On change and book-tracking

In which you get to work through my thought process with me. 

Like many others, I'm trying to use Amazon less. For a long time, my line in the sand in buying stuff from Amazon was books; as someone who works in publishing, and who deals with the fulfillment and distribution side of it, I know how bad Amazon is for publishers. (And just to work with, in general, from that side. Ugh! My go-to answer for "What's the least favorite part of your job?" in interviews has been "Dealing with Amazon," and it pretty much always gets a knowing laugh.)

But there's a book-related entity that's owned by Amazon that I use regularly and keep trying to ignore its ownership: Goodreads. I joined Goodreads in 2010, three years before its purchase by Amazon. And it's always had its controversies, but still. At some point I got bored and inputted my reading history, going back to 2004. 

There are alternatives, I know, the most prominent being The StoryGraph, which I try not to judge too much for the "The" in its name. (I'm sure it was so they could get the web domain or some other valid reason.) I tried to do StoryGraph maybe a year or so ago. I ported over all my data, so I wouldn't lose everything. But I just find it incredibly not user-friendly. Some of that undoubtedly is my own resistance to change.

I admit I like re-reading the reviews I've written for books; someone mentions a book and I'm like, "Oh, I've read that! What did I think about it?" (which is why I write reviews for pretty much everything I read nowadays; I'm mad at my past self for not writing down my thoughts and now I don't remember anything about the book). On Goodreads, if I pull up a book that I've written a review of, it pops right up, followed by reviews from other people.

On StoryGraph, the review is there. You just have to hunt for it.

And I'm sure I'd get used to clicking on the little "see review" in the upper right. It's just that I'd rather see that--or others' comments on the book--than what they actually have on the main page:

I...do not particularly care about any of that. Or, I do, but I definitely will not consult StoryGraph when I'm figuring out what to read, though I'm sure many do. There are times when I'm more in the mood for plot-driven than character-driven, and I'm sure rating this kind of thing is helpful for many other readers. It really comes down to wishing that I could customize the page. 

I'm also annoyed that if I go to thestorygraph.com on my browser, it assumes I'm not logged in, so I sign in--in a new window--and it's all, "You're already signed it." Dude, I know. I just need to learn to go to app.thestorygraph.com.

That said, even just playing around on the site has gotten me more familiar with how it works, which is good. I also quite like the Stats page they have and that you can give books half (or quarter!) stars. 

Honestly, the biggest hurdle to totally switching is that pretty much all my friends are on Goodreads. I like seeing what they're reading and reading their reviews. Right now I only have one friend on Storygraph; I guess if you want to join there, feel free to friend me--my handle there is @editbarb. We can all see whether I get bored enough to load the books I've read since...um, November 2024. Sigh. And then stay active.

It's also interesting seeing what other options are out there. For example, NetGalley, which I sometimes use to get advance reader copies of books, has launched Booktrovert. They aren't really going for the same vibe; they're less about tracking books and more about discovering books through giveaways or sweepstakes, getting preorder offers, actually reading books through their platform, playing games, participating in reading challenges, and that kind of thing (per their "About" page). You can track books there (and categorize them in "Stacks"), but it doesn't look like you can even rate them, much less write reviews.

It is kind of neat. I'm always pro offers of free books, and you can create cute virtual bookshelves and do bingo cards for reading challenges. They also have book-related merch, which is also fun. It's probably smart of them to not challenge Goodreads in the book tracking sector but instead offer something adjacent with the reach they have of NetGalley. 

There are other sites/apps, too, like Fable, Bookmory (seems to be app-only), Hardcover, LibraryThing, Bookwyrm, Bookly, and more. It's enough to make me wish I had the energy to evaluate all of them to see what matches best for what I want.

Though as I said, one of the biggest drawbacks to leaving Goodreads would be losing my friends there. I could always just keep getting the Goodreads emails to see what people are up to...we'll see. 

At least they didn't get the Fabulous Baseball Diamond

We're all kind of obsessed with the Louvre heist, right? I mean, sure, it's probably because we collectively need something to distract us. I was going to say "something fun," but "fun" probably isn't the right word. It's bad that the people of France have lost their crown jewels! That's not OK! (And if you want a good visualization of what happened, the BBC has you covered.)

But honestly, ever detail about this heist is amazing. Which has led to some amazing memes, and honestly what more can we ask for?  

The fact that the Louvre heist didn’t take place at dawn, but at the very reasonable hour of 9:30 a.m. shows that even French jewel thieves have a better work-life balance than us.

