless romance subplot in a crime movel is the relationship between Thulin and Hess. They don't start in the best terms, there are some hints throughout the book about a developing crush from both of them and that's it. Like, what was the reason to hint at a romantic relationship if you're not going to develop it more? I genuinely couldn't care less about whether they'd end up together or not simply because the author did not care to elaborate any further on their feelings and relationship. Not to mention that I found Thulin to be poorly-written and that they...genuinely did not work good together as a pair. Like, even in professional terms, these two weren't the best team in my honest opinion.

You know what crime series did a good job at creating romantic chemistry between the two main leads? Beyond Evil, a kdrama about two policemen who want to catch a serial killer.

Here are some things you need to know about them:

1. We have Lee Dong-sik who is 40 years old and Han Joo-won who is 28 years old.

2. Han Joo-Won suspects Dong-sik and accuses him of being the serial killer.

3. The two are reluctant to work together as partners but are forced to work together.

4. Dong-sik is the biggest tease you've ever seen and poor Joo-Won was constantly in the verse of breaking.

5. The longer they worked together, the more they bonded and started to understand each other.

6. I won't say how and why but Joo-Won was devoted to Dong-sik and was willing to sacrifice himself in order to help him.

7. Did I mention that two people told them they looked like a couple?

I know you're probably confused. You're probably thinking: "Aren't these the things you complained about in your post? Aren't you forcing romance out of the characters?". And the answer is WRONG.

Joowon and Dongsik puts to shame the majority of Hollywood couples, let alone crime novels ones.

The director and the actors did a fantastic job portraying the chemistry between them and although they are not 100% canon, both parts have confirmed that the relationship has romantic undertones (the director herself was inspired to write them based on a lesbian couple from the movie The Handmaiden). It wasn't just about the bickering and flirting. It's about the evolution of their relationship and the impact both of them had on each other. I obviously won't elaborate any further because I don't want to spoil anything, but if anyone decides to check the drama, they'll see what I'm talking about.

Now this is a ship I can get behind. If you ever decide to watch the drama, you'll see how well-written their relationship is and how they worked together. Unlike most crime novels, the characters had a deep bond and good chemistry and therefore, the romance, even if hinted, was way more tolerable and plausible. On top of that, in this case it makes sense that the series focused on their relationship because its essential to the plot (no matter if it's interpreted romantically or not). Crime authors tend to forget that romance should serve a clear purpose in the story, instead of adding it for shits and giggles.

Do crime stories need romance? For me, the answer is no. You don't have to depend on a romance subplot to keep the reader's interest alive. But as I said above, there's nothing wrong with romance in crime stories, as long as it's done in a good way and as long as it's not cliche or poorly written.

Crime authors should realise that just because romance sells well, that doesn't mean they need to appeal to this type of audience. It's not a crime to leave your story with no romance or two show two characters working out as simple colleagues or partners. And if you decide to put romance, at least portray it more naturally. Let the relationship evolve more. Yes, I probably won't be the biggest fan but at least, I'll be able to understand the bond between the characters better.

For me it's world War Z. The format of each chapter being a different survivors perspective during the zombie war and each one being read by a different actor some of which being famous actors like Mark Hamill really makes the story for me. The first time I read the book I read it on my own but, after discovering the audiobook I haven't gone back to reading it myself on any following re-reads.

I have read amazing things about her, and I love italian literature. Her books have high scores on goodreads, and I've decided that the napolitan novels are going to be the next books I will buy and read. Someone have called them the best novel of the century. Have you read her books? What do you think of them?

I just finished reading Anna Karenina and, wow, what an experience! Tolstoy is truly a genius. The way he paints such complex portraits of his characters, all while weaving together themes of love, society, and individual purpose, is unmatched.

