The Pandemic of Book Amnesia

Most of the people reading this post are book bloggers or at least very dedicated readers. The type of people that read daily. We devour books like they're food and we're never satisfied. Occasionally we grow impatient with one type of flavour, but upon seeing a really epic trailer for an upcoming book, we get right back into it. We read so much, so fast, and sometimes it takes a toll on our lives. We're those strange people that sometimes would rather just curl up with a nice book instead of going shopping. It's weird to friends who don't read, and we've been told so many times that we read too much.

Another toll it's taken on me is my memory. Now, I'm not blaming books on what I would call "absentmindedness" (or what my mom calls "idiocy"). Rather, where do you think all those thousands, maybe even millions, of words go? They can't all stay in my brain. So some go away. Most people remember general storylines for books they read. They remember character names, backgrounds, covers, anything. Everyone has this issue to some degree, but I feel like I suffer more than others. 

I have book amnesia. Also known as liber amnesia.

It's rather shameful and embarrassing. I have been ridiculed for it. Mostly by this one really mean Vampire Academy/ Sidney Crosby fan, but it still hurts. All jokes aside, I find it really weird and so do others. You might be wondering why, so I'll tell you some of the symptoms of my condition. 

Symptoms

• forgetting character's names. 
• forgetting the story.
• forgetting the title. 
• forgetting what happens
• forgetting I ever read the book.
• forgetting if I liked it or not. 

Now, it's pretty obvious why I write a review for a book almost immediately after reading it. The thing about these "symptoms" is that they aren't exactly bad. Everyone forgets stories and books sometimes. The thing that's a little extreme is how fast I can forget. I've read a book, and a day later can't remember the main character's love interest's name. I've read a book I adored so much that I made my friend buy it and then she reads it within a week of me. We try to talk about the ending but I can't remember it all. It's tragic because you can imagine how much I can remember once I read a sequel of a book I year later. That's right, not much. 

Solutions

I'm a fighter. I refuse to let this conundrum bring me down. I will read books, and damnit I will remember some of them! Mostly, it's my very favourite series that I remember the most, but even that doesn't work sometimes. So rather than lament about the problem, I seek solutions. 

One solution I found was reading Down The Rabbit Hole's Happily Ever Endings posts. I love these. No seriously, they have saved me so many times. Basically, they are the summaries of endings for books and they, along with some spoilery Goodreads reviews, rescue me from reading a sequel of a book I have no recollection of. Especially since in general I don't like to reread. So they have helped me a lot.

What I'm wondering is if this is common among book readers or am I an anomaly. Do you guys suffer from any type of liber amnesia too? Let us commiserate in the comments!

Not Feelin' the Love; Books That Made Me Bawl

I don't have anything against Valentine's Day. First of all, there's chocolate everywhere! And love! And hearts, and everyone is supposed to be happy, etc. 

But today has been a depressing, heartbreaking day for reasons completely outside of books and more in the lines of my favourite sports team and player as you could probably tell by my rant on Twitter. So, I'm not exactly feeling the love. I was going to do some type of romance book today, but I'm not in the mood. Seriously, I'm even wearing black. 

I know Valentine's Day isn't the best day for a lot of people, so here's a list of books that made me cry or generally feel very sad and awful. Sorry in advance. Oh, and if you can click on the book covers to get a link to the Goodreads page. 

It begins with this book. The Fault in Our Stars by John Green made me bawl. I was sickened, I was disgusted, and I was so angry. You can see I haven't rated this book. I can't do that. This book disturbed me so badly. It's a book about a girl with cancer and it's written incredibly well so that every paragraph is entertaining in it's own right. It lures you in and breaks your heart. It's actually quite cruel so I will warn you about that. 

Next book I have to give a shout out to is Where She Went by Gayle Forman. It's the sequel to an already pretty heartbreaking book in If I Stay. I feel like Where She Went hits harder, is much more sad, and Adam is a better protagonist than Mia. He's so genuine, raw, and lost and the book reeks of nostalgia. Ever lost something or someone you loved? This book is all about that. What I did like is that while there is some type of bright side in the end, it's not cliched. It comes from lots of work and the promise of happiness is not a sure thing. It's a possibility, a tentative one at that. Definitely worth a read. 

