Showing posts with label bookish problems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bookish problems. Show all posts

Wednesday 30 December 2020

Seriously Reducing My Goodreads Challenge Goal Because 2020

(Warning: this post discusses mental health problems, specifically Depression and Anxiety, and references Covid and the dumpster fire of 2020)

'Seriously Reducing My Goodreads Challenge Goal Because 2020' against a background of decorative shelved books that I would very much like to own

For those unaware: there is a website called Goodreads. It's like social media for books, basically. 

(Before you ask, my Goodreads account is private.)

And every year it encourages people to set a target number of books to read that year - the Goodreads (GR) challenge.

(It would be cynical to point out that Goodreads is owned by Amazon, and therefore may have a monetary incentive for encouraging people to consume vast quantities of book. 

Corporations can create unintended social benefits - in this case encouraging literacy - despite what their motives may or may not be.)

Sunday 24 March 2019

Nerd Church - The Dilemma of Morally Dubious Media (Ft. American Psycho, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter)

Warning: this post discusses morally dubious media, including but not limited to: rape, murder, incest, general violence.

'First learn the rules then break them' written on a chalk board
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

American Psycho is about a serial killer that takes pleasure in raping and killing women in the most horrible ways, and the narrative goes into gratuitous detail about it.

Do I have your attention? Buckle up, dearest nerdlets!

No matter what, there is always gonna be media - books, films, TV series, whatever - that is kinda dubious on the ol' morality front.

Is that ok? Is that something we should be consuming? Is that something that people should be creating?

And if it isn't, is that something that we should be supressing?

Should we be, to put it bluntly, censoring it?

Sunday 24 September 2017

#BannedBooksWeek | Nerd Church - On Censorship

24th-30th September 2017 is Banned Books Week, as set up by the American Library Association (ALA.)

I'm all for intellectual freedom my nerdlets; I'm against censorship in general.

book on fire picture

Monday 19 June 2017

12 Things They Don't Tell You When You Become a Book Blogger

There's stuff no-one warns you about when you become a book blogger.

So I thought I'd do you all a favour and write a 100%* accurate post on the struggles of book-blogging!

*Well - somewhere between 70% & 95% anyway!

Wednesday 28 December 2016

7 Hacks for Completing the Goodreads Challenge in the Final Days

For those of us who haven't finished our Goodreads challenges for 2016, the time has come to take more creative measures.

There is cheating, which is bad, and there is acceptable cheating - which is good.

Don't Panic stamp

So here are my hacks to help you towards your reading target for the year:

Wednesday 14 December 2016

Blog Update - FYI, My Nerdlets, This Is What's Happening

Just to let you guys know, I'll be cutting down a little on the amount I post per week (not a lot, promise!)

Blog admin and commenting back on other people's blogs is taking up more of my time, and I'm busy with work - I'm self-employed, so I need to focus on work when I, y'know, actually have it.

That said, I'm still going to be posting a lot and faffing about on social media plenty, it's just that I'll be posting 4-5 times per week instead of 7 (and I think you can live with that, yeah?)

I'll also be reducing my blogging over Christmas - but I'll still pop in every now and then, promise ;)

This is more of a re-organising than a reducing, I'm hoping to give myself more time while improving the quality of the content I post - and that way, everyone wins.

I hope you continue to support Diary of a Reading Addict (DORA) and that you're as excited as I am to see what 2017 brings :)

Honestly, this year (while being a dumpster fire politically,) has been one of amazing growth on DORA, and I'm so thankful to all of you!

I also hope you understand that I have a habit of pushing myself too far - to the extent of actual exhaustion, and a hugely negative affect on my depression - and this is a way of me stopping myself, slowing down, and putting my health first, before I get to that stage.

I love you guys, and I'll still be in your faces probably more than you want me to be - but I need to calm things down a bit! ;)

Go out and be awesome guys! I'll still be here when you get back ;)

Saturday 26 November 2016

Why Critique Is The Opposite of Censorship

Dearest nerdlets, I have a few things that I want to say:

Firstly, guess what? Not everyone is going to have the same opinions as you.

