It's called "Lost Cat".
I highly recommend it. Ironically, it might be an approximate opposite of Pale Fire. It's very short, with simple yet beautiful prose, filled with intense, raw emotions.
It's filled with interactive notes that are very useful for understanding the linguistic and cultural references.
Here's my reading method that I found effective:
1. Read a section on paper.
2. Go through the same section on the site.
3. (Re-)read on paper.
I toggled between 1-2-3, 1-2, or 2-3 depending on my mood, and it worked really well.I'd been given small pink pills. Took them as prescribed. My condition didn't really change.
Then I turned to reading. After a couple of other books, I found this list [1]. I read The Stranger. I've felt sudden ease of my anxiety, I was at peace.
Two weeks after The Stranger, I read Siddhartha. Soon, my sleep turned back to normal.
I'm not praising these books, neither I'm suggesting avoiding medical advice. I'm just still excited how reading can affect someone's well-being.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde%27s_100_Books_of_the_...
Regarding the literary merit of Camus, Nabokov had this to say [1]:
”I happen to find second-rate and ephemeral the works of a number of puffed-up writers—such as Camus, Lorca, Kazantzakis, D. H. Lawrence, Thomas Mann, Thomas Wolfe, and literally hundreds of other “great” second-raters.”
“Brecht, Faulkner, Camus, many others, mean absolutely nothing to me, and I must fight a suspicion of conspiracy against my brain when I see blandly accepted as “great literature” by critics and fellow authors Lady Chatterley’s copulations or the pretentious nonsense of Mr. Pound, that total fake.”
“Incidentally, I frequently hear the distant whining of people who complain in print that I dislike the writers whom they venerate such as Faulkner, Mann, Camus, Dreiser, and of course Dostoevski.”
“It is a shame that he [Franz Hellens] is read less than that awful Monsieur Camus and even more awful Monsieur Sartre.”
[1] Strong Opinions
[2] Although Le Petit Prince beats it in all three (impact, even simpler language, shorter).
One of the most fundamental scientific facts is that quantum theory (the most precisely tested theory in human history) and general relativity are incomplete. There must be a bridge. And we have no idea what that bridge is. It's been this way for over a century; the lifespan of string theory is not so long in comparison. Until we find a way to falsify it, we have to keep trying, don't we?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/c0aed082-9f81-4a88...
Dark purple is a higher rate of death, light blue is lower.
A state-by-state graph of vaccination percentage is available here:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/12/16/us/covid-19-vacci...
These graphs would indicate that the states with the lowest vaccination rates have the highest AMI mortality rates.
If you group the population into only 2 groups: all of the vaccinated and all the unvaccinated, regardless of age; then the vaccinated had a higher death toll.
But age is a hidden factor. The older have more risks and are more vaccinated.
If you group by vaccination AND by age bracket, the opposite happens. For example, the 60 to 65 vaccinated have a lower death rate than the 60 to 65 unvaccinated.
"I believe one should only read those books which bite and sting. If the book we are reading does not wake us up with a blow to the head, then why read the book? To make us happy, as you write? My God, we would be just as happy if we had no books, and those books that make us happy, we could write ourselves if necessary. But we need the books that affect us like a disaster, that hurts us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like if we were being driven into forests, away from all people, like a suicide, a book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us." [2]
[1] Brief an Oskar Pollak, 27. Januar 1904. , https://homepage.univie.ac.at/werner.haas/1904/br04-003.htm
[2] Literal translation by ChatGPT. Original:
"Ich glaube, man sollte überhaupt nur solche Bücher lesen, die einen beißen und stechen. Wenn das Buch, das wir lesen, uns nicht mit einem Faustschlag auf den Schädel weckt, wozu lesen wir dann das Buch? Damit es uns glücklich macht, wie Du schreibst? Mein Gott, glücklich wären wir eben auch, wenn wir keine Bücher hätten, und solche Bücher, die uns glücklich machen, könnten wir zur Not selber schreiben. Wir brauchen aber die Bücher, die auf uns wirken wie ein Unglück, das uns sehr schmerzt, wie der Tod eines, den wir lieber hatten als uns, wie wenn wir in Wälder vorstoßen würden, von allen Menschen weg, wie ein Selbstmord, ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns."