TOP TEN TUESDAY, BOOK DEBATE #6 - DESERVING OF THE HYPE

This title is a mouthful and a half, but I'm combining my 'top ten tuesday' and 'book debate' series to bring you my top ten overhyped books/series/authors that I believe deserve all the hype they get. (I'm excluding Harry Potter from this list because that one is a given). There are certain books and book series that everyone seems to have read and nearly everyone seems to have enjoyed. Recently, I have found myself not enjoying some of the books that people seem to love the most. The following list are some of the most overhyped books that I've read and agreed with the general consensus on; these are the overhyped books that I really enjoyed and I think are worthy of the vast amounts of praise they get.

1. 'The Book Thief'- Markus Zusak
Like everyone else, this is one of my favourite books. It was so clever and well written and I cried so hard during it. I do love a book that makes me cry.

2. 'The Hunger Games'- Suzanne Collins
I didn't read this when the film first came out and everyone else was reading it, because I was snobby and didn't want to be like the crowd. I am so original, I know. I then watched the film, fell in love with it, watched it three times in a row, and binge read the whole trilogy super quickly. Such a fantastic, classic dystopian trilogy.

3. The Raven Cycle- Maggie Stiefvater
Everyone loves this series, I love this series, and it's so, so, so deserving of all the praise it gets; one of my absolutely favourites and I am a tiny bit obsessed.

4. The Lunar Chronicles- Marissa Meyer
I had little interest in this series, and I hypocritically said I was never going to read it. I picked it up when 'Winter', the final book came out, purely because of how obsessed everyone was with it, and I was just suddenly really tempted to try it out. Ended up loving it, definitely worth all the praise.

5. 'Anna and the French Kiss'- Stephanie Perkins
Everyone loves Stephanie Perkis' 'Anna and the French Kiss' companion trilogy, and for good reason. The stories are so much fun, the characters are great and the romance is to die for. I was hesitant to read these books at first, as I wasn't sure I'd enjoy the plot, but I ended up absolutely loving them (especially 'Anna and the French Kiss') and now I kind of want to go to boarding school in Paris.

6. Morgan Matson
Morgan Matson is a well-loved, contemporary author and I've really enjoyed every single one of her books. They're the definition of a perfect summer read, and she deserves all the praise and hype she gets.

7. Sarah J. Maas
As with Morgan Matson, Sarah J. Maas is an incredibly popular author, and I've absolutely loved every single one of her books. She's such a strong writer and storyteller and her books leave you dying for the next one. I know she can only get better.

8. 'A Darker Shade a Magic'- V.E. Schwab
I started this when it first came out, but I found it a really slow read and I gave up at about 100 pages through. Fast forward a year to when the second book was coming out and, like with the Lunar Chronicles, everyone was obsessed and, again, I was suddenly tempted to give it another go. At the time, it was really cheap on Kindle, so I downloaded it and read it super quickly and fell in love. So deserving of the hype, I'm so excited for the next book.

9. Rick Riordan
Rick Riordan is a genius. He deserves all the praise he gets, not just for his great stories and fantastic characters, but also for the fact that his work is so accurate to the mythology and he's just so damn clever in the way he can seamlessly link it all into modern culture.

10. 'Fangirl'- Rainbow Rowell
'Fangirl' is the most popular book of a well-loved author for good reason. It's so relatable to so many people and it doesn't shy away from the honest fact that university can be really hard, and isn't all perfect and easy and fun. Very often, it's the books with the most relatable characters that are the most popular.

Rosie

BOOK DEBATE #5: ON LIBRARIES

There's been a lot of backlash recently about how government cuts are resulting in the closing of public libraries all over the country. In today's book debate, I want to talk a bit about owning books vs. getting them from the library, and also why keeping libraries open is so important.

There is possibly nothing more exciting that going to a bookshop, browsing all the crisp, new books and bringing new books home. It is immensely satisfying to be able to look at a shelf over-flowing with books, building your own library and seeing how nice they all look together. I am all in favour of buying all the books imaginable, but that is just not possible. So, though new books and owning books aew so exciting, let me tell you why libraries are better.