Yeah, yeah, I have a thing for sequels. I liked The Summer I Turned Pretty, It was sad, and completely unexpected. I liked however, It's Not Summer Without You by Jenny Han even more. It's the story of what happens after your life has completely changed. It's about trying to hold things together, and at what point should you let everything go. It's also about growing up. This book is Belly's journey, and it's the second in the trilogy. I have yet to read the third, but I feel this book is good enough. 

Undoubtedly, I'm missing a good chunk of books. However, when I think of books that made me bawl, these three are the first that come to mind. I had a hard time reading every one of them and they made an impression in my mind. Did anyone read any of these? Which books have made you cry the most?

The Age of Reading; Forever YA?

Ever since I was a kid, I've read books for an older age group than mine. I actually didn't like picture books very much as a kid. I found them to be boring and I wasn't interested in books at all until I was old enough to read chapter books. Junie B. Jones was one of the first "chapter" books I read. It was about a kid younger than me, in kindergarten, which didn't bother me much but the next chapter books I got into were about twelve year-olds when I was seven so about a five year gap.

Ever since then, I've consistently read about people older than me. I started to move away from MG in grades 4/5 and by grade 6 I was reading entirely YA. Now, I stick to YA but occasionally will read a MG book (especially if it's by this guy).

Now, I've been reading teen for about five years and again, I can see myself shifting in age. I'm 16 and most YA books are either about characters or aimed towards people a little older, a little younger, or just around this age. When I was younger, I remember loving to read about the first years of high school. I used to always wonder what it was like and the only way I could imagine it even semi-accurately (beyond watchin those shows my mom called "garbage") was to read about it. Now, I've been in high school for three years. I haven't been accepted into Hogwarts (*sobs*) and I don't read those types of books anymore. Once again, my interests or reading levels has shifted upwards.

These days I don't want to read young YA. I've been through that stage, I kind of hate that age, and now I'm wandering more towards books about growing up. If I'm reading a contemporary, it's not about fitting in any more but how to stand out. I read more about becoming an adult, saying goodbye to high school and opening up to university. It's awkward for me sometimes to read about characters noticeably younger. I can't read about 11 year olds as a 16 year old. I find it odd, and also really sad because I remember being 11 and thinking that 12 was this magical age where everything awesome would happen to you. It's not an unpleasant reading experience, but it is a little strange to have a literary crush on a guy even two years younger, which is why I don't connect as well to those books.

Books have always been a source of comfort to me. I've always reminded myself that no matter how sucky anything in my life is, at least it's not as bad as ________'s life when they had to _________ and ended up losing _________.  YA books in particular have done a lot. I owe a lot of my personality and maturity to the YA genre and everything it has taught me.That's why I wonder sometimes if I'll still read YA in the future.

I know a lot of people do. And a lot of you guys make some pretty spectacular blogs with wonderful reviews and features. As much as YA is supposed to be for teens, the YA blogosphere would not be where it is today if it weren't for the "adults" that keep reading YA. You know, the +20 up are a huge demographic blogging-wise and probably when it comes to book sales too. Since y'all actually have some sort of income.

So naturally, being the annoyingly over analytic person that I am, I wonder if I'll stick with YA for life. If when I'm 30 (I don't want to imagine this) I'll still care about the books that made me who I was as a teen in what I'm told are some of the most formative years of life.

As of this moment, I have nothing to worry about. There's plenty in YA that interests me and I don't see that changing for a while. If it ever does change, I don't think it'll be sudden. It'll be more of a progression towards more mature books and I'm not there yet. Nonetheless, I still do wonder.

I know it's not one or the other; teen or adult; but even now I find it hard to figure out what I'd like in the MG world, so I end up not reading any of it.

So I have some question for teens reading YA; do you think you'll continue to do so when you're not in the YA age group anymore? And for you older YA fans, what makes you stick around? Is it a conscious decision? Do you primarily read YA or do you read a mix?

