Pet peeves of a fiction obsessed sixteen year old

I have probably done plenty of these posts that either tell you more about me or more to the point what annoys me, but this time I'm going to make it more topical. I am going to talk about things in literacy, films and music that irritates me to the end of the earth and back again.

1. When people bend the page of their books and/or bend/break the spine on their books.
Okay, I do think I have a slight OCD when it comes to looking after books and if you look at about 95% of my books in my bookcase, despite having read each book several times, you will not find a single break in the spine or a bend in a page. (Apart from the dreaded initial break that you get just from opening it, but even that one is so faint you can barely see it). Literally whenever I see anyone doing either of those things I just want to slap the book out of their hands and repair the damage immediately. This is also why I very, very rarely lend my books to people unless I know they can be trusted to treat it carefully. This is also another reason why I cannot deal with library books and have never ever read a book from the library because they are always so tatty and broken that it just takes the enjoyment out of reading for me. The care of books is something I do not take lightly, my friend.

2. When there is a misprint or spelling error in a book.
This is just careless on the publishers part; although, granted, its a very rare thing to happen and even more rare with printed books. However, I've noticed especially on E-Books there can be careless mistakes and it takes you a few time to read over the sentence to understand what was trying to be said. It's extremely frustrating because the amount of times that a book is read and re-read and re-re-read before its published silly mistakes should be seen and sorted out.

3.When films based on adaptations just get the casting all wrong.
I know that everyone has their own ideas about what a certain character looks like when they are described in a book. For example, when I read a book I imagine most of my characters as cartoons and so I find it hard to describe a character to another person who is not inside my head. However, sometimes I really do question if the casting people have read the books at all; take the new Divergent movie for example, Shailene Woodley and Theo James look nothing, absolutely nothing like how I would have imagined them (you know if my brain wasn't weird and turned everyone into cartoons) I just feel like its disappointing for the fan of the books. I understand that it would be impossible to find an actor that everyone loves and imagines in the place of their favourite character but at least attempt it. Harry Potter is a fine example of brilliant casting and costume; you can just tell that the casting people took the time to read the books and study the characters with detail. I am just left feeling like that in today's Hollywood, film companies are more interested in whacking out as many films as possible without really investing too much time into them.
p.s I'm sure these actors mentioned above are good, I've yet to see them in anything but this comment is made purely on their looks (vain, I know right).

4.When books could have been finished but the author tries to milk it.
This is extremely frustrating when you find a decent new book series, you read the first few and it seems that all of the events have been rounded off well and nicely, however, then the author keeps writing new books with weaker plots. This makes the series loose its integrity and makes the reader get bored and disengaged with the writing. Authors need to know when its best to put a series to bed: know when to quit, go out on a high. Particular examples of this are The House of Night series and The Mortal Instrument series. The House of Night currently has 10 books in the series when realistically they could have stopped writing them at about book 5/6, I really cannot be bothered to continue reading the rest in the series because it is getting boring and silly. The Mortal Instruments could have been finished on book 3, that would have left the reader wanting more but not really needing it, the 4th book was lacking compared to the others and took me a long time to get through it. What I am trying to say is that if you want to write a successful book series then you need to know when enough is enough, you want the reader to want more but that they don't necessarily need to have any more because the story is strong enough without it.

5.When films change what happens in the books in a very sucky way.
Sucky isn't the most sophisticated adjective but it describes what I am talking about in the best way possible. When a film is based on an adaptation, I understand that somethings have to be changed so that they make it cinematically pleasing but when they completely change the way an event happens in the book to something that to anyone who has read the books just does not make sense, then you know you have a problem. Take Harry Potter (probably the first time I am criticising it on my blog, take note because it wont happen very often, haha) in the last film (Deathly Hallows part 2) Harry snaps the Elder Wand in half and throws it away... however, in the book, Harry uses the Elder Wand to repair his old trusty wand and then returns the Elder Wand back to Dumbledore's grave. According to the film Harry no longer has a wand after he does what he does because it does not show him fixing his previous wand. To any fan of the books this will come as a very large annoyance, it would have taken the film makers literally about 2 minutes to show what happened in the book but instead they decided on a scene that is just stupid.

YouTube is taking over the world

YouTube has recently broken away from funny cat videos to a way of actually earning a very decent living. With the YouTube community growing by the day and more and more channels being set up to achieve this dream you must ask yourself this: where did it all come from? And do these so called creators deserve the insane perks that they receive?

Whether you are making vlogs (video blogs), videos about make-up, singing videos or whatever else takes your fancy, one thing is clear: if you make good content or are attractive get ready for the big bucks. If you can get the balance right then you could be earning an estimated £100,000 per annum, although this figure could be more or less than the actual amount and is just an estimate after doing some research. Unless you are part of the YouTube partner scheme (which you are eligible for after you have passed 3000+ subscribers and once you have signed up, advertisers can then advertise on your videos and channel and that is how you make the money) they are very quiet about the sum of money that they receive. Although it must be substantial enough for the majority of them to have no other job except YouTube. 

We also know that YouTubers can make enough to purchase houses as told to the viewer on one of Charlie 

McDonnell (charlieissocoollike) videos, he stated that the money he has received from his videos has enabled him to put a mortgage down on a house. Bare in mind that Charlie has had no other job and began making videos as a teenager, so has had no other income. Charlie has recently surpassed 2,000,000 subscribers and he barely posts a video every month, yes, his content is good but how come he gets all of this by doing hardly anything?

Inside of this huge community you have a bunch of them who have hit the big time in terms of YouTube fame. They all of course know each other; probably through their swanky gatherings or conventions which always seem to be held for them. All of them have over 100,000 subscribers and that number is growing constantly.

So what is so appealing about sitting in front of a camera and getting subscribers? Well to be perfectly honest I can't see hardly any drawbacks to it: It is literally the dream job. You not only get to work from home, you get sent free stuff from companies to try out and review, you get invited to VIP events and red carpets and you get paid probably more than an average 9-5 worker for doing about 90% less work; you don't even have to have any qualifications. The only very minor drawback is that you can get some hate on the videos you create however, the thousands of fans that you have will completely heckle that person anyway. 

The thing that I find amazing these days is that YouTubers are actually treated like celebrities. Tayna Burr (pixi2woo) held a gathering and actually had to leave because of the enormity of the people that came along, security had to escort her out. What? Why? that's ridiculous she is a normal person literally like you and me. So for them to be getting the same treatment as celebrities is a little ridiculous. 

Dan and Phil (danisnotonfire and amazingphil) now have a regular slot on a prime time radio show on BBC radio one. Two YouTubers from the USA Elle and Blair Fowler (allthatglitters21 and juicystar07) have had a two book deal, a phone line, a make-up line, a clothing line and a shoe line all because they make videos. Normal people have to work damn hard to get all of that and it seems to me as if YouTubers are just handed that on a plate. They don't have any more talent than anyone else but because they have a successful channel they can get into all of this despite having no training, qualifications or even aptitude for the task, it's another case of celebrity syndrome and just want you for your name, but then to the general public who are older than 30 and don't watch YouTube they are nobodies. I am not disputing that they may work hard once they have gotten into their projects but then shouldn't they have had to work just as hard if not harder to get into the actual project? 

I understand that there is a lot more to making a video than just sitting in front of a camera, but some YouTubers now have the arrogance to actually employ someone to edit their videos for them? Excuse you but how tenacious can you get? You don't do anything else in the day except make a video so don't take it for granted and do your own dirty work. Also, when YouTubers complain that they are stressed? I'm sorry my dear, but I don't think you quite realise what stress is, when you get the luxury of having completely flexible hours, a job doing something you enjoy, a job that you have total control over,  a job with good money, need I go on? I'm not sure that you are in significant position to complain about being stressed.

Only last week a group of British YouTubers got to go on a tour to the Harry Potter Studio Tour completely for free, had goodie bags and even had a free hotel with free food all thrown in as well. Why? Some of them didn't even like Harry potter, so why not give something like that to fans who love it and will in short get more joy out of it? This doesn't just go for YouTubers but celebrities as well; why give them stuff just because of who they are?

Another thing, it seems to me that if you are attractive (especially if you're a boy) you will go far on YouTube even if you make rubbish content. So get an attractive face and then you will be partying with the big boys soon enough.

Although I have been extremely negative in this post I will still continue to watch their content because it can be entertaining and sometimes, more often than not better than TV but I know that someone who is reading this post may think that I am being jealous: maybe I am. However, I still believe that YouTube shouldn't give creators enough money that it is their sole work as it belittles the work that others without YouTube channels have to put in to get to where they are. Or perhaps this might be a brand new way and quick slide to get into fame? Who knows? Only time will tell. I suppose if you are lucky enough to be the minority that have hundreds of thousands of subscribers you should be patted on the back because clearly I am missing something that should allow you to make such massive revenue from it.