LIBRARY BOOKS ARE FREE.

All these millions and millions of books that are free. Completely and utterly free. There's no signing up fee, no borrowing fee, nothing. In my library, the only times you ever have to pay for a book is when it's overdue or when you're ordering it in on an adult library card- and both of these only cost 40p. It is simply not possible to buy all the books you ever want to read, and that is why libraries are so important. Over 50% of all the books I read are from the library, because they have nearly every book I ever want and, like I've said, it's FREE. Everybody loves free books and, yeah, you don't get to keep them, but who cares, if it wasn't for the library you might not ever get the chance to read them.

Your average paperback book costs £7.99 (even more for a hardback), and who can afford that money every single time they want to read a book? I cannot stress how important saving libraries is. Libraries give millions of people the chance to access books (and often the Internet) and to learn and read and experience the joys of books who may not have the means or finances to do so otherwise. Libraries often host events to encourage children to read and to fall in love with reading, shaping them for the future. Libraries provide so many opportunities to everyone within society, enabling millions to access books for free. And not just books, libraries also provide quiet places to study and the ability to access the Internet, audio books, films and music.

Saving libraries is so, so important. The library was such a big part of my childhood, and I know this was the same for so many people, it's vital that we keep libraries open so that future generations can read and grow in the same way that we did. Give your local library some love, if it's in risk of closing, write to your local MP, start a petition, do whatever you can to keep that library open, because so many people would be lost without it.

Rosie

BOOK DEBATE #4: GIVING UP ON SERIES

We haven't had a book debate for a while, but I wanted to discuss giving up on series and also mention a couple of series that I don't think I'm going to be carrying on with.

Spoiler alert: I'm all for giving up on series.

And let me explain why. What's the point of putting yourself through something that you don't like? The saying is true that there are too many books and not enough time, so why read something you're not enjoying when there's something else out there that you're going to love? For me personally, the rest of the series could be good, but if I don't enjoy the first book then I'm not going to carry on. That's a lot of pressure to put onto a first book. At the moment, I'm finding myself in a mentality where I could enjoy a book, but just not enough that I can be bothered to carry on with the series (looking at you 'Red Queen' and 'The Kiss of Deception'). I'm also finding myself a little bit tired of reading series all the time (I write this as I read series upon series upon series), but I now feel that I need some more standalones in my life.

I can understand why people would continue with series, it may get better in the second book, or even the third, but then again, why risk it? I can also understand the feeling of 'maybe I should carry on, maybe I shouldn't just quit and stick it out'. In 2015, I read more first books of series that I'm not going to continue with than I've ever read before in my life, and I feel that maybe I should carry on with at least one of them, just so that I haven't given up on masses of series in one year. 

That being said, I'm coming round to the idea that life is just too short to read things you're not excited about, and so I thought I'd make a list of some of the series I don't think I'm going to carry on with. You should never had to justify why you don't want to read something, but for me these were all books that I was really excited for and was really let down by.

1. The 'Outlander' series by Diana Gabaldon
2. The 'Fire & Floor' series/trilogy/duoloy (who knows) by Victoria Scott
3. 'The Remnant Chronicles' by Mary E. Pearson (maybe I'll pick up the next book, but at the moment it's looking like a no)
4. The 'Red Queen' trilogy/series by Victoria Aveyard (again, maybe I'll continue but most likely not)
5. The 'Magonia' duology by Maria Dahvana Headley (those covers though, ooooommmmmgggg)

BOOK DEBATE #3: 5 SERIES I HAVE NO INTEREST IN

I'd like to start this post with a little disclaimer. This is my own personal opinion. In no way do I mean to be rude or offend anyone, this is just my feelings on the matter at present. My opinion may change, there are many things and book series that I once had no interest in but have now read and highly enjoyed. But right now these are 5 popular book series that I have no interest in ever reading.

1. The Mortal Instruments - Cassandra Clare
I've never had any interest in this series and I don't think I ever will; it's far too long and it always kind of annoys me when people add extra books to series that should've been finished (like with this series). My brother read the first book years ago and he's always said that it's not worth reading; I also think it's a case of ageing and reading preferences changing. I am fairly interested in the sound of the Infernal Devices Trilogy, the prequel trilogy to this series, and I'd consider giving that ago but I just don't see myself ever reading the Mortal Instruments.