I know people often do posts about this subject so if you already have written a post about why you read YA feel free to link it in the comments.

Thoughts on Book Bloggers' Spoiler Theory Dilemma

This is something that has annoyed me a lot as a blog follower. See, I'll be browsing the Interwebz looking for new books when I stumble upon a review for this incredible book I've been dying to read for, like, ever. I'll open up the blog page, stare lovingly at the cover, read the synopsis, and then I'll finally take a peek at the good stuff- the review.

And I'm always left a bit upset when I see that there is a spoiler warning in the review. Like, for a review of an ARC or a book that has been released less than two weeks ago, the blogger is posting spoilers in their review. That somehow bugs me a lot. I notice it's a personal thing though- I haven't heard of anyone else finding this very annoying.

I'm not going to tell anyone to blog because who the hell am I to do that, so this spoiling thing left me with a question.

When is it appropriate to post spoilers on a blog? 

This answer depends a lot on the type of blogger you are and the type of blog you have. So there is no real answer. 

For me, I hate seeing spoilers in reviews. A review should inform me about the novel without mentioning the specific content. I know that it's hard though to write a good review without any detail. I've written a lot of awful ones because I didn't know what to say other than mentioning some crazy plot twist, especially if said crazy plot twist defined the book for me. 

I also assume most authors hate to see spoilers of their books if their books are new (I'm not sure about this- confirm in the comments?). I've been spoiled for one of my favourite series before and if you've met me in person you'll know how insane that drives me. I try my best to forget about the spoiler (it was tiny, I read it in a split second before realizing it was something I shouldn't know) but some stuff just sticks with you no matter how much you want to throw it away. 

The thing I'm iffy about is when it comes to discussion posts like this or feature posts. See, the point of a book blog is to talk  write about books. That's kind of hard though if you go by the rule of never spoiling anything ever. I want to talk about all the incredible series I read with the insane plot twists and go in depth and rant and gush and have fun. I'm not sure if I should do that. 

It would make me very sad to ruin someone else's reading experience. I try not to ever spoil, even if people ask me to. At the same time, I'm a little burnt out with talking constantly about new books and debuts in series. Most of what I read are books in the middle of series and it's hard to feature these books because to describe the later books there needs to be some sort background information, which would spoil the books. 

That's my dilemma. (I'm prone to extreme exaggerations, if you haven't noticed already.) 

To spoil or not to spoil- that is the question! When do you think it's okay, or if it is even ever okay to spoil on your blog?

YA- Not Children's, Not Adult

I don't want to add to the argument because I feel there have already been some very intelligent comments that convey what I want to say in a much more eloquent way. What I do want to do is look at this comment from author Isaac Marion.

"I just think it's a ridiculous, pointless category. "Children's" is a useful category because it tells people it's written at a young reading level and doesn't contain any objectionable content. "Adult" is a useful category because it tells you it's not "Children's". YA is a useless category because teenagers and twentysomethings can and SHOULD read whatever the hell they want."

Let's not argue even more about the other quotes- of course I'm offended because I'm a teen reading YA. If you focus only on this quote, it raises a pretty greet discussion topic. What is YA and how is it different from Children's, Adult, or even this new genre, NA? Why does the genre YA even exist?

I'm starting with the obvious. I disagree 100% with the idea that YA is a useless category. As a teen (so, someone this applies to) I read different genres and levels. I read some MG, mostly YA, and some adult if it piques my interest and it's the type of thing I'm comfortable reading. Because let's face it, maybe I'm slightly prudish, but there are some stuff that I'm uncomfortable reading about. It's not only the overly descriptive sex acts in some books, but also reading about aging (I'm 15 and wrinkles and stuff is not something I even want to consider at this point, marriage (doesn't interest me) or having children (nope) are all stuff that I wouldn't ever pick up this year, next year, or even the year after. I can't relate to that stuff.

