Random quibbles about things I’ve read lately:
1. While I understand that the Glock company capitalizes the name of its pistols, seeing GLOCK in books makes me roll my eyes. It’s not an acronym — the pistol was created by Gaston Glock — just a marketing maneuver. Eh. *shrug*
2. I’m in the middle of reading a self-published gay romance set in the MLB. The author seems to have done a fair amount of research about baseball, but the team randomly switches between playing in NL and AL venues, which makes me wonder how much more research should have been done. (Gay romance rather than m/m because the book has no sex on the page.)
3. I’m still thinking about Nice. In the end, the similarity to Hello Kitty Must Die is no more than surface. In the end, I think I liked HKMD better. The alternating narration was interesting, but in the end Grace’s movement outside of standard gendered roles is aborted and she’s wedged back into the traditional HEA box, even if it is with an assassin. With her rage channeled into more socially acceptable venues presumably, guided by the better trained and better knowing Sam, married and planning a move to suburbia and two children.
4. Reading about hedge funds is so painfully dull. I’m rewarding myself: for every 10 pages of hedge fund reading, I get 10 pages of fiction. Now to figure out which new fiction to try.
ETA: 5. On P2P fiction, for one writer in particular, I have read several reviews written by readers who don’t know the books are P2P fan fiction. The general gist of their reviews is that the author did a lot of research (maybe) and established the characters firmly (uh, no, those are the characters from canon, the author didn’t build/create them) and that the plot worked but the romance got short shrift (well, that’s because the entire relationship’s backstory is understood by fandom, so the author never *had* to build a relationship for outside readers). I haven’t commented on the reviews; after doing so once, I realized that most new readers don’t want to know and resent you ruining their reading in retrospect.