That's why there are countless bloggers out there instead of just one person. We all think different sh**. That means that sometimes other people are going to have completely different opinions to you.

Sometimes, hell, OFTEN, the difference in opinion is going to get awkward.

You loved a book. That's great. Someone else didn't. They have a different take on the representation, or the prose, or the characterisation, or whatever. Guess what? That's great too.

Feelings tend to get most heated when discussing representation of marginalised groups. And there are reasons for that - historic reasons that come from a lot of hurt, prejudice, and negative representation.

But if someone hates a book you loved, people often react like it's a personal criticism. It's not.

Critique - and that's what bloggers and reviewers are supposed to do, isn't it? we're not marketing machines, we're critics - is not meant to attack anyone.

Critique is a way of discussing what is in this book.

If we all claimed that every book was perfect, firstly, it'd be boring, and secondly, it'd be lying.


There is no book on this planet that is universally loved, with no flaws. Every book has good stuff, and bad stuff. Stuff you'd change, and stuff you wouldn't.

Now, someone else? They may keep all the stuff you'd change, and change all the stuff you'd keep.

The excuse that people use to bypass critique is censorship.

Critique is not censorship. Critique means someone has a different opinion to you - that someone disagrees with you, and is willing to express that.

Critique means that people are thinking about what they're reading. That people are allowing others to openly disagree. That people are not silencing the voices of dissent.

It's no coincidence, I'm afraid, that the voices that tend to be silenced are those belonging to people of colour (PoC,) LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalised groups.

Calling critique censorship is just another way to silence those voices. And that's not ok.

If someone complains about the way their identity - race, sexuality, religion, etc., is being portrayed, then don't accuse them of being unfair, or of censoring you.

Unless they have a history of personal vendettas with a particular author (and sometimes even then,) then they will have a reason for what they're saying. Listen to it. You may learn something.

And even if you don't, ultimately, agree? Their concerns and opinions are still valid.

Too often, you see people using the argument of censorship for their own purposes.

Trolls do this a lot - and, again, it seems to be PoC who get the worst of this - it's the attitude of 'I can say this horrible thing because free speech, but you can't disagree with me because censorship.'

The troll flexes their troll-y muscles by being the biggest a*shole.

Shouting 'Shut up, censorship!' when someone disagrees with you is censorship. Don't. Just don't.

People have a right to voice legitimate concerns.

Do I always agree? No. Of course not, I'm a stubborn little so-and-so.

But those opinions are totally valid.

Sometimes - and this counts especially for us white people, because we are, notoriously, really bad at this - you have to step back and listen to others.

The only way we understand is by listening.

And yes, I've changed my views by listening to people before now.

Look, we're human. We're going to disagree. There are even, unfortunately, going to be times when we can't get past* those disagreements. BUT WE'RE NEVER GOING TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING EVERYONE ELSE SAYS.

*is it past or passed? I can never figure that out.

People from marginalised groups are not a hive-mind. And all of their opinions are valid.

But you have to listen - yes, even when there's not one opinion, but several.

It's easy to stand up for diversity and marginalised groups when the members of that group are agreeing with you. When they don't agree with you? You still have to listen.

Surely we can agree to give air-time to opinions that differ from our own? (And no, I don't mean the opinions of Nazi a*sholes.) I mean opinions about representation - from people affected by that rep.

No, it's not always going to be comfortable. But that's ok. It doesn't have to be comfortable. It just has to happen.

Because people have a right to raise their voices in disagreement. Not allowing them to do so? That's censorship.

Like this post? Try these:

Saturday 1 October 2016

Month in Review(s) - September 2016

September was the month that various sh** hit various fans.

In case you're not caught-up on all the goings-on of the bookish online community, let me briefly summarise:

  • Some people questioned authors about the lack of diversity in their books (no matter you're opinion on this, those people had the right to ask the questions.) This resulted in trolling.