I'm not being stupid here. I know that those are only a few example of topics and characters in adult reads. In all honesty, I want to read about people my age, or a little bit older/younger with the same mentality and POV as me.I want to real about real life the way I believe it's real. So yeah, I want to read about my age group. YA facilitates that. I can read about people I relate with. I don't relate with people starting careers at this point: I want to read about high school, or maybe even university. I want books that are mature, or silly, with substance, or fluff, I don't care. I want both. I don't want to have to search through an entire library for a book that appeals to me since I'm living in an in-between stage. I don't want to feel a little out of place searching through books with my six year old sister in the kids section, or beside my mom in the adult ocean. I love having a section just for me- a section I can feel comfortable in. A section that doesn't necessarily belong to my age group, but one I'm welcome in.

People don't one day change from children to adults. There is a transition and that in the book world is YA. People should read whatever the hell they want to read (I agree), but if a librarian or bookseller feels a book can be something a YA audience will enjoy because it's about topics they'd care about, no matter who it's written for -- adults or children -- it has a right to be shelved in YA.

YA is that transition stage between Children's and Adult, and the beauty of that is that so many books have crossover appeal. I do not believe a book is either only a Children's read or an Adult read: they can be both. A book can be read by multiple audiences. The very powerful books do just that.

So YA, as defined by me: book that could appeal to teens. Frequently features common themes in teenage life (e.g. dealing with relationship, school, social pressure, coming of age). May or may not be about youth.

Those are just a few terms that I thought of though there are probably more. To be a YA novel, in essence, all a book has to do is be enjoyed by teens. 

This definition is one I really like. YA isn't dumbed down stories vocabulary-wise with no substance and full of fluff. YA is also not only mature, classical reads. YA can be anything, just like teens. Some teens are more mature, some... less. Just because a book is shelved YA doesn't mean it can't appeal to other age groups. Just because a book is shelved YA doesn't mean it will appeal to all teens. Just because a book isn't shelved YA doesn't mean it won't appeal to YA readers.

I think that all readers are good enough at finding books that appeal to them, so in general maybe shelving books in multiple sections is a good idea. Labels are useful means of organizing stuff, but they're not absolute. Sometimes they're given way too much power when the only thing about a book that should matter is the actual content.

I feel like if we just shelved books where we thought people would enjoy them everyone would be happy. Some books not specifically YA should be shelved in the YA section (like Percy Jackson and Harry Potter) and some books that are YA should be shelved in other sections (Code Name Verity comes to mind).

What do you think?

Thoughts on... Reading Here, There, Everywhere!

I've always been the type of person that finishes a book in no time. Seriously, I'm that girl- the one who reads like a book a day. Except I'm not anymore. For the first time in a long while, I've been so busy I only manage about four chapters a day. It's not a reading slump either, I enjoy very much what I read. My life has inexplicably gotten so much more busy, so I thought I might as well share where/when I do manage to read.

On the bus

Every morning I take a 25 minute or so bus ride to school. I always try to make the most of my time so I try to read on the bus. 

Pros: 25 minutes of reading makes me much calmer and more happy in the mornings. 

Cons: I have to stop reading when I get off the bus... and that's often only after I truly feel into what I'm reading so it's a bit jarring. Also, I kind of want to talk to my friends too and I can only do so many things at once. 

During class

I always bring a book to class in case I have a few minutes to read, or we have free time. In some classes we get specific time just to read. 

Pros: I get to show off and promote the awesome books I get to all my peers. 

Cons: I'm so into what I read sometimes that I miss instructions. Also, reading in class isn't usually very continuous. If a teacher notices I have nothing to do, (which is rare in 11th grade) they'll give me something to do. Which sucks. 

When I come home after school 

Ahh, school's over. NOW I can read. Let me bring my bag upstairs to my room and then relax on the bed until my family gets home. 

Pros: Continuous, relaxing, uninterrupted reading time.  

Cons: If I read too early on, I have issues stopping. I have no self control and I will neglect my homework for a really good book. I'm also generally very hungry right after school and I don't want to spill crumbs on my books. 

Before I go to bed

I'm on my bed, relaxing. I've done pretty much all I could do and I decide to end the day with some reading. 

Pros: Comfy, nice, soothing, and potential unlimited amount of time. 

Cons: Staying up too late (anyone else notice their sense of time while reading is completely out of whack?) as well as falling asleep because I'm usually so tired. 