2. The Lunar Chronicles - Marissa Meyer
Like all the series here, this book series is immensely popular. As of yet, I am not entirely convinced that I will never read it, I haven't yet made up my mind. My main problem with this series is that sci-fi just doesn't appeal to me all that much. It has to be a pretty spectacular sci-fi for me to read and enjoy it; it's a genre that I'd like to like, but I struggle to. I do like retellings a lot, and the hype around this series is making me consider changing my mind, but I'm not convinced that it's something that would interest me.

3. Shatter Me - Tahereh Mafi 
There is basically nothing about the premise of this trilogy that appeals to me; no matter how many people tell me it's amazing, I can just never see myself wanting to read it. The idea of superpowers in non-superheroes books doesn't appeal to me and I am convinced that I will never read it.

4. Outlander - Diana Gabaldon 
I read the first book in the Outlander series earlier in the year, and I'm so disappointed to say that I hated it. It was so slow and long and boring and I had such high expectations that have been completely let down. I'm definitely not going to be carrying on with this series ever (it's something crazy like 8 books as well, ain't nobody got time for that), but the TV show is really good and I'd recommend watching that.

5. Mara Dyer - Michelle Hodkin 
There are two reasons why I don't think I'll ever read the Mara Dyer trilogy. Firstly, the premise does not appeal to me at all, it doesn't look like anything I'd enjoy and I don't think I'd like it. Secondly, I've heard great things about the first two books, but I've heard that the ending of the third (and final) book is one of the biggest disappointments of all time (I may be over-exaggerating here, but I've heard awful things about the third book). I don't see the point of getting involved in a series that I know is going to end badly, what would be the point?

BOOK DEBATE #2: HARDBACK VS. PAPERBACK BOOKS

A few months ago I did a mini book debate on kindle vs. physical books, so today I'm going to do another one on hardback vs. paperback books.

My beloveds

If you watch booktube, you'll see that everyone is obsessed with hardback books, there are quite a few people who only buy their books in hardback. While there are some perks to this, I personally also have quite a few negatives towards it as well. The main perk to buying hardback books, obviously, is that you get to read the new books straight away without having to wait for the paperback to come out. I normally choose to wait for paperbacks (unless it's something I'm truly desperate for, looking at you, Harry Potter) but the waiting can be agonising sometimes.

I'd also like to quickly add here that I like small books to be in hardback, like J.K. Rowling's 'The Tales of Beedle the Bard', that's so small and thin, it would not be a good book in paperback. Or fancy copies of things. They always have to be in hardback as well. Mostly my debate is just arguing the negatives rather than the positives, because the positives are all basically that they're pretty books and everyone likes pretty books.

Obviously, the negative points of one format are going to equal the positives of the other. The most notable one being price; price as a negative for hardbacks and a positive for paperbacks. Don't get me started on the general price of books, I personally think that £6.99-£8.99 is a ridiculous price for a book (that's why I mostly get my books from Amazon, Book Depository or the library). Saying that, though, the price of a hardback book is even more ridiculous. Say your average hardback book cost between £11.99-£14.99, that's a crazy amount of money to be paying each time you buy a book. So yes, though there are negatives to the cost of buying books in general, it is definitely much easier on your purse to be buying paperbacks.

Some personal issues I have with hardback books are their size and dust jackets. I find dust jackets unbelievably annoying, they constantly slide about when you read, the edges of the jacket constantly get damaged, and you can never put them on properly again if you take it off, it always looks weird. I tend to remove the dust jackets and then lose them, which is why I'm so grateful that books like Harry Potter have the same design underneath the dust jacket as well as on it; I have absolutely no clue where the dust jackets for Harry Potter six and seven are. I know it looks nice if the book underneath the dust jacket is all plain coloured or patterned nicely, but then you don't get to appreciate the cover if you do lose the dust jacket. My other issue is the size. Hardbacks are HUGE. Most of the time, if you ever see me reading a hardback book, I'm holding it with two hands. My hands or not big enough and my wrists not strong enough to hold the book with two hands like I do with paperbacks. Hardback books are also much taller, which equals more two-handed reading.