  • There was a video on BookTube (the bookish portion of YouTube,) by a horrible person who sees diversity as a dirty word, and is generally a bigoted jerk. She then took offence when it turned out a lot of people didn't agree with her.

  • White supremacist & Nazi trolls decided to spread their racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. hatred by trolling members of the online bookish community. Most of these people were also Trump supporters.

  • A US library magazine called VOYA showed some of the worst customer service you can imagine in their response to criticism of their apparently bi-phobic reviewing.
...I think that covers most of it. It was an... interesting month.

But we, as a community, are pulling through this... I hope.

As far as my blogging stats go this month, things have been good :)

I discovered an acronym for my blog which had been staring me in the face the whole time - DORA. Which I will now be using when Diary of a Reading Addict is too long-winded.

I passed 30k page-views for the first time (!!!!) and now see between 100 and 300 page-views on a typical day :)

I gained a handful of followers on BlogLovin and Twitter, though not as many as I would've liked.

I also noticed something in terms of my Twitter followers, which kind of upset me.

Whenever I tweet about anything to do with LGBTQ+ issues, I lose 2-3 followers; that's per tweet where I mention queer issues, characters, books, etc.

At first I thought it was just coincidence - but after that it became too regular, and I couldn't believe it was coincidence any more.

It's not like I tweet about LGBTQ+ an excessively large amount... is it? I don't think I do.

Anyway, I figure I'm better off without followers like that. As upsetting as that is.

But I just want to thank all the people who do read this blog, like and RT my tweets, comment on my posts, and continue to follow me.

I love you. Each of you is worth 1000 of those homophobic a*sholes.

In a month of trolls, bigotry, and bad news, there were two high-points - my birthday, and you guys.

So, to the books I reviewed this month:

Young Adult

Labyrinth Lost by Zoraida Cordova - Fantasy, Witches, LGBTQ+
As I Descended by Robin Talley - Ghost story, Horror, LGBTQ+



The Sun Dragon's Song #1 - Kids, Fantasy

Wednesday 14 September 2016

Censorship - Are We All Hypocrites...?

...and I mean that in the nicest possible way ;)

This post is going to be more questions than answers I'm afraid, but feel free to give your opinions in the comments - because I'm trying to sort out my own feelings on this!

Cee, what are you blathering on about?

Well, it's like this: I'm currently reading 'And Then There Were None' by Agatha Christie (UK - US) for Ely @ Tea & Titles' Mystery-a-thon.

I didn't realise that And Then There Were None wasn't actually the original title of this book. The original title was something extremely racist.

Would I have read this book with it's original title and racism? No. Will I read it now? Yes.

And therein lies the beginnings of my ethical problems.

I've always been completely against censorship, and for free speech. Yet changing the title is a form of censorship which I support... Help!

Does this make me a hypocrite? Very possibly. But can anybody honestly say they wouldn't feel the same?

If that book was published today with its original title, I would be appalled.

I'm seriously uncomfortable with the fact that it ever had that title. And, as I said, would not read it if the title hadn't been changed.

But would it be right - in this hypothetical scenario where this book was published today, with it's original title - to ban or censor it?

I would certainly complain to the author. I would not buy it, not read it, not support it. But would I ask for it to be banned or censored?

I honestly don't know. If it was in my library, would I ask for it to be removed? Would I ask the publishers to recall the copies? Would I take my pen to copies and eliminate the racist words?

Part of me says yes. Part of me says that I should get rid of those words by any means possible. Because, and let's make no excuses here, that kind of language is wrong.

But part of me also says no. That's the part that says that people have a right to say what they want - even if you don't like what they have to say.

Because it's only when you let people speak that you can defend your own position.

It's only by hearing opposing opinions - no matter how vile they may be - that we can shape our own attitudes... But there's also the danger that those vile ideas will take hold, and that's the last thing we want.