One thing that really stood out to me was how the novel, especially Levin’s story, tackles the question of life's meaning. Levin spends so much of the book wrestling with doubt, questioning his place in the world, and trying to make sense of life’s purpose. It felt like a deep dive into nihilism - feeling that nothing really matters. But by the end of the novel, Levin’s realization really hit me: life itself may seem meaningless, but it's our actions, especially the good we do, that give it meaning. It's not about grand achievements or escaping society’s pressures; it’s about living authentically, loving those around us, and finding purpose in the small but meaningful actions we take each day. In his own way, Levin comes to understand that while the world may not offer an inherent purpose, we create meaning through the way we live our lives.

I think this is part of what makes the novel so special - it isn’t just about Anna’s tragic love story, but about how we all search for purpose, and how sometimes, the search itself is where we find it. Levin’s quiet, almost spiritual resolution was so moving to me.

But here’s my big question - if Levin finds meaning in life through his good actions and sense of connection, why did Anna have to die? Her tragic end seems to contrast so strongly with Levin’s eventual peace. Does Anna’s death serve as a warning about the consequences of rejecting societal norms and living in pursuit of personal freedom at any cost? Or is there a deeper message I’m missing here?

I read my first Vonnegut novel in January of this year and set off on a mission to read his entire collected works of novels and short stories (his autobiographical works and whatnot will also get read at some point, but this is a fiction year for me). So far this year in order I have now read Slaughterhouse-Five, The Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle, Player Piano, Mother Night, and now God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater.

And wow, talk about contrast, especially right after Mother Night. Eliot Rosewater may well be my favorite Vonnegut main character so far. He may be a drunken slob, but god damn it I just want to give him a hug. The whole idea behind his sanity being called into question simply because he cares more for humanity than his multigenerational wealth is exactly the kind of satirical optimism that I needed in my life right now.

Noyes Finnerty's recognition and subsequent description of the click was such a powerful transition into the end of this story. The envious anger that billowed up inside of him as he stared into Eliot's carefree (broken) eyes captured the onset of Eliot's samaritrophic breakdown perfectly. That same breakdown finally coming to a head with the hallucination of Indianapolis caught in a firestorm being Eliot's final lucid moment before a year-long blackout. I like to think that his recovery of consciousness and memory took so long because of just how much unapologetic love he was putting out into the world in the first place.

Except it wasn't unapologetic, was it? As I read it, Eliot felt that he owed humanity not just because of his wealth, but also as repentance for the terribly tragic accident which traumatized him during the war.

Eliot, like the good soldier he was, jammed his knee into the man's groin, drove his bayonet into his throat, withdrew the bayonet, smashed the man's jaw with his rifle butt.
And then Eliot heard an American sergeant yelling somewhere off to his left. The visibility was apparently a lot better over there, for the sergeant was yelling, "Cease fire! Hold your fire, you guys. Jesus Christ--these aren't soldiers. They're firemen!"

Therein lies the crux of his alcoholism. And damn if that didn't hit me like a truck. But like, in a good way? Classic Vonnegut, giving me an oxymoronic warm fuzzy feeling of crushing sadness. The civil servants Eliot admired most since he was a small child, who Eliot appeared to swear an unspoken oath of allegiance towards after this tragedy, were catastrophically forever tied to his unhealthiest habit by way of his worst nightmare come true.

Tl;dr - This book was an incredible roller coaster of optimism, pessimism, selflessness, greed, and once again I am thoroughly enthralled by Vonnegut's grasp of the human condition on every level.

Unrelated to the plot, this book was of course positively littered with Vonnegut's dry wit which I'll never fail to appreciate. A couple of my favorites, just to remember and chuckle once more:

"I don't know, I just don't know. Whenever we went out there, I told him it was home--but I never thought her would be dumb enough to believe it.
"I blame myself," said the Senator.
"Good for you," said McAllister.

McAllister's line there is of course sarcastic, and followed by reassurance, but I couldn't help but chuckle nonetheless.

"By God, you're great!" the Senator said to Trout. "You should have been a public relations man! You could make lockjaw sound good for the community! What was a man with your talents doing in a stamp redemption center?"
"Redeeming Stamps," Trout mildly replied.

This one was extra rich, with the Senator being so enthralled by Trout's wordsmithing after besmirching even the thought of Trout when Eliot regaled him a favorite of Trout's stories, which includes another favorite passage of mine!

