Merry Wanderer of the Night:
discussion

Can't let Thanksgiving pass without at least a mention of it. It's one of my favorite holidays and I think part of that is because, although the food definitely gets a lot of attention, Thanksgiving is the one holiday that truly defies the rampant commercialism of our society and retains a lot of its original meaning. It's a simple holiday, one that is about being with the people you love, sharing good food and fun memories, and reminding yourselves of all that you have to be thankful for.
I want to just take a moment to share how truly grateful I am for the whole blogging experience and the readers who have made it so wonderful. Blogging, for me, has been a truly rewarding experience and that is because of the vast community of readers it has introduced me to. You all are wonderful.
Since it is still November, I also want to express my gratitude to everyone who has participated in Just Contemporary Month. It has been a really big thing for me, and it's been amazing to see all the wonderful Contemporary posts and love and meet some new people because of it. So if you have participated in Just Contemporary in any way, I thank you, most sincerely. Whether it's writing blog posts and reviews, commenting on the reviews of others or even just hitting that retweet button on Twitter, I thank you.
And to everyone, I wish you a most happy Thanksgiving, even if you aren't from the US. There's never a bad time to remember how much there is to be grateful for.

Today on the blog, I have Asheley from Into the Hall of Books. Asheley is seriously one of my favorite people right now and I absolutely love chatting with her on Twitter and her blog makes me happy. For realz guys, if you don't know her, you definitely should. I was absolutely thrilled when Asheley agreed to write this guest post for me. I LOVED it and you totally will too!:)

Why I (am learning to) Love Contemporary
I shrugged off the YA Contemporary genre for years... both young adult and adult fiction. Why? Because I have a mortgage. I have bills and children and friends that have crumbling marriages.
Also, I've been through high school and never cared to read about backstabbing, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, rape, or any of those other awful things that I remember about my younger days. After all, who wants to revisit high school? Not me.
When I graduated, I wanted to try and walk away from that stuff forever. I never imagined that I would want to voluntarily read about it.
More importantly, I HAVE TWO DAUGHTERS and A SON. When I think about some of the subject matter of the YA Contemps, I absolutely panic and freak out for their future. I don't want to go there. (But I need to get over that.)
A few things have happened recently that have caused me to rethink my "No-Contemp" personal policy!

• I realized that John Green writes contemporary. As I am one of his biggest fans, I stand in violation of my "no-contemp" rule!
• I traded recommendations with Ashley and read my first verse novel, which also happened to be contemporary: Chasing Brooklyn by Lisa Schroeder. And I fell in love... beautiful, twirling, dancing-on-clouds love...
• I started actually reading the blogposts/reviews of trusted bloggers who love the contemps and you know what? Some of their recommendations kinda-sorta interested me a little bit.
• I realized that as a reader of plenty of adult fiction, I already do read some contemporary.
• Not all contemporary is sad or hard-to-read, right?

Contemporary has always been my favorite genre and although there are lots of different directions a Contemporary story can take, the two that come to my mind most often are the tough issues (which I prefer) and romance. I'm going to admit right now that I've been a bit... prejudiced against the romantic fiction my whole life. I've never been terribly interested in reading a story where the only thing that really happens is a love story and the challenges thrown up to thwart them so we can all cheer and be happy when they get past them.

Don't get me wrong, I like a love interest as much as the next girl, but I like it to be a part of the story, not the story. And for a long time, I just didn't read anything if it seemed like the main (or only real) plotline was a romance. But after I started blogging, and I got to talking to more and more people, reading more and more reviews, I started thinking that maybe I should give them more of a chance. I mean, I hadn't even wanted to read a Sarah Dessen book, because I wrote it off as romantic fluff.

So I did. And it's still not my favorite book to read, but I admit to liking them a lot more than I thought I would. Books like this are just a lot of fluffy fun. And, I've discovered that some of them are super enjoyable and just tons and tons of fun, even if they are a bit fluffier than my normal read. And, I've been surprised more than once by a book I thought was nothing but fluff having a lot of hidden depth and emotional reality to it.

