Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast

If you’ve ever wondered why It (2017/2019) still crawls under our skin, this episode is your sewer-level deep dive. We revisit Chapters 1 & 2 and talk about how Stephen King’s coming-of-age terror works on two timelines—childhood and adulthood—to explore memory, guilt, friendship, and the way a town learns to look away. We break down:Pennywise as a mirror for human cruelty—and why Bill Skarsgård’s performance vaulted into horror’s pantheon.Beverly’s story of survival; Richie & Eddie’s dynamic; Mike’s under-sung backbone; and Henry Bowers’ terrifying escalation.The casting magic: kids and adult counterparts who feel like the same people decades apart.The scenes that still devastate (hello, funhouse mirrors and “you’ll float too”).Why It is one of the most effective King adaptations—and how It: Welcome to Derry extends the mythos.With horror thriving at the box office and prestige circles, this rewatch lands right as It: Welcome to Derry (a 1962-set prequel on HBO/Max) premieres, promising more of Pennywise’s origins. We connect those dots and share what modern horror trends say about It’s staying power. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What makes folk horror so unsettling? This episode maps the weird woods: isolated settings, old customs that refuse to die, and the outsider who realizes too late they can’t leave. Shereen arrives a skeptic; Meaghan leads the tour—through forests, farmlands, and edge-of-the-map towns where tradition presses against modern life.We unpack how setting becomes a character, why slow dread beats jump scares, and how folk horror pits the past against the present. We also explore how the subgenre is evolving—think eco-anxieties and even tech-resistant towns—and share a stack of must-reads and must-watches that capture the vibe: Brom’s Slewfoot, Stephen Graham Jones’s The Only Good Indians, A.M. Shine’s The Watchers, plus The Wicker Man and The Village. If you’ve ever walked into a place that felt “off” for reasons you couldn’t name, this one’s for you. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

YA horror isn’t just training-wheels terror — it’s where coming-of-age meets fear, identity, and community. In this episode, Megan and Shirin dig into why teen horror stays perpetually popular: it’s plot-forward, nostalgia-charged, and perfectly tuned to the search for self. We trace subgenres (slashers, hauntings, dark academia), talk inclusive casts and queer themes that live on the page without fanfare, and call out the steady stream of adaptations bringing YA scares to screens. Plus: nightstand reads, Montreal-set chills, and a quick tour of recent faves to start your TBR. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Horror fans, assemble. In this episode, we dive into the last decade’s most effective page-to-screen chills and why adaptations are thriving right now. We talk TV’s “Flanaverse” and how The Haunting of Hill House set a new bar for character-first terror; the surprising heart (and heartbreak) in Doctor Sleep as King’s universe expands; how AMC’s Interview with the Vampire modernizes Rice without losing the bite; why The Invisible Man works as a tech-tinged, trauma-aware update; the pure slasher fun of Fear Street; the Poe-soaked spectacle of The Fall of the House of Usher; BBC’s Dracula and a terrifying Claes Bang performance; and more—plus honorable mentions like Gerald’s Game and the 2024 gothic revival of Nosferatu.We also chat about why modern audiences (hi, millennials) keep fueling bigger horror budgets and better fidelity to source material.If you love books, films, and the delicious space where they meet, this one’s for you. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We’re three weeks into Dark Academia month and pivoting from the lack of new adaptations to the ones we want. From Ninth House and The Atlas Six to The Maidens, Bunny (plus its sequel), These Violent Delights, and The Honeys, we map the smartest book-to-screen plays—plus some spicy reader confessions (DNFs, trophy shelves, and the dusty corner).We dig into:Leigh Bardugo’s Alex Stern/Ninth House: Yale, secret societies, class tension, and occult edges tailor-made for prestige TV.Mona Awad’s Bunny (+ the new sequel): cult-classic campus horror with a tone that could swing from satire to nightmare.Olivie Blake’s The Atlas Six: found-family frenemies, the Library of Alexandria, and character-driven magic—screaming “ensemble show.”Alex Michaelides’ The Maidens: Cambridge, a too-charming professor, and a one-and-done thriller film.Micah Nemerever’s These Violent Delights: 1970s queer psychological spiral—two knockout leads could carry a festival-circuit hit.Ryan La Sala’s The Honeys: boarding-school hive-minds and identity; YA-leaning horror with sharp claws. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dark academia reads gorgeously on the page—but stumbles on screen. In this episode, we unpack the big reasons: the aesthetic-over-story trap, elite settings that limit relatability and diversity, and the reality that streamers cancel fast and world-build slow. We use “Wednesday,” “The Order,” and our beloved Poe-soaked, gothic campus imagery to ask: is the genre “unfilmable”… or just misunderstood? We also float a fix—adult animation—plus how fandom pressure and multi-book epics make accuracy impossible without killing character depth. We cover:Why the vibe can eclipse plot (and how that nukes character empathy).Elitism, scholarship kids, and why viewers bounce off “pretentious” casts.Streamer economics: fast cancellations vs. slow-burn worldbuilding.“Wednesday” S2 hype (and that cameo) vs. book-to-screen pipelines.The bold idea: make dark-academia animation for adult audiences. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It’s September (aka back-to-school season), so we’re launching a month of dark-academia conversations. In this opener, we map the genre’s core—elite or boarding-school settings, gothic vibes, and a lean toward mystery, fantasy, and even horror—and dig into why secret societies and clandestine clubs keep showing up in these stories.We compare “real” vs. fictional societies, talk initiations and rituals, and why the forbidden—anything faculty might frown upon—creates irresistible narrative tension.On our nightstands: The Perfect Marriage by Geneva Rose (and the follow-up Perfect Divorce), With a Vengeance by Riley Sager (a ’50s train mystery with Murder-on-the-Orient-Express energy), and an ARC of The Shattered King by Charlie N. Holmberg (out Sept 2), a romance-fantasy about a healer named Nim, a mysteriously sick prince, and a banned-magic world—book two expected 03/03/2026.We also name-drop fan favorites—Ninth House, Bunny, A Deadly Education, The Atlas Six, The Maidens, and more—and unpack why the “secret club” trope endures. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of Fully Booked: Literary Podcast, Meaghan and Shirin jump into Season 3 of The Summer I Turned Pretty — both the show and the original book trilogy by Jenny Han. They share brutally honest thoughts about how the story has progressed, especially how much they’ve soured on the central romance between Belly and Jeremiah.The hosts discuss their evolving opinions since Season 1, when the story had a certain charm, to now, where it feels like a frustrating spiral of poor decisions and forced drama. Belly’s character development (or lack thereof), Jeremiah’s red flags, and Conrad’s surprising maturity are all on the table. So is the hot topic of that cringeworthy engagement plot twist.You’ll also hear how the side characters — especially Steven, Taylor, Laurel, and John — are actually carrying the emotional weight of the show. There’s a lot of love for the mother-daughter dynamics and a whole lot of shade for the unnecessary melodrama.They compare The Summer I Turned Pretty to Han’s To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before and even throw in thoughts on The Kissing Booth just to round things out. If you’re hate-watching or just hanging on for closure, this one’s for you. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Here’s what we cover in this episode:Heat complaints, Halloween dreams, and why romance fits the summer moodHow a 13-year screenplay turned into a book, then a Netflix adaptationAmerican girl, British professor, tragic twist — and a lot of eye-rollingGood chemistry, bad writing, weird side charactersOur 4/10 verdict and why we won’t be rewatching anytime soonIf you like romantic adaptations with a side of chaos, stick around — we’ve got more coming this month. Bad decisions were made. You’ll want to hear about them. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Summer may be flying by, but we’re hitting pause to ask a big question: what even is romance anymore? In this episode, Meaghan and Shirin unpack the emotional rollercoaster that is Colleen Hoover’s catalog.From domestic abuse to infidelity and infertility, her books are packed with heavy themes that leave us wondering: are we still reading romance, or just trauma fiction with a love story on the side?We talk about the rise of Hoover’s popularity, what makes a book truly “romantic,” and why picking up her novels expecting a light, happy read might leave you emotionally wrecked instead. Plus, Shirin admits to reading It Starts With Us completely out of order, which… explains a lot. Come hang out as we debate where Colleen Hoover fits in the genre world — and what we really want from romance novels these days. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of the Fully-Booked: Literary podcast, Meaghan and Shirin close out July’s theme of book adaptations. They’ve spent the month chatting about what makes a successful adaptation, what flops, and where things fall in between. This episode is a genre-focused deep dive where they talk about how different categories of books fare when turned into TV or film.They kick things off by acknowledging that life has been chaotic lately, so this one’s coming out a little late. Still, they’re here and ready to go. Meaghan and Shirin say upfront that it's almost impossible to quantify what makes one adaptation better than another, but that’s not stopping them from trying.What Is On Our Nightstands?Before diving into the genres, they each share what they’re reading right now. Shirin is working through an ARC of Shadowman by Shola Adeji, part of the Valiant Universe. It’s centered on Jack, a college student grappling with his father’s death and slipping into strange, dreamlike experiences involving a character named Baron Samdi. It’s set in New Orleans and has folkloric and supernatural vibes. She’s not far into it yet, but thinks it’s promising.Meaghan, on the other hand, has been reading In Deadly Company by L.S. Stratton. It's a murder mystery set in the Hudson Valley with strong Devil Wears Prada energy, full of rich people, secrets, and a locked-room-ish setting.Meaghan loved it, twists, characters, pacing, all on point. She also read The Dark Lord's Guide to Dating and Other War Crimes by Tiffany Hunt, which she described as “assistant to the villain” meets spicy banter-filled fantasy. It’s quirky and fun, and she’s eagerly awaiting the sequel.Thrillers vs. Cozy Mysteries: Not All Murder Is Created EqualWhen they shift into genre talk, Meaghan and Shirin start with thrillers and mysteries. Right away, they separate the two: darker thrillers versus cozy or lighter mysteries.Thrillers, they argue, work best as movies or limited series. Long multi-season arcs tend to wear thin, especially when you’re stretching a single mystery across ten episodes. Think Gone Girl, Nocturnal Animals, or Silence of the Lambs, tight, gripping, and effective because of their shorter format. Limited series can work, but even then, they sometimes feel drawn out (Harlan Coben adaptations, anyone?).Shirin stresses that the actors and writing carry a huge weight in thrillers. The buildup to the twist needs to be well-paced and believable. If actors can’t sell that tension or the writing fumbles the reveal, it falls flat.In contrast, lighter mysteries, like Midsomer Murders, Murdoch Mysteries, or Agatha Christie adaptations, thrive in long-running formats. You don’t need high stakes every time. People just want to hang out with familiar characters in familiar settings, solving little whodunnits. You can cruise along with those shows forever, and fans love them for that.Fantasy: Go Big or Don’t BotherNow fantasy, oh boy. The energy ramps up here. Shirin literally slams pillows in excitement (or frustration?), and Meaghan is right there with her. They both agree fantasy needs to be broken into sub-genres: high fantasy versus urban or low fantasy.High fantasy, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Throne of Glass, etc., demands a serious budget and buy-in. You’ve got to build worlds, lore, languages, costumes, effects... It’s a lot. And if you’re not prepared to commit fully, fans will revolt. The pressure to get it right is immense.They mention Shadow and Bone as an example where merging different series caused mixed reactions. And with something like A Court of Thorns and Roses, the rights keep getting picked up and dropped, probably because studios aren’t ready to face the backlash if they get it wrong. An animated series might be the safest bet.Crucially, they say fantasy only works when the actors genuinely care. The Witcher started strong because Henry Cavill was obsessed with the source material. He lived and breathed Geralt. When his enthusiasm waned, or he left, the show lost something. Passion matters. Compare that to Twilight, where you could tell some actors didn’t care much. But when someone like Michael Sheen shows up, having the time of his life? Magic.They also point out that most fantasy adaptations need to be multi-season or multi-film affairs. One-off fantasy films rarely work unless the story is very small (think The Princess Bride or Stardust). You need time for exposition and worldbuilding, and rushing it doesn’t work.Young Adult: Heart Over HypeWhen it comes to YA adaptations, Meaghan and Shirin get pretty honest. It’s not a genre itself, but there’s a clear tone and audience to consider. YA often centers around identity, growth, and personal challenges. That emotional core matters.The biggest requirement here? Chemistry. The audience needs to believe in the characters. They need to root for them. The Hunger Games worked because you were invested in Katniss. In contrast, 13 Reasons Why lost its way after the first season because it dragged the story far beyond its natural endpoint.They also discuss how some YA adaptations are stretched too thin. A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder had 10 episodes when 5 or 6 would have been plenty. If the mystery isn’t complicated enough to carry that much screen time, the show starts spinning its wheels.And again, it comes down to casting. If your leads don’t have good chemistry, the whole thing feels flat. The Notebook worked because of Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. Meanwhile, other Nicholas Sparks adaptations (The Lucky One, anyone?) suffered from leads who looked like strangers.Sci-Fi: Surprisingly ReliableHere’s the twist: neither Meaghan nor Shirin are big sci-fi fans, but they both agree sci-fi adaptations tend to be stronger than fantasy ones. Shocking, right?They break down why. Sci-fi often requires a decent budget and actors who commit to the world, much like fantasy. But it’s usually easier to adapt because the audience doesn’t expect the same emotional loyalty to worldbuilding. Plus, you don’t always need to reinvent entire landscapes; you can keep it grounded or tech-based (Black Mirror style) and still make it work.They list several successful examples: Silo, Murderbot, Foundation, Arrival, Dune, and The Martian. All solid adaptations, many of them series. Meaghan notes that series tend to work better in sci-fi, especially when the story has layers of tech, politics, and existential stakes. And yes, she's looking forward to Project Hail Mary with Ryan Gosling.They also discuss how in sci-fi, the alien or AI character is often made to appear human or at least humanoid (Murderbot, for example), which helps with audience connection. It’s rare to see a fully non-human lead in an adaptation, but the human angle often makes the story more accessible.And finally, they touch on a tough truth: many beloved sci-fi and fantasy writers are problematic. They talk about Orson Scott Card (ugh), J.K. Rowling (yeah...), and H.P. Lovecraft (yikes). It’s hard to reconcile loving a world while rejecting the views of its creator, but that’s the messy reality of adaptations.Final Thoughts and A Look AheadMeaghan and Shirin wrap things up by acknowledging that every genre has been adapted at this point, literary fiction, romance, historical, nonfiction, you name it. But they’ve seen patterns. Mystery and sci-fi adaptations tend to land well in shorter formats. Fantasy is high risk, high reward. YA is all about vibes and chemistry. And romance? It lives or dies by how much your leads look like they’re actually in love.That’s a wrap on adaptation month for us. Next week, they’re kicking off a brand-new theme for August, and if you’ve enjoyed this ride so far, stick around. You won’t want to miss what’s coming next. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode of the Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast kicked off, as always, with what’s on our nightstands. Shirin had her hands on Phantasma, a book that had been hyped all over, but halfway through, she was feeling let down. The Southern Gothic mood is solid, but the story lacks that punch. The tasks and trials within it are underwhelming, and she doesn’t really care much about the characters. It’s supposed to have demons, ghouls, and Hunger Games-style drama, but right now, it’s all feeling kind of flat.Meaghan tried to make her feel better and pointed out that hype can do that. Sometimes a book gets treated like it’s the second coming, and when we finally read it, it’s just... fine. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing revolutionary either. Not all weird, sexy, haunted house books with blood dripping from the ceiling are for everyone.On the upside, Meaghan read Home Fires Burn by Canadian author Anthony Bidulka. It’s the third book in a mystery series starring Mary Bell, a trans private investigator who returns to rural Saskatchewan after years away.Meaghan loved the local setting and the fact that it wasn’t just another Toronto-centric story. The mystery held up, the character work was sharp, and it made her want to read the first two books in the series. Big points for regional Canadian representation and thoughtful, layered characters.Adaptations Galore: What’s Coming to Screen (and Fast)The main theme of this episode was all about book-to-screen adaptations. what’s coming soon, what’s in production, and what we’re dying to see. We decided to trade picks one by one and see who could out-excite the other.Shirin went first with My Oxford Year, a romance novel about an American woman at Oxford who gets swept up in an English romance. She loves the academia + England combo, so this one’s basically catnip for her. Sofia Carson and Corey Mylchreest (from Queen Charlotte) are starring, and it drops August 1, just in time for her birthday. Perfect.Meaghan followed with the upcoming Carrie TV series. It’s being produced by Mike Flanagan, and we are both expecting big things. The hope is that turning it into a series will really let the Carrie-and-mother dynamic breathe and make the emotional breakdowns all the more brutal. Whether it’s set in the 70s or modernized, we don’t care, we’re watching.Then came The Long Walk by Stephen King, which has Shereen’s husband buzzing. It’s about boys forced to walk endlessly under dystopian conditions, and it's being directed by someone from the Hunger Games world. Sounds like an anxiety attack in movie form, which is exactly the vibe it’s going for.Next up was People We Meet on Vacation by Emily Henry, due January 9 on Amazon. Meaghan has a thing for Henry’s style. Her romances toe the line between heartfelt and funny, and while Meaghan usually likes her romance a bit darker or weirder, she makes an exception here. Shereen, meanwhile, owns three Henry books and has read none of them. We’ve all been there.Colleen Hoover Chaos, Creepy Thrillers, and Twisted CruisesThen came the Colleen Hoover dump. Shirin bundled three upcoming adaptations into one shoutout: Regretting You, Reminders of Him, and Verity. The last of which stars Anne Hathaway. Meaghan and Shirin are mostly excited because they love making fun of Hoover’s chaotic plots and characters. Verity, they agree, is actually pretty decent. It veers into thriller territory and avoids some of Hoover’s more problematic tropes. Bring on the drama.Meaghan had another creepy pick: The Whisper Man by Alex North, featuring Robert De Niro. It’s about a serial killer whose crimes are mimicked years later in a small town. There’s whispering through windows, eerie disappearances, and maybe even supernatural twists. Definitely on her watch list.Shirin's next thrill was The Housemaid, which she’s converted her whole family into reading. It drops on Christmas Day 2025 in theaters and stars Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried. She’s planning a full-on family book club around it. And yes, we’ll be going to the theater over the holidays.The Woman in Cabin 10 by Ruth Ware is also getting adapted, with Keira Knightley set to star. Another thriller on a boat, another possible murder that no one believes actually happened. Meaghan’s all in. She loves Ruth Ware and thinks this one, dropping on Netflix in the fall, will be a great popcorn thriller.Classics, Hunger Games, and Guillermo’s ReturnOne adaptation that has us raising eyebrows is Wuthering Heights with Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi. It’s being directed by Emerald Fennell (Promising Young Woman, Saltburn), which adds some intrigue. We’re not sure about the casting, but we’re hoping for a bold, stylized approach.Speaking of big franchises, Sunrise on the Reaping, the new Hunger Games film, is set for release on November 20, 2026. Shirin thought the book was just okay, but still wants to see how it plays out on screen. The movies have been consistently stronger for her.The adaptation Meaghan is most pumped for? Frankenstein by Guillermo del Toro, coming in December. She’s obsessed with his visual style and monster-love storytelling. We both agree that this needs a theatrical release. If Netflix keeps it streaming-only, it’ll be a crime against cinema. Between Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, and the gorgeous design we expect from Guillermo, this could be a showstopper.Narnia, Dragons, and So Many MoreShirin ended her list with The Magician’s Nephew, the first (chronologically) in the Chronicles of Narnia series, which Greta Gerwig is adapting. It hits theaters November 26 and drops on Netflix Christmas Day. The casting so far includes Daniel Craig and Emma Mackey, and we’re just plain curious how Greta will spin this origin story with no wardrobe in sight.And finally, we both agreed: even though there’s no release date, trailer, or cast announcement, we’re putting Fourth Wing on the list. It’s happening. Michael B. Jordan’s studio owns the rights, and we’re already imagining which actors will ride which dragons. Shereen joked about dressing her cats up as dragon characters, because obviously she would.Wrapping It Up: Why We Care (And You Probably Do Too)In the end, what made this episode fun wasn’t just listing off every adaptation under the sun; it was talking about what these projects mean to us. We all love books. We all get burned by them sometimes. But when a book we adore gets picked up for a screen version, the anticipation is unmatched. And the potential for disappointment? Sky high. We live for it.We get excited about who’s cast. We argue about whether the setting is true to the book. We dream about what could be, and sometimes we cringe at what we get. But that’s part of the joy. These adaptations connect us to stories in new ways and give us reasons to revisit the books, or finally read the ones we’ve been avoiding.So here’s to the next three years of adaptation madness. Keep building those watchlists, plan some book-to-movie nights, and maybe even read the book before the movie drops. It just makes everything better. See you next week for one last episode in this month-long adaptation celebration. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We’re dropped right into Adaptations Month, and Meaghan and Shirin are fired up about one of the most talked-about YA adaptations in recent memory: We Were Liars by E. Lockhart, now an eight-episode Amazon Prime series.Right away, we’re treated to some healthy debate. Shirin adores the book; she champions the writing, the twist, and the mood. Meaghan? Not so much. She found the prose pretentious and didn’t enjoy the tone at all. This dynamic sets the stage for a lively and honest conversation that’s far from sugar-coated.The book, first published in 2014, holds a kind of pop-culture cult status. It's a staple on “must-read” YA lists and has been adored (and criticized) for its dark twist and dreamy narration.The show adaptation dropped in June and currently holds a 6.6/10 on IMDb and a 63% on Rotten Tomatoes, with both audience and critics matching scores, which the hosts point out as surprisingly rare. There's clear curiosity about how the adaptation stands up to the book and how viewers have received it.Breaking Down the Sinclair Family DramaThe story follows the Sinclair family, a wealthy old-money clan who summers on a private island called Beechwood off Martha’s Vineyard. The family patriarch, Harris Sinclair, and his wife Tipper (yes, those are the names) built individual homes on the island for each of their daughters: Carrie, Penny, and Bess. Penny is Cadence’s (Katie's) mom, our main character and narrator. Each woman has children, and their interactions form the backbone of the story.Every summer, the family returns to the island, and the teenage cousins, along with Ed’s nephew Gat, form a group known as “the Liars.” We watch this group grow, fracture, and unravel across two pivotal summers: Summer Sixteen and Summer Seventeen.Cadence experiences a mysterious accident in Summer Sixteen, one that leads to memory loss, trauma, and isolation. She’s told she needs to recover the memories on her own, but no one in her family will talk about what really happened. That’s the tension. That’s the story.We quickly learn that the family is deeply dysfunctional. The three sisters are competitive, toxic, and frequently cruel to each other and their children. There are fractures built on favoritism, inheritance squabbles, and the oppressive rule of Harris, who exerts power through manipulation.Meaghan and Shirin are quick to point out how relatable and painful these dynamics are, even if they’re dramatized through the extreme wealth and privilege of the Sinclair family.The Adaptation: What Worked, What Didn’tThe hosts appreciated the show's ability to visually distinguish timelines, for instance, Katie dyes her hair brown in Summer Seventeen, which makes the back-and-forth between past and present much easier to track. That little visual clue, while simple, goes a long way in helping the viewer follow the complex timeline.They also agree that the show did a good job capturing Katie’s slow, painful unraveling. As she pieces together the truth about what happened during Summer Sixteen, viewers are taken through fragmented flashbacks, clues, and unspoken cues from the people around her. There’s a slow burn, but one that keeps you guessing.However, the hosts were split on the show's tone. Meaghan couldn’t stand how much of the book’s prose, which she already disliked, made it into the show. Shirin felt the adaptation captured the dreamy, metaphor-rich storytelling of the original text. They were both impressed, though, with how well the show built out the adult characters, something the book couldn't do because it was told strictly from Katie’s point of view.Where the show shone was in its character development. The three sisters were given more emotional weight, especially Bess, played by Candice King (Caroline from The Vampire Diaries).Penny and Bess are both awful mothers, but Bess in particular has a redemptive arc that adds depth to her character, even if Shereen refuses to fully forgive her. Carrie, portrayed by Mamie Gummer (Meryl Streep’s daughter), is also given a solid backstory, including a history of addiction and the immense grief of losing her son.One of the biggest revelations is that Katie’s conversations with the other Liars in Summer Seventeen are hallucinations. Johnny, Mirren, and Gat, her beloved cousins and love interest, all died in the fire they set together the previous summer. Katie is the only survivor. The moment she remembers the family dogs perishing too hits particularly hard, both for the hosts and the viewers.The adaptation handled this twist masterfully. Even though readers of the book already know what's coming, the visual storytelling keeps it compelling. The Liars appear fully present, interact naturally, and are only revealed to be figments of Katie’s traumatized mind much later. The show plants subtle clues, like a little cousin asking Katie for a ghost story, and her replying that Marin should tell it, a chilling line, considering Marin is dead.Characters We Love (And Love To Hate)While the central romance between Katie and Gat didn’t work for either host, they found the actors had little chemistry, and Gat felt underwritten, they adored several supporting characters. Eben, a young Black man on the island, was a standout for both hosts. His observations about race and privilege injected authenticity and groundedness into the otherwise opulent storyline.Ed, Carrie’s longtime partner and Gat’s uncle, also stood out. Raoul Cooley brought depth and warmth to the character, especially given how he was mistreated by Harris and sidelined by the family. Harris himself, played by David Morse, is despicable but fascinating. His subtle manipulation, racism, and emotional abuse are layered in such a way that his true awfulness creeps up on you, much like it does for the family.Shirin and Meaghan appreciated how the show didn’t shy away from showing the Sinclairs as morally bankrupt, even when dressed in pastels and smiling for family photos. There’s a constant undercurrent of performative unity, especially in the final scenes when they pose for media photos to “look good,” even as their relationships are broken beyond repair.Wrapping It Up: Why The Show Might Be Better Than The BookIn the end, both hosts came to a surprising agreement: the show might actually be better than the book. It doesn’t happen often, but the added character development, the expansion of side plots, and the emotionally raw performances made the TV series more compelling overall.What really pushed it over the edge for Shirin was how the show focused on generational trauma, expectations placed on women, and the psychological consequences of wealth and privilege.Watching the three sisters grapple with their roles as mothers, daughters, and wives was more engaging than any teenage romance. The drama of their relationships, the fighting, the denial, the toxic parenting, was, as they said, “way more interesting than the will-they-won’t-they between Katie and Gat.”They also discussed the series' ending, which toys with the idea of ghosts and heaven a bit too much for their liking, but concluded that the show’s strength lies in its emotional realism, not supernatural mystery.The final verdict? Even if you didn’t love the book, the show’s worth a watch. It’s messy, emotionally complicated, and full of characters you’ll both hate and sympathize with, sometimes at the same time. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We started off this Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast episode by greeting everyone with excitement for July and reflecting on how summer used to be a time packed with massive blockbuster releases. We remember those days fondly, when movie theaters were our second homes during the hot months, and every Tuesday felt like a holiday because we could catch the latest release with cheap tickets.There was a nostalgic vibe as we recalled our favorite old, run-down theaters and how those experiences shaped our love of cinema. We laughed about how everyone’s collective obsession with Jonathan Bailey and his iconic glasses proves some things never change.We also acknowledged that the movie industry slowed down during the pandemic, but now it feels like we’re back to seeing huge summer releases again, reigniting that buzz we missed. This shift inspired us to look at how adaptations of books to film and TV have evolved over the years, especially with the rise of streaming services and changes in how we consume stories.The Evolution Of Adaptations: Then vs. NowThe hosts pointed out a striking difference between adaptations from the ‘90s and early 2000s compared to what we see today.Back then, it was all about flashy blockbusters: big budgets, famous stars, and marketing campaigns that cared more about spectacle than staying true to the book. We shared examples like The Godfather and James Bond films, where audiences often didn’t even realize they were adaptations of books.Even classics like Jaws, Psycho, and The Princess Bride fit this pattern; movies overshadowed their literary origins, and the books themselves rarely got a spotlight.We agreed that while there’s still some of that today, there’s a clear shift.Audiences are savvier, and studios now emphasize the source material more. Actors talk openly about reading the books to prepare for their roles, which feels like a refreshing change compared to the past when many proudly skipped the novel altogether. We explored how adaptations before 2016 felt more like cash grabs, focusing on box office appeal, but since then, there's been a noticeable effort to respect the author’s vision.Book Chat: What’s On Our Nightstands?In the middle of the conversation, we took a delightful detour to share what we’ve been reading. Shirin told us about Death in the Downline, a hilarious dark comedy-meets-murder-mystery involving an MLM scheme.She loved how Maria Abrams nailed the dark humor of direct sales culture, people using tragic events to shill products, which is both absurd and eerily true to life. We couldn’t stop laughing at examples of characters offering discounts in honor of the dearly departed.Meanwhile, Meaghan shared her excitement for Girl Next Door, an upcoming debut rom-com with LGBTQ+ themes that touches on complex relationships, high school crushes, and small-town drama. She appreciated how the book balanced lighthearted moments with serious topics, promising readers both depth and laughs. Meaghan promised to post a full review when she finishes, noting its September release.The Rise of Series Adaptations And Author InvolvementWe dove deep into why series adaptations have become the gold standard for book-to-screen translations. We argued that movies simply don’t have enough time to do justice to complex plots, inner monologues, and rich world-building.For books with multiple installments or intricate character arcs, a TV series allows creators to flesh out the story over several episodes, or even seasons, giving characters and themes room to breathe.One of the biggest changes we observed is the increasing involvement of authors in adaptations. Unlike decades past, where authors often sold rights and lost control, now many are listed as executive producers or consultants.We pointed to examples like Diana Gabaldon with Outlander, Hugh Howey with Silo, and Robin Carr with Sullivan’s Crossing. Having authors directly involved often leads to more faithful adaptations and happier fans. We celebrated how this trend gives authors a say in how their stories are interpreted on screen, and we hope it continues.Hits, Misses, And The Future Of AdaptationsNo conversation about adaptations would be complete without a rant about the bad ones, and we had plenty to say! We revisited flops like the Percy Jackson movies, which aged up characters unnecessarily and lost the heart of the books.We also slammed The Golden Compass movie, which butchered Philip Pullman’s incredible series with sloppy storytelling. Shirin even shared how the bad movie adaptation soured her on the later TV version, despite positive reviews.On the flip side, we applauded successful adaptations like Gone Girl, where a high-profile director, a star-studded cast, and respect for the source material made for a gripping film. We also praised Shadow and Bone for creatively merging two series with the help of author Leigh Bardugo, which showed how collaboration can turn a complicated universe into a compelling show.We observed how the rise of streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple TV fueled the adaptation boom. With their constant need for new content and big budgets, they tapped into existing books with built-in audiences, ensuring