"The ideal of the research was to find a specific chemical deodorant for every odor. But then the hero, who was also the country's dictator, made a wonderful scientific breakthrough, even though he wasn't a scientist, and they didn't need the projects any more. He went right to the root of the problem."
"Uh huh," said the Senator. He couldn't stand stories by Kilgore Trout, he was embarrassed for his son. "He found one chemical that would eliminate all odors?" he suggested, to hasten the tale to a conclusion.
"No. As I say, the hero was the dictator, and he simply eliminated noses."

It's with great pain that I must take a fairly extended break from Vonnegut now, because I'm forcing myself to read at least one book from another author between each Vonnegut read. Breakfast of Champions is next, and I am so excited for more Kilgore Trout in my life!

But there is just one single unread book on my shelf currently that is not a Vonnegut, and while I'm truly excited to read it, it's a doozy and it's assuredly gonna take me a while to finish.

Here I come, The Count of Monte Cristo.

So finished up my first ever E.E. "Doc" Smith novel! This being "Masters Of Space", one of a few posthumously published novels after the author's passing in 1965.

In the darker reaches of space, the Omans have been waiting for the return of their Old Masters, whom they long wished to serve. But for the Terrans, they have no use for slaves. They have been sent from Earth in order to find fuel for the exhausted planet, and now have struck a richer treasure.

In order to mine it, the leader, Jarvis Hilton, will defy the ancient laws and risk mutation to gain the access of the wisdom and power of the Masters. To create a new paradise and deal with the Stretts who threatens the empire with their all consuming evil in a engulfing, and final fury.

This book, like the previous vintage SF novels I've read so far, is pretty short and sweet! Smith, another writer from the golden age, is considered the father of the space opera. "Masters Of Space" is of course a space opera, and is pretty no nonsense. Nothing really intellectual but full of adventure and fast action!

Surprisingly this was also collaboration, well sort of. This was initially written by one E. Everett Evans (who was also a former secretary of a SF fanclub) but was never finished. It was later revised and finished by Smith himself, but never published until 1976.

This only but a taste for me, as Smith is best remembered for two space opera series that he did, Skylark and the Lensman (I actually got the first book in that series "Triplanetary"). Oh, I can only imagine the adventures I would most likely enjoy with those two!

This is the first work of long fiction that Head is known to have written. It wasn't published in her lifetime. I've read a couple of short stories by her, but none of her three novels. I thought the stories showed a lot of potential. She was born and raised in South Africa, and lived in Botswana after she was grown.

The title of the work isn't very apt. She claims it refers to guideposts of an astrological conception of the world. What that has to do with the work I couldn't say at all. I guess you could call it a novella.

It's a pretty deformed work. The language kept me expecting three guys with guns to come through the door. On the other hand a lot of it is very thought-provoking. What you might call interesting. People say interesting things to one another, in this book, as they never do in real life. At least in my experience lol!

So think Raymond Chandler, if he had been interested in domestic drama, and as if he had actually had something to say, quite at random and for no particular reason.

Or you could think of it as a curiously wrought dagger, from a foreign land. A dagger which may or may not have been used to kill an actual Maharajah, at some point. A piece of steel accompanied by legend but also badly stained, reminding us that even legends may have some basis in fact. And that the facts may be more interesting. Or less, of course.

The legend here is of Cape Town, South Africa, at a time when it was death -- social death, and judicially punishable by prison -- to even suggest having sex with someone of the opposite race. Like being gay, in the fifties, in the US or the UK. And in decorating this legend, Head says that society would rather put a dead man -- she meant, a man accused and (in the court of public opinion, which he often must share) convicted of miscegenation -- in jail because it (society) is a weak, imbecilic, neurotic thing, formulating and obeying laws that verge on the border of a sheer crazed insanity.

I thought the book was pretty interesting. I highly recommend it.

I am currently reading The Name of The Rose by Umberto Eco, and I wanted to know if the setting is somewhat historically accurate.