I so most definitely still prefer the romance in my books to be a part of the story. Books like Jellicoe Road don't rely on the romance, but its inclusion enriches the story and the characters. Or The Piper's Son, also by Melina Marchetta. The love interest in this book is more the remembrance of a girl he loved in his past, before his life went to hell and he needs to get his life together before he can turn around and pursue her again, or he'll just end up hurting her all over again. That is the way I prefer my romance. As something the enhances the story, encourages growth between characters but isn't the focal point of the story. I prefer books where the romance could be taken out of the story and the plot itself would still essentially be whole. Obviously, the romance is important, because there are things that other people can teach us that we simply cannot learn on our own. But when the story completely and totally falls apart at the removal of the romance, I do find that I have to try harder to maintain my interest.

But through recommendations from other bloggers and giving myself a chance to read outside my comfort zone, I've discovered that these romances that I had previously written off as little more than the literary equivalent to cotton candy are often full of a surprising amount of depth.
Contemporary Romance is never going to be my favorite genre. But after reading books by authors like Sarah Dessen, Elizabeth Scott and Stephanie Perkins, I'm no longer so quick to brush it aside and I actually look forward to reading even more.
So if you have some Contemporary Romance recommendations for me, let me know! This subgenre isn't an easy sell for me, but I'm trying to branch out more and one can never have too many recommendations.

My personal reading preferences have almost always veered toward the books dealing with tough issues. Even as a kid, these books full of heartache and pain and suffering and hurts drew me. So I thought that this would be a really easy post to write. The 'issue' books are what I'm drawn towards, what I read the most, so it should be really easy to explain why that is. But alas. 'Tis not so.

Because honestly, I can't say exactly why I'm so drawn to these books. I have been reading them since before I really thought about the differences in genres, before I considered that they were 'tough' or 'issue' books. For me, when I was a kid, there were really only types of books, books I hadn't read but really wanted to, books I hadn't read and was so not interested in, and books I read over and over and over and over. I pay much attention to genres until I was a little bit older.

So why do I like these books dealing with such painful subject matter? I don't know, but I have a few ideas. Part of me is drawn to them, because they are not my life. My life isn't perfect, but if you compare it to the rest of the world, even the rest of the United States, I've been blessed. I'm smart, I got good grades, was a good student, never did drugs or drank, didn't hang out with anyone who did either, never got into 'trouble' with a boy, have never been bullied, never went hungry, always had a roof over my head, my parents and I fought a lot and I wasn't very happy as a teenager but I always knew that they really did love me and were there to protect me, and my extended family is huge and incredibly loving, I had some really great friends and I didn't lose anyone really close to me until I was in college when my Grandpa died of cancer. I did struggle with some stuff in high school. My life wasn't perfect, but compared to most, I was in a really good place. And even when I was being a teenager and feeling full of the anger and sadness, I knew that.

So these books that deal with severe drug abuse, eating disorders, neglectful parents, self harm and eating disorders, rape, abuse, death, suicide and more take me to a place completely foreign to me. But I feel it. The emotional connection I have to books like this astound me. And I learn from them. When you have never struggled with something, it is easy to fall into judgment toward those who have. For a variety of reasons, I have never tried drugs or alcohol. At all. And I've never even been tempted. They don't appeal to me in any way, and they never have. I feel like we've reached a point where everyone knows that drugs=SERIOUSLY BAD. So I used to genuinely wonder why anyone would try them. I honestly couldn't understand it. And although I tried really hard not to be judgmental, a tiny part of me was always there thinking, Really? Really? But then, I read (among other things) Ballads of Suburbia by Stephanie Kuehnert. And I could see it. It completely changed the way I saw things and allowed me to safely become part of a world I had never before even glimpsed. It definitely didn't make me want to try drugs, but it made me better able to understand the place mentally and emotionally someone might be in that would make them reach for them.

