I recently discovered my youngest sibling is really getting into reading, his most recent series being A Good Girls Guide to Murder. He's annotating and everything and I'm THRILLED by this discovery, so I'm hoping to get some input on generally age-appropriate introductions to various genres.

So far he seems to enjoy thriller/mystery and is currently re-reading Fahrenheit 451 outside of school. I'm already planning to get him The Hunger Games, The Giver, and potentially another shorter dystopia series that I enjoyed at his age(Forest of Hands and Teeth or The Storm). He says he needs things to actually be happening so cozy is out for now, but I'm coming to a blank on fantasy, sci-fi, and maybe horror leaning intro books that might fit his tastes. I'd also like to be mindful of the fact that I heavily favor female protagonists but I'd like to have a few male protagonists in the mix for him as well.

As far as "age appropriate" goes he's just turning 13 but is already a big fan of horror films and the household is very lenient on most themes. Really I'm just trying not to accidentally give my brother smut with the sort of merging of New Adult and YA that seems to have happened in recent years.

So sad to see a lot of book covers generated by AI nowadays. I would rather have a random human face on my book cover than these ugly AI covers 😭 Not judging a book by its cover is becoming harder and harder these days.

I honestly would love to hear everyone’s thought on this as well though.

Note: I'm using Bridgerton as an example because it's the most recent and widespread phenomenon and it can be applied very broadly to other stories too — that's why I didn't post this on the Bridgerton forum.

Okay, I feel like this is the only place I can come to for a good-faith discussion. I can’t have this conversation over Instagram or Twitter without people thinking I’m trying to attack them. But I’m genuinely curious—and maybe a little bit miffed—but I promise I’m trying to understand.

So, as you know, Bridgerton recently announced that Francesca’s story will be the main focus of season 5, and a lot of people don’t like that—especially a lot of straight women. And this just makes me question everything, including what allyship actually means.

Because these straight women are the same women who were—okay, “frothing at the mouth” is not the right phrase—but who really, really enjoyed Heated Rivalry. They were sharing it and supporting it like nobody else. But when Francesca’s story is changed to be a lesbian romance, suddenly people don’t like it.

So my question is: why?

And I already know some of the arguments. One is that she needs time to grieve. But Bridgerton has said there will be a two-year time skip. Another is that she’s dealing with infertility, and that somehow doesn’t “make sense” in a lesbian romance. But queer people also experience infertility. That’s a very human experience—it’s not different for queer people versus straight people. Then there’s the argument that they’re changing too much from the books in the name of inclusivity (changing Michael to Michaela) and that changes how Francesca's story will play out or how they will miss out on the things that Michael does as a man (and that, to me, feels like misogyny). But Bridgerton has always changed things. Sophie isn’t Asian in the book. Neither is Kathani Sharma (Changed to brown from a white woman). Every single season has made inclusive changes. Even Benedict is queer in the show, and that wasn’t in the books—at least not from what I’ve seen people say online.

And people—especially straight women—were very supportive of Benedict’s queerness. So why is Francesca’s storyline so controversial? Why?

I’d genuinely like to know your thoughts, especially if you're someone who’s straight and also enjoyed Heated Rivalry. Why do you think you—or other straight women—feel this way about the storyline? Because to me, it feels like there’s a kind of cognitive dissonance: enjoying and consuming gay romance, but not giving the same love to lesbian romance. I’ve seen people say, “Well, I’m straight, so of course I’ll enjoy gay romance more—I want to view men’s bodies.” And honestly, that feels like it might be tied to internalized misogyny. I’ve also heard people say that gay romance gives women space to explore sexuality without without the pressure patriarchy puts on women’s bodies. But gay romance is still a story about men, from men’s perspectives. You can’t really get more patriarchal than that—it’s still centered on men.

If anything, I feel like consuming women-centered romance would be less patriarchal.

Another argument I saw was that in gay romance, you don’t have to deal with the concept of pregnancy. But that’s also true for lesbian romance. So I’m just… I’m genuinely curious. I know some nuance and tone might get lost in a post like this, but I really do want a good-faith discussion.

Why is it such a big deal to straight women that this storyline is different from the books, when previous seasons were also incredibly different—and were given so much love? Why do straight women enjoy gay romance more?

I'm only putting forth my counter arguments here for the arguments I've already heard, so you know that I've researched about the topic to form my opinions. But maybe you can go ahead and give me another perspective?

Let’s play an easy and quick game - Review Chain!

1️⃣ Post a book in the comments - just the title and author is enough. 2️⃣ Scroll through the books posted and leave a ONE WORD review (keep it spoiler free please) 🤫

Let’s see how many words can be used to describe each book, and how much they’re alike - or different! Feel free to kindly debate one another’s words!

Hope everyone is having a good week! 💛