— Leslie Gaar (@thelesliegaar.bsky.social) October 19, 2025 at 7:09 PM

hang this in the louvre (there's room now)

— derek guy (@dieworkwear.bsky.social) October 19, 2025 at 10:57 PM

I spend a year plotting a mystery novel and then this happens.

[image or embed]

— Maureen Johnson (@maureenjohnsonbooks.com) October 19, 2025 at 9:56 PM

This photo accompanying a news story about the heist at the Louvre is perfection.

[image or embed]

— Carrie Tait (@carrietait.bsky.social) October 19, 2025 at 5:56 PM

And, of course, I'd be remiss in neglecting to mention the other prominent jewel heist of a European museum. 

I think part of it, too, is that it's the French crown jewels. Had you asked me a week ago whether France even had crown jewels, I would've assumed no. I can't believe they made it through the Revolution! And I feel like people don't talk about them the way they talk about the British crown jewels...probably because the Brits still have a monarchy, so the jewels make appearances somewhat regularly.

I will say, having been to the Louvre and the Hermitage and other palaces in Russia, the level of monarchical ostentation in France and Russia is beyond anything I've seen at palaces in the UK. Going to the Peterhof, you look around and are like, "Yes. I can see why people revolted." It all fascinates me, but at the same time, I think that's part of the reason I can't be too upset. Though the thought of the individual pieces being broken up is sad; they truly are works of art.

Bananaball in Baltimore

If you've been on social media the past couple years, you've probably seen clips of the Savannah Bananas. They appeal to me for obvious reasons--combining baseball and choreographed dancing? AMAZING. Naturally I was all in.

The Bananas came to Camden Yards this past weekend and we were lucky enough to get tickets (thanks to my Orioles season ticket plan; I didn't win the Bananas lottery). (They were also really awful seats; we had pretty much no say in where the tickets were--all I could indicate was the $40 right field upper deck because that was, I think, all that was available. I'm still pretty miffed at where we wound up, but oh well.)

It was a really good time. When they go to MLB parks, the Bananas line up former players to make cameos in the game; we got Adam Jones and former manager Buck Showalter, plus the band All Time Low. The crowd went absolutely nuts for all of them. 

It was pretty overwhelming. There was literally always music playing. Various "cast members" (Bananas staff and players not in the night's game--the pitcher with the hat above showed up in our section a few times) would appear in the stands randomly for things like a sing-off. The game would be actively going on and the Banana mascot would be wandering around the outfield, or a group of players would run down to the foul pole to climb it. There'd be a brief pause as players did an elaborate dance before an at-bat (and having watched countless of these online, it was interesting watching the logistics of the filming):

The Bananas do a dance for an at-bat at the game on Friday, August 1 at Camden Yards.

For the game itself, players would periodically make trick plays. It was very difficult to figure things out about what was going on during the game; there was only one place in the park that showed balls, strikes, and outs. (It also showed trick plays and the clock--Banana games have a limit of 2 hours) I had tried to remind myself of the rules specific to Bananaball, but a lot of them slipped my mind, which meant I was very confused when the Bananas left the field after scoring a run in a late inning (due to the complexities of the scoring system, which I will not bore you with). 

I had fun singing along and watching the million things going on. But I don't feel like I need to see them again for at least 5 years or so. It was all spectacle and craziness and I liked it, but I don't know that I'd call it exciting. I'm sure there are people with favorite players, but it's not like the result of the game mattered. (I can't actually find the Bananas' win-loss record for the year.) The Bananas PTB get offended when people compare them to the Harlem Globetrotters, saying that the games are real and not scripted (other than the various antics). And while they may not know who's going to win, the issue is, it doesn't matter who wins.

I chatted with a friend who isn't a baseball fan and went, and I said that people weren't invested in the game. She pointed out the many people in Bananas gear, which is true, but I couldn't discern much of a difference in crowd noise when the Bananas scored. People have Bananas gear because they like the concept and the spectacle; I don't think they particularly cared about--or wore involved in--the game on the field. 

I do wonder what it would be like to see a game in the Bananas' own stadium in Savannah. I'm pretty sure they do have season ticket holders; there probably are people who are emotionally invested. But those aren't the majority attending games at MLB (or NFL) stadiums. And clearly enough people are watching for ESPN to broadcast their games.

I also wonder about their staying power. They've been around for 5 years; I wonder what they'll look like in another 5. 

Lizzie + William 4ever!