Anyway

I've noticed the best time to read is anytime. Just read as much as you can at any point in the day because it will add up. And don't be upset with yourself for not having time to read. There's always tomorrow. No specific time of day is perfect for reading... at least on a weekday, imo. What do you think? When/where do your read? 

Thoughts On... Self-Publishing

I read a pretty interesting article on Forbes the other day. (Twitter followers know I like reading articles about random stuff by now.) It was about why Indie and self published books may push the book industry to become better. It's a great article by the way; very informative so please do check it out if you have the chance.

I read the article from a very interesting perspective- that of a blogger. The article has many subsections and I thought I'd share some interesting points from the article, as well as present my own opinions.

The first section of the article is about how some bestselling mainstream authors see Indie publishing. Most notably, there was a very interesting quote from an author called Brad Thor.

"The important role that publishers fill is to separate the wheat from the chaff.  If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract."

This is a controversial idea. The article itself goes on to speak about how this isn't necessarily true, but I'm going to talk about this from a reader's perspective.

A while back, I brought a review title to school. It was self published and the cover was interesting enough that some classmates looked at it. One classmate asked me why it looked different (as in, where's the publisher) and I tried to explain self publishing to her. The reaction from her and other students was something along the lines of "So anyone can write their own book and have it published?" Yes. And no.

The thing publishing does that is so awesome is that theoretically, the books being published are quality titles. Self publishing on the other hand can be done by anyone. This is good in a way- more stories, more writing- but what kind of guaranty do I get as a reader that the novel I'm reading is any good?

A lot of bloggers have stopped accepting Indie titles and I totally respect that because everyone has read a book they didn't feel like it should be given to readers. Either there are grammatical errors (more than three in a book is a BIG nono for me) or the writing style needed work (awkward phrasing, plot pacing, etc.) but evidently there are some Indie titles that are really good and awesome. How do you find the diamonds in the rough? By reviews. But generally, people don't want to look at a bunch of maybes in their search for a good book. They're looking for a surefire hit. And the surest way to find a good book is to read published titles.

That doesn't mean Indie titles are inferior. All it means that every published title has been read several times by many people. Edits have been made and obviously, the book has been deemed one that should be read by others. It's the same principle as everything else in life. Even blogging. Popular blogs are ones that are linked in tweets and in other blog posts. The more followers you have, the easier it is to get even more. However if you're a newbie blogger, you have a harder time getting real followers because your product isn't certain. People don't know if you'll continue blogging every week or if you'll give up within a month. This uncertainty isn't very helpful, but if you want to be a decent blogger you'll continue with the quality content until people feel more secure in following you. Same goes with little known Indie authors. If their book is really good, it should create some buzz.

Whenever I agree to review an Indie title, I feel like I'm taking a chance. I've read more titles I didn't like than ones I did. (By the way, check out Lynn Seresin's Thin Air. I really liked that book.) I did consider not reviewing them anymore, but I want to promote good books so I will accept Indies in the chance that I'll find an incredible read I can hype up to everyone I know.

The thing about Indie titles is that there are so many of them, and a lot of them are new. They don't reach many people that aren't serious about reading (i.e., have a Kindle). Even when you do see reviews of Indies, if there aren't many reviews of that book it's hard to believe all the positive 4 & 5 star reviews without seeing a 1 or 2 star review. Anyone can write a review these days, so I personally see it as a red flag if the only reviews I'm seeing are positive, especially if there aren't that many reviews in general.

Self published titles are unknown commodities. Published titles aren't always books I like, but their presentation is supposed to be top notch. They're supposed to be books I may like considering what's trending in the market, while Indie authors are more free to write whatever they want. Both ways of writing have their merits, and both are far from being perfect methods.

My  personal opinion is that when there are two books offered to me, Indie or traditionally published, I'll probably go with the sure thing and go for tradition. But that's just me. If an Indie title piques my interest, I will check it out, perhaps a bit more cautiously because I don't know what I'm getting.

