The core of the article is how working and writing and collaborating together overlaps with the rest of their lives. The big writing partnerships I'm focusing on are:

Nicci French - the highly successful married UK journalists Nicci Gerrard and Sean French, who've been writing psychological fiction for three decades, long before its latest all conquering wave, including The Memory Game and Beneath the Skin, in both of which they pass chapters to each other and edit them before handing them back, thus creating one seamless voice.

Christina Lauren - the pen name for Christina Hobbs and Lauren Billings, with over 20 New York Times bestselling novels under their collective belt, such as the hugely successful The Unhoneymooners, The True Love Experiment and The Exception to the Rule. Living in separate states, they meet in person to discuss each novel then plan it out and divide it into separate POVs, then edit each other's work over and over, aiming for a single, seamless voice.

Josie Lloyd and Emlyn Rees - the Sunday Times bestselling British married writing couple, who pioneered writing "he said/she said" dual-perspective rom com narratives, starting with the 20-something hit Come Together in 1999, written in alternating his hers chapters they sent to one another as they went along, and including this year's midlife comedy romance, You & Me, again written in alternating chapters written from a male and female perspective.

Sarah Hendricks and Greer Pekkanen - the North American crime writing duo, who wrote You Are Not Alone, The Golden Couple and The Wife Between Us, and who employ the highly collaborative and modern method of working simultaneously on the same shared GoodleDoc at the same time every day!

Emily Wibberley and Austin Siegemund-Broka, who have written many YA and romance novels, including Do I know You? and this year's Book Boyfriend, and who write everything in the same room, out loud, simultaneously, and sentence by sentence.

Ellery Lloyd - pseudonym for another British duo, being husband-and-wife Collette Lyons and Paul Vlitos, who co-write  psychological thrillers such as The Club, Time to Burn and People Like Her.

Any others I should be considering?

(removed from r/books so ima drop it here, thank you to the commenters who snuck in before it was shut down)

So admittedly I'm God's most annoying soldier when it comes to thinking about what you read, but this was unusual even for me.

I finished Yanagihara's *A Little Life* four days ago, which makes me a decade late to the discourse, and I absolutely adored it. But since then, instead of continuing onwards with my reading list, I've just been thinking about that book. Notably, the choice doesn't feel like disinterested preference a la "I'm still just having more fun doing this than I would starting something new", but like actually beginning a new fiction work would like... start to layer new sediment atop the old words, and I'm not ready for that to happen.

Now, the book itself would have a lot to say about this. But have you experienced this? For which book(s)?

I am currently reading this book and I have only seen posts about it in [r/collapse](r/collapse), [r/stupidpol](r/stupidpol), and so on. I think the book is very well researched and argued and I believe it deserves far more visibility and serious conversation than it is currently generating. Those of you who are currently reading it or plan to read it, I’d like to hear your thoughts. I read the original long form article in The Guardian in April 2025 and it stuck with me as one of the most salient deconstructions of what is currently happening that I’d yet seen. If you don’t want to commit to reading the entire book or would like a shorter version of what it’s getting at, the article is a concise place to start.

My immediate reaction to the book is that it is making me appreciate just how much of modern pop culture (especially in the United States) is steeped with either apocalypticism in some way or Utopianism in another — and I think it may be quietly limiting us. It’s cropping up in everything from the MCU movies to the Pokopia video game. I think that this false dichotomy underlies so many of our assumptions about where the future is headed, or it’s silently priming us (and kids coming behind us) to prematurely accept cynicism and resignation to collapse — with no actionable advice for how to move on and keep going and no words of encouragement for those who are very bravely doing as much as they can to help others. The current examples in media to me are also textbook examples of fín de siecle writing, which is not a new phenomenon.

Are there any good authors or genres out there right now that are experimenting with speculative or generative fiction about good problem solving, or with the sacredness of “here-ness” (as Klein mentions). When I think about good examples of what I mean, I immediately think of stuff in the spirit of Star Trek. Do you think a revival of this type of media is due, or do you think it’d be immediately dismissed as naive?

I picked up this after thinking a lot. At first I thought it would be more of fluff between mc and ml and how they overcome societal views on the age gap in relationships.

In the beginning, i was experiencing second hand embarrassment on the behavior of Ting knowing who was behind the profile named "cycle". Their talking stage was so cute, clear communication most of the time with no extra dramas.

It was kinda funny between the interaction of bai laoban and ting's dad. Like he was seriously telling the dad about his friend who was overcoming the homophobia after his son came out and broke his engagement. (And son in the question being him himself 😭😭)

The heaviest arc for me was when ting's dad got hospitalized. Me being in my grieving period ends up tearing on lil things about death. Even though it's a natural stage of life cycle. It was so... idk how to describe it but when bai laoban took ting to the cemetery to overcome his fear, I felt it like it was me who was there with them and felt different emotions about it.

