I too would fight over having the biggest mountain, so I get it.

How many bookshelves will you need when you turn 70?

In addition to what else is being said, I think this is like those safety stickers on ladders. It's there because a jackass got away with jackassery one time, so now everyone covers that one scenario preemptively.

You Should read Annals of the western Shore by Le Guin. The people with powers are a bunch of incestuous mountain clans who only fight each other and don't leave their mountains. It is an awesome series.

Parasite, by Mira Grant, was published in 2013 and set in 2035. But for some reason all the high tech offices in the story are using clipboards instead of tablets. Unreasonably annoys me.

What sequence?

I’m in my 70’s and Alas, Babylon was required reading in my high school.

The comparison to marquez is because they are both major latin american authors who enjoy commercial success in english translation

This...I want this at my funeral, plus the open gin and tonic bar. Plus, a barrel of salt and vinegar chips at the entrance, a few double layered mirror chocolate cakes, and a bouquet of lilacs in a vase near my urn.

Sorry for your loss. FWIW, When my dad passed, I read the book: Fatherloss, and even though it's focused on men losing their fathers, it really helped me too.

Brighter days ahead, friend.

My two favs from her earlier work too! After I Do had me sobbing.

I was going to open with that but your mention of Spanish gave me a hook. :D

I agree with what they said^. The vibe between her older books and newer is definitely different but the quality of writing is still very high.

Utopia is such a good story, love how he mixes real people in

Maybe try some shorter books? Or books commonly considered page turners? The examples you listed are incredibly dense novels with extensive world-building; that can be hard to get through.

Well that's just a fact, everyone knows that

I hear ya. There were a couple books I tried reading when I was younger and figured I’d go back to them eventually.

I actually like that they are combined. I prefer being able to “binge read” a series as opposed to having to read other stuff while waiting for the next book to come out (if they aren’t all available)

Thanks! Seems to be a common suggestion. I’ll check the local library for it!

Thanks! I’ll check that out and am definitely becoming more interested in reading these!

Well now I just feel like you've buried the lede here.

Also, I worked for a newspaper a long time ago. You have to be very familiar with the concept of libel if you work at a major daily.

Oooh, any specific examples?

This is more of a general suspension of disbelief issue, but when the author is clearly more sheltered than their own characters/written situations, such that the world they've built isn't something anyone would really be interested in and also the way the characters and react within that world arent really believable -- again, because the author hasn't either been through those emotions or lacks the empathetic imagination to write someone who has.

Tbf, haven't seen it too much, in professionally published works, but when I played editor for my peers in university... Holy shit.

Yes, that's why I included the last line of my main post: (until the events of the plot kick off, of course).

When I say unanimous, I am not speaking literally. Obviously the villain in any one of these stories is OFTEN someone who wants to take over both worlds; but there it is: 'The Villain'. Looking at Harry Potter, wizards are recruited from all over the world. They each have different backgrounds, different cultures, different views, different beliefs, and different childhoods; so why is it that it took UNTIL Voldemort for the idea of "Hey, why are we hiding out again?" to seriously arise? Surely this should have been a REGULAR thing the wizarding world contended with. And IF they're contending with it... why? Why is it the 'good' decision to not rule everything? Why did the board of directors decide on THAT approach vs any other? Etc.

Again, 'they felt their aspirations wouldn't get enough traction', but why is that? Why is the wizarding world one centered AROUND non-interference? Why is THAT the default? So on, so forth.

I mean, in Harry Potter isn't Voldemort objective exactly to rule both worlds and dominate the non-magical humans? So they're not unanimously agreeing with the rules they live by. And Voldemort had his share of allies, they just kept themselves in the shadows when they felt their aspirations wouldn't get enough traction.