In the first chapter of 'And Then There Were None,' there is anti-Semitism.

If it was straightforward, then I would've stopped reading. As it is, it's hugely uncomfortable, but it's in the POV of a dodgy character (although, literally all of these characters are highly morally suspect,) so I don't know what to make of it.

It's not right. But does that make it wrong, in this context? I don't know.

Would I support that part being removed, given that this book has already been censored by changing the 'n' word throughout? Again, I have no easy answer.

And that's without even touching on the rights-and-wrongs of Huck Finn.

Because I read Huck Finn with the 'n' word intact.

Just like Agatha Christie, Mark Twain was writing in a time where that word was (unfortunately) socially acceptable.

But I think - and I may very well be wrong - that there's a difference between the 'n' word in the original version of And Then There Were None, and the 'n' word in Huck Finn.

Because, whatever your feelings on Huck Finn, slavery, and Jim's role as an escaped slave, is main theme of the story.

There aren't any black people in And Then There Were None - the 'n' word is used purely as a gratuitous metaphor, in the form of a racist nursery rhyme. The story makes perfect sense without it.

You remove the 'n' word from Huck Finn, though, and you change the entire dynamic and meaning of huge sections of the story. I'm not saying it's right - I have mixed feelings about it at best, but I'm saying that it's a different situation to And Then There Were None.

Should censorship depend on context then?

Again, I have absolutely no idea.

Would I be less disgusted with Donald Trump if his language was gentler? Possibly a little, but his vile outlook on life would remain.

So, am I a hypocrite? Possibly. I am human, after all.

What about you? Does anyone have an answer for these questions?

Like this post? Try these:

Sunday 11 September 2016

Nerd Church - Behold My Selfish Kindness

This week, my dearest nerdlets, has been an... interesting... one in the online bookish community.

The centre of the interesting-ness is a video by a vlogger/booktuber who feels the need to rant for 20+ minutes about diversity being b*llsh**.

Some myths clearly still need to be dispelled. There is still so much ignorance around this topic.

There's also a lot of disagreement over how strongly people should speak/type/tweet/whatever when they have issues with someone.

I personally usually like to take the tack which focuses on the positives - supporting the good, while reasonably explaining why the bad is bad.

I know a lot of people take a more antagonistic approach, but this is the one which works for me.

Part of why I try so damned hard to keep to the positive - even when dealing with people who, in no uncertain terms, are bigots - is because I've had to learn to be selfish.

People often say that mental illness makes you selfish. In some ways that's true. But it's because you have to be.

You have to learn self-care. You have to learn to somehow put yourself before others. You have to learn that your opinions matter. Because you're never going to be able to help others unless you take care of yourself.

Part of why I don't swear and act aggressively to people who probably deserve it is because I am anxious about offending people. Yes, even people who deserve it.

I am terrified of saying something offensive to anyone.

It's part of the anxiety side of my illness - my hands start to shake and I can't breathe.

If you've never had an anxiety flare-up and/or a panic attack - imagine dying in slow motion while your body and brain are screaming at you to f**king run.

Of course, the depression side also chimes in: 'how dare you say something horrible? Yes, this person is the scum of the earth - but you're worse. You're nothing.'

I can't let either of those sides get too firm a hold of me again. I can't go back to the times where I hoped that I would die in my sleep.

This is the same reason I often won't get involved at all in heated online discussions. I'm sorry. I would love to help you. I have to be selfish. I'm finally in somewhat of a recovery period, and I can't jeopardise that.

But there are things I can do to help - I will promote the positives of diversity, I will support diverse books and diverse authors.

And I will kill trolls with kindness where possible - I like to refer to this as 'troll-hunting' ...turns out trolls get confused when you remain pleasant and logical. (They also fear the smiley face - little tip!)

I can't abide adding to the bad feeling and hatred in this world - there's enough of it without me.

No matter how horrible a person is, I can't hate them.  I hate what they stand for, but not them. They have been damaged by the hatred of the world. I pity them.