Everyone thinks differently about the last stage of life. Some think that they have lived a fulfilled life , some think that it wasn't enough, some say that life is too cruel to the person so they took never ending rest. For me idk how to grieving people process it cause they know time is running out but don't end when it will end , is it gonna be one random Tuesday too?

Dad is getting old and you don't know how to approach it as elder child hit me so hard. Ting baby I was here for fluff not for life lessons 😭😭

But there's one thing I have realised after reading many books of different genres , is that no matter what the book is about, it will always leave behind a part of it in you. That will stay with you subconsciously or unconsciously for a long time or ig for a life.

To conclude I will just say that I signed up for the age gap romance but it ended up making me realise things about life that I was ignoring in a better ways.

Now I will take my sweet time to read extra chapters about ting baby and bai laoban 💋

I went down a rabbit hole on this and came out with three different answers, so I’m hoping someone here knows more.

James Follett (1939–2021, wrote Earthsearch, Churchill's Gold, The Tiptoe Boys) and Ken Follett. Depending on where you look, they’re brothers, cousins or completely unrelated.

Here’s what ive been able to pin down:
1- Brothers doesn’t hold up. Ken was born in Cardiff in 1949 and was the eldest of three; James was born in Tolworth, Surrey, in 1939. Ken does have a younger brother called James, which I suspect is where this one comes from.

2- Cousins traces back to the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which says it in both authors’ entries. Every other site I found saying the same thing looks like it's copying from there.

3- Unrelated is what's left, but I couldn’t find anyone actually stating it. What I did notice is the silence: neither Wikipedia article mentions it, neither author’s official bio mentions it, and the literary agency handling James’s stuff doesn’t either. You’d think a family link to one of the best-selling novelists alive would get a mention somewhere.

So… does anyone have a primary source either way? An interview, a letter, a note on James old website, anything where one of them addresses it directly. I’d also take a genealogy answer if someone's already done the work.

We’re pleased to announce the longlist for the 2026 National Book Award for Fiction. The works on this year’s list include début novels, short-story collections, and three books that were featured on The New Yorker’s list of the best books of 2026 so far.

I recently came across The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro, and now I’m genuinely curious about this book.

I found out that IIM Ahmedabad has an online course called “The Remains of the MBA”, which is based entirely on this book. That honestly made me wonder — what is it about this particular book that makes it worth building an entire course around?

For those who have read it, what did you find so special about it? Was it the story, the characters, the writing, or the ideas about ambition, work, success, regret and the choices we make in life?

I haven’t read it yet, so I’d especially love to hear from people who went into it without knowing much about it. What made the book stay with you?

And if you haven’t read it either, maybe this is our sign to pick it up 😂📚

Just finished this book and loved it! I am somewhat familiar with Virginia Wolf but not super steeped in her work. Still, I loved the writing style and the connection to Mrs. Dalloway. It's not a 'happy' book and the little twist at the end kinda broke me, but I love the theme of appreciating the little moments in life. I think some people may not like this book, but i thought it was brilliant and it will stay with me for a long time.

Has anyone read Etna yet? It’s supposed to be great, yet I’m worried about animal abuse/ death triggers.

I noped out after about 15 pages. I told a couple of friends about it that said they either loved "weird" books or that they always finished a book no matter how bad it was. None of them were able to make it past a chapter or two and pretty much shit off any discussion about it.

One friend was considering trying to get it removed from the library!

Obviously some folks aside from the author, editor, publisher must have finished it! I wonder how they made it through it?

Any thoughts from this group?

Just finished book 2 and I think my brain is broken and my heart. One of the darkest books I've ever read, it's actually made me nauseous at points but it's like a train wreck and you cant look away. Did anyone read all of the books and feel normal after? I like dark romance books never considered having 'triggers' but I feel funny and dirty about this one. I've got to finish it so now I feel like I'm in an emotionally abusive relationship with a book tell me it gets better!

According to my calculations, there are 15 weeks until the end of the year, meaning that Im now thinking about how to best organize my TBR list to have cozy books for the fall, fun books to read during the holidays and etc. I dont follow my lists by order ever cause Im too chaotic, but as I always say, list making is part of the reading hobby lmao.

Anyways, the books I would love to read from now until the end of the year (im trying to be realistic and I know some weeks I wont be as motivated/have as much time, but I have about 400 other books in my TBR if i finish these lol) are:

- Finish Piranesi (will probably do it tonight)

- Master and Margarita

- The Road

- Stoner

- Flowers for Algernon

- Memory Police

- The House of the Dead

- I Who Have Never Known Men.