A while back, I heard about this web video series The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, a modern retelling of Pride & Prejudice as told via YouTube, Twitter, and Pinterest. I bookmarked the page and promptly forgot about it...until I was desperately trying to avoid some freelance work I had to do. And then I promptly watched the 86 Lizzie episodes, the 28 Lydia videos, and the various Maria and Domino videos, and read the various Twitter updates. You know what's WAY more interesting than medical editing? The Lizzie Bennet Diaries!

I'm not big into people messing with Austen. The continuations of the books hold little appeal, and while I mostly enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I didn't like how it messed with Lizzie's character.

You want to know an Austen adaptation that works? Clueless, the modernization of Emma. And the LBD succeeds for the same reason Clueless did: the heart of the characters are the same, but a bunch of the details are changed. LBD sticks much more closely to the story of P&P than Clueless to Emma, but both maintain the soul of the people.

Ashley Clements is an amazing Lizzie, but what I've found fantastic is the portrayal of a number of the secondary characters, particularly Lydia (Mary Kate Wiles). Holy crap, y'all. I never really thought that much about Lydia beyond what's in the book; I just accepted her story. But what Bernie Su and the other writers do with this character, and how Wiles brings her to life, is just brilliant. There's a depth to Lydia that I don't remember in the original, but at the same time, it feels completely organic.

It's symbolic of how LBD somehow manages to bring surprises to a story that I know well. The details of Lydia's journey is the largest of these, but the tweaks made to certain other characters and storylines manage to combine the original story with modern times. Charlotte Lu(cas) (Julia Cho) has been fleshed out, but remains the pragmatic character from the story. Georgiana (Gigi) Darcy (Allison Paige) still wants her brother to end up with Lizzie, but she's the one character who seems off from the original--a bit too assertive. (I'm also not sure how I feel about Caroline.) But it is the 21st century, after all.

And Darcy. Because of the setup of the story--told through Lizzie's own video diaries--we don't see him until about six months into the story. We hear a LOT about him, but we don't see the man himself until WAY into the story. It serves the story well; this format only emphasizes that Lizzie is the "prejudice" in the title of the original, and she tells us all about his "pride." And yet, with seeing him only a few minutes, I can't help but pull for him.

The story, unfortunately, is rapidly heading toward its conclusion, and I'm left in suspense with how they're going to handle the climax of the book. After binging on the videos, it's torture to have to wait for new content likes this (it's like how I started reading Harry Potter when the first three were out, and only had to wait a few months before Goblet of Fire came out...and then had the torture of waiting for the last three to be released).

Yet I want it to just keep going, but I don't want to stop hanging out with these people.

Espcially Fitz. Because he's AWESOME.

Behind the times

I consider myself fairly up on pop culture. I do pretty well in general conversation; if someone mentions a book or a movie or an Internet meme or celebrity scandal, I usually have heard of it and am familiar with the general situation/plot/whatever.

I run into problems with music, though. I don't think I've been really up on music since I was in elementary school (and buying Madonna's True Blue on record). I frequently have heard of a song--which, when it comes to a movie or tv show, is good enough. I can cough up actors or the latest evictee from a reality show. But with music? It's harder. I can see people referring to songs, but rarely have I actually heard the song.

For example, watching Glee, a lot of the time, I'm all, "I don't know this song at all," and my friend Dave will be all, "Really???" I heard of Cee Lo Green's "F--k You" AGES ago, but only just heard the song itself a couple of days ago (when I finally watched the video on YouTube) (totally worth it, by the way) (and, OK, I did it because I know it's going to be on Glee next week). Katy Perry's "California Gurls"? Heard of it in, like, June. Heard the song? August or so.

This is the problem with getting so much your pop culture knowledge from the Internet instead of actually experiencing it for myself.

So glad my brain retains this stuff

I was at work the other day when a guy walked by. I asked a coworker who it was, and she said, "Oh, that's Gordon." And out of nowhere, my mind went here:




I cannot remember the last time I thought of Mother Goose Rock 'n' Rhyme, a Disney movie that first aired in 1990. I recorded it and watched it approximately a million times. Depite it being at least, oh, 15 years since I've seen that, I can sing along to that song. And I totally had a crush on Dan Gilroy, who played Gordon. (Though I liked him in the outfit he wears through most of the movie; less so the new jacket and hat from the end of the movie.)

Naturally, I immediately had to see whether there were any clips on YouTube. And the whole thing is on there! I have never been so happy!* And at some point, I'm going to rewatch. Because I'm sure it'll hold up! It's only been 20 years. I'm sure I'll still like everything I liked when I was 11.

* This may be an exaggeration.

Improving Wednesdays

There are a number of reasons I subscribe to The Washington Post (e.g., I worked on my college newspaper so have a soft spot for newspapers, someone has to support the people who are actually out there reporting, and so on), but even without those other reasons, I'd subscribe because the Post is what gets me through Wednesdays.

Oh, Wednesdays. It's the perfect storm. There's a new Carolyn Hax column, so I can peruse the comments. And then, the chats. WashingtonPost.com hosts multiple chats every day, most of which are weekly. And Wednesday is full of good ones: Tom Sietsema, the food critic. The Reliable Sources ladies for gossip. Monica Hesse, about Internet diversions. And, this spring, Liz and Jen dissecting the previous night's Lost. It's brilliant.

I tend to have one of those open throughout the afternoon, and I'll read a couple of questions every now and then as a distraction from work. It's a great way to take a momentary break from work.

Even if I decided to stop actually reading the paper, I'd still fork my money over just for the relief WaPo.com brings me on Wednesdays. It makes Hump Day a lot easier to get through. And you can't put a price on that.

It's really not all about fashion...thankfully

I’m not big into fashion. (If you saw the way I normally dress, this would be readily apparent.) I’m not even that interested in celebrity fashion. Sure, I’ll look at the “Best Dressed” list for the Oscars and whatnot, but I don’t watch all the red carpet stuff.

Yet I am addicted to Go Fug Yourself. Less for the fashion, more for their awesome commentary. And for the fact that they have George Clooney as an intern. (I now exclusively think of him as “Intern George.”) I love the descriptions of soap opera plots and memories of tv plots from the early 90s.

And even though my love for that site was long ago cemented, they post an entry that includes the video of the big dance scene in She’s All That, which I love, to the point that if I see that SAT is on tv, I will make sure I am watching at the right time to see that scene. That scene really does make me happy.

Paying the price

Ads on websites are something we've all accepted. The Internet is free; dealing with the ads is the price we pay. And usually, they're not too bad and it isn't a big deal at all.

I do get annoyed on sites that, after clicking a link, direct you to a short ad, and THEN you get to where you wanted to go. Now, I don't mind in certain cases. But I do get annoyed when it's a website for a publication to which I subscribe. I wish the Washington Post would have a way to realize that I subscribe when I’m fooling around on its website and spare me the ads. Ditto Entertainment Weekly. EW gets a bit more of a pass, as I don’t have to sign in to access content there. But I do for WaPo. If I’m one of the (relatively) few people who’s actually spending money for these publications, the least I could ask is for fewer ads on the websites that I’m subsidizing.

Newsflash: Joining Twitter is NOT required by law

I've long been annoyed by people who are annoyed by Facebook and Twitter. I found the epitome of this viewpoint in a chat on WashingtonPost.com today with food writer Tom Sietsema, who recently starting Tweeting:

Washington, D.C.: Just me, and I'm not a Luddite. I don't really need to read your Twitters or Tweets. If you have a good enough Web site, a good enough blog, and you have discussions on a regular and scheduled basis, then, to me,
that's sufficient. I don't see why everyone needs to be available on every "social network". Heavens' knows I appreciate all that I read under the Sietsema banner, and find almost all of it useful and/or interesting, but I doubt that I need to get minute by minute updates of each and everything. Even if it means I might be missing some minor piece of information in the global scheme of things, or missing out on the most immediate of things critical to the immediate survival of the world.

Sorry, but I don't have a Facebook or MySpace or...or a lot of other ways you can communicate with me, let alone Tweeter.

First of all, it's annoying that this person uses "Tweeter" in the second paragraph, since he or she obviously knows that it's "Twitter," having correctly used it (and "tweets"!) in the beginning of the post.

But honestly, this is sort of the height of what frustrates me about people who complain about Facebook and Twitter. "Who needs all that information? I don't need to know what someone is doing every minute!" Apparently they don't grasp that nobody actually posts what they're doing every single minute. I might check in to my Facebook and Twitter accounts twice or so during and average workday, and it'll take me maybe 10 minutes to scan what people have posted. I enjoy Facebook because it's a good way to have a vague idea of what miscellaneous friends are up to without the hassle of emailing--it makes staying in touch easier! I enjoy Twitter for a combination of similar updates, humorous comments from famous people, and deals on plays and things.

But more than anything else, dude, you don't have to sign up for Twitter. Tom is not decreeing that all must follow him. It's not like he'll offer special 140-character reviews of restaurants. It's just a way to get a different feel for what his life is like. It's like so many other things--television shows, websites, books, movies, people: If it annoys you, don't read it/watch it/hang out with them.