Abusive relationships are another thing that I didn't understand. Why don't they just leave? I used to think that all the time. All the time. I come from a family of very strong willed women, on both sides, and allowing someone to treat you like last week's garbage is something I couldn't comprehend. I have a cousin whose boyfriend tried to hit her once, and she broke one of those huge old fashioned telephones over his head... But then I started reading books that deal with abusive relationships. And, I can't pretend to truly understand them, even still, and part of my is now pleadingly thinking, Why won't they just leave, but part of me also understands them better now. It's not that easy and the abusers make sure that it's not.

Laurie Halse Anderson has also written some brilliant books. In Speak, Melinda has lost her voice after being raped at a party by a much older boy and the whole school just thinks of her as that annoying little kid who calls the cops, and no one thinks to wonder why. In Twisted, Tyler is 16 and feels like he has the whole world on his shoulders. The back blurb for this one is utterly perfect — Everyone told him to be a man. No one told him how. This is one of the most authentic and real Male POVs written by a woman I've ever read. Wintergirls is a story of a severe eating disorder and LHA captures the deeper emotions perfectly. Eating Disorders aren't really about food or weight, not really. And they are about more than control too. And Anderson manages to capture all of this, to bring it to light and to really make the reader feel everything alongside Lia.

In Homecoming, Dicey's mentally ill mother leaves her four children in a mall parking lot and young Dicey is now responsible for keeping them together, keeping them safe and fed and getting them to someone who can help. When She Hollers is about a thirteen year old girl who is being raped by her stepfather and her mother doesn't want to see it. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian is about life on an Indian Reservation and what happens when you try to straddle both worlds only to find that you now belong in neither place. Want to Go Private? warns about the dangers of internet predators and can be applied to predators in all areas of life.

Other books like Revolution or Drums, Girls and Dangerous Pie deal with the death or illness of a younger brother, something that terrifies me, because I have four of them. The Sky is Everywhere is about the sudden death of a beloved older sister, something else that I have. In If I Stay, Mia's whole family is suddenly killed in a car accident, leaving her to make the choice to stay alone or leave to join them. In Jellicoe Road, nearly every character has something going on that makes your heart ache. In Saving Francesca, Francesca needs to learn how to cope with depression, both her mother's and her own. Tom in The Piper's Son has had a really crappy couple of years and he's in a really bad place when the book starts that he needs to find his way out of. Where the Red Fern Grows, my absolute favorite book from childhood makes me sob every time those dogs die.

I suppose throughout writing this post I've answered my own question. I'm drawn to these books for two reasons. One, because I've never lived through anything like this and these books allow me to talk a walk through someone else's shoes for a while, to gain a better understanding and appreciation for what they went through. But also, and this is probably the stronger of the two, I read these books because they make me feel. Nothing wrings out my emotions so thoroughly like reading about the struggles and challenges of a character in a truly well written book. My emotions get so completely tied into these stories that I genuinely mourn the lost characters, my heart aches with their pains, and I am well and truly saddened when I close the book because these people who I have suffered with aren't actually real.

Stories that make me feel that strongly are always my favorites. There is something special about a book that can make me cry, those gulping heaving sobs that are so incredibly unattractive, that unashamed and completely broken crying. A lot of books make me tear up, or sniffle, even cry almost pretty for a page or two. But it takes a special kind of book, a unique strength to the characters, the writing and the storytelling to completely break me. And those are the stories that stay with me for the longest. Those are the stories that I love. And that is why I love these books dealing with heavy topics, why I'm drawn to issue books, the tough stuff. Because it's raw and real and emotional and so completely ready to become a part of me.

I think this might be the first time I've ever really and truly 'gotten my rant on' about a topic here on the blog. What's my topic? The current usage of OCD in YA Literature. So brace yourselves, because Ashley is about to get very angry.

(This is a big enough topic, and one that I've been thinking about long enough that I've actually decided to write two posts on this one — one here on Danya's blog, and then a longer, more detailed (and rantish) post here on my own blog.)