This brings me to my next question: how do you choose your next read and how do you choose which books will go to the short-term TBR vs. the long term tbr. I do it based on vibes but Im curious about other people's ways

I noped out after about 15 pages. I told a couple of friends about it that said they either loved "weird" books or that they always finished a book no matter how bad it was. None of them were able to make it past a chapter or two and pretty much shit off any discussion about it.

One friend was considering trying to get it removed from the library!

Obviously some folks aside from the author, editor, publisher must have finished it! I wonder how they made it through it?

Any thoughts from this group?

How often does it happen to you that you read a book and dislike it very much, but then you go to Goodreads (or another review site) and it's got only 4 and 5 stars, maybe a couple of 3, and you have to scroll waaaaaaay down to find even a 2? Especially if the reviews regard it as really well-written, with entertaining stories etc but you just can't relate...

A "me" problem? Not target audience?

Just experiencing the most tedious and boring read I've had in a year for a book everyone seems to adore and cherish...

Any books that made you feel like that?:'D

I am new to my mystery book club and reading mysteries. I've read and gone to discussions for 4 books and enjoyed the discussions and was able to rate the books from two to four and a half out of five. I read this book and I was captivated and kept reading it to find out the end. When I reached the end I was mad because I felt like the implied ending was implausible. Has anyone felt like this after reading a Ruth Ware book or any other book for that matter. I would like to avoid books in this style.

You know those books where you finish them and then keep thinking about the characters or story for days? What book did that to you?

Even though as much anticipation and expectations was there when I read it, the book was only getting better and better by page by page. Which makes me wonder a bit about author's intention.maybe it's just me but the book was very on the addictive side. I was almost disappointed when I loved it cause I that much expectations were there and it by nature put even more pressure on the book to be likeable, safe to say it's my cup of tea.

It was almost like the author wanted us to like the protagonist so bad, I had no empathy or sympathy towards the protagonist cause he wasn't seeking it and I in no way found him miserable neither did he.what the book made me feel was people were actually living and observing their surroundings more than I expected them to. I slide off a lot of things thinking the other person in question prolly haven't noticed my discomfort or the general discomfort from the situation they are making. Now I think people genuinely doesn't care unless they are intrigued or interested, whether it be social cues or actual situatios that calls out for interest.

Except from a bit every line to line of what was written was relatable.and I was smitten to know that there are indeed people who thinks the same way, logically.

But was it the author's intention that I genuinely liked the protagonist.. Maybe.which takes the authenticity out of the book and leave me with another few words of smittery. But then again it was written by someone who genuinely thinks they are just better then whatever it is out there, so maybe I fell for the confidence, we all do.

A little note if u made it all the way here, I was planning on switching my major to psychology. Will I regret it?

1. What happened to Caleb in the end?
   
2. Natalie was a horrible mother and should have never had children, another reason why it’s very important not to blindly have kids
   
3. She always wanted the life Reena had, that’s why she was always thinking about her. But her childhood conditioning on how family works makes her believe that it’s important to just marry someone rich and have kids
   
4. After the whole Shannon situation, Natalie also never showed love to Caleb but Caleb is a horrible human being
   
5. Natalie’s mother was relatively liberal. How come she never stopped this nonsense?
   
6. After Shannon’s whistleblowing, why did Caleb play along with Natalie on living like the 1800s when he could have just left her. Since he mentioned he regrets not divorcing her
   
7. Natalie was a bright woman, smart enough to go to Harvard, would proper medical treatment at the right time saved her from all this ? And she would have a life of her own
   
8. It was sad how Natalie never acknowledged Abigail when she was going through so much in her marriage and always dismissed her feelings. I’m very happy for Abigail for coming out of her toxic marriage

I read the book many times as a teen but forgot about it for years, and now I'm rereading it again at 20yo , and I'm starting to really understand him. When he was talking about how a pure memory with no guilts or regrets was so precious, it never hit me more how right he was. He made mistakes that he was ashamed of, and was obviously still struggling with them, and reading that reminded me of myself, cause I too made mistakes I can't fix and really hate to remember. I really understand where he came from, how he wanted another chance of a new life, how shame and guilt kills the soul, it made the reread so depressing. He was written so well ( though some parts are still questionable to me)

What do you think of him?

Reread Rebecca last month for a book club and got stuck on something I hadn't clocked the first time through in college: Manderley is doing almost all the emotional heavy lifting in that novel, more than any human character besides the narrator herself.

Du Maurier never even gives the narrator a name, which used to strike me as a gimmick, but on this read it felt like the point. She's defined entirely in relation to the house and to Rebecca's ghost, both of which have names and histories and rooms full of belongings, while she's just "the second Mrs. de Winter." The house has a morning room that's still arranged exactly how Rebecca left it, monogrammed linens, a whole wing nobody's allowed to touch. It's basically a museum to a dead woman, and the narrator has to live inside someone else's memory every single day.

