Book Banter #7 - How Long Can You Leave A Series For?

I just started reading Cress (Lunar Chronicles 3), which is great so far, but the only problem is I can't remember most of what has happened! It must be well over a year, perhaps maybe two years, since I read Scarlet, and a few months before that I read Cinder. Scarlet must not have made a huge impression on me, because I completely forgot about Thorne and Wolf, and where exactly Cinder was at this time.

Thank God for recaps at the beginning of books. Usually I hate this, but this time I am really glad there have been enough references to past events that I can (sort of) remember what has already happened, and piece together the parts that just elude me.

So my question is, how long is too long to leave a series for? I guess it depends on your memory, and on how much you previously enjoyed that series. A year seems to be the accepted time frame by publishers, but I believe that most people's memories aren't quite that long. They remember the jist of the story, but not all of it. Details woven into the plot can be easily missed by those, like me, who can't remember a name or seemingly insignificant events.

Needless to say, I'll be trying not to wait so long between the next books.

Kyra_x

Book Banter #6 - Choosing Which Book To Read

I believe that there are only five ways in which you can go about choosing a book. Although many may choose differently each time, I am one of those people who remain mostly in my last category, and only in the first due to blog pressure.

Which do you fit into? Or are you.. Divergent? (I could not resist!)

1. Orderly
This method involves reading books in the order that you buy them or borrow them. This makes it really easy to choose, specifically because you don't really have to. Perhaps you have an ounce of restraint and only buy one book at a time (I really don't), or perhaps you do this as a means to make it easy, like it's a stock rotation.

2. Lazily
Sometimes the lazy way is the best way: let someone else pick for you and save yourself the hassle. Plus, it makes it kind of exciting when you have no idea what you're reading next.. or is that just me? Maybe you get people to recommend book to you, or maybe you pushed the boat out and got people to answer a poll online. This is living on the edge.. I'm not sure if I could ever be ready to take this method on.

3. Randomly
Living way, way over the edge. Writing down all your books and making a bookish lucky dip, closing your eyes and pointing at the reading pile, blurb surfing books in shops. I just.. I can't.

4. Seasonally
Maybe you're the type of person who liked to read scary books in October, romance in February, thrillers in January and YA in spring. Perhaps it's a bit more simple than that and maybe you read books that are due to be released in the near future as movies, you know.. to judge them ahead of time. I try to do this.. but I just get too carried away by certain genres that I never have read a Christmas book in December, or a summer book on holiday.

5. Emotionally
This is me. I choose my books according to whatever takes my fancy as soon as I'm finished with the first one. Sometimes I am so into a series i read the lot in one go. Sometimes I will read book after book of fairytale retelling or YA dystopias, just  because I am in that kind of mood. I tend to get really into genres before switching to the next. At the moment, it's dystopia again!

Which type are you? Do you have any others to add?

Kyra_x

Book Banter #4 - Book vs Film: 5 Reasons Why Books are Better

BOOK VS FILM

I think (hope) that everyone in the book community can agree that on the most part, books tend to be better than their film counterparts. Today I am delving into why I think that is:

1. There are more subplots.
With films, you can never squeeze all of the plot into the film, so they tend to edit out any unnecessary subplots. Part of what made Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire so great was the Rita Skeeter 'bugging' storyline, but although the film did show her, she was never really a problem for Harry. Although this was quite a long way out from the main plot, it added a little bit of hilarity which is lacking in the film.

2. The characters have more depth.
Books take the time to explore their protagonists and give you an insight into how and what they think. Some of that thought can translate really badly into film and leave characters with little substance. Twilight is a prime example of this because most of what you see in the film is outright staring when there is actually an eloquent and often amusing thought process going through Bella's head.

3. You imagine it how you want to. 
Films are great for giving you a visual of the world that characters live in, but because it is an intrinsic, rigid part, it leaves no room for the imagination. Many readers experience disappointment when a film depicts something as entirely different to how they imagined it, whether that is a character or scenery. This happened to me when I saw Divergent and the Dauntless living space felt much more safe and less awesome than it has been described.

4. You are exposed to more emotion.
You know exactly how the characters feel when you read a book. With film there is more guesswork involved. Some things that seem so heightened in the mind can translate as an emotionless expression because that is how the character wants to be perceived on the outside. Or perhaps the actor cannot express the correct level of pain, sadness or love across to the audience.

5. You become part of the story.
I have never sat down to watch something and found myself entirely immersed in it. No matter how hard they try, the effects and the 3D will never be realistic enough. You can always remind yourself that the movie is not real and you are always set apart as a viewer watching a screen. In a book, it is just you and the words, and somehow your mind fills with images and sounds, placing you inside the protagonist or the situation. Honestly, whenever I try to remember reading a story, my mind comes back with what I imagined instead of the words on the page. While films may be trying to bridge that gap, for now books win on this front.

What do you think? Are books or films better? Do you know a film that has totally immersed you?

Kyra_x

Disclaimer: This is my opinion only and is meant to be part of a discussion. It is not meant to inflame or insult

Book Banter # 3 - Whatcha-Reading Syndrome

As an avid reader of pretty much anything fictional, I can not bring myself to walk past a person reading and simply not care.

Maybe it's the same for many of you, but as soon as I see a book or an ereader in someone's hands I am immediately plagued with the feeling that I MUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE READING RIGHT NOW.

We've probably all been there: you're minding your own business when you spot a fellow reader on the train/ in the park/ in a public area and suddenly your only purpose in life is to find out what they're reading. I call it 'whatcha-reading syndrome', because this is all I ever say to any of my friends or family as a conversation starter. If they aren't reading anything, I immediately tut at them and recommend something I just read. This happens on a fairly regular basis, so much so that I know have a list in my head of good book to read for the most frequent offenders. No, I am not ashamed.

On rare occasions it is a disappointment to me. They may be reading a biography, or something equally boring and non-escapish. But at least I can know and accordingly judge that person and whether or not a friendship/ bookish conversation is available to me because of that.

I have a few instances where I must talk to this person at all costs: a. I have read the book before, b. I fricking love that book/author, c. it's on my wishlist, d. it's by a really well-known author, e. it's a best seller and is therefore totally deserving of my attentions or f. it's something that has caught my eye and i'm iffy about reading it. I could talk about books for days. I really could, and it's so great to get other people's opinions of books.

So, what are you reading?

Kyra_x

Book Banter #2 - Book vs Film: Which order do they go in?

For a long time, I would have told you to always read the book first. However, since the books are generally more in-depth and emotional then their TV or film counterparts (apart from The Hobbit), I would say go for the adaptations first to avoid disappointment. This way I find I actually value the adaptation as a film because there is nothing to compare it to. You can get a similar feeling if you haven't read the book in an age as well, the only difference being you are forewarned of any twists.

Now, there are quite a few adaptations which may not be the case and it is down to personal preference I think. I have so much trouble reading old books like Dorian Grey, The Phantom of the Opera or Great Expectations, so the adaptations are a nice way to know my classic stories without having to read them.

There are some who only ever watch the adaptations. Shame on them, because mostly the books are far more engaging. I suppose it might be good for someone who is extremely busy, as films tend to take up less time than their papery counterparts.

Then there are the people who only read the books. The issue with that is that there are a lot of incredible adaptations that they will miss. They also won't be seeing too many films from now on, as most of the stuff coming out of Hollywood is derived from books, comics and graphic novels. There aren't too many original films out there nowadays.

I find the best way to live is to just choose carefully. Reviews from us bookish types always help, though be careful for fans who may not be able to see past what the film has missed out. I can tell you right now to leave Robert Pattinson alone in favour of Sara Gruen's Water for Elephants, or tell you that if you want a fairytale, read Neil Gaiman's Stardust first, and then watch the film to see the strangeness seep away in favour of Robert de Niro and classic cliches. OK, I loved the film, but it did suck out all of the Gaiman-ness.

I guess it's all personal preference. I think I'll be reading Gone Girl and Before I Go To Sleep before the films, but will you be?

Kyra_x

Book Banter #1: Digital or Printed?

What's this? A new feature for you! I decided that every now and again I wanted a feature to discuss bookish things in more detail. They may be bookish habits, peeves, weird stuff or just a little bit of news I might be excited about.. maybe even a culmination of everything. I'm not sure yet, but I'm going to try!

First up, the big debate. Are ereaders or books better?

I love my Kindle. I really do. It's great to take on holiday because I can fit it into my hand luggage and it takes up hardly any space. As the kind of girl who would take it to work with me to read in my lunch-break, this is an immeasurable bonus. I tried taking a Game of Thrones book with me once, and I honestly could not make it fit into my bag. So it's eco-friendly with no paper-usage, which also makes it purse-friendly (although used paperbacks are waaayy cheaper on Amazon if they're old, literally going for pennies), oh, and the delivery is super-fast!

On the eReader (this, again is based on Kindle), you can change the font size, you can look up words in the dictionary, you put it against something and read with one hand, thus allowing you to eat and read at the same time. You never lose your place in a book and you can store so many books on it that there are no worries about trying to guess how many books you'll need for that flight. One more thing, you can read a dirty book, and unless some weirdo is reading it over your shoulder without consulting you, no-one need ever know you're doing it in public. Your secret erotica fandom is in safe hands.

However, books came first, and in my opinion they should never go away. Sometimes the simple smell of paper and the flicking through of pages is all I need to get myself into the reading-zone. Flicking backwards and forwards is effortless, and sometimes you just want to cheat that ending to know everyone turns out OK. It's bad, but we've all done it (and instantly regretted it).

In terms of books versus the ereader, your books don't need a device to be read on, you don't need to turn anything on, charge anything up or connect to the internet to receive and read your book. You can see exactly how far you've got to go in a book and you can see how far you've come. I don't know if it's just me or not, but I feel a real sense of achievement in finishing a large book, but never in finishing a large ebook.

The one biggest pull for me is book covers. There are some beautiful designs out there and it seems a waste to hide them all away into a singular page inside one book. I love to view all of my covers sticking out from my bookshelf, I love to show people some of the gorgeous artwork, the beautiful dresses, the fonts, the colours, everything that went into that cover. A great deal of time is spent on these and it feels like a shame not to display them.

Both are about equally as robust. Electronics break just as often as books fall apart at the seams, and essentially, they both do the same job. I can't pretend that I err on either side. I love the Kindle because I can get all my books on there so effortlessly, but I love my books for their sheer beauty and their tactile nature. I don't ever want to have to choose.

Do you like your ereader better or do you prefer your paperbacks? Do you have anything to add?

Kyra_x