There is something that's been popping up in a lot of YA books recently that's really been getting on my nerves. I've wanted to write a post about it for a long time, and I decided that Danya's Psychtember was as good an excuse as I was ever going to get. I'm going to warn you right now (and again later, cuz I'm like that) that this is a very long, very angry rant post. All of my anger and frustration at what I perceive to be the usage and misrepresentation of OCD in YA literature has been laid out for you to see. If you want the condensed version (wimp: P) you can in my blog to visit Danya's blog where you'll be able to read my shorter post.

I don't know how many books need to be written for something to actually qualify as a 'trend' but I've been noticing something in YA lately that has me more than a little concerned. And that's the use of OCD. OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is a serious and debilitating mental illness. It can manifest itself in innumerable ways, and with varying levels of intensity or severity. I'm a little bit concerned that lately it's been made light of in YA literature.

What do I mean by this? Let me first explain what an OCD really is. A lot of people joke about having an OCD because they like to keep their desk organized, or have a specific order to the way they clean their room. But most people who are going to joke about an OCD not only do not have one, but they have no real understanding of what it is to live with an OCD either. An OCD is debilitating, it's severe and it's not something you can ignore when it's convenient. To be diagnosed with an OCD, you must have obsessions, which are persistent, irrational thoughts you can't control, that even though you recognize them as being irrational or inappropriate, you can't make them go away, can't talk yourself out of them, as well as compulsions, which are actions you use to overcome the obsessions. But even more than that, to be considered a diagnosable OCD, it must also be disruptive to your life. That means that an OCD isn't a minor annoyance or inconvenience. To have a legitimate OCD, it must be severe.

An OCD can manifest itself in hundreds or thousands of ways. The compulsions are what most people focus on our talk about in relation to OCD. The compulsions are things like washing hands, checking every door and window in the house 3 times before bed in a specific order, tapping the outside of a door twice before you can open it etc. and they are not something that can be avoided, forgotten or skipped. It's not like, Oh, I'm tired today, guess I'll just do it next time. It is something that must be done to control the obsessive thoughts. OCD is an anxiety disorder. And the anxiety a person would feel if they tried to forcibly pass on an OCD ritual?! Ain't gonna happen... If for some reason they did manage to fall asleep before completing their compulsive rituals, they would wake up, and not a pleasant waking up either, but one filled with stress and anxiety. But it's important that we not forget about the obsessions. Obsessions are thoughts that are irrational, and uncontrollable. These obsessive thoughts are what lead you to your compulsive actions. So, you might obsess over a feeling of being dirty, that for some reason you are dirty inside and out and these thoughts give you so much anxiety that to lessen the stress of these thoughts, you wash your hands. But it's a temporary relief, and the next time the thought comes, you wash again and again and again. It's not being paranoid that you left your car unlocked, so you go back to check. It's this thought that if you don't go back and check the car again, something unimaginably bad is going to happen. So you check again, even though you know you locked it before. And the obsessive thought isn't always logical, it doesn't always lead to a natural compulsion either. It might be that you believe that if you don't wash your hands every 30 minutes, someone will die. So, you know that this isn't true. You know no one is going to live or die because you washed your hands. But you have to wash your hands anyway. You have to.

So here's the thing that really gets me angry — OCD is a serious, debilitating, destructive and emotionally (and sometimes physically) exhausting disorder. But it's not always treated as such. People make light of it all the time, discussing it, laughing about it as if OCD is no big deal, just some minor annoyance. And a lot of the books I've read lately with OCD characters perpetuates this. These books are furthering the ignorance surrounding OCD. Warning — This next section is very possibly going to come across as very harsh & snarky & angry, but this is a rant, so deal...

I feel like some of these authors heads must have sat down and gone through a combination of the following ideas-
Hmm... My hero is super perfect. Like, he's gorgeous, rich, super nice, everyone loves him when they talk to him, etc... But, no one wants to read about a completely flawless boy... We get too much flack for that. Ooh!! I KNOW! I'll give him an OCD!! Then he's a perfectly flawed hero & I can still let him be perfect! Because an OCD is a flaw!! *fist pump

OR

I want this dude (or dudette) to have some kind of mental illness. But what to do? What to do?... It can't be something like schizophrenia, because everyone knows that's untreatable and like, serious and stuff... Depression is so last publishing season, everyone's been using that one and I don't want some sad chick. Hmm... Lets google this... Oooh, this looks promising! I'll give them an OCD!! PERFECT! They can be 'troubled' and struggle, but still have a mostly normal life. I love it. Aren't I so brilliant. *pats on back*

OR

Just add OCD & stir — Instant Character Depth!

