Love conquers fear
This link opens in a pop-up window
In Yalda's universe, light has mass, no universal speed, and its creation generates energy. On Yalda's world, plants make food …
'Vivid, enigmatic, enchanting' M. L. Rio 'Irresistible' Sunday Times
Some people think foxes go around collecting qi, or life …
On a warm March night in 2083, Judy Wallach-Stevens wakes to a warning of unknown pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay. …
Years after a meteorite strike obliterated Washington, D.C.—triggering an extinction-level global warming event—Earth’s survivors have started an international effort to …
Witchcraft for Wayward Girls is a 2025 horror novel by American writer Grady Hendrix. It was first published in January …
Mars. The red planet. A new frontier for humanity, a civilization where humans can live in peace, lord and master …
In an American suburb in the early 1980s, students at a highly competitive performing arts …
In the second part of Trust Exercise, a character states that a play she's read is good, or that she read it quickly and she's still thinking about it, which is the same thing, right?
I read the novel quickly, and I'm still thinking about it, but I'm not sure what that means. I appreciate certain well-written characters, even after acts two and three make it clear those characters are not necessarily who act one claimed they were.
In fact, act one tells a story seemingly straightforward, while act one rewrites that story deliberately, while itself telling a story with as many holes in it as the first. Act three, the shortest, barely attempts to tell a story, and avoids answering most questions, while suggesting that act two was itself as deceptive as act one, and that the real story, inasmuch as there is a real story in …
In the second part of Trust Exercise, a character states that a play she's read is good, or that she read it quickly and she's still thinking about it, which is the same thing, right?
I read the novel quickly, and I'm still thinking about it, but I'm not sure what that means. I appreciate certain well-written characters, even after acts two and three make it clear those characters are not necessarily who act one claimed they were.
In fact, act one tells a story seemingly straightforward, while act one rewrites that story deliberately, while itself telling a story with as many holes in it as the first. Act three, the shortest, barely attempts to tell a story, and avoids answering most questions, while suggesting that act two was itself as deceptive as act one, and that the real story, inasmuch as there is a real story in a work of fiction, is an amalgam of acts one and two.
In the end, which characters were merely renamed for the novel, and which were split up into multiple characters, each fulfilling a role? While act two alerted us to the deception of act one, act three suggests it did so while continuing to use roles in place of people, that act two kept up not only the false names, but the false multiplication of characters.
Is the novel, in the end, the story of an entire class, or of five people, or possibly just two?