Indie publishing in general is a good thing. It pushes publishers to have more decent pay, lowers the price of books, and maybe instead of books being published because they're trendy, it shows publishers that different types of books can also be popular. Maybe this will lead to publishing more of a variety of books and through that, maybe the quality of books in general will be raised. 

I still prefer published titles as a whole, but I think it's unfair to say that self-published books in general are books that aren't good enough to be published through traditional methods because they're all of a lesser quality. What Indies are doing is changing the industry, and it might even end up to be for the better. 

Thanks for reading! 

What a Cliche; Stereotypes in YA

Don't you hate stereotypes in YA? Especially the characters. How unoriginal can an author be to include such clichés. They're so unbelievable, right?

 Every reader is on the lookout for that perfect book with the perfectly original characters. But at what point do the original characters we seek become stereotypes themselves? So by saying we don't want one type of character because they're overdone, aren't we as readers encouraging authors to write another sort of character that at first is deemed original but a year later is nothing new?

 Why am I asking this question? Well, I was reading a book I really liked. I wrote my review, then went on Goodreads to check out other people's thoughts. Now this is stupid and I'm probably looking for trouble when I do this, but I looked for really negative review to compare that reader's reading experience to mine. I read a few, then settled on a review from a pretty popular reviewer. She had valid points for why she didn't like the book (obviously I disagreed with a few of them but that's a matter of personal taste) and I got to one point. She couldn't believe in the reality of the book because one of the characters was the stereotype of a gay guy.

 Gay teen stereotype: fashion & style obsessed, energetic, positive, dreamy 

Gay boy in the story: fashion and hair skills, loves to cook, energetic, smart, over the top


 Yeah, she's right. He was what we call a stereotype. But that doesn't mean he's unrealistic. (Now, this post isn't just about the 'gay boy' stereotype- insert anyone you like.) It got me thinking, why can't an author write about this type of character? I mean, some guys probably are like this in real life. Many aren't. I think we've established that everyone has their own personality, so what if someone's personality is similar to a stereotype. Are we saying, "No, you can't be gay and like clothes and be really excited about hot guys because that would mean you're a stereotype"?

 Obviously, I have a lot of respect for this reviewer so I know she didn't mean what she wrote so literally. I'm being very nitpicky, but don't you think it's ridiculous that people are looking for completely original characters when even people in real life don't always seem to be completely original, especially when you don't know them that well? I have met people who seem stereotypical, especially at first glance: the super smart Asian chick; the hotshot athlete that gets along with all the girls; the popular idiot. Undoubtedly there's more to these people than I know and that's why they aren't stereotypes. Because they walk and talk and live. So if these people exist in real life, why can't they exist in books without readers feeling like the characters aren't original?

 I think it's the author's job to add depth to all their characters but they shouldn't refrain from including the right character in the right scene, even if said character seems to be a stereotype at first impression. And as readers, we can't expect every character to be unexpected. That's crazy. We should allow authors to show us the unique personalities of their characters instead of comparing them to other characters we've read of before. Basically, be more open to the differences and focus less on the similarities. This is especially important when it comes to reviewers because we're so analytical when we read and we constantly compare books. I understand it's much easier said than done and I'm not even sure if I'm doing this right or not.

So what do you think? Agree, disagree, think I'm a total lunatic? Leave a comment and let me know!

Thoughts on... Endings That Changed A Series

These days, most books are part of series. Trilogies, sagas, and the like, have become the norm in YA. With all these long winding, complicated stories, there is more excitement, more action, and more suspense than ever in books. Some series have me flipping pages as fast as I can trying to get to the end, just so I can read  the final climax and the accumulation of multiple books full of tension and danger. 

Sometimes, the endings don't disappoint. Sometimes, they really are epic (see: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows). Other times, endings leave us underwhelmed. And sometimes, endings change the way we see a series. This is what I want to talk about. 

The conclusion of a series can change how the entire series feels. I usually give conclusions really high ratings because they're what everything's been leading to. Sometimes, a conclusion can change the way you look at a series. I'm going to use three examples of books who's conclusions completely changed my perception of the series. Beware, I will be writing spoilers to better explain my thoughts.

1. Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer (Twilight #4) 

I was a Twi-Hard. Loved the series. Read the books over 5 times each. I remember when I first got the books. I went to the library and asked if they had Twilight because I used to be active on this website called Stardoll (I was in 6th grade, ok!) and I noticed so many people admiring Edward. So when I asked my librarian for the books, she said there weren't any at the moment because the series is really popular. Instead I got a copy from my mom's coworker. I devoured the books. Seriously, within two days I was done the series. 

Eclipse was my favourite. I was totally Team Edward. When I read Breaking Dawn, I wasn't satisfied. I wished there was more action. I couldn't believe that Bella- a character moderately ordinary and who I could relate with, got freakin' pregnant. That's what the whole series was leading up to? Renesmee? 

I'm not much of a fan of the series anymore, and that's partially because Breaking Dawn was so strange to me. It used to be a cute love story, but then there was a baby. It kind of woke me up and changed the way I saw the series. 

2. Darkest Mercy by Melissa Marr (Wicked Lovely #5)

I'm a huge fan of Wicked Lovely (I even joined the fansite and forums- I was in the Summer Court) but Darkest Mercy changed my perception of the series. You see, I was an enormous fan of the Summer King, Keenan. And when I say enormous, I mean enormous. I participated in discussions about Keenan and defended him. Whenever I saw the sun, I would always think of him. He was what I thought of as Summer. Guess my reaction when Keenan gave up the Summer Court in Darkest Mercy. :O 

I understand why he did it, but when I read that part I closed the book and cried. It completely changed the series and I felt like my favourite character's identity was changed. I still love the series, but that one part of the ending completely changed my perception of the series. I was cheering on him and Ash so I was upset to see him leave the Court. It was a very bittersweet ending. 

3. Bloodrose by Andrea Cremer (Nightshade #3) 

Bloodrose made me want to scream. I loved Nightshade, Wolfsbane was less good but I liked it enough because I supposed Bloodrose would feature Ren a bit more. 

Ren. Here's the issue with having a love triangle. When you create a love triangle, a lot of people are going to have difference of opinions on who should get the girl. And when you have people like me who get very attached to characters, the way you treat one of the love interests is very important to me when considering how much I enjoyed the story. 

Bloodrose made me want to scream and forget what I had just read. It made me hate Calla and Shay for both treating Ren so bad. I absolutely hated the last book. Calla led on Ren, and when Ren died I remember being furious. I had never been that angry at an author for wrecking a character I loved. I was upset to the point that I vowed not to read another Andrea Cremer book ever again. Bloodrose wrecked the whole Nightshade series for me. That conclusion is an example of a bad one. 

These are all examples of books with endings that changed the way I saw the series in a big way. They were highly awaited books and each ending engineered a different, yet emotional response. What are some endings that changed a series for you? Yours can be a little more positive than mine were. ;) 

Thoughts on: Beautiful People in Books (And Love!)

You know how it seems like almost every YA book features a romance involving two (sometimes three) stunning characters? Ever read a book and thought, why do these people not look normal? Why can't they be ugly!

Well, I read a book I enjoyed. After rating the book on Goodreads and writing my review, I looked around to see others' reactions to the book. One person said something very interesting: why can't that guy the main character likes be ugly? Why does he have to be hot?

That made sense in a way. I mean, the world is not filled with stunningly attractive people. At the same time though, and I may not know too much about this, but don't you have to be attracted to the person you love? Don't you have to think they're beautiful? Can you be in a real relationship with someone whom you consider ugly?

I'm not being superficial here. I'm saying that some people, you look at them and think "Damn, that's hot." But others, maybe you'll notice they have great eyes or hair. There will be initial attraction. From there, don't people in love usually notice all the great things about their partner after they got to know their personality? So of course, in a story that is told in the biased perspective of one fallen-in-love character, there are beautiful people.

Would you call your (good) friends ugly? I wouldn't. So maybe that's why there aren't so many real "ugly" characters in books. It's hard to imagine an ugly character, and unless it's some kind of enemy. The main character usually perceives their loved ones as beautiful. That doesn't mean they are the drop dead gorgeous model some people imagine in their heads- it just means that they are beautiful to the characters, and from there the reader gives them a look based on their own definition of beauty.