When you accuse people of cowardice or hypocrisy for not engaging in the Twitter melee, please spare a thought for the people like me, for those who have struggled and learned the hard way to put themselves first. And for those who just can't stand any more hatred in this world.

Please understand that hatred and anger can only go so far - even when justified. You need love, and pity.

Feel free to disagree with me, I'll still love you :)

Nerd Church is a weekly post where I try to make the world make sense. It doesn't seem to be going that well, but I'll keep trying!

Like this post? Try these:

Saturday 10 September 2016

5 Diversity Myths Debunked

In case you aren't aware, there's been a lot of discussion about diversity in the online bookish community this past week.

Now, the purpose of this post is not to get into the who-said-what's or the intricacies of the (fairly heated) words which were exchanged on all sides.

No, the purpose of this blogpost is to debunk some of the misconceptions about diversity that seem to be floating around.

I figured it was time to set some things straight. (Particularly since the video at the centre of all this seems to have perpetuated a lot of these misconceptions.)

I'd like to point out that it's ok to disagree with what I'm saying. Just don't act like a jerk. (Great motto for life, actually.)

Myth 1 - If I read diversely, I won't be 'allowed' to read books by white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, able-bodied, neuro-typical, authors with no mental health problems.

No-one is telling you to stop reading the books you would normally read. THE POINT IS TO ADD VOICES, NOT TAKE THEM AWAY.

This means you'll get a varied outlook on life, and a chance to look at things from a different perspective.

Think of it this way - if the only song you ever heard was 'row, row, row your boat,' then you'd think it was the only song in existence. There's nothing wrong with 'row, row, row your boat.' But you'd miss out on so many other great songs.

That's what you're doing when you don't read diversely - you're hearing the same song over and over without realising there are other songs out there.

Myth 2 - This is all a conspiracy against white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, neurot-typical, able-bodied people with no mental health problems.

Are you hearing yourself right now?



This is about the other billions of people on this planet (yes, I mean billions - there are over 1 billion Han Chinese people alone.)

How we got to the point where such a specific set of identifying characteristics was deemed the 'norm,' and dominated the global culture, (certainly Western culture,) is really beyond me.

It's about representation for other people. It's about the world not being geared to a 'select' group of people.

Sorry, but it's not about you. It's about everyone else.

Myth 3 - Diverse books aren't of the best quality. That's why they're less popular.

Think about this. It's ok to dislike a particular book, or dislike the way a particular author writes.

But if you can't find quality among any diverse books, then the problem isn't with the authors, it's with you.

The reason non-diverse books (for want of a better phrase,) are more likely to be bestsellers is down to marketing, opportunities, and the fact that biases - conscious or sub-conscious - will mean that people head for what has been established as the 'norm.'

Publishers are more likely to look favourably on white authors. Maybe they don't ask outright what your background is, but there are ways of telling.

An author named Mr Mohammed is more likely to be either a person of colour (PoC,) a Muslim, or both, than an author named Mr Jones. Of course Mr Jones could be a PoC and/or Muslim, and Mr Mohammed could be a white atheist.

But in one snap second, the person reading your manuscript will make a judgement.

And many agents and publishers ask for a biography.

You shouldn't have to hide who you are, but every word you write - from 'I was born in place with a high percentage of PoC...' to 'I and my same-sex spouse or partner live in...' - will form a picture of who you are in the mind of the person reviewing the application.

And people, unfortunately, are biased.

Myth 4 - There are no biases in stories.

Honestly, I would love it if this were true. It's not.

When the hero is almost always the white, straight, cis-gendered, able-bodied, neuro-typical person with no mental health issues, it gives a skewed view of the world.

How many PoC heroes can you name? A lot less, probably.

How many LGBTQ+ heroes can you think of? How many of those are queer women?

How about disabled heroes who don't get magically cured within a chapter or two?

How many confirmed autistic-spectrum characters can you name? How about characters with mental health problems who aren't walking stereotypes?