Now, I'm actually pretty sure that none of these authors have ever actually sat down and thought this. (and I hope that I never find out if they have). But that doesn't change the fact that it seriously upsets me when I read these characters in a YA novel who have been given a legitimate and serious mental disorder being made to seem as if it's just not that big of a deal. Like it's something they can brush off or use to their advantage (*whines — It's just my OCD today. It's acting up). It is not like that. OCD is something that can be managed and stabilized and, depending on the type of OCD, the severity and the stressor that induced/triggered it, sometimes, it can even be cured (although, as with any mental illness, cure is a relative term...) . But it is not something that just gets to go away because you want it to, or because it's easier today to just not deal with it. It's a mental illness. And if you have it, you have it. And let me tell you — I know someone, in real life who struggled with this. And you know what, it sucks. Like, hard core. It's not fun, it's not something to laugh about and it doesn't give "depth". It's a DISORDER.

Sigh. But, I did warn you that this post was going to be long and rantish.

And, yes — I'm deliberately not naming names or pointing fingers. I deliberately decided against using specific titles because my annoyance with the usage of OCD in YA right now has made it so that some of these books that probably do a fine job of it lose me as soon as the love interest or main character has OCD. I'm not talking about books that have chosen to write about OCD specifically. I'm talking about books that deal with a different topic altogether, and use OCD as a side plot... But this post is an angry post. So I'm leaving titles and names out of the anger. But I gotta tell you, I'm getting might tired of it.

So authors, Please stop using psychological disorders as a way to add interest to a character. If it's a legitimate and important part of who they are, they Yes! PLEASE use it. We need more books dealing with mental health in a positive and accurate way. But, if you are going to use mental health, do NOT google search it and assume you are an expert. Take more time to research, talk to therapists and licensed mental health professionals. Talk to people who have the disorder. But more than anything else, treat it with respect.

So, I wasn't going to say anything about the WSJ article. I said my piece on Twitter, I've read many, many posts about the subject and kind of felt that everyone had said all their was to say about the subject and said it very well.

BUT

Then, I started noticing that there are a lot of people rebutting the rebuttal. There are people defending her article and I listened to her defend herself on a radio show (you can listen here) . She talks about how she comes across as anti-reading. She's sad that people are saying that parents do not have the right to have a say in what their kids read.

I don't think that. I don't think that at all.

I'm very anti-censorship. I'm very, very anti-censorship. BUT a parent has the right, has the complete right to be involved in what their children are reading. A parent has the right to make an informed and educated decision with their child and decide that a child isn't emotionally ready for a particular book. That is your right as a parent. A mother called in on the radio show with Meghan and said that she was horrified to learn that her 10 year old daughter and her friends were reading Breaking Dawn and she told her daughter that she was not allowed to read it. So she completely supports the WSJ article. But here's the thing. That book was not written for a 10 year old audience. Stephenie Meyer herself mentioned that she wouldn't let her youngest son read her book because she thought he was too young for it, even though he had read the other Twilight books. You are the parent. You have that right with your own child.

I read those #YASaves tweets on Twitter. I tweeted my own. I was a part of that Twitter conversation for hours. This debate is not about censorship. Not the way you mean. This debate is about whether these books are being written because they 'sell'. To you, this is a debate about consumerism. That because these books are edgy, daring, and gritty, people are reading them. And even though I know the odds of you reading this are slim, I'm here to tell you that YOU ARE WRONG.