*all images were pertained from the awesome website, http://www.sxc.hu/

What do you guys think of that? Agree, disagree, is this completely wrong? 

Random Thoughts: Books You Won't Write Reviews About

As a book blogger, a lot of my posts are reviews. You wouldn't know that looking at my recent posts, but most of what I do for this blog is read and review. (And yes, I will post more reviews at some point. They're all written on my iPod, but need to be formatted for the blog.)

There are some books that I won't review though. Some books are perfect to review- you know what you want to say, you can clearly analyze the book. Others are harder. You have to think a little and you feel more "meh". What I want to talk about is those books that you don't write a review about.

What books are they? 

I recently have not written any reviews. I've also looked at reviews I've written and thought, "Gosh, what an awful, unhelpful review. No way I'm going to post that." This usually happens when I'm reading a book further along in a series or the finale. Cuz if I've stuck to a series for long, I usually have some type of emotional attachment and it's hard not to rave about the awesomeness of the characters or the plot. (Ex: Every review I've done for Michael Grant's Gone series or Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson and the Olympian and Heroes of Olympus series.)

If I really like a book, it's hard to write about why. You ever read a book and you're thinking, OMG I LOVE THIS. Now try to explain why you like it. Sometimes you like something because it appeals to you and others may not understand that because different things appeal to different people. 

If I really hate a book, it's also hard to write about. My most negative reviews are not written on my blog. Books that have resulted in strong negative feelings will rarely get a review. They'll get a couple lines in Goodreads (that's why you should be my friend! For extras!) or maybe I'll write a really scathing and awful vent about why I couldn't stand the book, but then I'll delete it. (Happens more often than you'd think.) 

There are also books that are really popular and that I didn't much care for. (Daughter of Smoke & Bone by Laini Taylor.) These are the really hyped, popular books. If I don't feel like I have much to add to the discussion, I probably won't review these books. It's kind of hard to have seen dozens of reviews a book and expected to love it just to find out it wasn't your type of read and you're not that into it for some reason that's hard to explain. 

Finally, there are books that I read for fun. Books (usually won in a giveaway, belonging to me, or after a reading slump) that I read just for the sake of reading. I always try to remember that I'm a reader first and a reviewer next. This is probably 1/3 books normally (recently: 5/6) that are read for the fun of it. If I constantly analyze a book it's hard to get into the story because I'll keep trying to evaluate a character's depth or a plot's originality. And sometimes I don't want to do that. Sometimes I just want to read for the sake of reading. 

In sum: 

I'm unlikely to review: 

• books near the end of a series
• books I loved
• books I didn't like at all
• books that overly disappointed me for some intangible reason
• books read for the sake of reading

(It took me 5 paragraphs to say this. I love to ramble. :P ) 

How about you? What books will you not review? Agree/disagree? Let me know your thoughts in the comments! 

And thanks for reading! 

How to Keep Blogging When You're Way Too Busy

Over the last few days you may have noticed I am not as active as I used to be. Real life got in the way and I' too busy. There's always so much to do and not enough time to do it. As a blogger you are used to it. You know your blog takes lot of time but its also very rewarding. So today, I thought I'd mention some things I do when I'm busy to keep my blog going and see what you think.
1. What of my favorite things about blogger is the option of scheduling your posts. Sometimes you don't have enough time. With scheduling you do your post when you have time and it can be posted any time you want. Awesome eh?
2. Another thing is to keep reading and reviewing. As a book blogger your main content is centered around reviews. This means you should always have a review to post- not every day, but if you don't have the time to read a new book and review it quickly it's a good idea to have a safety review ready which you can use if you're too busy.
3. Lastly there's the option of mobile blogging. This means blogging from your phone or ipod when you're on the run. (I'm doing this right now.) There is a blogger app for IPhone and Android so you should be able to blog simply- nothing too complicated. It saves time and while there aren't many photos you can put in the post, it's good enough for text.
Those are my ways, tell me about yours!