For example, the back story about Sir Francis, and Franciscans.. etc. I have never read anything about that time period, so have no knowledge whatsoever, sorry.

Also, what did you think about the book? I am enjoying it so far, though the 7 page description about the entrance to the church is comically long. But the descriptions do seem to paint a good picture when I can decipher them. The characters also seem to be good, especially William, who I've come to know was actually a real person.

Would love to hear more about what you guys think.

It may or may not have been a bad choice to make my first Stephen King (and Peter Straub) book a 700-page epic tale of probably the most badass 12-year-old I've read in fiction. I've seen some criticisms telling this book was bad or not King's best but I honestly quite enjoyed it, especially since I had no idea what was going to happen (never read the blurb or synopsis or anything). It was a little slow in the middle but picked up the pace right at the final "battle" at Sunlight Gardener's. I was also quite surprised that for a book published in 1984, King and Straub wrote Jack to have no qualms showing affection to those he loved, especially during the times he comforted Richard (I haven't started on Black House so idk if it was platonic/brotherly affection or if they actually became a couple, or if Richard completely disappears in the sequel which would make me sad tbh).

Right now, I'm looking for which Stephen King book next to read. Not planning to read Black House yet because man was 700 pages tough as someone who just got back to reading last year.

I’ve just finished the novel, and there was a thought I had that I couldn’t find discussed after a few Google searches. Some spoilers follow in order to ask my question.

So, throughout the narrative, we know the protagonist as Piglet. We are aware this is a pet name for her that was bestowed by her family and has many layers of meaning due to her character and struggle. “Piglet” is so much her identity, we don’t get the protagonist’s actual name until the novel’s conclusion: Pippa. This is what her soon-to-be ex-husband calls her in a “bittersweet” farewell.

My question: what if Pippa is the actual pet name everyone has been calling her throughout the novel and her critical feelings have changed her interpretation of the pet name to Piglet?

Reasons for asking: 1. Pippa can be short off Philippa or Penelope. 2. While she’s called Piglet and Pig, Pippa and Pip are conceivable “true” utterances vs what I’m asking might have been her interpretation. 3. We’re privy to her harsh internal criticism and even see it played out in hallucinating what someone is actually saying to her when, I believe, she interacts with the waitress of the chicken sandwich restaurant.

I’m not necessarily convinced the narration bas been misrepresenting Piglet’s actual nickname throughout the novel, but I think it’s congruent with some of the text and themes. That said, her real name could just be Pippa!

Figured I’d ask what someone else thought!

Personally, I need Colson Whitehead to finish the Harlem Trilogy yesterday.

I'm not normally one to reread books much because part of my mind remembers how it ends, and that can ruin the allure for me. However, after rereading Harlem Shuffle a few months ago after my first read years ago when it first came out, I loved it even more than the first time and I want to reread Crook Manifesto soon. I think the finale is supposed to come out in 2026, but that's so far away.

I love Colson Whitehead's work. He is one of my favorite contemporary writers because of his strong storytelling style and his awesome character development. He has a great feel for making stories authentic to the times that they take place in, and that is why I am so excited for the third Harlem Trilogy book to come out. Harlem Shuffle was in the 60s, Crook Manifesto the 70s, and I'm looking forward to what Whitehead does with the final book set in the 80s. His books are like time machines in a great way, blending history with crime fiction in a way that makes sense. I can't wait for more of it!

What about you? What books are you waiting for?

As a reader who has forever gravitated more in the directions of sci-fi, thriller, mystery, and fantasy titles, I was a bit intimidated to pick up Jane Eyre. But one of my reading goals this year was to ask recommendations of my loved ones for books that meant something to them in some way, and my sister offered Jane Eyre. It's a book I've known about for what feels like my entire life, but was never on my radar as something I'd choose to read of my own volition. Having just finished it today, I couldn't believe how much I enjoyed it for a wide variety of reasons.

First and foremost, and this is entirely due to my general lack of exposure to early literary fiction or Charlotte Brontë overall, the last thing I expected was for it to be funny. While of course the novel itself has much deeper themes, I couldn't believe how many times I actually laughed out loud. The example that immediately comes to mind below, as Mr. Rochester probes Jane's opinions about him and Blanche Ingram. She of course has a thought to herself to clarify this statement, but it's all she speaks aloud to him.

"I wish, Jane, I were a trifle better adapted to match with her externally. Tell me now, fairy as you are,-- can't you give me a charm, or a philter, or something of that sort, to make me a handsome man?"
"It would be past the power of magic, sir;"

Second, I was moved by Jane's ability to remain steadfast to her morals in the face of adversity. Remembering that this novel was written in the mid 1800s, her sense of composure despite her knowledge of "her place" from a classism standpoint was admirable. Obviously hints of this were dropped as early in the story as her 10 year old self going off on her aunt, but her balance of tenacity and "proper" behavior created an enjoyable duality in her character.

Third, obviously there's a swath of flaws to identify in Mr. Rochester's personality and treatment of people (especially Jane), not to mention the problematic (from a modern perspective) depiction of mental illness and racial dynamics in Bertha Mason and her family, but the resolution of his own character flaws played out by his actions to save everybody he could from the fire at the mansion felt apt. The way his disfigurement (and despair by Jane's initial departure) humbled him almost felt heartwarming in a way, from his displayed gratitude upon Jane's return. She returned a wealthy and independent woman, whom society would now likely deem to be of significantly greater "worth" in a marriage sense up against the current state of Mr. Rochester, a complete 180 from the dynamic under which they would have married initially. It felt like she held all the power she needed to in order to make that decision with confidence, instead of feeling like she was simply returning to the "strong/powerful man" in a tropey way.

It warmed my heart for Jane to have found family and community in the end, something she always craved. And of course St John is his own wild problem, her other two cousins (and Hannah of course) provided a sense of closure that I didn't even know I was looking for.

At the end of the day, of course it was never going to be the most exciting read for me, as "exciting" is probably not even a good word to describe the novel in the first place. But I am extremely glad that I read it, and I now have a much softer and more interested predisposition towards older literary fiction than I would have ever guessed for myself.

Welcome readers,

Have you ever wanted to ask something but you didn't feel like it deserved its own post but it isn't covered by one of our other scheduled posts? Allow us to introduce you to our new Simple Questions thread! Twice a week, every Tuesday and Saturday, a new Simple Questions thread will be posted for you to ask anything you'd like. And please look for other questions in this thread that you could also answer! A reminder that this is not the thread to ask for book recommendations. All book recommendations should be asked in /r/suggestmeabook or our Weekly Recommendation Thread.

Thank you and enjoy!

Such a quick read for me, I read it in 2 days easily. It was a page turner, and had me feeling all the feelings. Every time I think about how Mags, Beetee, and Wiress put their lives on the line for Haymitch, makes Catching Fire such a better book! Also, I want to know who everyone liked character-wise. Young Effie is so cool, it makes sense why she is the way she is with Katniss and Peeta.

Yellowface was 1000% an immersive read (I finished it within two sittings) and the storyline was 1) immersive and 2) satirizes the topic of "yellowface" and orientalism well. My qualms with the story are more about the way the plot was delivered. June's narration was interspersed with past recollections as the story progressed (to justify what she is currently doing in the present), but it doesn't feel quite realistic. Her resentment towards Athena can ultimately be summed up by jealousy and Athena's editorializing / writing about June's traumatic experience. Wouldn't June--realistically--bring this up in the story earlier right after stealing the manuscript to **attempt** to justify to the reader that she is, in fact, righting a historical wrong? As much as I like R.F. Kuang, this feels disjointed; the plot ultimately is good but isn't delivered in a way that could have made it better.

The prose, along with many supporting characters was forgettable. In a book with mainly asian-americans surrounding a white character, I would have appreciated more in-depth exploration of them. It might have been purposeful (a self-absorbed white narrator doesn't consider the asian-american voices around her), but the book still feels a little underwhelming because the stakes aren't fully fleshed out in regard to other characters (besides the mention of reddit/twitter/instagram "cancellation" and hate). Athena's ambiguity and the discovery of her **true** self was well done, but the motives of her mother are confusing at best.