Books like Scars, Thirteen Reasons Why, Shine, But I Love Him, and those other books dealing with 'dark' subject matter are not written OR read because they are 'edgy'. They are written and they are read because they save lives. The Twitter hashtag was NOT about why it's cool to read Young Adult novels, was not simply about why people read those dark and gritty novels. Did you read any of those tweets? Did you pay attention to the hashtag? YASaves. SAVES. Those tweets were heartfelt out pourings of emotions. Those tweets were people coming together and talking about which YA books SAVED THEIR LIVES. I'm not talking about books that kept them from being bored, or got them better grades in school. Some of those 'dark' and 'lurid' books out there that you are so quick to brush off as commercial and unnecessary are saving the lives of teenagers EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

THAT is why people got so upset about your article. To me, it's pretty obvious that you are pro-reading. You are a children's book reviewer and you are actually taking the time to talk about books. You are pro-reading. But you are anti-reality. Your condescending comments about how people 'claim' that these darker toned YA books 'validate' the teenage experience clearly illustrate that you don't get it. As does your radio interview where you talk about how surprised you are to be attacked by so many people about this subject.

You claim that your post was merely a way to point out the 'trend' in YA that wasn't there 30 or 40 years ago, that you were simply making a calm and rational argument, to announce the trend. But that isn't true. Not entirely. If that's all you were doing, you would not have linked vampire themed novels with books dealing with self-harm and suicide. Because they are very, very different kinds of books, very different kinds of dark. So what you have done, is not say that you are anti-book or anti-reading. What you have done is say that you would rather live in a world like the 50s, where bad things happened every single day, but no one talked about it. The main difference between now and then is not that it happens more often now, but that now people TALK about it. People come forward and say I am stronger than the silence.

Meghan, I want you to send an email to these authors you are brushing off as unimportant and commercially sensational. These authors you have condescendingly claimed try to validate the teenage experience. Ask them. Ask them to share with you their reader response. Ask THEM what teens are telling them about the impact of their book. You are going to hear something from them. Something that should soften your heart and open your mind. Each of these authors who write these books you call dark and lurid are going to tell you that they have received letter upon letter, year after year, day after day thanking them because their book saved their life.

These books are SAVING LIVES. So, send a letter or email to Cherly Rainfield (that's her own arm on the cover of Scars you know. That book is written through her experiences and her own pains.) Talk to Laurie Halse Anderson, Ellen Hopkins, Sherman Alexie, Chris Crutcher, Stephanie Kuuehnert and Jay Asher. Do you know what the common theme you are going to find? Redemption. Hope. LIFE. These books save lives. Not in the arbitrary or abstract. In REALITY. People pick up these books, realize they are not alone and they seek help. They stop their destructive behaviors. They tell the truth. They LIVE.

THAT is why the YA Universe is so upset about your article. NOT because we think parents don't have the right to have a say in what their kids read. NOT because we think that every single book is a perfect fit for every single kid. NOT because we think you think that no one should be allowed to read anything other than rainbows and lollipops. NOT because we enjoy depravity and get thrills from reading books about disparity. People are upset because you don't GET it. You are missing the point. The justification isn't that these books 'validate' the teen experience. These books ARE the teen experience.

These books teach teens that they are not alone, that their experiences are valid, that the bad things that have happened to them are NOT THEIR FAULT, that there is still hope, that things get better. These books help these kids hold on, seek help, and they teach compassion. I have never been bullied. But, because of books like Thirteen Reasons Why I am able to understand what bullying does to a kid and you had better believe that I'm going to pass that lesson along to my own

Meghan, before you condemn an entire body of writing, you should talk to the people who write it and the people they are trying to reach. Maybe, instead of simply defending your stance and trying to prove that you really are in the 'right' here, you should try listening to what the people are saying. These books save lives. Real lives of real kids. If this is really your opinion, and you are going to stand by it this strongly, maybe you should be the one to talk, individually, to these writers, like Cheryl, who write from personal experience, and go to these teenagers, individually whose lives have been saved by the powerful messages they've read and tell them that it's too dark. Tell them that their experiences don't really belong in books. And then you can come back and tell us that you still believe you are in the right. Listen to teenagers, the very people you feel you are trying to protect tell you why this book is necessary and then come back and tell me that this book that is saving lives isn't really good enough. Try it. I dare you.