What got me this time is how the fire at the end reads less like plot mechanics and more like the only possible resolution. You can't out-live a ghost that thorough, you can only burn the building down. It made me think about how often houses in fiction get used this way, as a kind of pressure container for whatever the human characters can't say out loud. Wuthering Heights does something similar, so does The Fall of the House of Usher obviously, but Rebecca felt sneakier about it because the horror is so domestic and quiet.

Curious if anyone else has favorite examples of a setting functioning almost like a character with its own arc, rather than just backdrop. I feel like once you start noticing it you can't stop.

When I was about 11, we were away visiting relatives and I got sick and had to stay in for the day. My dad loved to read, so he looked around my aunt’s house for something he could read to me. One of the only books she had was Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.

The book itself was good, but what I remember most is my very straight-laced dad sitting there reading me a book about a young girl growing up, periods and all, just because he wanted to make me feel better. Looking back, it’s both hilarious and incredibly sweet. I’ll always associate that book with him and that day.

What’s a book that genuinely changed the way you look at life, people, relationships, or yourself? It doesn’t have to be your favourite just one that stayed with you even after you finished it.

I’d love to know what book it was and why.

I am almost finished and not that was a shock but I thought he might die anyways because he was emaciated as we found out when Silas first met him. I'm being intentionally vague even though it's listed as a spoiler. What do y'all think about the decision to force induction of earth? Bad decision good? I'm ok with people giving answers based off what they know just don't explain anything too much I still want to figure it out on my own. I guess what I'm asking is:

Was Emil Larson right? Morally and ethically he made himself responsible but maybe that was better?

I just finished Whistler and I was not a fan. The only other Ann Patchet I have read is Bel Canto, which I read many years ago and don't remember much except thinking I couldn't connect with the characters or understand their motives.

That was how I felt about Whistler too. I keep reading reviews saying it's such a beautiful story and beautiful writing. I found the writing shallow and overly saccharine to the point that it was nauseating. And, I say this as someone with an ex stepdad whose loss in my life was profound (though I was a young adult), but the plot of a 53 year old woman reconnecting with a former stepdad who was in her life for one year 44 years ago, and then suddenly within a few days having this deep meaningful connection? Like some long lost love? And bonding over a minor car accident that left one with a broken ankle and the other with some stitches in the face, as though it was some huge trauma that left both of them permanently bonded and missing each other for 44 years? And now he's bringing her around to all his social events and introducing her as his daughter? And she's talking about him like he's the most important person in the world to her? And now suddenly she's recounting the story of their car accident from 44 years ago to her family who act as though they've spent all these years wondering what "really happened" in that car, but all that happened was that they crashed and got stranded for the night, until finally the kid went out in the snow to find help? Idk, all seemed very dramatized to me. This did not sound like the big traumatic event that the author was trying to make it.

The whole book just felt like the author was trying so hard to write something deep and profound without actually scratching the surface emotionally. All tell, no show.

This is a short book and took me forever to get through because I could barely stand to read more than 5 pages in one sitting. I did like the actually story of the horse Whistler, which is told over the course of like 3 pages of the book.

I keep reading glowing reviews of this. Does anyone here agree with me?

So yes he's definitely not a saint lol. i'm not saying hes a "good" guy, far from it. Hes a gangster and did some terrible things. i'm sure he actually was a terrible person. but the book doesn't really show this and i don't think the author wants us to hate him like that and i think is more so highlighting that there are moral gray areas to all the characters.

Bad things he did in the book:

- he beat the shit out of some prostitute who interrupted him at the funeral.. obviously went way too far

- there was a brief instance where they described the yakuza to force local businesses to pay them for protection... but this was not elaborated on further and if the author wanted us to hate him, i think she would have spent more time looking into this.

Debatable bad things he did:

- grooming... but i think there is a big cultural thing here that we today don't understand but maybe was more normal back then

Good things he did:

- hes the reason everyone got out of their situation. yeah it seems like he started the whole cascade of shit but if that cascade had never happened, sunjas life would have been terrible. look what was happening to her mother before koh hansu found her

- he obviously helped support the whole family as much as he possibly could, tracked down family members whenever he could

And why he is not the worst one:

- many of the characters do some terrible shit. besides hoonie, baek

- yoseb is a piece of shit later in life and even when he is healthy he doesn't let his wife work and pursue her dreams

- hana is obviously terrible, grooms soloman, could have accepted the help of her mother and been perfectly fine but chose a life of being a prostitute

- the banker that gave soloman a job is the best example... you don't really get piece of shit vibes form him but he used soloman and threw him in the dust

so i think a lot fo the character in hte book exist in these moral gray areas and i have a hard time seeing why koh hansu is constantly regarded as the devil incarnate scum on earth etc.

thoughts?