I never actually organize my TBR around a specific quote, but I do use broader themes as a compass. Machiavelli's ideas about fortune being a woman who favors the bold—that line from 'The Prince'—guided a whole section of my list last year. It made me hunt for political novels where the protagonist isn't just reacting, but making chaotic, aggressive plays for power. I ended up picking up 'Wolf Hall' again with a different lens, focusing on Cromwell's maneuvers, and finally tried 'The Traitor Baru Cormorant', which fits that ruthless, calculated ambition perfectly. It's less about the exact quote and more about letting that cynical, pragmatic energy steer you toward stories where morality is a liability, not a virtue.
Sometimes the connection is looser, more atmospheric. Planning to read 'The Ministry of Utopia'? Skimming a few Machiavellian aphorisms about the ends justifying the means puts you in the right headspace before even opening the cover. It primes you to look for the machinery of statecraft, not just the personal drama.
It works as a thematic tag. I have a 'Realpolitik' shelf on Storygraph, and any quote about power, fear, and love gets slapped on there. When my TBR feels directionless, I'll pick a quote like 'it is better to be feared than loved' and challenge myself to find a novel that explores that tension, maybe 'The Queen of the Night' or even 'Gone Girl' if you stretch the definition of 'political.' It creates a weird, fun constraint.
Honestly, I think this is overcomplicating things. My TBR pile is chaotic enough without layering Renaissance philosophy on top. I just read the blurb, see if it hooks me. That said, I did read 'The Secret History' right after a phase of being weirdly into Machiavelli, and it definitely colored how I viewed the character dynamics. The manipulation, the groupthink, the cold practicality behind the aesthetics—I kept seeing parallels I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. So maybe it's not a planning tool, but a lens you can put on after the fact, which can be just as valuable.
2026-07-21 03:50:57
6
View All Answers
Scan code to download App
Related Books
The kingmaker’s asset
Lucy Doe
0
469
In politics, love is leverage.
Charlie Vale is collateral damage the son of a man branded a traitor, erased by the state and left to survive in its shadows. Dexter Ashcroft is the architect of power, a strategist so ruthless they call him the Kingmaker.
When their lives collide, Dexter doesn’t silence Charlie. He owns him.
Bound by a contract masquerading as salvation, Charlie becomes Dexter’s public partner and private liability. Every smile is staged. Every kindness costs something. And every truth is buried deeper.
But when the past resurfaces and the wrong man is sacrificed again, the crown Dexter built begins to crack.
Because the one thing power cannot control is what it destroys.
A story of manipulation, redemption, and a love that refuses to survive on lies.
They've taken my father. They'll take me next unless I comply with their demands.
Taking down the most powerful man in Italy.
Cato Marino.
The man is accompanied by his security team everywhere he goes. His fortress in Tuscany is impenetrable. He's the most paranoid man in the country.
And there's no possibility I'll be able to take him down alone.
If I want to save my father, I only have one option.
To get into Cato's bed...and stay there.
"The world paints him in red. But before that—he only saw the world in black and white."
A re-imagining of Emperor Caligula's life, history's infamous mad ruler...
Was he made, or was he born?
Told from multiple perspectives, Love and Honor explores the violent, intimate bond between a broken prince and the boy who dares to love him.
Before the blood, before the madness, there was silence.
There was pain.
And there was love.
She died once in fire while the man she loved watched her burn without a single step forward.
Elena Vale was the villainess of a romance novel—written to be hated, destroyed, and discarded at the end of the story.
And she did die exactly like that.
Until she woke up at the beginning of it all.
The night of the Arden Charity Gala.
The night everything was supposed to start.
This time, Elena remembers everything—every betrayal, every humiliation, every moment she was written to lose.
But instead of begging for survival…
She chooses revenge.
Because if the world insists she is the villainess, then she will become one they cannot control.
A woman who does not beg for love.
A woman who builds power instead of tears.
A woman who turns her ending into a beginning of destruction.
And as she rises, something strange begins to happen.
The male lead who once ignored her starts watching.
The heroine who was supposed to replace her starts trembling.
And the system that once promised her survival begins to warn her:
[WARNING: Villainess behavior exceeds original plot limits.]
But Elena is no longer afraid of the story.
She is rewriting it.
And this time… she will be the one they fear.
After transmigrating through three novels in a row, the hardest thing I ever suffer through is drinking iced long black. But when I open my eyes again, I somehow become the pathetic simp side character in a trashy romance novel.
Just as I debate whether to file a complaint against the system, the trembling system hurriedly explains something to me.
Although this is a trashy romance novel, it is also an unfinished abandoned novel.