There is one major con to paperback books, that being the amount of damage they sustain. I personally love cracking the spine and being able to lie all of my books flat (we'll get to that later in a different book debate), but it pains me so much when the cover gets bent, which often happens with paperback books. Firstly, the cover bends when you read it, which is immensely annoying when the book is no longer flat when closed, but even worse, occasionally the corner of the cover gets bent. You can bend the cover back to normal as much as you like, but it'll never look right again and that breaks my little heart. Cover damage is a sin. Another issue I have with the cover of paperback books is that the plastic covering on the front will sometimes start to peel off. I HATE this, it's awful and it makes your books look awful and publishers should never, never put a plasticy cover over the front of books. It looks kind of like when you cover your hands in glue and peel it off, but less fun.

Overall, however, I much, much prefer paperback books. Nothing thrills me more than a brand new, unopened, fresh paperback book, and no fancy hardcovers will ever change my mind of this. Paperbacks look so nice on the shelf together (nicer than hardbacks, in my opinion) and I can't express my love for a good, nice-feeling paperback.

BOOK DEBATE #1: KINDLE VS. PHYSICAL BOOKS

It's an ongoing debate these days about whether ebooks or physical books are better. I'm planning a couple of book debates, starting with this one. In this case, physical books refers to both hardback and paperback, and kindle books refers to those read on either an actual Kindle on the Kindle app for Apple products. I have read books in all of these formats.

I'd also like to make a quick note here to say that there are some books actually available for reading on Goodreads. I first discovered this through the app, but you can actually read whole books on both the app and on www.goodreads.com/ebooks which I think is pretty cool. I haven't looked into it much yet, though I am planning to, but I'm pretty sure that some books you pay for but a lot are also free.

Sorry for the poor quality photo, my current read and the contents of my Kindle app, ft. Ikea duvet

I thought I'd start this argument with a pros and cons of each book format, before giving my personal opinion on the whole thing. Starting with kindle books, the main pro is that they are very often cheaper than buying an actual book. Saying that, I do only buy the books that cost £2 or less or are free. Another major perk of kindle books is that they are so much more portable. You can carry hundreds of books around in a kindle or on the kindle app, and it's so much smaller and lighter than carrying even one book. The cons I have found with kindle books are that they're so sensitive, the slightest tap and the page will change or the font size will change or the page will turn sideways, it does annoy me. My biggest problem with them, however, is the fact that you never know how many pages there are in the book or how many pages in the chapter you're reading. As someone who reads books in blocks of chapters, I like to know how long my chapter is before I start it.

Obviously for me, the main pro to physical books is that I just love, love, love them. I love paperbacks, I love being surrounded by paperbacks, I like the way physical books smell, I love holding a brand new book and being excited about it. To me, there's something infinitely satisfying about holding and reading a physical book. Another pro for me personally is just having books, I like the way they look together on my shelves and I like looking at them and that's just something you can't get on an e-reader. There are also cons to physical books, though. Accessibility being one of them. By this I mean that, with some books, you can't get them in your local book store or library, making life a whole lot more difficult, especially if you have to resort to online ordering. With kindle books, you can just go onto Amazon, click download, and the book is there on your kindle immediately. Simple as. The other major cons with physical books are ones that I have mentioned briefly in the pros of kindle books. Namely, money and space. Books, especially hardback books, are not cheap, £7/£8 for a paperback is not the nicest price, especially when many kindle books cost under £5. And space, there's just not enough room to keep all the physical books, no matter how nice they look.

Overall, I do see the plus side to both book formats. My mum loves her Kindle and I love my Kindle app (which is free on the app store, by the way), and Kindles are just so practical and useful that you can't fail to appreciate them. However, I'd have to say my loyalties lie with physical books. Though I love the Kindle prices sometimes, I will always choose a paperback over an e-reader any day, and you just can't beat the feel of a brand new or well loved physical book.