Where diverse characters are included, all too often they are either villain or victim. They are the people who either need protecting, or that the 'normal' people need to be protected from.

The other day, a book made me feel physically sick. The subtext confused gay men with paedophiles, then quickly threw a smoke-screen by having those same characters also be homophobic.

Yes, the only gay characters in this book were homophobic paedophiles.

This was not a self-published book, neither was it a book from decades ago.

It was published by an imprint of a major publishing house. It was published last year.

How many hands must this book have passed through without the clear issues being brought up? How did the editor let all this slide? WHY ARE THERE PEOPLE ONLINE GIVING THIS BOOK A RANKING OF 5/5????

Myth 5 - I shouldn't read stories about diverse characters, because they're not 'for' me.

I'm going to point out two things to you.

Firstly, even if a book wasn't written with you in mind, or about people like you, then you can still read it. You can still enjoy it. You can still love it.

Would you stop a queer girl reading Harry Potter because there aren't any queer female characters in it? Would you stop a deaf kid reading about Narnia because the Pevensie kids can hear?

Secondly, if you are able to read about, and relate to, historical characters from a time you'll never visit, or future characters from a time you'll never see, then why can't you relate to characters who are actually like the people around you?

People are people. (Even when they're aliens, vampires, werewolves, etc.)

If you can accept a human kissing a lizard-person in a TV show, then why is the issue that they're both female??????

(Yes, I know books and TV shows are different. But you get my point.)

Shall I sum-up for you lovely people?

Don't be afraid to read diversely.

Diversity is not a threat. It's a way of hearing different voices. It's a way of listening to each other. It's a way of beginning to understand each other.

Diversity is not a threat. It's a gift.

Like this post? Try these:

Tuesday 23 August 2016

A Rough Guide To Supporting Authors When You're Broke

There's a lot of great books out there. So many, in fact, that you could easily splash the cash on numerous volumes of lovely paperbacks, hardcovers, and e-books... if you actually had the cash.

If, like me, you don't have that much money and have already sold your soul several times over (whoever collects first gets the prize! My bet is on Goodreads - I think I owe them about 3 souls,) then you can still support authors and the wider publishing/bookish industry my nerdlets!

...You just have to be a bit more inventive about it.

Firstly, there is nothing better for books than a good ol' fashioned library.

Sit down and let me explain how libraries help not hurt the publishing industry:

  • Libraries actually have to buy the books they lend out (true story,) which means if an author proves popular (i.e. is borrowed a lot,) then the library is more likely to buy copies of that author's books in the future.

  • You can 'try before you buy' - some books I just wouldn't've bought if I didn't already know that I like the book/author because I've borrowed their work from the library.

  • Libraries are free marketing! - nothing works better than word of mouth, and covers on display. Never underestimate the power of copies on shelves - books can reach a wider and wider audience if there are people actually reading them.

  • Libraries make readers happen - get that child in there asap!

That's all well and good, but how else can we support authors when we're broke?

Let me tell you some things that can help, my nerdlets, listen...

  • You can yell at your friends and family to READ THE BOOK.

  • You can ask friends and family for the book for birthdays, Christmases, or as ransom payment other occasions.

  • You can follow your favouritest authors on social media/RT, like, re-blog, share, and generally spread the word about the author and their work.

  • You can write reviews on your own blog, Amazon, Goodreads, or wherever, and promote your review on social media. Talking about books is awesome, and does half the work. The more people are interested, the more people will buy books.

  • You can add the book to your TBR, or your 'read' list, on Goodreads - this means your friends on there will see that you've added it, and might check it out themselves.

When you do have money (*laughs hysterically at the thought of having spare cash*) think about what book you're actually going to buy.

Will that £5.00 for a back-list title mean more, to a smaller publisher, than the £15.00 price tag of the new bestseller does, to a bigger one? (Obviously, substitute your own currency where necessary.)