at least some initial interest.We discussed how the social media era amplifies feedback: fans celebrate faithful adaptations but also quickly and loudly condemn bad ones. Studios now have to tread carefully, knowing poor execution will spark viral backlash.We wrapped up by acknowledging that while not every adaptation will please everyone, we’re encouraged by the overall trend toward honoring books and giving authors creative input. We feel hopeful about the future, imagining a world where even more stories we love find their way to the screen in ways that stay true to what made them special in the first place.Final Thoughts And What’s NextWe closed the episode by teasing upcoming discussions on newer adaptations we’re excited about, and some we might dread.We plan to spend the month of July exploring different examples, unpacking what works, what doesn’t, and what we’d like to see going forward. We agreed that adaptations don’t need to be word-for-word recreations, but we want to see creators who care about the original work and respect what made it resonate with readers in the first place.Ultimately, we’re thrilled to see authors getting credit, adaptations getting smarter, and audiences more engaged than ever. We can’t wait to continue the conversation and hear what you, our fellow book lovers, think about this evolution. Let’s keep hoping for adaptations that make us feel the same magic we did the first time we turned those pages. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We kick off with the hosts’ cheerful greeting and their confession that they recorded the Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast ahead of schedule, joking that it is “the last week of June… but not really.” They remind us that June on Fully-Booked has been all about banned books, and they want to finish with something big.While scanning international censorship lists, Meaghan notices that The Da Vinci Code has been pulled from shelves in Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the Philippines. The reason is simple enough: some Christian leaders find the novel’s ideas offensive.Shirin admits she did not realize Lebanon has such a large Christian population, and the pair laugh at their own ignorance before pivoting to the film version they are about to rewatch. They also poke fun at their ongoing knack for picking “the worst movie adaptation possible,” a running joke that keeps listeners feeling part of an inside circle.Revisiting The Da Vinci Code: Book Hype, Film Fever, and Worldwide UproarWe move from playful chit-chat to the cultural moment of 2003, when Dan Brown’s novel exploded onto every bookstore display.The hosts recall how the familiar red hardcover stamped with a sliver of the Mona Lisa seemed to stare you down in every airport. Within two years, the book had sold tens of millions of copies, appeared in forty-plus languages, and sparked feverish speculation about secret societies, coded messages, and a hidden bloodline of Christ.And Hollywood pounced. In 2006, Ron Howard delivered a glossy blockbuster starring Tom Hanks, Alfred Molina, Ian McKellen, and Paul Bettany. At the time, Shirin remembers thinking the movie was “the shit,” full of twists that felt like National Treasure with better haircuts.Yet outside a Boston theater on opening night, she saw live protests, something a Canadian teenager did not expect on a school trip. That mash-up of box-office buzz and genuine outrage fascinates the hosts; it proves a thriller can still hit raw nerves when it challenges sacred stories.National Treasure, Nicolas Cage, and Tangents We Can’t ResistBecause no Fully-Booked episode is complete without at least one joyful detour, we zoom off to Shirin’s devotion to National Treasure.She owns a T-shirt with Nicolas Cage’s face, and the declaration “I’m gonna steal the Declaration,” makes her husband watch the film annually and defend its goofy charm at every opportunity.Meaghan, who once watched the movie constantly with her mother, agrees it is “terrible but fun.” Comparing ratings, they discover that Cage’s romp actually edges out The Da Vinci Code on Rotten Tomatoes, an outcome they find both hilarious and strangely satisfying.This lighthearted break matters. It shows how personal nostalgia shapes our judgment. Sometimes we cling to a so-so movie because it reminds us of family vacations or Friday sleepovers, not because it is a cinematic masterpiece. We feel that tug, too; I still grin whenever I hear Cage whisper “I’m going to steal it,” and I suspect many listeners have a similar guilty-pleasure favorite.Characters, Plot Holes, and Why the Film Falls FlatBack to business: the hosts dissect why the 2006 adaptation drags. First, length.At two-and-a-half hours, it spread over three separate viewing sessions in Meaghan’s living room. Second, plausibility.The victim supposedly staggers through the Louvre after being shot in the gut, leaving a breadcrumb trail of riddles in his own blood, yet still has the mental clarity to craft a sophisticated code. We agree with the hosts that this stretches believability to comic levels; our stomach hurts just imagining the crawl, never mind the cryptography. Third, character depth.In the book, Sophie Neveu is a brilliant police cryptographer; on screen, she turns doe-eyed, waiting for Robert Langdon to solve everything. Tom Hanks, lovable as ever, cannot overcome a script that reduces side characters to exposition machines.It feels as if a longer, richer draft was chopped down by anxious studio editors trying to hit a release date. The result is a movie that teaches the audience how to Google but forgets to give its heroine agency. We nod along when the hosts groan, “This person who’s this intelligent would not act like that.”Final Thoughts: Rating Rants, Unfinished Franchises, and What Comes NextWrapping up, the hosts admit they wanted to love the film. They felt a pang of nostalgia, hitting play, wishing the old rush of “twist on every page” would return.Instead, they found themselves pausing for snacks, baby duties, and the occasional disbelief-fuelled rant. Rotten Tomatoes sits at a meager 25 percent critic score, and once the hosts read that aloud, they cannot unsee the flaws.Meanwhile, Angels and Demons and Inferno limp on with the same creative team but never reclaim the lightning in a bottle. Even a short-lived TV spin-off, The Lost Symbol, failed to survive past one season.The conversation closes with laughter, apologies to any die-hard fans, and a promise that Meaghan will choose next month’s adaptations more carefully. The bigger takeaway is relatable: we all remember a book or movie that blew our adolescent minds, only to find it wobbly on rewatch.The hosts show us it’s okay to change our minds, poke fun at past tastes, and still respect the cultural storm a story once created. As we finish, we feel like we sat on the couch with two friends who love books, love movies, and love cracking jokes about both, exactly the kind of company we crave when the credits roll. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We started the Fully-Booked Podcast episode with some personal updates and our latest reads. Meaghan had just finished The Housemaid by Freida McFadden, a fast-paced thriller that she found both fun and perplexing in terms of what to expect from its sequels. She mentioned how Shirin tends to dive into one author's entire catalogue when she discovers a book she enjoys, and this time it was her turn to follow suit.Shirin, on the other hand, had just wrapped up Sunrise on the Reaping, the most recent Hunger Games novel. Neither of us is a die-hard fan of the series, but we both appreciated certain elements, especially when previous entries focused on characters like President Snow.Shirin noted that while the book was fine, it felt repetitive, echoing Katniss’ journey in the original trilogy. She admitted she might not have read it had the movie already been out, highlighting how closely these books and films tend to mirror each other.The ALA’s 2024 Challenged Book DataThe main focus of this episode was the alarming increase in book censorship across North America, especially in the United States. Shirin had been diving into data from the American Library Association (ALA), and the numbers were staggering. In 2024 alone, there were 4,190 book titles challenged, mostly pushed by pressure groups and influenced decision-makers, not just concerned parents. For context, from 2001 to 2020, an average of only 46 titles were challenged each year.What really stood out was how the nature of these censorship efforts had shifted. Back in the early 2000s, only 6% of challenges came from organized groups. In 2024, that number skyrocketed to 72%. Most of the targeted books contained LGBTQ+ themes, racial identity, social justice, or stories of personal trauma and coming-of-age.This prompted us to ask: Why are people so threatened by lived experience, empathy, and diversity in storytelling? It seems that instead of aiming to protect children, these groups are trying to erase stories that reflect the reality of many people's lives.Exploring The Top 10 Most Challenged BooksWe broke down the top 10 most challenged books of 2024, and unsurprisingly, they shared common themes; queer identity, racial struggle, gender exploration, addiction, and trauma.Books like All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe were high on the list, both memoirs focused on LGBTQ+ identity. We also saw classic literary staples still getting flak, The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison being one of them, which surprised us because it's been around since 1970. Apparently, we’re still not ready to have honest conversations about race.Titles like Looking for Alaska, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl were also included, all of which cover complex teenage emotions and situations: suicide, sexuality, and death. Other books like Crank and Sold dealt with heavy, real-world issues like drug addiction and human trafficking.We asked each other: What exactly are people afraid of here? Why is it seen as dangerous to talk about these subjects when they’re happening in real life? It feels absurd to ban a story about a teen struggling with meth because it might "influence" readers, when in fact these stories can educate and offer emotional insight. The irony is almost unbearable.The Situation in CanadaWhile the U.S. tends to get most of the attention in these discussions, we didn’t let Canada off the hook. Meaghan brought up that even here, we’re seeing a troubling rise in book challenges. In 2024, 119 titles were challenged, with another 30 already flagged in early 2025. The primary reasons echoed those in the U.S., objections to LGBTQ+ themes, “explicit” content, and gender diversity.The data came from the Canadian Library Challenges Database, which is backed by Toronto Metropolitan University’s Centre for Free Expression. A lot of the concerns were about age appropriateness, but even that excuse feels like a smokescreen for discomfort with difference.However, there was a silver lining. BookNet Canada reported that LGBTQ+ fiction sales actually rose by 34% in the last quarter of 2024. Clearly, when you try to silence something, it can make people even more curious. People want stories that represent who they are, and thankfully, we’re in a time where those books are being written, published, and read.The Power of Storytelling and RepresentationThis episode ultimately came down to a shared belief in the importance of storytelling and the power of representation. We reflected on how bookstores and libraries are fighting back. Displays of banned books are becoming more common, and institutions like Barnes & Noble and public libraries are leaning into the controversy by highlighting these works.Nearly half of public libraries now offer banned book displays, up 15% since 2020. Publishers also continue to support these stories, showing there’s still a demand, and that matters. If publishers stopped backing these authors, then we’d really be in trouble.We ended by reaffirming that censorship doesn’t protect, it stifles. If someone finds a topic uncomfortable, they can choose not to read it. That’s their right. But trying to take that right away from others? That’s not okay.In the end, we were fired up, but hopeful. Because for every book banned, there’s a reader who finds it and feels seen. That’s the kind of power stories have, and that’s worth protecting. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We kicked off this Fully-Booked Podcast episode by sticking with our June theme: banned books. And this time, we focused on one that left us scratching our heads: Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen.The 2006 novel was recently banned in Utah’s public schools under House Bill 29, which allows parents to challenge books they consider “sensitive material.” If three school districts or charter schools agree, the book can be pulled statewide. That’s how Water for Elephants landed on the list, although, to be honest, we still don’t quite get why.We couldn't find a solid answer despite digging around. It’s not overtly graphic, political, or controversial in any standout way, so its ban feels baffling. That confusion is what actually sparked our whole Banned Books Month in the first place. We figured, if this book can be banned, what else is on these lists?Water for Elephants StoryThe book was adapted into a movie in 2011, starring Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and Christoph Waltz. It was set during the Great Depression and follows Jacob Jankowski, a Polish-American veterinary student at Cornell. Just as he’s about to graduate, tragedy strikes: both his parents die in a car accident. Jacob loses his home, his inheritance, and any hope of finishing his studies.With nowhere to go, Jacob hops on a passing train, which turns out to belong to a struggling traveling circus, the Benzini Brothers. From there, the story unfolds into a tale of hardship, romance, and survival under the big top. He meets Marlena, the circus’s star performer, who’s married to the charismatic yet increasingly violent ringmaster, August.What makes the movie unique is the addition of Rosie, a 53-year-old elephant brought in as the circus's new attraction. Rosie doesn’t initially respond to commands, and August abuses her, thinking she’s unintelligent. But Jacob discovers Rosie understands Polish, his native language, and with that breakthrough, he forms a bond with her.Behind the Scenes and Onscreen ChemistryWatching the film together, we had mixed feelings. The production value was solid; the costumes, set design, and overall look captured the Depression era beautifully. The acting was generally good, but we both agreed that the chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon felt flat. It wasn’t bad, just kind of…there. You understood they were supposed to fall in love, but you didn’t feel it.We even joked that this wasn’t a steamy Notebook-level romance. There was one sex scene, and it happened while they were on the run for their lives, which felt oddly timed, to say the least. It didn’t ruin the film, but it did make us question why that specific element might've been enough to get the book banned.Cultural ContextOne part of the discussion that hit close to home was about migration and cultural mindsets during the Depression. Jacob's story of traveling cross-country for work reflects a very American attitude of chasing opportunity. We compared that with how, in Canada, people generally don’t move provinces nearly as much, partly because of climate and geography.The circus in Water for Elephants operates on razor-thin margins. It picks up and moves within a day or two, requiring hundreds of people to maintain operations. August’s cutthroat management style is framed as necessary for survival in such tough times, but it quickly becomes clear he’s also a violent narcissist who physically and emotionally abuses both Marlena and the animals.The final twist of the story involves Rosie killing August during a chaotic night that leads to the downfall of the Benzini Brothers Circus. Marlena and Jacob escape, start a new life with Rosie, join the Ringling Brothers, and eventually settle down in Albany. Jacob becomes a vet, and they raise a family with Rosie by their side for decades.The story is told in flashbacks by an elderly Jacob, now in a nursing home. He ends the story by joining a modern circus, wanting to return to a life that once gave him purpose.So, Why Was It Banned?We still don’t have an answer. Animal cruelty is depicted, sure, but as part of the plot, not glamorized. There’s a single implied steamy scene. Maybe it’s the adultery subplot? Maybe the violence? But plenty of books in school libraries touch on all of those. We’re left wondering if the ban is more about optics than content.Shirin suggested the book’s banning was probably triggered by vague complaints, "inappropriate content" or "sensitive material", without clear definitions. Meaghan pointed out that Utah’s law allows just three school districts to challenge and remove a book across the entire state. That’s a low bar for sweeping censorship.We both acknowledged that this doesn’t mean Water for Elephants is inaccessible to the general public in Utah. It's still available in libraries, bookstores, and of course, online. But within schools, it’s off the table, and that’s a concern.Wrapping Up With QuestionsWe closed the episode reflecting on how this experience made us rethink censorship and what gets flagged. If something like Water for Elephants can be banned, what else could be?We brought up A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) by Sarah J. Maas, which is a bit spicier but realistically would never be assigned in schools to begin with. We joked that if someone thinks ACOTAR is too much, they haven’t seen the rest of the iceberg in the romance genre.We also laughed about the trend of big-name actors headlining these types of adaptations in the early 2010s. You had Reese, Robert, and Christoph, big names with big budgets. Today, the format has shifted. Book-to-film adaptations often hit streaming first, and casting doesn’t always go for top-tier stars. It’s a shift that’s changed the dynamic of how we experience these stories.And finally, we turned the question back to you: why do you think Water for Elephants was banned? Because we’ve read the book, watched the movie, and talked about it for over an hour, and we’re still stumped... Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We kicked off this Fully-Booked podcast episode like we often do, talking about the weather. June arrived, and with it came all the seasonal chaos we Canadians know too well. One moment we’re soaking in rays, and the next, we’re back to complaining about rain or trying to survive sudden temperature spikes. It’s the kind of weather where someone might wear a parka with flip-flops and somehow not look out of place.We laughed about how 10 degrees feels completely different in spring versus fall. In spring, we’re peeling off layers like it’s beach season, but in the fall, the same temperature has us reaching for cozy sweaters. It doesn’t make sense, but that’s Canada for you.Banned Books And Why They Still MatterThe main theme this month? Banned books. We decided it was time to shift from the more playful, game-style episodes and dig into something that matters on a cultural and intellectual level. This decision came after a quick text exchange about a new banned books article. Once we got into the topic, it opened up a floodgate of questions, ideas, and frustrations.We started by asking a simple but loaded question: What is a banned book?Technically, it's any book that’s been restricted or removed from access in certain schools, libraries, or communities. But what is it really? Censorship. And often, it’s censorship rooted in fear of ideas, of diversity, of history.From classics like 1984 and To Kill a Mockingbird to more recent works like All Boys Aren’t Blue and The Hate U Give, the reasons books get banned often come down to who’s uncomfortable with their message.It’s honestly baffling. When you look at a list of banned books, you start to notice patterns. So many of these works are centered on themes like rebellion, personal freedom, or confronting injustice, especially from governments or powerful institutions.Others touch on race, gender, sexuality, or trauma. In other words, they deal with real life. Books like The Handmaid’s Tale, The Diary of Anne Frank, Animal Farm, and Slaughterhouse-Five come up again and again. And that should make all of us pause. Why are these stories, the ones that challenge systems or amplify marginalized voices, the ones most often targeted?The Larger Conversation: Why Banning Books Is FutileWe dug deeper into the implications of banning literature. We talked about books being banned for obscenity in the past, like Lady Chatterley's Lover or Lolita, and more recent bans centered on issues like race, gender identity, or historical events.What struck us most was how many of these bans seemed designed to suppress not just stories, but the lived experiences of real people. Books like The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings are being challenged because they don’t fit a specific moral or political agenda.We also brought up examples from Canadian history, like the banning of Lethal Marriage, a book about the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka case, which was allegedly pulled for its inaccuracies. That led to a nuanced discussion about the difference between censoring historical artifacts and correcting misinformation. We’re not saying every book should be protected no matter what; it’s more about the intent and impact behind the banning.One of the more compelling questions we asked was this: If these books are so “dangerous,” why are they still so widely read? Because banning something often makes it more intriguing. You tell a teenager they’re not allowed to read The Catcher in the Rye, and that book jumps to the top of their list. The same goes for Fahrenheit 451, a book literally about burning books. There’s an irony in banning it that’s almost too obvious to be real.And with digital access being what it is, how do you realistically ban a book anymore? Even if you pull it from a shelf, people can download it in seconds. Instead of trying to restrict access, wouldn’t it make more sense to use these books as tools for education and discussion?Why This Matters More Than EverWe finished the episode by circling back to the bigger picture. If stories help build empathy, and we believe they do, then banning them does the opposite. It fosters ignorance. It promotes exclusion. It tries to erase perspectives that don’t align with the dominant narrative. And that’s dangerous.We talked about the current political climate and how certain groups, especially in the U.S., are trying to control what young people read. And while we can joke about things like Walter the Farting Dog being banned (seriously, why?), the truth is a lot of these censorship efforts come from a place of fear and control. We were honest about it, some of these bans are not just misguided, they’re harmful.Ultimately, we don’t think banning books prevents anything. In fact, it probably does the opposite. When we were younger and found out there were books people didn’t want us to read, we hunted them down. We read them with even more interest. That curiosity doesn’t go away, and the more you try to shut it down, the more persistent it becomes.So yeah, we’re kicking off the month talking about banned books. And we’re going to keep going. In the next few episodes, we’ll dig into some of these titles more closely and talk about what makes them so important and why people keep trying to silence them. We’re also hoping to bring in a few more voices to the conversation. Maybe even Sirin's mom (who’s already deep in The Housemaid) because we know she’ll have thoughts.And yes, we know this episode went off the rails at points, especially when we somehow got from banned books to porn. But hey, this is us. This is how we think, how we process, and how we connect with each other. And if there’s one thing we’re sure of, it’s that stories matter. They always have, and they always will. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We started off with a quick update: Meaghan and Arthur are trying out a new recording setup for the Fully-Booked Podcast and, like any of us facing tech upgrades, are crossing their fingers that it behaves itself. From there, they leaned into their end-of-May tradition of a more casual, "free-for-all" episode format. It’s their chance to have fun, try different things, and bring up topics they might not usually squeeze into a themed episode.IT Welcome to Derry and Stephen King's Expanding UniverseThen came the meat of the conversation: the new HBO series IT Welcome to Derry. The trailer just dropped, and while it didn’t give us a release date (other than the vague “Fall 2025”), it did get Meaghan and Arthur talking about the direction this prequel might take.They noted the show's pedigree, with Andy and Barbara Muschietti (the sibling team behind the modern IT films) involved, and speculated on how the series might expand the IT universe. Both hosts agreed that the original IT story has a very clear endpoint, Pennywise is defeated, so a prequel has to find clever ways to build tension and keep things fresh. They tossed around ideas about time jumps, exploring different eras of Derry, or focusing on the evil that lives in the town itself.Arthur was quick to point out that IT works so well because it's not about superheroes; it's about ordinary people facing unimaginable horrors. That relatability makes the fear hit harder. They both agreed that Stephen King is a master at spotlighting how the real villains are often the adults, indifferent, abusive, or just willfully blind to what's happening around them.Trailer Takeaways and Concerns About RepetitionWhen they turned to the actual IT Welcome to Derry trailer, they both had mixed feelings. Visually, it's spot on, creepy, unsettling, and full of that “Derry atmosphere.” You know, the kind of unsettling small-town vibe where everything looks normal on the surface but clearly isn’t. But here's the catch: a lot of the trailer felt familiar.Like, maybe a little too familiar.Shots of kids peering into sinks, mysterious voices in the pipes, and a new version of the “Losers Club” forming, it all mirrors scenes we've seen before. Arthur joked (half-seriously) that if this new group has a nickname, it’s going to feel painfully forced. They understand that the 27-year cycle within the IT lore sets the stage for repeated patterns, but they hope the show brings something new to the table.One aspect that did catch their attention was the possibility of new characters, particularly a young family that moves into Derry and starts to question what's going on. That could add some interesting outside perspective to a town where the residents usually ignore or forget the horror around them.Symbolism, Theories, and King’s Giant Connected UniverseFrom there, things got a little nerdy in the best way. Arthur and Meaghan dove into numerology, specifically the significance of the number 27. It shows up in the IT mythos a lot, and not by accident. They discussed how 27 is 3 cubed and how Stephen King often uses the number three in symbolic ways, particularly in his Dark Tower series.Then came the deeper cuts: the theory that Pennywise is a creature from the Todash Darkness, a space between worlds in The Dark Tower universe. They talked about how IT could be one of the Crimson King’s agents, and how this ties into King’s sprawling multiverse. It’s all interconnected. Pennywise isn’t just a scary clown; he's a shape-shifting entity possibly connected to even larger evils.Meaghan brought up the infamous 27 Club, musicians and artists who died at 27 years of age. Additionally, they marveled at how the 1990 IT miniseries aired 27 years before the 2017 film. Whether all of that is a coincidence or not, it adds a layer of spookiness to the whole franchise.They also explored how IT Welcome to Derry is set in 1962, which is exactly 27 years before the 1989 setting of IT: Chapter One. That opens the door to telling another cycle's story while staying within the same mythological framework.Hopes for Originality and Expanding the MythDespite their concerns about rehashing familiar territory, both Meaghan and Arthur are holding out hope. They talked about wanting to see more of Derry itself, as a character, almost, rather than just another round of Pennywise antics. Stephen King has said before that Derry is a nexus of evil, and the hosts think it’s time that idea gets explored more deeply.Could Derry itself be the cause of all this horror? Is Pennywise just a symptom of something bigger? What if the town attracts evil rather than simply being haunted by it? These are the questions that the hosts hope the show will explore, especially if Bill Skarsgård’s role as Pennywise ends up being minimal.There was also some talk about what Pennywise even is: an alien, a primordial being, or both? They discussed the Ritual of Chüd, the cosmic horror elements like the Deadlights, and even drew comparisons to recent movies like Jordan Peele’s Nope, where horror and sci-fi blur together in unconventional ways.Final Thoughts and Nostalgia FeelsAs they wrapped up, Meaghan and Arthur reflected on their own experience seeing IT: Chapter Two in a double-feature drive-in, which added a unique atmosphere to an already intense film. They recognized that while the second movie didn’t hit quite as hard as the first, the cast and performances were strong enough to carry it through.They gave props to Andy Muschietti for his knack for working with child actors, a notoriously tough task, and mentioned how rare it is to find a full cast of young actors who can deliver emotional, believable performances. They compared it favorably to Stranger Things and mentioned how casting like that can really elevate a horror story.Ultimately, they’re optimistic. Even if IT Welcome to Derry ends up being a little repetitive, they’re still excited to see what it offers. They’re particularly hopeful that it goes beyond Pennywise and starts to explore what makes Derry such a hotbed of horror. They're also curious to hear what listeners think: are people still interested in this world, or is it time to move on? Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We kicked off this bonus episode with a little chaos and a lot of sass. Right from the start, you can feel the energy between us, part friendship, part roast-fest. But today’s episode wasn’t just for fun. We jumped on early in the week to get something off our chests: Netflix’s new adaptation of R.L. Stine’s Fear Street: Prom Queen. We needed to talk about it, not because it was good, but because we had to process what we watched and, hopefully, move on.The three of us had recently rewatched the original Fear Street trilogy from 2021. That experience reminded us how much we loved those films. The original trilogy had style, cohesion, and just the right balance of nostalgia and horror. Each film was distinct in tone and setting, and even with recurring actors playing different roles, the storytelling still worked. It was like a slasher miniseries done right. Our hopes were high that this new addition would carry the same energy.High Expectations Meet a Boring RealityUnfortunately, Prom Queen didn’t deliver. This time around, Netflix handed the reins over to a different creative team. The original trilogy’s director, Leigh Janiak, who had done a stellar job, wasn’t involved. Right away, we could feel the difference. The original films were smartly written and visually interesting, but this one felt phoned in.We were intrigued at first, this adaptation was based on an actual book from the Fear Street series, which is different from the original trilogy’s approach of blending storylines. The book it’s based on, Prom Queen, came out in 1992 and was one of the most popular in the series. So, we figured, hey, this has potential. But while the setup sounded promising, the execution didn’t land.The movie barely connects to the rest of the Fear Street universe. A few surface-level references are thrown in, a scribble of “Sarah Fier Lives” on a bathroom wall, a mid-credit scene, a mention of Shadyside’s curse, but nothing really ties it into the world we knew and loved from the trilogy. It could’ve been any generic slasher set at any generic high school. And let’s be honest, it felt like it.Flat Characters and Predictable PlotlinesOne of our biggest issues was how dull everything felt. This wasn’t a “so bad it’s fun” kind of experience; it was just bland. We weren’t on the edge of our seats. We weren’t even flinching during the kill scenes. Shirin, who usually hides in a popcorn bucket during slashers, was perfectly calm the whole time. That’s a red flag.The kills themselves were forgettable. The CGI was janky, too overused, and poorly done. There wasn’t much practical effects work, which made the whole thing feel lifeless. We remembered scenes from the original trilogy, like that bread slicer kill in 1994, because they were creative and well-shot. This one? Not so much.The story takes place in 1988, timeline-wise wedged between 1978 and 1994 from the original trilogy. But that doesn’t add any real depth. It mostly takes place on prom night, and by the time we realized the entire film was going to stay there, we were already bored.The movie follows a predictable slasher formula with a few “twists” that weren’t twisty enough. We figured out both killers well before the movie wanted us to. And the stakes? So low. The protagonist wants to win the prom queen to prove she’s not the daughter of a murderer. That’s the entire emotional crux of the film. It’s like someone took a soap opera subplot and tried to stretch it into a horror movie.Nostalgia That Falls FlatThere were too many characters crammed in at the start, and none of them were given enough personality to stand out. Even Ariana Greenblatt, whom we usually like, felt wasted in her role. She gets offed early, and we didn’t even care. That’s a problem. Contrast that with Fear Street 1994, where Maya Hawke’s short-lived character still made an impact.We kept comparing this new movie to the originals, which might be unfair, but also kind of inevitable. The trilogy had soul. You could feel the pain of Shadyside, the atmosphere of the town, and the generational trauma. Here? Nothing. We could’ve been in any random school, anywhere. The town had no presence, no personality. It didn’t feel like Fear Street at all.We even joked about how the new movie reminded us of other forgettable attempts at horror, like Time Cut, another bland time-travel slasher. On the flip side, Totally Killer, which came out around the same time, managed to be a fun, enjoyable ride. So, it’s not like the genre is dead. This one just didn’t measure up.A Missed OpportunityTo be fair, there were a couple of decent moments, a joke here, a clever line there, and maybe a character or two who could have shone with better material. The soundtrack wasn’t bad either. But those small wins weren’t enough to lift the movie out of mediocrity.The original trilogy had emotional stakes. The characters had backstories that tied into larger narratives. The horror wasn’t just about jump scares, it had a weight to it. The main character’s logic for winning prom queen as a redemptive arc just didn’t make sense. It felt immature, not in a fun way, but in a "this script needed more drafts" kind of way.Even the conflict between the main character and her friend fizzled out in less than 30 seconds. There was no tension. No real development. Just scenes strung together until we hit the 90-minute mark.In the end, we all just felt kind of meh. Meaghan was already texting memes halfway through. Shirin’s mom walked out, comparing it to a telekinetic-free Carrie. And we were all ready to move on before it even ended. The biggest compliment we could give is that it might be a good “gateway” horror film for someone just starting out. It’s not scary, not intense, and might serve as a gentle introduction to the genre.Wrapping It Up and Looking AheadSo, here we are. We watched Fear Street: Prom Queen so you don’t have to. Unless you're really curious, then, sure, put it on in the background while you fold laundry or scroll your phone. But if you’re looking for a good horror night in, stick with the original trilogy. Or even something like Totally Killer or Scream. Those hold up and actually give you something to chew on.We’re planning to do one more episode before the end of the month and then shift gears a bit for June. Expect a bit more of a theme going forward, maybe even a return to some old-school horror classics. Until then, we’ll keep digging for the good stuff and trying to save you from the forgettable ones. Subscribe on your favorite platform!SpotifyApple PodcastAmazon MusiciHeart RadioPodchaserYoutubeDon't forget to follow us on socials too!InstagramThreadsTikTokBlueSkyFacebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.