Collector Negativity Impacts the Hobby

This post was written on June 29, 2024.  I chose not to publish it immediately, and then I forgot about it.

.............................................................

The series book hobby ought not to be stressful, but somehow it is.  I wrote about collector negativity in August 2023.

Collector Negativity and Criticism of Other Collectors

If you missed that post, you really ought to read it.

I opened the post with these comments:

I am concerned that the ongoing negativity has already driven many collectors away.  I know for a fact that the negativity has reduced participation in the groups.  I know this because of comments made to me via private messages.

1.  I am aware that some people never post in the groups because they are intimidated by certain people.

2.  I am aware of proposed projects that were canned because of negativity. 

3.  The bullying that began on the old Applewood message board and in the alt.news.nancy-drew newsgroup in the late 1990s continues (click here for more information), although it usually occurs outside of the groups.  I saw evidence of this bullying in my Facebook newsfeed as recently as October 2022.  They still haven't stopped, and they do drive others away.

Recently the Nancy Drew Book Fans group on Facebook acquired a large number of new members, apparently over a thousand.  Some of them found their way to the Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books group.  The numbers were much lower, something like 100 or so, but still more than usual.  Most of them were members of the Nancy Drew Book Fans group, and the Collecting group must have been suggested to them.

I periodically post cover art, and I wanted to do something for those new members.  Choosing Nancy Drew was obvious, and I felt it should be one of the original 56.  I tend to gravitate towards certain covers, and if I'm not careful, I post the same ones over and over.  I wanted to choose Tolling Bell, Crumbling Wall, Moss-Covered Mansion, and some others.  However, I've already posted those.

I wanted to post something I hadn't posted before, and I wanted something that would garner a positive reaction.  I choose The Moonstone Castle Mystery, because I have a positive view of both the cover art and the story.  I felt sure that others would as well.  I was wrong.

I learned very quickly that The Moonstone Castle Mystery's cover art is disliked and that the story isn't good.  I want to be clear that I didn't care about whether people like the book and cover art.  My issue was something else.

The problem was that my post was intended to be positive and a gift to new members from the Nancy Drew Book Fans group.  

I was disappointed that nearly every comment on the post was negative or critical.  My plan backfired, since I apparently chose the wrong book.  Now I have no motivation for posting cover art images.  Do I really just have to select Tandy artwork to avoid negativity?  

Again, no one did anything wrong.  The problem was that a "group mind" set in, caused by the very first comment being negative.  Everyone else followed suit, and positive comments weren't made until one person made a positive statement in order to bring some positivity to the comments.  Yes, the positive comment was purposeful as was my response to it.  

No doubt I feel far worse about it than I otherwise would have since I've had a difficult month.  I'm likely being a bit irrational over it, but this is a good example of how easily feelings can be hurt. 

Mainly, I just want to let others know how important it is for posts about books to contain at least some positive comments.  It's absolutely fine for people to give their opinions, even if they are negative.  It's just a downer when nearly every comment is negative, especially for a book that I never knew was disliked!  I wouldn't have chosen The Moonstone Castle Mystery if I had known better.

I also want to remind everyone of this portion of my post from August 2023:

Collectors often poke fun at cover art and illustrations, but sometimes this is taken too far with little concern for how others feel.  Around 20 years ago, the cover art of a certain Judy Bolton book was ruined for me because a few other collectors went into great detail explaining what was wrong about how the illustration was painted.  I see their comments every time I look at the jacket, and I used to love that jacket.  I still like the jacket, but I would have preferred not to have had the flaws pointed out. 

Altered book covers can also ruin our enjoyment of the original cover art.  I can think of one altered cover that is captioned in such a way that it points out what is wrong with the cover art, therefore ruining it forever.  That one is a Hardy Boys book that I will never see the same again.  The altered art is amusing, but it ruins the cover forever.

Criticism of cover art is tricky because it can forever ruin the cover art for some other fans.  Do we really want to do that?

These are, after all, children's books.  The cover art is often excellent, and we mostly love the stories.  However, the books were never intended to be great literature, and the cover art was never designed for display in a gallery.  We should keep that in mind.  

Finally, I want to mention that when I look at cover art, my opinion is formed by how pleasing the overall effect is.  I don't look at minute details and consider whether people were drawn proportionally.  I don't consider how well certain parts of the artwork were done.  Do I like the appearance of what I see?  If so, then I like it.  I reflect no deeper than that.

In closing, I am left wondering what the new members thought.  Did any of them leave the group?

.............................................................

It's now nearly a year later.  I went back through my feed to the Moonstone Castle post, checking every post.  The Moonstone Castle post was the last time I posted a Nancy Drew cover.  The negativity killed my enthusiasm.  Why should I take the time to create a post when it might not go well?  I haven't cared to do it again.

Recall this past statement of mine, quoted above:  I know for a fact that the negativity has reduced participation in the groups.

The negativity further reduced what I post in that group, and I am the founder of that group.  How unfortunate.  

If the last year had been better, I probably would have overcome my reluctance to post cover art by now.  With how things have been, I haven't had any desire return to doing that kind of post. 

One post gone wrong ended my cover art posts.

Reflecting on Allowing Discussion of the CW ND Television Series

In 2019, I stood my ground on allowing discussion of the CW ND television series, despite strong opposition that came from quite a few collectors.  On May 31 of this year, I posted the following to the Collecting Vintage Series Books group on Facebook.

We welcome discussion of all media based on our legacy vintage series.  This means that modern adaptations of legacy vintage series are fine to discuss, regardless of format or whether the adaptation is faithful to the source material.

I remind you of this because the fourth and final season of Nancy Drew premieres tonight on The CW.  I am following through on a promise that I made to myself in late 2019: I will not allow bullies to prevent me from allowing discussion of an adaptation of a legacy vintage series just because they don't approve of it.

I was treated rather badly in late 2019 when Nancy Drew premiered.  I received some pretty hateful private messages.  I was compared to Joseph Stalin.  That was when I promised myself that I would not back down.  It is reasonable that a group devoted to Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys should be able to allow discussion of modern adaptations of Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys.

The series finale aired on August 23.  I posted the following right after I made my final episode post.

And it's a wrap!  I have fulfilled my promise to myself that I made in late 2019.  I was bullied about allowing and facilitating discussion of this series in this group.  I promised myself that I would post about every single episode in the series until it was over.  And so I have.

I am very proud of myself for following through, and I have felt slightly uncomfortable the entire time.  Every single time I posted about the latest ND episode, I felt discomfort.  Yes, all 62 times.  I knew what some people were thinking.  But I didn't let it stop me.  I felt strongly that a group devoted to Nancy Drew and similar series books ought to be able to discuss a Nancy Drew television show.  I remained firm.

I've been reflecting about this, and I went through my private messages on Facebook from 2019.  I share some of my remarks here with you.  All content in this post was written by me.  You don't get to see the comments that were made to me, but my responses will give you the gist. 

I refer to different people by the letters A, B, C, and so on, to maintain their privacy and to distinguish them from each other.

A few notes...

Since my comments are from private messages, I do make some pretty strong statements and am a bit unfiltered.  I may offend those of you who didn't like the show.  To be clear, my frustration was with the people who were attempting to beat me into submission, who were also attempting to keep anyone from discussing the show online.  I never cared that some people didn't like the show; I was annoyed with how aggressive and mean a subset of those people were.  It was wrong of them to act like they did. 

I refer to Person Q as "nuts."  This person was unhinged.  She cussed all over the place and made extreme statements that were rather shocking.  The behavior by that person was particularly awful.  What happened in late 2019 was the worst behavior from series book fans since the flame wars of the Nancy Drew newsgroup from the late 1990s.  

I mention being pleased about certain people flouncing out of the group.  It's a funny thing when people threaten to leave a group.  They act like they will be hurting the moderator.  Instead, difficult people brighten a moderator's day when they flounce out of the group, since they will then no longer be a problem.

The story begins with the script being passed around between collectors in early 2019.  Some of us read the pilot episode script long before the first episode was even filmed.

February 21, 2019, to Person F

The sex scene will freak everyone out!  They will die.  They can't deal with Sophia Lillis' hair or clothing, so they will absolutely have conniption fits.  It might be the end of ND fandom. 

February 22, 2019, to Person F

The story is good, especially at the end when Nancy realizes that all is not as she thought.  Making Nancy a few years older would make the mature scenes easier to accept.  At the same time, keeping her a teen is important to the story, since she still lives with her father and feels betrayed by him.  But regardless, I hope this is filmed and that we actually get to see it.  

The story reminds me of the recent comic book series, which I have not gotten back to finishing.  It's like they got some ideas from it, especially the Bayport part.

July 19, 2019, to Person A

I agree!  This is going to be really good!  I SO hope that the show is successful.  It's important that the show appeal to people other than us, and this show has everything needed to do that.

August 9, 2019, to Person E

I have read [the script of the pilot episode].  The reaction is going to be bad, and some people are going to flip out completely.  They are already upset, and they do not know what is actually in the show.

I have been following the discussions in the ND Book Fans group, and I am getting increasingly concerned.  I notice another argument transpired today with someone leaving the group.  Someone else left the group a few days ago.  I don't understand why people leave groups instead of just blocking the people who annoy them.

The show premiered on October 9, 2019.

October 9, 2019, to Person F

I haven't checked the group yet since I was watching the show.  The show was exactly what I expected.  I had read the script and seen previews, so no surprises. 

(later)

I'm beginning to read the comments.  I don't get why they are so rigid in their thinking and why things like George being bossy are so annoying to them.  I thought George was bossy at times in the books...

(later)

[Person B] is surprised that I support the show.  He has no clue about me and what I think.  He wrote on another post "0% Nancy Drew."  He has no idea.

October 10, 2019, to Person F

The fan reaction has definitely reached full-blown meltdown status in the ND group.  Ooh, I need to check the game fans group again.  I haven't been there since last night.

(later)

And some of the language!  One person posted about ND having a "f*** buddy" and someone else said she's a "b****."  They aren't taking this well.  

And their comments about the morality of the sex is out of line.  A few people declared that they wouldn't watch the show again.  

And I'm sick of people putting down young people, saying that they don't read books, etc.  I did respond on one comment thread stating that a number of my students bring paper books to class to read.  So annoying to read judgmental statements.

(later)

Several people say it isn't like ANY of the books.  I disagree.  Aside from the sex, I think the show isn't that different from the Files, which admittedly I haven't read in years.

(later)

The game fans seem to be a lot more sane about this.  There are complaints, but they aren't coming across as raving maniacs like the people in the book group.

(later)

Yes, the behavior in the book group is embarrassing.  If people from the show are there, they will think we are all insane.

(later)

[Person Q] is nuts!  I was thinking of Taylor Swift's "You Need to Calm Down" and someone posted the gif!

October 11, 2019, to Person F

Some of these people are way over-dramatic.  A few claim that the show has ruined Nancy Drew for them.  

I made note of a couple comments I saw earlier today.  One person:  "But I just clutched my blue tweed very first Nancy Drew as I watched."  Wow.

October 13, 2019, to Person F

I haven't seen a discussion of the sex go well anywhere that I've seen.  People are incapable of having a rational discussion about that aspect of the show, just like with politics.

I came up with the idea to ban the sex discussion part of the show way back in June but didn't tell anyone.  I was originally going to warn people before the first show aired, but then I decided just to see what would happen.  Now I know and am not surprised.  They can't handle it.

October 13, 2019, to Collecting Group moderators

[Person G]'s post on the ND show bears watching.  We already have a statement about the immorality of premarital sex and another one disagreeing, and that strays into religion and politics.  Not good.  I have made two comments in an attempt to prevent the comments from getting worse.

If the post deteriorates into a flame war in the next few hours, please close comments.  It's skating on the edge right now.  A little trolling is going on by [Person H], who is not a regular.  Some other comments are also problematic.  

(later)

Right, I don't think ND Book Fans is banning such posts.  People just shouldn't be hateful to each other and shouldn't be cussing like they were.

I'm concerned about the comments regarding the morality of premarital sex, since that borders on religion and politics, which we do not allow.  So far, the comments are going overall okay, but this will continue to bear watching.

This may sound heavy-handed, but this is what I'd like to do as we will be dealing with this for months if the show doesn't get canceled (and I hope it doesn't).  

I would like to make a rule that states that fans can discuss any aspect of the show except for the sex.  What do you think?  Does that sound reasonable or insane?  

I don't want to read comments for and against premarital sex every single week as this show airs.  We already know that [Person I] will not drop it, nor will others who are strongly on the other side of the issue.  That discussion needs to occur somewhere else and not under our watch.  

I don't like the inclusion of sex in the show, but this is just fiction.  It's just a show.  She isn't real.  It's not productive for us to debate whether she should or shouldn't every single week.

And [Person J] just called [Person G] "twisted."  We won't be able to leave the post open much longer.

(later)

As others have stated in our group and elsewhere, it's the sex that seems to enrage people more than anything else.  Ever since I read the script early this year, I have been worried about it.  I originally wanted to ban discussion of sex in this show before the first show aired, but I never followed through with it.  So that's how I feel about discussing that aspect of the show.  I don't want to touch it at all.

(later)

So how about the post gets closed, and I write a post stating that no discussion of Nancy Drew having sex is allowed.  This is a ridiculous rule, but ridiculous times require ridiculous measures.

(later)

I think that we are going to run into problems again when the second show airs.  This is my current plan.  Let me know if you have any other ideas.

Each Wednesday before the show airs, I can start a discussion thread for the new episode.  Discussion will be limited to that post.  The post will include a warning about not discussing any sex scenes that might appear in the show.  The warning will also state that all comments about the sex will be deleted.

And then we will have to see if that idea will work.  If not, discussing the show can be banned, but I'd like to allow it if we can keep the controversy out of the group.  This is just so silly that some people can't be reasonable.

There are actually some comments in the ND Book Fans group where people state that last week's episode ruined all of their memories of ND.  That's crazy!

October 14, 2019, to Collecting Group moderators

You might have noticed that I did not remove [Person J]'s comment calling [Person G] "twisted."  I think it is good for people to see exactly what was starting to happen so that they know why I banned discussion of sex in the group. 

I noticed that three people left the group after I banned discussion of sex: [Person I] (he has been a problem in several ways, so good riddance), [Person K], and [Person L].

All three complained about the sex, so they must be annoyed that they cannot complain more.  Why can't they just ignore the show?  Why is that so hard?

I assume that the next show will have sex in it.  If anyone complains about or mentions the sex, then their comment or post should be deleted.  We must take a hard line on this.  

October 16, 2019, to Person E

I appreciate your comments.  I'm now planning two posts for tonight, one for fans and one for people who are not fans.  This might not work, but it's worth a try.

(later)

I'm back to just one post and no restriction other than no discussion of sexual content.  We'll see what happens.  I also just had to kick out someone who mocked me.  Such fun times.  Your thoughtful comments are always appreciated.

October 16, 2019, to Collecting Group moderators

The show is about Nancy Drew, and I have always stated that all versions of Nancy Drew are within our guidelines, just like all versions have always been covered by publications like Yellowback Library.

(later)

It's just that we have always accepted other versions like Pamela Sue Martin.  If we are not going to allow this one, then all filmed versions should be tossed out.

The Nancy Drew Book Fans group is pretty much on its own due to the Sleuth convention [currently in progress].  [The moderators] aren't available to moderate it.  I want to give people just one place to discuss the show in peace.

(later)

I just kicked [Person M] out and banned him.  This is the first time I've ever been mocked with "baaah!"  

(later)

I just placed the group on moderation so that we don't get a bunch of threads about the show.  Also, we're all going to have to sleep.  That won't stop bad comments on existing posts, but new posts will have to be approved.

[Person N] also just suggested we stick to books only.  I'm not responding, but if we did that, then we shouldn't discuss Bonita Granville or any other version, should we?  

If there is one thread and one thread only, I continue not to understand why they can't just ignore it.  

(later)

I also don't want to cave in for anything in the world at this point.  I don't want to give them the satisfaction of beating me down.  We should be able to discuss a Nancy Drew series.  

(later)

The complainers are now jumping in, and they aren't referring to the new show, since it hasn't aired.  It's interesting how we are expected to put up with them, and how dare we ask them to hold back.

October 17, 2019, to Collecting Group moderators

I agree.  I read [Person B]'s comment slowly last night, twice, to see if he went too far.  He was using veiled language to get away with it.  He knew that my guidelines forbid terms like "adult situations," so he made it more vague.

I think he will end up leaving the group or being kicked out before too much longer.  I expect he won't be able to resist being blatant, and I will offend him, causing him to leave, or I will kick him out.  The clock is ticking...

October 17, 2019, to Person A

I'm getting a lot of flak over allowing discussion of the show, and I will not back down.  I think it has gone okay so far.  Some people say that the group should only be about BOOKS, so the show doesn't fit.  But those same people don't mind Pamela Sue Martin and Bonita Granville.  They just don't want a version discussed if they don't like it.  People are so unreasonable.  We've lost at least five members this week plus the one I kicked out yesterday.

(later response)

I appreciate your support.  I really do.  I feel like the discussion has gone really well.  We had one minor skirmish last night, and the person who started that comment thread then deleted it when it didn't need to come down.  But at least that person is trying to avoid causing trouble.

[Person B] just can't keep from saying something.  I know what he meant and he veiled it to fit the rule, and I read it twice to make certain that he wasn't going too far.  At least he didn't use "adult behavior" like he did days ago.  He's one of those who said the group is about BOOKS only.

Even though the naysayers claim that the sex is the reason they don't like the show, they wouldn't like it anyway.  The only ND that would be good enough is if Nancy could jump off of the cover of 1930 Old Clock and into a movie.  She would then have to act exactly like in the book and say the same lines.

October 17, 2019, to Person X

I'm digging in, standing my ground, even though some people cannot stand seeing the show discussed in the Collecting group.  They are now saying that the group is only about the BOOKS and that the show should not be allowed.

If so, then Bonita Granville and Pamela Sue Martin's versions should be banned, right?  I'm not picking and choosing which versions to allow.  It's either ALL or NONE.  I'm going with ALL.

We are losing members.  Two more people left last night since seeing the episode discussion.  I don't care, and I actually hope more complainers leave.

I also got mocked yesterday in the group over politics, so I banned that person.  Fun times.

I think the discussion in the Collecting group is going well, and that's why I want one each week.

October 27, 2019, to Person A

I was surprised to see a really positive comment about the ND Diaries series recently in the ND Book Fans group from some random fan.  No matter what the version, some people like it.  I personally don't like the scared, self-doubting Nancy in the Diaries series, but I'm glad that there are people who really enjoy those books.  It's good for the brand.

November 1, 2019, to Person F

[Person D] does have a point about the supernatural events, especially since a few people have now commented that they are losing interest because of that aspect.  However, I maintain that most of these people would have lost interest anyway, supernatural or not.  I will just go with whatever craziness happens in the show.  I'm making a weekly event out of watching it, and I hate television.

November 2, 2019, to Person F

The supernatural events don't bother me, although having them is unusual for ND.  Whatever they do, I'm fine.  The characterization of Nancy meets the one requirement that is most important to me:  she is strong and fearless.  The Diaries series bothers me because Nancy calls herself a "wuss" and is scared, nervous, or self-doubting much of the time.  This show doesn't make Nancy weak, so I have no complaints.

November 6, 2019, to Person F

It's been quite a day.  First, [Person R] posted about the sex in the first episode, which he just watched.  He didn't like it.  That post went bad fast.

[Person B] complained about how ND has its own group, blah blah blah.

[Person S] tagged me.  My favorite part was [Person T]'s response of "Mommmm!" and my reply of "Mom has arrived."

I closed comments.  Some hours pass and [Person R] deletes his post.

Then [Person U] posts about the post that was deleted.  That one is still there and you can read it.  I closed comments to it since it was going bad.

Sometime after that, [Person B] had it and flounced out of the group.  

November 21, 2019, to Person F

I am enjoying the show.  I just go with whatever they do.  It doesn't bother me.  The spirits thing was jarring at first, but now I fully embrace that Nancy is surrounded by spirits with weird stuff happening.  I find it fun.

And also, people said that the CW show wouldn't bring in new ND book fans.  The post from today in the ND Book Fans group proves that wrong.

(later)

It's funny that the show has almost no sex right now - implied, yes - but Nancy hasn't gotten any action in a while.  Instead, the show has gone full-on supernatural.  That is bothering some people who are still watching.  If most people hadn't ditched after the first show, they'd be ranting about the spirits.

A few months ago, I spent a fairly significant amount of time flipping through the NDGD books until I located where Nancy is arrested for breaking into a business.  It was that important to me to prove that Nancy has been arrested in the books.  This was because of the comments on the Hidden Staircase movie about how Nancy has never picked locks, broken into places, or been arrested.

November 22, 2019, to Person F

I don't like horror films that feature blood, gore, or anything like that.  I have no interest in shows like CSI because I don't want to watch autopsies and yucky stuff.  So far, this show hasn't taken that aspect too far.  The morgue scene was icky, but we didn't see much.  As long as they don't take it further than that, I will be fine.  Even if they do, I'm still going to watch.  I want to see how this plays out.

I find it interesting how many people are bailing because of the supernatural stuff.  And at the start, the problem was the sex.  It turns out that the sex wasn't the real problem after all.

November 25, 2019, to Person A

[Person C] gets on my nerves big time, and he's been doing it for 17 years, at least.  I still haven't forgotten his comments in the Sleuths group in 2002 about the Maggie Lawson pilot.  I responded with my view, and he proceeded to twist my words to support his view. 

I've decided to just skim what he and [Person D] say about the show.  It's unnecessary to repeat the same statements over and over and over...

[Person D] didn't want the show discussed in the group, and I doubt that [Person C] does.  They might be trying to wear me down via the negativity.  I'm not backing down for anything in the world.  I will create a post for every new episode, even if I just discuss the show with myself.

November 25, 2019, to Collecting Group moderators

I'm actually overall okay right now, all things considered.   The group isn't really bothering me.  The [Person O] thing was a problem, but it was just a temporary problem.  

I keep thinking about the CW show and how I KNEW that we could discuss it in the group.  Several people thought I was nuts, [Person D] included.  He kept discouraging me.  I was right!  We CAN discuss the show in a calm fashion.  See?  I knew it!  I'm pretty happy that we can discuss the show, and people can express their varying opinions.  Not everyone likes it, but that's okay!

December 3, 2019, to Person F

This show is not going to ruin ND.  It doesn't even have that good of ratings.  Goodness.  I doubt most people know that the show exists.  I was just told in my blog that I am the [only] reason that they know about the show. 

December 5, 2019, to Person F

In the Collecting group, [Person C] made a comment on the new episode post about being sad that some of us actually like the show.  I made a statement similar to ones that [Person P] has made in the ND group.  

I feel like some people are spoiling for a fight with those of us who enjoy the show.  At the least, they want to convince us not to like it.  It's not going to work.

December 13, 2019, to Person W

I also think [Person C] is hoping to make the discussion posts go away by trying to pick a fight each week.  I told someone else recently that I'm going to keep posting the discussion threads for each new episode regardless of how many people are against me.  I feel like a martyr.  I took a lot of heat for allowing the show to be discussed while not allowing certain people to preach at us about premarital sex.  I'm not backing down for anything in the world.  People can be so immature.

December 13, 2019, to Person P

It is really hard to be fair and not favor some people over others...  I want to allow people to say that they don't like the show, but it is really hard to know when they are going too far.  And I really can't tell people not to be negative, unfortunately.   

And I don't think either you or [Person W] was picking a fight.  I meant that [Person C] seems to be trying to pick one.  My stance is to ignore him. 

December 13, 2019, to Collecting Group moderators

Just letting you know that I'm dealing with the minor fuss in the television show discussion thread.  I'm fine with going it alone on anything with the CW show since I have vowed to do weekly discussions no matter what.  I feel like a martyr. 

December 27, 2019, to Person F

They mostly are behaving.  In the Collecting group, a couple of people have taken offense at the cover of an old Sugar Creek Gang book (Christian themed) with a raccoon cornered in a tree by hunters.  We were informed by [Person V] and someone else that hunting raccoons is against Christianity.  Then someone else pointed out the hunting references in the Bible.  I deleted the comments, which angered [Person V].  How can she think that getting on her soapbox in the group is appropriate?

January 24, 2020, to Person F

And then in the ND Book Fans group earlier today, someone threw out the "real ND" statement, since of course none of the new versions are the real ND.  That's actually a bit offensive.  I loved the most recent ND Diaries book and really enjoy the modern versions, at least when they are written by good writers who know not to have ND scared all the time.  

.......................................

What I've shared covers the bulk of the early fights about the series.  This shows my thinking and how I doubled down, making the CW ND show discussion the hill that I would die on.

It saddens me that many fans won't allow us to have some happiness in discussing an interesting current project.  Series book fandom won't last for many more years.  I believe that we are currently at the beginning of the end.  It will take some 20 years for it to be over, but that day is coming.  

Why must anything new be trashed into oblivion, even when there is nothing much wrong with it?  Even the 2019 movie with Sophia Lillis was trashed, and that movie was completely wholesome.  Our fandom weakens itself and sucks the joy out of everything.

Even though I initiated discussion of all 62 episodes, little discussion occurred.  I'm confident that most of the people who were watching the show were fearful of commenting in the group.  That is sad.

Relationships Ruined by Judgmental Collectors

I was disappointed when several collectors made judgmental statements about those of us who watched the CW Nancy Drew television series.  We were criticized for enjoying the Easter eggs.  Some people said that the story arc of the first season was extremely obvious and that we were foolish for falling for it.  Huh?

Let's talk about behavior in the series book groups that no one questions.  Collectors often bring up the names of books that they are reading and will remark with sheer joy about how a series book character like Nancy Drew or Trixie Belden is mentioned on a certain page.  The book that mentions the series book character is not a children's book or anything remotely like a series book.  And yet, other members will jump on the post and say that they are going to buy that book and read it.  Everyone is enthusiastic and happy.

For someone like me, a name appearing in a book will not cause me to want to read it.  When the book is a work of fiction aimed at adults, I would never consider reading it just because Nancy Drew is mentioned on page 157.  Other people do decide to read the book for just that reason, but I assume that the book is something that would also be of interest to those people.

Consider what I just stated and think about it.  These people seem to decide to read the book just because of the Easter egg, but they more likely will read the book because the Easter egg brought a book of interest to their attention.  They know that they will like this book that had previously escaped their notice.

I would never make a disparaging remark aimed at these people.  Why?  I get it.  I can see how bringing the book to their attention would spark their interest.  It makes no difference whether the book would interest me, and their interest in the book is not my concern.

Now, let's get back to the collectors who criticized those of us who watched CW ND.  Paraphrasing from memory, these collectors said that we were only watching the show for the Easter eggs and that it was silly that we were excited about finding the Easter eggs. 

I cannot express how much these statements personally offended me.  I was disappointed to read the critical statements.  Some of these people just weren't thinking of how their comments came across, and I can give them a pass.  I have lingering resentment towards a few other collectors whose comments took on a tone that came across as especially insulting.

I did not watch the show only for the Easter eggs.  That should be clear based on what I have already revealed in this post.  When group members mention a work of fiction that contains a mention of Nancy Drew, I do not go out and buy it.  I'm not going to read a book or watch a television show solely because of Easter eggs.  

I read books and watch shows that are within my area of interest regardless of whether Easter eggs are present.  Any Easter eggs are just an added bonus.

One type of show that I enjoy features young people (children up to early 20s) who are involved in events that have some paranormal or supernatural content.  I am a big fan of Friday the 13th: The Series.  To be clear, this is the television series featuring Micki, Ryan, Jack, and later Johnny, who recover cursed antiques sold by Louis Vendredi, who had made a deal with the devil.  The series shares the same name as the movie franchise with Jason Voorhees, but otherwise, it has nothing to do with it.

So, I like shows like that.  I also have enjoyed Wednesday on Netflix, for instance.

In my case, the CW ND show turned out to be exactly the kind of show that I enjoy watching.  I would never have been aware of it if not for its use of the name Nancy Drew.  I should not have had to read the judgmental statements about how people like me were supposedly only watching the show for the Easter eggs and that we were stupid for doing so.  I did not understand why prominent collectors were letting the existence of this show ruin their relationships with other fans. 

And yes, some series book collector friendships have been ruined because of the squabbling about the CW ND series.  While I didn't lose any friendships, I am now quite uncomfortable around several collectors.  I also have lingering resentment over how I was treated as a group moderator during the fall of 2019.  

I do understand these people not liking the show.  Stating their opinion was fine.  Making insulting, judgmental statements about viewers of the series was not fine.  They crossed a line when they did that.

I am combining two draft posts here.  The other part has to do with how the CW ND show has benefitted me.  Yes, I'm serious.

I watch very little television and practically never watch movies.  Because of CW ND, I have watched a few other things that I've really enjoyed.  The show Cruel Summer was recommended as a show that CW ND fans might like.  It's quite different from CW ND, but I love the teen characters and the mystery/suspense involved.  I would have never watched it if not for reading comments about CW ND.

I am now more inclined to check media based on children's and teen books, and it's because of this show.  I watched The Baby-Sitters Club on Netflix and loved it.  I have only read a few Baby-Sitters Club books and am not a fan of the book series.  But my rudimentary knowledge greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the show. 

I watched the Netflix movie trilogy based on R. L. Stine's Fear Street books.  I dislike Stine's writing style, so I'm not a fan of the books at all.  However, I enjoyed the trilogy a lot even though it does have some gruesome kills that are not to my taste.  

I have also been introduced to modern music via these shows that I never otherwise would have heard.  

The CW ND viewing experience has been very positive for me, and I wish that other people didn't feel the need to tear us down for watching the show. 

We are allowed to watch frivolous modern entertainment that is completely different from the book series.

Collector Negativity and Criticism of Other Collectors

This post was written in December 2022.

Many collectors come across as quite negative when they post online.  Even collectors who are generally positive make negative comments at times.  We've all been negative at one time or another, and I must begin by saying that I have certainly been guilty of that.  I try not to do it these days, since it is detrimental to our hobby. 

I am concerned that the ongoing negativity has already driven many collectors away.  I know for a fact that the negativity has reduced participation in the groups.  I know this because of comments made to me via private messages.

1.  I am aware that some people never post in the groups because they are intimidated by certain people.

2.  I am aware of proposed projects that were canned because of negativity. 

3.  The bullying that began on the old Applewood message board and in the alt.news.nancy-drew newsgroup in the late 1990s continues (click here for more information), although it usually occurs outside of the groups.  I saw evidence of this bullying in my Facebook newsfeed as recently as October 2022.  They still haven't stopped, and they do drive others away.

Let's cover some of the different forms that the negativity can take.

Making Fun of Cover Art and Illustrations

Collectors often poke fun at cover art and illustrations, but sometimes this is taken too far with little concern for how others feel.  Around 20 years ago, the cover art of a certain Judy Bolton book was ruined for me because a few other collectors went into great detail explaining what was wrong about how the illustration was painted.  I see their comments every time I look at the jacket, and I used to love that jacket.  I still like the jacket, but I would have preferred not to have had the flaws pointed out. 

Altered book covers can also ruin our enjoyment of the original cover art.  I can think of one altered cover that is captioned in such a way that it points out what is wrong with the cover art, therefore ruining it forever.  That one is a Hardy Boys book that I will never see the same again.  The altered art is amusing, but it ruins the cover forever.

A certain Nancy Drew book has been used by all the crafters on Etsy and elsewhere.  It has a caption about Nancy burying her last f***.  I hate seeing that statement placed on a Nancy Drew cover.  I am beginning not to like the actual cover art of that Nancy Drew book.  What a shame.

Being Negative or Contrary 

I had what I thought was a happy post about colored illustrations.  I was surprised that the responses were rather negative.

People said that the book was ruined.  Robin Kane books aren't worth more than a few dollars, and the coloring is so nice that it adds to the value of the book.  Trust me on this.  I've kept the book because I like the coloring, and I don't collect Robin Kane.  I have no doubt that I could sell the book easily.  People need to lighten up.

Also, someone might joyfully report on a find and mention how nice the book is, using a word like "excellent" or "pristine."  Often, someone will correct them, telling them that the descriptor they used isn't correct, that the book is in worse condition.  That's just rude.

Qualifying One's Positive Statements

I see this very often.  Someone will remark that they like certain more modern Nancy Drew books, but then they immediately add that they like the original text books better.  Or they might say that they like the cover art of a later picture cover edition, but then quickly add that they like the Tandy art better.  It's actually okay to like both.  Liking one doesn't take away from the other.  Why qualify the statement?

Making Insulting Statements About Other Collectors' Purchases

This has happened to me lots of times.  I've been told something to the effect of "I'd never pay that much for..."  So?  They didn't; I did.  It's my money, and I can spend it how I want.  Saying that they'd never pay that much is an insult.

I've been told that what I paid for something was more than someone's car payment.  What does their car payment have to do with what I paid for something?  Exactly nothing.  Again, insult.

I was criticized for some of my first printing Nancy Drew purchases.  My top goal was to get all 38 books in first printing books matched with first printing jackets, a goal that I finally reached in early 2019.  Very few collectors have achieved this goal.  The last I heard, the number of fans who have succeeded is fewer than five.

I purchased the first printing books and jackets however I could.  I was willing to accept less-than-perfect condition since owning all 38 was very important to me.  I purchased some books that had water damage in order to get the jackets.  The books could be upgraded.  

Nancy Drew 1st Printing Auctions Part 3

In the above post, you can see a badly water-damaged first printing of Hidden Staircase that had a first printing jacket with a water stain on the spine.  I purchased that book, and I was told that my purchase was foolish.  I matched the jacket with another book, shown in the below post.

Nancy Drew First Printing Auctions Part 4

More than one very prominent Nancy Drew collector expressed skepticism about my purchasing decisions.  Some thought that any mold or mildew from the jacket would pass to the book and on to others.  Apparently, this can happen.  But did it?

If you looked at my "Part 4" post, you saw what my Hidden Staircase book looked like 12 years ago when newly paired with the water-stained jacket.  Here is what it looks like now.

Huh.  It doesn't seem to have changed.  Of course the condition of the book and jacket aren't perfect, but the first four Nancy Drew books in first printing books/first printing jackets are extremely scarce, if you haven't noticed.  Why insult me over the condition of my copy?  I'm proud of it.

I've been told that my library editions are nice but that others would only collect them if they weren’t library discards and were in extremely nice shape.  These comments weren't intended to be insults, but they irked me a bit.  I couldn't help how I felt, even though no slight was intended.  I was left feeling like my treasures, my beloved library editions, just aren't good enough for most collectors because they are library discards and have wear.  It's best just to tell me that the library editions are nice and leave off the rest of the statement.   

Pointing Out High Prices and Making Fun of Them

We've all done this but mainly on listings that are truly overpriced and will never sell.  It's a bit different when something sold for a high price, people are laughing about it, and you're the buyer.

In 2018, several sellers listed Japanese series books on eBay at fairly high prices.  I purchased many of them.  I was glad that the prices were a bit high, because I had very little competition.  Otherwise, I would have missed out.

People made fun of the prices, which irritated me.  I wrote, "One person even posted a laughing emoji about the prices.  Seeing someone make fun of the prices of books that I was buying was rather annoying."  I added, "When the books were mentioned on Facebook, some people questioned why the prices were so high.  Some thought that it would be better to go to Japan and find the books.  Assuming that the books could be found, one still has to pay airfare, lodging, and transportation.  The books would not be cheap once the other costs were factored in."

Recently, I paid a lot of money for a book.  In one of the groups, the auction was mentioned.  Someone posted a laughing emoji with a short remark about Nancy Drew collectors.  Now that some time has passed, I have realized that no insult was intended, but I felt quite insulted at the time.  People often type short statements with little thought about how they might be taken.  It's easy for someone else to take offense when the statement is too short without enough explanation of the meaning.  We all need to be careful that we are clear about what we mean.

Taking Advantage of Other Collectors

Over the years, a number of people have taken advantage of me or attempted to do so.  Regarding the book mentioned immediately above, I avoided posting about my purchase online due to the laughing emoji plus another comment seen on Facebook.  Someone was hoping to get a copy of the dust jacket.  I'm not interested in doing that. 

First and foremost, it's too much trouble.  I have printed color copy jackets in the past, and it's often not easy to get the colors to reproduce how they should.  The process is a lot of trouble for little monetary return. 

Second, I don't feel that it is right to expect me to copy a dust jacket of a book that was quite expensive.  I can't charge much for a copy dust jacket.  I shouldn't charge more than the cost of the paper, ink, and postage.  I am not going to make someone a copy of something for which I paid at least 20 times more than what they will pay for a copy dust jacket. 

I felt a bit put out and offended about the situation, and it took away a bit of my joy in that acquisition.  It really did.  Worst of all, I couldn't reveal the purchase.  Of course I could just say "no," but collectors expect other collectors to help them out.  I just won't ever talk about that book.  I'm hoping that the other one that later came up for sale went to that person.

Gatekeeping of Unkind Statements in the Facebook Groups

I recently wrote about gatekeeping in the groups on Facebook.  

Gatekeeping of Opinions in the Facebook Groups

This is when people get offended over someone's opinion and ask that it be removed from the group.  Typically, nothing is wrong with the supposedly offensive opinion.  It is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to have their own opinion.

That kind of gatekeeping is wrong.  However, I do my own share of gatekeeping, and it involves preventing people from being hurt by unkind statements.  The unkind statements fall into two categories.

The first type consists of mean comments aimed at specific collectors.  These people will mention a specific person, website, or eBay listing, and then proceed to make nasty statements.  I have deleted several of those over the years.  I will protect collectors from having their feelings hurt by mean collectors.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to protect myself from that.  I end up seeing the attacks made on me, but I do try to spare other people from experiencing that hurt.

The second type of unkind statement is when members aim insults at teenagers and Millennials.  What's weird is that most of these people think that Millennials and teenagers are the same generation.  They aren't.  Millennials were born between 1981 and 1996.  The very oldest current teenagers were born during 2002.  At least get the generations right if you're going to throw out insults.  Otherwise, your insults make no sense.

Whenever I see a generational insult, I remove it.  We need the younger collectors.  If we chase them away, then our hobby and all interest in it will soon cease to exist.  

This is a breakdown of the membership of the Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books group by age.  The percentages do not add to 100, which was caused by Facebook's rounding of the numbers.  That drives me crazy (I teach math), but I don't have the information to fix it.

28% - age 65+
26% - ages 55-64

20% - ages 45-54

15% - ages 35-44

  8% - ages 25-34

  1% - ages 18-24

I am in the middle of the 45-54 age range.  Let's say that half of the people in my range are older and that half are younger.  This means that 64% of the group's members are older than me.  I have always known that I was one of the younger collectors.  When I first got online in the 1990s, probably 90-95% of collectors were older than me.  The percentage has dropped, but even now that I am much older, most collectors are still older than me.

I remember those early days online.  Just about nobody liked the revised text books.  I read those growing up, so I liked them fine.  I agree that the original text Nancy Drew books are usually better, but it was distressing that just about everyone acted like my beloved revised text Nancys were awful.

Even now, since most collectors are older than me, the majority opinion continues to be that the original text books are the only good ones.  Opinion has softened somewhat, since those people, while still the majority, are not the extreme majority.

It's not a problem that people like the original text books better.  It's how they say it.  Some of these people act obnoxious, saying that all Nancy Drew books from after an arbitrary date are "trash."  Not as much of that happens now as it once did, but that viewpoint is still quite prevalent.

Negative statements about the modern Nancy Drew books can also drive away the younger collectors.  I'm not that young, but I avidly collect all of the softcover Nancy Drew books.  I have complete sets of Nancy Drew #57-175, Files, Girl Detective, and Diaries (these in the pricier hardcover edition).  Consider my age and that I am open to collecting these books.  Some collectors older than me make terrible, judgmental statements about all of the softcover Nancy Drew books.  If I were very young, I'd flee.  Why would I want to stay in a group with people who hate what I like?

Gen X and Millennials are the end of the line for series book collectors.  We have a number of Millennial collectors and a very few Gen Z collectors, but our fandom is a dying breed.  Insulting Millennials is foolish.  Insulting Gen Z is even worse since we can't afford to alienate the very few young people who will join the hobby.  Let's not chase them off.

Gatekeeping of Opinions in the Facebook Groups

Some people are extremely intolerant of differing opinions.  Just this week, I noticed two instances in the Facebook groups of people getting offended over someone's opinion and asking that the post or comment be deleted from the group.  If it's one of my groups, I'm not having that.  I'm not going to censor opinions.

I will say, before I continue, that I was put in a very difficult position after the Nancy Drew series began airing on The CW.  I allowed discussions in one group that I moderate.  The people who didn't like the show (actually just one person) made repetitive comments every single week about how much they hated the show.  They weren't even watching it!  I have gotten to the point where I just ignore everything this person says.  I'm able to do that.  It's kind of a superpower I have where I can just let my eyes skim over certain people's comments and not take in enough of the content to be annoyed.  I know who to tune out, and I do.

Other people have more trouble doing that.  I was in the middle of two factions.  There were the people who were extremely annoyed about the negative comments, and the people making the negative comments.  The people making the negative comments didn't want to be censored.  I do agree with that sentiment, but I also believe that people shouldn't be obnoxious.  So, I quite well understood the people who wanted the negative comments squelched.  It was tough having to navigate through that time.  I wrote about it in "Finding a Middle Ground to Discuss CW's Nancy Drew."

There has also been some conflict and gatekeeping this week concerning discussion of CW's Nancy Drew, but thankfully not in any group that I moderate.  In one of those groups, someone made a statement about Ace and his relationship with Nancy.  Paraphrasing, it was to the effect that Ace isn't good enough for Nancy and so they shouldn't be together.

Nace shippers became upset and wanted the comment removed because they considered it to be deeply offensive.  Other people were more rational, saying that there was nothing wrong with the comment and that it was an opinion.

Right!  I am not a Nace shipper, and their relationship does nothing for me.  I would prefer for them not to be together.  Don't get me wrong; I adore Ace.  I'm just not into the Nace thing at all.  I'd rather them just be good pals.  I am mostly staying away from the CW Nancy Drew forums because of all the fan art and sappiness about Nace. 

I keep my opinion about Nace very quiet on Facebook because the Nace shippers can't tolerate a different opinion.  I am resigned that Nancy and Ace will be together, but I was totally Team Agent Park during the third season. 

I was annoyed about that attempt at gatekeeping.  It is apparent that the Nace shippers do not believe that anyone has the right to say anything against Nace.  

I run a group about vintage teen books, like Sweet Valley High and others.  Someone posted about the book Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack!  The book is not about what it sounds like, and I think we would have been better off if Dinky had used heroin.   

I haven’t read the book, but apparently Dinky Hocker is overweight and tries to help other overweight kids, possibly trying to force them to diet.  Something like that.

What happened is that somebody looked up the book and found out about the overweight characters.  They said that the book featured fat-shaming and bullying.  Someone else responded to that comment saying that social norms were different back in those days and that the book should be read with an open mind.  The first person then went off on the second person, calling them a "mansplaining male" and saying that they were trying to explain women and eating disorders.  The first person then reported the second person's comment to the mods. 

That was when I saw the comment thread.  I was annoyed that someone was wasting my time on a comment that did not need to be removed.  There is nothing wrong with someone saying that things were different years ago and that we have to keep that in mind.  That person is entitled to say what they want.  I instead thought that the "mansplaining" comment was the inappropriate one.  I thought about removing it.  I then decided that I didn't want my time wasted having to watch over the post.  I did not remove any comments, and I closed commenting. 

I wrote this as my reason:

Members - It's apparent that we aren't going to be able to continue discussing this post.  Someone reported a comment, which expressed an opinion.  Members do have a right to their opinion, even if you think they are wrong or even if they are actually wrong.  I will not censor comments when they express a member's opinion about a book.  Comments are now closed.

A few years back in another group, a member contacted me, telling me to tell another member to quit commenting on his posts.  Say what?  I'm not touching that.  Members have a right to comment on any post.  I suggested that this member block the other member.  Wouldn't that make sense?  I didn't need to be involved.

Running a Large Facebook Group Is Stressful and Not Fun

Sometimes I lose most enthusiasm for Facebook.  Right now, I partially feel as I did when I wrote the first post linked below, and it is currently because I'm sick of people who dislike how I run my groups, yet oddly won't leave those groups.  

Loss of Enthusiasm for Facebook and Online Interaction

Facebook Group Behavior

I remain bitter about how I was treated regarding my decision to allow group discussion of the Nancy Drew series on The CW. 

Finding a Middle Ground to Discuss CW's Nancy Drew

This recent post is about the time I was attacked by a collector who was angry because I purchased his books.

Unreasonable and Combative Collectors

I have been called a "bimbo" by one person and a "dumb broad" by another.  Someone else bleated at me (Baaaaa!).  One person said that I was a "pursed-up, corseted sideline referee."  Another person sent me a photo of Joseph Stalin through private message to indicate that I was exactly like Stalin.

You will notice that these attacks tend to include sexist remarks that were made because I am female.  It's interesting how often some angry men immediately resort to sexist comments when dealing with a woman.

It's been said that I take myself too seriously.  Actually yes, I do.  I take my responsibilities as a group moderator very seriously.  

Shouldn't I do that?  How very odd that I'm not supposed to take my role seriously.

Some dissatisfied members mention that they don't like being censored or told what to do.  Apparently some people feel that it is more important to have personal freedom in a private group than have the group be free from conflict.

I run several groups, but only one of them is a continual problem:  Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books.  The group is such a problem.

I will tell you exactly how I feel, and it may shock you.  I have often felt that the group is more trouble that it is worth.  At times, I have actually disliked the group.  I'm dead serious.  I have even considered (not really that seriously, just an idea) that I should step down as admin, leave the group, and create another one with a stricter screening process to keep the problems out.  However, I don't feel like throwing everything away, so I stick with the flawed group that exists.

I never would have created the group if I had known the trouble it would cause me.  If I could go back in time, I would not have created the group.

I didn't know how to run a group.  There was no training.  People who create groups do so out of a genuine enthusiasm for a topic.  I didn't realize that Facebook would advertise the group to the general public and that trolls and online sellers would join by the hundreds.  If I had known that would happen, then the group would never have existed.

That group is the only one that is a consistent problem.  It's not the general public that causes me stress, even though that aspect is a significant problem.  The series book collectors who want to have complete freedom to act as they wish are the problem.  I don't understand why people take something that should be happy and turn it into conflict.