That doesn't mean you can't buy your favourites, it just means that it's good to think every now and then about where your money is going.

If you can borrow the bestseller from the library, but can only find the smaller title in an online store, then you have the chance to do the option that supports more books and saves you money on top.

This is especially important when supporting diverse books and authors, and supporting independent authors and publishers.

Money talks in this world my friends (sigh) so use your purchasing power wisely.

J. K. Rowling's new book is always going to sell millions of copies - if you want her new book (man, I want Harry Potter and the Cursed Child!) then ask for it for your birthday.

A debut novelist at a small or niche publisher? Far less likely to sell. So every copy counts. Buy that copy while you have the cash in hand.

But don't let people make you feel bad for not supporting the industry enough. You know how much you can afford - they don't.

If it wasn't for review copies, library books, and second-hand stores, I honestly don't think I'd be able to draw attention to so many books, and help other readers find the books they'll enjoy.

I don't blog for the books (I didn't even know there were review copies when I started - little na├»ve creature that I was,) but I'm firmly of the opinion that if publishers want the publicity that bloggers can bring, then they need to understand that we can't afford to buy every book vying for our attention.

But even if you're not a blogger, you can do your part.

I'm not asking for much - in fact, if you want to get your paws on all those books, I've probably just saved you some cash.

Just think about how you spend your money, and if you find a good book, don't be afraid to talk about it! (But if you don't want to, then meh - do your own thing!)

Like this post? Try these:

Saturday 16 July 2016

Conversations - Book Series: Yay or Nay?

Conversations is a meme from Geraldine @ Corralling Books and Joan @ Fiddler Blue.

I just join in when I feel like it because I have a hare-brained way of approaching life XD

So, this week/fortnight/whatever-day-it-is we have the question of:

Book Series: Yay or Nay?

OK, I'm going to indulge my Bookish Rebel tendencies again, and just point out that as a community, we bookish-people WORRY ABOUT THIS WAY TOO MUCH.

Seriously, you all seem to have these rules about series - ranging from you HAVE to finish a series, to all of the books in the series  HAVE to be exactly the same size and in corresponding covers or you will all freak the hell out!!!!!!

Meanwhile, I'm in the corner, like: 'Can I get anyone a cuppa? ...Or a chill pill?'

People I bug on the Internet have discussions with may already know this, but I read a lot of series out of order.

And for this I-do-what-I-want!!!!! and don't give it a second thought attitude, I blame several factors:

  • The fact that I will quote Loki and/or Loki memes WHENEVER POSSIBLE

  • My hippie-ish upbringing - I've heard 'go with the flow' since I was too teeny-tiny to know what the eff it meant.

  • Reading a sh** load of comics - seriously, ain't no-one got the time, money, or will-power to read through all 50+ years of major Marvel and DC canon. And even if you do, it's still not gonna make all that much sense. (Earth-616. Spider-Ham. That is all.)

  • Being a major library/second-hand-store reader, you tend to pick a lot of stuff up that's mid-series, often by accident. After a while, you barely notice any more.

  • Fanfiction has warped my brain. I no longer require long explanations for anything. You wanna have a world where everyone is a talking banana? WHY THE HELL NOT????? (*Laughs hysterically*)

  • Most of the time the author will stick a bunch of reminders into the latest volume of the series, because we all have the memories of book-amnesiac goldfish.

That all said, I seem to have meandered off-topic (which is totally not like me *snorts sarcastically*)

Right, the point, which I'm sure I had somewhere towards the beginning... but, then again, maybe not... is that we stress too much about series.

So, are series better, or are standalones?

Well kids, let me let you in on a little secret - there is no 'better.' There's only things that you enjoy and/or connect with, and things that you don't.

The difference isn't in whether the story is split into one part or one hundred.

The difference is you.

What do you think? Am I making sense? Or am I talking complete cr*p? (Wouldn't be the first time.)

Do you think it's more about the story than the number of instalments? Or does that matter more to you?

Like this post? Try these: