Audiobooks work better for me when they're very ... low impact? Example -- I listened to all of Stephen King's Bazaar of Bad Dreams on audio, but over, like, the course of a year. I would put it on in the car, or when I was folding laundry or doing dishes. And since it was short stories, it didn't matter that chunks of time passed in between listening.

I don't want The Ten Thousand Doors to end. It's such a beautiful celebration of story.

I can do multiple books (usually one print and one audio) but if they turn out to have similar plots or characters I'll put one on pause so I don't mix them up.

Right? So good.

I typically read one book with my eyes and have another book going on audio to basically fall asleep to (and then relisten to that chapter the next day while I do something that only needs half my attention). I've gotten well sucked into the world of The Angel of the Crows and am really enjoying recognizing Holmes canon, so I decided that having Belgravia also knocking around in my recent memory would get too confusing and switched over to a fairy tale audiobook. TAofC is a really interesting take on Holmes - for one thing the Holmes and Watson characters are not named Holmes and Watson but I still tend to think of them that way to the extent that when they are called by their actual in universe names it momentarily startled me. The adventures are really quite faithful although the world they take place in is very different, which is super interesting to me. And there seem to be questions of identity developing which I am generally very into

In literary gossip, what's the deal with this Elizabeth Bear/Alexandra Rowland stuff? I saw Consuela post something on Twitter believing Rowland, which is good to know since I trust Consuela's judgment; otherwise I'm just curious about what this particular blowup is all about.

And were there other issues this week, too? I keep seeing subtweets in book Twitter but I've been oblivious due to work.

Right here, Amy: [link]

I missed all that (not really on twitter) but now I have googled - that seems like a giant mess.

I like Rowland's books better than Bear's (have not read or honestly ever heard of Lynch before) so that colors my opinion.

I think "giant mess" is correct.

I have learned a bit more about the controversy: it appears that Scott Lynch may have been playing both women against each other. There are still significant issues with power differentials and Bear has in the past used her popularity & success against people, but it sounds like she may well be the victim of Lynch's manipulations nearly as much as Rowland is.

Or as someone on another forum put it: poly drama with an overlay of power & manipulation. I believe Rowland experienced what she claims, but I'm not convinced Bear is the only party here who should carry blame.

And it is interesting how much public attention is on Bear instead of Lynch...

It does seem that Bear is the one trying to smear other writers professionally by involving outside parties, so I think she deserves any pushback she's getting over it.

That is pretty much where my googling got me, Consuela. Lynch seems to be the one who has explicitly acted badly in everyone's accounts even without getting into who was manipulated