scarynikki12

You'd be amazed. I've done it with books I've loved entirely, books I've loved and were mildly dissatisfied with one tiny area, and with books I've hated. There have been many books that fall under these categories that don't inspired me to wonder and speculate so I can't predict when it will occur. I agree with you at liking Nicholas and Roslynn and their relationships with Regina and Tony in their respective books. I started theorizing Lindsay feeling Author's Remorse as the series went on as I couldn't understand why each character would regularly get excluded from stories where they were natural supporting characters (Derek for Nicholas and Judy for Roslynn) and why they were always presented in a negative light (especially Roslynn in that stupid Katey story). Even James being her pet isn't a full explanation. Tony tagged along when James was being shoehorned in so there's no reason to not include Nicholas or Roslynn where they made sense.

Total agreement and if Amy were just reminding Sheldon it was time to leave for the game I'd have no issue. She had to browbeat him into going and it wasn't the first time they'd had that type of conversation. That's how we learned Sheldon doesn't change. He changed enough to be willing to have sex with Amy, marry her, and have children but that's it. Years into the future and Amy is still begging Sheldon to care about things that matter to others with a bonus of forcing him to show support for their kids activities. Whoever wrote that scene fell back into the bad habits from Big Bang when it was an opportunity to show some real growth.

Another reason I don't like Amy is she talked shit about Weird Al. For someone who prides herself on her intellect you'd think she'd appreciate someone as clever with language as Weird Al. I wish that fight she had with Sheldon where they took turns putting down the other's area of science had led to her leaving forever. That was a funny episode and would have been a suitable goodbye for the character. Then we would have been spared years of her begging Sheldon to have sex with her and the subsequent whining when he said he didn't want to.

Thank you!

Amy was so frustrating. I did think she was funny at first but they quickly turned her into a whiny and needy character who was determined to force Sheldon to be something he wasn't and to want something he didn't. And then she succeeded. I caught their scene in the final episode of Young Sheldon and it reiterated all the problems with her character and their relationship all over again. Like on Big Bang she was begging Sheldon to do something he had no interest in (attending his son's hockey game) and all but dragged him there. She knew this man had no interest in sports or anything that mattered to other people and was selfish as hell even when dealing with things he cared about yet she believed he'd magically change. She always wanted him to be something he wasn't and then started whining and begging when he didn't change. She should have kept Sheldon for intellectual conversation and found someone else to satisfy her desire for romance, marriage, and children.

Lucy Gray's headstone in the Covey forest says: "Yet some mountain that to this day She is a living child; That you may see sweet Lucy Gray Upon the lonesome wild." I take this to mean she was never seen again after Snow shot at her in the forest. Maybe he killed her or maybe she escaped. We didn't know for sure in Ballads and I don't think we're meant to. The Covey knew she vanished and the headstone marks her loss even if she survived Snow's bullets and made it to another district or outside the borders of Panem. We don't know how many members of the Covey took Baird as their last name do we? It could be Maude Ivory took Baird after Lucy Gray vanished or it could be the Covey equivalent of Smith or Miller and be common among them.

I think she regretted not having James be the first Malory hero and series introductory character. Once his story was published he became the star of her series even in books where he shouldn't have been more than a minor supporting character at best. I think she also regretted Nicholas and Roslynn being the love interests given how they were treated as the series went on. If James had been the introductory Malory character then she may have written Tony to still be the hero of Book 2 but I think his story would have been VERY different. Not necessarily the Katey nonsense but definitely not Roslynn. Same with Regina. I think she'd always have gotten married but her love interest wouldn't have been Nicholas. In a lot of ways Amy and Warren feel kind of like her re-do of Regina's story. The cousins look alike and their love interests share animosity with their uncle but the resolution to Amy's story is far more positive with regard to the uncles and Warren is presented in a positive light in subsequent books. Amy was also allowed to have more than one child. I love the moment in the Christmas book where James or Tony tries to needle Warren but he doesn't hear due to helping his twins open presents. That moment would never happen with Nicholas as he'd hear, respond in kind, and then be punished by Regina. Amy's not a gossip like Regina but she helps out with those "feelings" like Regina helps out with her gossip. I didn't know about the dedication to readers who loved Tony. That actually explains a lot. She no doubt felt pressure from the publisher to continue (Regina's story actually works better as a stand alone and was clearly written as such) and wrote accordingly. It explains why so much of the book is Roslynn being angry with Tony and James-the least likely man to ever get married-describing himself as being in love with her. That book, more than any other, also spends a lot of time on James and sets up his own story and is probably when she made him her pet.

I'm also surprised Regina only had the one child. She named their son after her father so I assume she'd have named a daughter after her mother. And Nicholas mentions in one of the later books that Regina wants more yet was never written to have them. It's not like we needed to see her pregnant or anything. She could have been written to have more after the time jumps leading into the Christmas story or Jeremy's. That's how she did it for Amy, James, Anthony, and Derek yet not Regina? I've mentioned before my theory about Lindsay getting Author's Remorse (my name) after the first few books, changed her mind about Roslynn, and that's why we rarely saw Roslynn/Anthony in the same positive light as their book. I think the same happened with Nicholas. At the end of the first book James and Anthony had come around on him yet starting with the next one they still hate him and Regina, who once got in their faces about how they treated her husband, regularly punishes only him for their arguments. Yes, they acknowledge they do enjoy arguing with him but it's because they know he'll be punished. Also Nicholas was another character who should have had major presence in Derek's story, as they were best friends, yet all the friendship moments are with Percy and Jeremy while Regina shows up to save the day with her gossiping. James definitely became her pet character after his book and I think she regretted him not being the introductory character. If he had she probably would have given entirely different stories and/or love interests for Regina and Anthony. Maybe Anthony would have still been single at the time of the stupid "Katey's his surprise daughter from a woman he loved and would have married in spite of being horrified at the idea before he met Roslynn" plot. Maybe Katey's mother would have still been alive and that story would have culminated with her and Anthony getting their happy ending. Who knows but James was definitely her pet and I am confident she wished she'd done Regina's and Anthony's stories differently. Smaller things that annoy me about him being the pet character are how it diminished Regina's relationships with Jason and Anthony. In her first book it's explicitly stated Anthony is her favorite uncle. She was also raised by Jason and, in her book, it was clear he was the uncle who actually was a father figure to her and Derek was her brother. Yet anyone coming into the series after her book would be forgiven if they thought James was her favorite uncle and the closest thing she had to a father. Shame Lindsay passed and we can't find a way to get any confirmation of these theories.

Sing it If the opposite gender nickname thing was just his personality then no big deal but it was presented as him being intentionally combative and rebellious and ended up feeling more like a performance. It was most natural with Connie but then we didn’t see Connie that much. I can’t think of any feminine nicknames for Jason, Edward, or Anthony but I think a way to really sell it as a genuine part of who James was would have been to have one be named, say, Elliot and James always calling him Ellie. He did call Edward ‘Eddie’ so nicknames in general were a real part of his personality but the opposite gender thing was him just being a poser. Lindsay even says this whenever the explainer for Regina’s nicknames is brought up though she’s presenting it as James just being cutesy. It also wouldn’t be a big deal if Georgina hadn’t told him early in his book that she didn’t like him calling her ‘George’ but he ignored her and got his way. He could’ve called the twins ‘Addy’ and ‘Gilly’ but I guess it’s not cutesy when it’s his sons. James would’ve been way more tolerable if he (and Anthony to a lesser extent) weren’t shoved into every Malory story. Less is more! Jeremy, Judy, and Jack make sense being their children (though I only like Jeremy’s of the three) but James should never have played as big a role as he did in, for example, Derek’s or Amy’s when their own fathers were literally right there. Jason helping Derek find Kelsey and reveal himself to be a badass as well as the proper English aristocrat would have been nice and would’ve gone a long way towards the forgiveness when the Molly reveal came. Yes Amy’s love interest was James’ brother in law but, again, it would’ve been nice to see Edward have a moment to shine. You mean Edward didn’t want to rip apart the men who kidnapped Amy? Didn’t feel torn about wanting to follow societal norms by pressuring them to marry after sleeping together while also wanting to let her make her own choices? He was content just hanging around London while his brothers found her? The final two reasons James sucks is he’s supposed to be oh so rebellious, a total Bad Boy, yet he never relinquishes his title and he was a plantation owner which would’ve included slaves. The real ways to rebel in this setting would have been to refuse all titles and be anti-slavery. Instead he was a rebel in name only. Oh no he has an illegitimate son! Bug fucking deal so did many of his peers including his older brother. Some Bad Boy. He’s the worst.

If the movie adaptation of Sunrise On The Reaping is half as good as the book it will be outstanding.

Sunrise On The Reaping is brutal and brilliant. It’s been a long time since a book made me cry and this one brought out the tears multiple times.

I figured Tom and Anne for Telemachus and Penelope and I'm liking the other character choices for the other actors. Lots of potential here.

I've been watching old episodes of Poirot and every episode includes someone remarking on how he's a famous detective. Maybe a hundred years ago this was an actual thing but were detectives really famous like other celebrities at one point? The same thing happens in every Murder She Wrote episode but at least Jessica is a best selling author and actual celebrity. Anyway, my UO is post-80s based mystery shows need to stop doing the Christie format where the murder is explain with a lot of conjecture. Accurate conjecture of course but still. Christie was and is the gold standard of mystery storytelling but the writers taking inspiration from her aren't doing that great a job and should just take a different approach.

One thing about book marketing that annoys is the whole "for fans of [insert author] or [insert famous character]" angle. I know why they do it, I really do, but so often I'll find a book description interesting only to have that particular piece of marketing happen. I know that this will also make people more interested in the same book so I will get used to this being a one woman island. In person marketing takes the same approach but at least a person can make adjustments to reassure the customer and try to salvage the sale. Again I know this is a me problem but I've been immediately turned off from so many books the second I read "for fans of Sarah Maas" or "If you loved Klaus on Vampire Diaries you'll love [character]". And these may be books I'd otherwise genuinely enjoy and had the bad luck to be subjected to bad marketing.

Someone on bluesky pointed out that Sean Baker's four wins ties Walt Disney which is wild.