So, this post is going to be going up quite a bit later than I had originally planned... Sorry about that...

I've been wanting to write a "Why I Blog" post for a while now. It's been a pretty popular topic among the blogging world lately, and I wanted to mention how I feel about blogging, especially because what I have to say seems different than what other people say. I figured my first blogging birthday would be the perfect time to say what I have to say. So, even though the day is getting close to being over, I wanted to share my views on blogging, and why it is that I blog.

In almost every single "Why I Blog" post I've read, the blogger in question mentions never believing they would have any following, let alone the number that currently follows their blog, and that they would continue blogging even if there wasn't a single person reading their posts, so every new follower/reader/commenter means something extra special. And, honestly, I don't believe them. Sounds harsh I know. But think about it — blogging is a huge time commitment and it isn't easy. There are days when it's really hard to find the motivation or desire to post anything and times when words or reviews just won't come.

I personally would not keep blogging if no one read my reviews. If I never had a single reader, I would stop blogging. I got more feedback than that posting my reviews only on Goodreads. I do need to say this is not about numbers to me. I rarely check my blogging stats. I don't even know where to find a lot of the information bloggers talk about for their blogs. Why? Because I don't care. Stats, views, unique hits and all that other stuff has never been important to me.

Confusing, right? I wouldn't keep blogging if I had zero people reading my reviews, but I don't actually care about numbers and statistics. So, how does this work?

Because I would blog if I had one reader. That's all I need to feel like my blog is worth my time. One person who thinks what I have to say is worth reading.

I started blogging because I love books. I love to talk about books. I could talk about my favorite books for hours on end, going over my favorite parts, what I liked, what I didn't over and over and over. And I do. My best friend has heard about my favorite books so many times now that I'm pretty sure she can quote what I think about them verbatim with all the same inflections that I would use. My sister and my mom can probably make the same claim.

I started this blog because there were aspects to the reading community on Goodreads that I loved, and I wanted more of that. I wanted more people online, who also loved books as much as I do to sit and chat with. I wanted to meet more people who I could go to if I needed more recommendations, and I wanted to find people I could push my favorites on. I can't tell you what an amazingly gratifying feeling it is to recommend an absolute favorite book to someone and have them come back glowing and gushing to tell you how amazing the book was and how thankful they are that you recommended it. But, I bet that most of you have felt that before. I imagine that a lot of you bloggers out there have had a similar experience, so you know.

I started blogging because I wanted to be there for the conversation. I wanted to be there hearing about all these great new books coming out, and I wanted to meet people like me. I've always been around people who enjoy reading, but don't know anyone in real life who feels about reading the same way I do. My mom reads a lot, and we do share books (although she's not as 'nice' to books as I am, so I'm always a little leery lending her my copies.: P) but she doesn't really do the 'book talk' thing. She will tell me if she liked it, and maybe a little bit of why, but there isn't a ton of discussion there. My sister also loves reading, and we have a lot more discussion than my mom. But, she has three little kids, 5 and under, so she (understandably) doesn't have a ton of time to read. My best friend listens to me rave, or rant about particular books, and it's always part of our conversations, but although she enjoys reading, it isn't something she does a lot of. And on and on.

So, I wanted to find a place where I could go to talk about books when and how I wanted, and to meet other people that felt the same. My whole motivation behind blogging. If I didn't have any blogger friends to talk to, why would I do it?

And, since this is a post about why I blog, and I'm being honest here, I also have to say that it's pretty awesome to have someone, especially someone you don't know and have never met stop by and tell you that they think what you have to say is pretty great. Who doesn't like to hear that what they had to say touched someone, changed their opinion of a book, or influenced them to buy a copy? Come on. If you say you don't like hearing people think you are great/smart/well-spoken/awesome/insightful and etc, then I'm going to say I think you lie.

So this, dear readers and friends, is why I blog. I blog to spread the word about books that I love, and get other people to read and fall in love with them too, to make new friends, find new favorite books and to talk about books.