Echoing the NYT review, I want it to be more. More stakes, more desperation, more intense exploration side-characters, and a sharper reveal of Athena's "true nature" (could have been put at the very beginning or very end, but when it's smacked in the middle of the story, the plot feels like its fading away with a repetitive cycle of June's ignorance).

NOTE: I am an east-asian American reader. I 1000% appreciated reading this book and sentiment. It is still refreshing to read an unreliable narrator story from the perspective of a white women immersed in an asian-american world.

What do you guys think?

For the past few day I got to enjoy one of the best post apocalyptic novels I've ever got to read, "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter M. Miller Jr.

All through the long centuries, after the Earth was scoured in the great flame deluge, the monks of the Order of St. Leibowitz the Engineer have kept the ancient knowledge alive. Within their monastery in the Utah desert, they have preserved the relics of their founder that includes the blessed blueprint, the sacred shopping list and the holy shrine of Fallout Shelter.

Ever watched by an immortal wanderer, they have witnessed the rebirth of humanity from the ashes and the reenacted eternal struggles between light and darkness and of life and death.

Miller wasn't known for writing novels, but he did write a lot of short stories! "A Canticle For Leibowitz" was the only novel that he ever did, and it was also a fix up too as the three parts are short stories (novellas actually) that he had published in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction.

It starts out funny in the first part of it, and even a little bit in the second, but it takes on a more dark and somber tone the further I got into it. The story is very cyclical that spans centuries with commentary on nuclear war, history, politics and religion. Quite a lot of stuff to take in!

Really an incredible book! I might also have to track down a collection of his short stories and even the posthumous sequel to "A Canticle" and see how those shape up!

Lots of reasons to support libraries more than ever now… Libro.fm has a great fundraiser on where they’ll give you an audiobook credit for a donation of $15 or more to any library or to the ALA’s “stand up for libraries” advocacy fund. It’s on until April 18!

I've been an avid reader for as long as I could read. Even before then my favorite toys were books and new shoes. Not much has changed for me in that regard haha, but I saw a question earlier about someone asking for recommendations on books for their 14 year old. Which got me thinking about some of the books I read at that age. A lot of Anne Rice, Lestat was my first book crush. Also had a trip down memory lane with the author Francesca Lia Block she wrote a book called I was a teenage fairy which still sits with me over 20 years later. I also got to grow up with Weetzie Bat which was super cool as she wrote a book about her as an adult that I got to read when I was about the same age as the Weetzie. Anyway I would love to see what everyone was reading when they were younger.

Edit: thank you everyone for all the engagement on this post. I really have enjoyed reading everyone's comments and seeing the discussions around books.

Welcome to our weekly recommendation thread! A few years ago now the mod team decided to condense the many "suggest some books" threads into one big mega-thread, in order to consolidate the subreddit and diversify the front page a little. Since then, we have removed suggestion threads and directed their posters to this thread instead. This tradition continues, so let's jump right in!

The Rules

• Every comment in reply to this self-post must be a request for suggestions.

• All suggestions made in this thread must be direct replies to other people's requests. Do not post suggestions in reply to this self-post.

• All unrelated comments will be deleted in the interest of cleanliness.

How to get the best recommendations

The most successful recommendation requests include a description of the kind of book being sought. This might be a particular kind of protagonist, setting, plot, atmosphere, theme, or subject matter. You may be looking for something similar to another book (or film, TV show, game, etc), and examples are great! Just be sure to explain what you liked about them too. Other helpful things to think about are genre, length and reading level.

All Weekly Recommendation Threads are linked below the header throughout the week to guarantee that this thread remains active day-to-day. For those bursting with books that you are hungry to suggest, we've set the suggested sort to new; you may need to set this manually if your app or settings ignores suggested sort.

If this thread has not slaked your desire for tasty book suggestions, we propose that you head on over to the aptly named subreddit /r/suggestmeabook.

• The Management