I ask, "So you're saying I decide how the story develops?"
The system replied, "Yes. Everything is completely under your control."
Satisfied, I lazily stretch and begin checking the original Jacob's background. He has a trillionaire father and a billionaire mother. On top of that, he has seven rich and beautiful older sisters.
With such a ridiculously overpowered setup, how can he go around simping for a broke college girl with no money?
What a complete waste!
My name is Sophia Colombo. I am the youngest daughter of the Colombo family, one of Newarke City's most powerful Mafia dynasties.
My father is the Don, and my three older brothers control most of the family's operations across the Rooklyn, Kings, and Canhatte boroughs.
On the Veste Coast district, the name Colombo commands power and fear.
My best friend, Jennifer, always says I've been too sheltered by my family, that I can't see through a man's lies or schemes. She even offered to "help" me put that to the test.
So, under the guise of looking out for me, she seduced my fiancé.
After winning him over, she stood there, smug and self-satisfied, watching me like I was the punchline to a joke.
"I told you—you're too naive," she said. "Those men are all cunning and full of tricks. If it weren't for me, you'd have been fooled into tears a hundred times over."
I was furious—so angry I could barely breathe—but I couldn't find a single word to argue back.
This time, I chose my fiancé in secret, keeping it from her entirely. He was the heir to the Lucia family.
And just as I expected, the moment she found out… she made her move again.
What she didn't know was that this fiancé was someone I had carefully prepared… just for her.
Man, this question hits on something I see all the time. We'll be discussing a scheming royal or a ruthless politician in a fantasy series, and someone inevitably drops a Machiavelli line. It's like a shorthand for a whole archetype. 'Is it better to be feared or loved?' sparks instant debate about an antagonist's methods—was their cruelty necessary, or did it sow the seeds of their downfall? In my last group's read of 'The Traitor Baru Cormorant,' we argued for an hour about whether Baru was following a Machiavellian playbook or subverting it entirely. The quotes give us this historical, almost clinical framework to dissect characters who otherwise just feel 'evil.'
But honestly? Sometimes it feels a bit lazy. Just slapping 'Machiavellian' on any character who lies feels reductive. The real inspiration comes from wrestling with the context. When someone brings up 'The ends justify the means,' we have to ask: Do they, in this story? For this character? It pushes past simple moral judgments into messy, practical debates about power, survival, and governance. That's where you get the good stuff—not just labeling, but deep dives into motive and consequence.
Machiavelli's been trending lately, especially on the bookish side of things, so I see his name pop up a lot. The quote that seems to be everywhere is some version of 'It is better to be feared than loved.' People tend to use it in a 'dark academia' or morally-grey-character context, slapping it on edits of villains or anti-heroes from other books.
Honestly, I think the context gets totally lost. BookTok flattens these complex ideas into aesthetic soundbites. 'The ends justify the means' gets thrown around a lot too, but it's almost a joke for when someone does something shady in a fictional romance plot. The deeper political analysis of 'The Prince' is completely absent from most of the clips. They're just mood-setters for dark vibes, which feels a bit ironic given the source material.
Machiavelli gets thrown around on bookish socials a lot, but the quotes that really blow up are always the ones taken out of context. 'It is better to be feared than loved' is the obvious one—that quote alone has fueled a thousand character debates about morally gray anti-heroes like Kaz Brekker or Thomas Shelby. People love applying it to fictional power dynamics and villain analysis threads.
What's more interesting is when a niche quote gets traction. 'The ends justify the means' is technically a misattribution, but that doesn't stop it from trending whenever a new ruthless fantasy character emerges. I've seen entire 'Dark Academia' mood boards built around lines from 'The Prince', mixing the aesthetic with a very surface-level understanding of his ideas. The viral discussion is rarely about political theory; it's about using these stark, cold statements as a lens to dissect fictional power plays and morally ambiguous ships.
Machiavelli's letters and essays are crawling with lines that show how he saw power working, but one quote I keep returning to is his blunt advice in 'The Prince': 'It is much safer to be feared than loved, if one must choose between the two.' This isn't just a cold-blooded suggestion; it's a diagnosis of how fickle human loyalty can be. He saw affection as voluntary and therefore unreliable, while fear ties people's self-interest directly to the ruler's power.
What really makes this quote hit home is the context he builds around it. He argues that fear, to be effective, must avoid breeding hatred—a tricky balance. The line reveals a view of power as a constant, precarious performance. It's less about morality and more about managing perceptions and predictable human reactions, which feels depressingly relevant even now.
I think this gets at the core of his dynamic: power isn't static possession, it's a continuous act of reading and manipulating the room.