There are these things right now, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (or SOPA) and the Protect-IP Act, that are getting a lot of attention. And chances are, that if you are spending much time online right now (Jan 18) you have run into at least one site that has been 'blacked out' in protest. (If you haven't, go to Google's homepage).

I thought about joining the black out, and the idea of it really appeals to me, because I am strongly, adamantly opposed to these two bills. But I'm not going for a black out, because, quite honestly, I'm pretty sure I would break my blog.

So, instead, I'm going to give you a quick run down of why I think these two bills are so detrimental and then I'm going to direct you to how and where you can actually make a difference.

FIRST: What are they?

Essentially, the purpose of these two bills is to stop the blatant copyright violations we see online. The goalis that it can be used to restrict the ability of sites to steal copyrighted information and content (movies, music, books, television shows, etc). And honestly, I think that is all fine and good. We have copyright laws for a reason and if you hold that copyright, you should legally be allowed to protect it.

However. The wording of these bills is far too vague to be effective in the way the bill intends. People who support this bill claim that it will only be used in extreme cases to protect blatant and flagrant violations of copyright. But by now, I think everyone is fully aware that when a law gives you a little bit of wiggle room, you wiggle and jiggle and finagle until you've taken advantage of every bit you possibly can.

So. To protect media copyrights, this bill will grant corporations the ability to have a US website shut down if it violates the copyright laws, or it will force US ad agencies and money/payment services (like Paypal) to remove all advertisements or connection to these sites.

To get a website restricted/blackballed/turned off (whatever you want to call it) all the copyright holder needs to do is get a court order. And to get a court order... Do you know what you need? A judge. ONE judge who agrees with you and is willing to sign off. There is no due process, no opportunity for you to make a case for yourself, nothing. If a copyright holder who feels they have been violated can convince a judge that this website has wronged them, it's over. And that's it.

This is not the best analysis of SOPA out there. There are many more, some who have more information, and some who, I'm sure, present it in a much clearer manner.

But what I AM going to do is provide you with a way to make a difference.

SOPA is the bill being voted on in the House of Representatives.
Protect-IP is the version being debated in the Senate.

I did an internship in the office of my Senator and here are some things I can tell you, so that when you call in to voice your concerns, they actually pay attention-

Do NOT call the Senate and complain about SOPA. It's a House of Representatives Bill, so the Senate hasn't 'seen' SOPA yet, and they won't 'see' it unless the House votes on it and it passes. Calling your Senator to tell them to VOTE NO doesn't do anyone any good, because they won't be voting on it at all. So, when you call your Senator, talk about the Protect-IP act instead. (and vice versa for the House).

Another thing — If you are from Minnesota, don't call a California Senator's office and expect them to care. It doesn't make a difference. Most offices will politely listen to what you have to say, get you off the phone quickly and then disregard your concerns. It sounds harsh, I know, but honestly — a Congressman's responsibility is to their own Constituents. So call YOUR state Senators and House members.

Also — When you call the House of Representatives, know which District you are calling from. House members are state representatives, but their primary focus is to their own district. It is a way to be sure that all areas of the state are equally represented. So a call to the House member from your District will bear more weight.

Don't know who or how to contact them? The following website is GOLDEN. It lists every single member of the Senate and House of Representatives, sorted by state and includes an email address as well as a link to their website. GO HERE:
GIANT List of Congressional awesome

OR you can call this number — 202-224-3121. This is the number for the Senate Switchboard operator. Ask for the Senator from your state & they will transfer you to the correct office. AND many of the staffers you speak to will be willing to transfer your calls 'in house' as well. So, call one Senator, who will transfer you to the office of the other Senator, who will transfer you to the House member from your district.

I'd love to have you come back and comment after, letting me know if it was successful, who you talked to, why you are against (or for) SOPA/Protect-IP.

It's something that will drastically effect almost everyone and can seriously change the sharing of information in the future, and it's something I think everyone should care about.

So go out, research & contact your Congressman. This is why we elect them, so that they can represent the interests of their constituency. So speak out!