It was in May 2021 that I was at a breaking point.  This is what I wrote about the situation:

It was in late April that I felt the very highest amount of stress.  Around then, problems on Facebook increased.  I manage some groups, and one group in particular is continually a problem because it has a bloated membership.  Several people kept submitting posts that were problematic for various reasons.

Those people might post about an extremely obscure series but not explain what it is.  We won't blindly approve something when we can't figure out what it is within around 30 seconds.  We repeatedly advised those people to explain their content, but they didn't seem to get the message.

At the same time, others used loopholes in the rules to get posts approved that shouldn't be in the group.  I won't get into the specifics of exactly what transpired, but I finally reached a point where I was done with letting people sneak things in under a loophole.  It just wasn't worth my time or trouble.  I have been stretched so thin the last few months, and I finally had enough.  No more loopholes.  On May 7, I decided that I was completely done with dealing with certain kinds of posts.

Allow me to explain further.  We also were dealing with people submitting screen captures from news networks.  The images featured series books in the background, but headlines about the pandemic and politics as well as the station logo would be in the image.  We couldn't have that.  It was quite time-consuming going back and forth with these people in order to get them to make the image appropriate for the group. 

Running a group is a volunteer position.  There is no pay.  I do it in addition to my own responsibilities.  Most moderation is done in the evening when people are off work, which is when they are on Facebook.  This means that I lose some of my own recreation time when I have to deal with difficult issues.

I was so fed up in May 2021 with the manipulation and attacks that I created a list of guidelines on what will not be approved in the group.  Creating the list was a way for me to vent my feelings without sharing them with others.  It also helped me to regain control and not let people manipulate me.  Here is that list.

Posts are not approved that

- mention books or series that are outside of our focus
- ask for help with completely off-topic subjects
- have screen captures from news networks or current event shows
- contain foul language
- have altered book covers
- are parodies/jokes about series books
- have books that look like series books but aren't
- mention the group rules
- mention the moderators or moderation
- have snarky comments
- contain an off-topic video even if a series book appears somewhere
- contain an off-topic link
- that are unclear (pictures/links with no explanation)
- offer to buy or sell books
- mention politics or social issues

All of the above examples were submitted to the group in the few months leading up to and including May 2021 and usually by prominent group participants.  It was ridiculous. 

Here are some thoughts on a few as a bit of explanation.

Books that look like series books, have titles that sound like series books, or that could have been series books in an alternate reality don't belong in the group.  Saying that "this could have been a Cherry Ames book" doesn't make it a Cherry Ames book.  It isn't, and the post won't be approved.

The altered book covers are almost always problematic.  They are usually either political or include references to sex and drugs.  In other cases, a completely off-topic book cover has been altered to make it seem like a book from a certain series.  Those kinds of altered covers confuse members and are also a means where members attempt to get off-topic books in the group. 

Parodies, jokes, and cartoons tend to be just as problematic as the altered covers and for the same reasons.  Besides, we don't have a series book discussion group so that we can make fun of the books.  That's not what it's about.  Members have their own personal Facebook feed, and they can make fun of the books all they want in that location.

When members mention the rules or moderation, they usually do so in an attempt to undermine the moderators.  We won't approve posts that do that, and we will delete comments that do that.

Our biggest problem, which causes me great stress, is which books to allow in the group.  Members have different ideas on what is okay and what isn't.  The problem is how far to go with what we allow.

Let's venture onto the slippery slope.  Some people want the malt shop books in the group.  Those books could be considered okay, but how much further do we go?  Malt shop books are earlier period young adult books.  Do we then consider the teen books by Beverly Cleary to be okay, since they are very similar?  What about other books by Beverly Cleary? 

What about a stand-alone book like Junior Miss?  While not from a series, it's like the malt shop books.

If we allow earlier young adult books, then what about later young adult books like Sweet Valley High?  The Sweet Valley High premise was modeled after Nancy Drew.  The twins' father is Ned, who is an attorney.  Those are obvious nods to Nancy Drew, so we do have an argument for allowing Sweet Valley High.  It goes on and on.  Where should the line be placed?  We have to stop somewhere. 

To prevent us from including everything, we could disallow books published after 1980.  However, that would ban a large percentage of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys books that exist.  That wouldn't work since those two series form the foundation of our core focus. 

If we place no restriction on what we allow, then we soon allow most everything.  If we allow everything, then we lose the group's focus completely and have no place to discuss series books.

To make a long story short, we decided to disallow all books that fall under the young adult/teen category including all romance books.  That omits the malt shop books, but it also reduces our problems with how far to go. 

We also have the reverse problem.  We must be careful not to be too restrictive with what we allow but at the same time not allow members to manipulate us.  

This is very hard.  I cannot overemphasize how it difficult is to decide, in all cases, which books to allow in the group.

We aren't always consistent.  It's impossible to be consistent as there are too many variables.  It does weigh on me, and I do end up annoying people who see the inconsistency.  

Moderators tend to feel that the most unpleasant part of moderation is having to decline posts.  I wish that members would understand that we are trying to keep groups on topic and that we do not enjoy refusing posts.  We hate it.

Just yesterday I declined a post where someone posted about their love of the Freddy the Pig books.  I'm sure the Freddy the Pig books are great, but they are outside of our focus.  I hate having to decline these posts.

That is why I sometimes publish posts in the group advising people that certain books are off-topic.  I only do that to try to reduce the number of posts that I have to decline so that I and the person whose post gets declined don't feel bad.  Whenever I post about what is appropriate or inappropriate, at least one of the members who dislikes how the group is run makes a negative comment.  When that happens, other members who have made it clear that they dislike how the group is run will hit the "like" button.  I wish they'd all just leave since they have a problem with the guidelines.  

A few years ago, I was removed from some series book groups due to the admin not liking a decision made in one of my groups.  I was even banned for a time.  The ban was lifted, but I have not asked to join those groups again.  I am not about to ask to rejoin any group from which I was removed.  

Since I can do without some groups, so can others.  Collectors who dislike my group should consider leaving instead of complaining.  There are other groups.  Those people could consider creating their own group, and then they could run it as they please. 

I was inspired to write this post when I learned that Jennifer Fisher was going to publish a post about the negative comments made about her Nancy Drew collection donation.  I decided that it was time that I say some of what I think about the state of affairs in the Facebook series book groups.  

The Nancy Drew Donation Dilemma - The Jennifer Fisher Nancy Drew Collection

Please note that my surname is "White" and that Jennifer Fisher is a different person.  I always have to make a statement to that effect since many people don't read past the first name.  

In closing, I am not anywhere near as stressed as I was in early 2021.  Sticking to the guidelines that I listed further up in this post has reduced my Facebook stress by a good amount.  Unfortunately, I do retain an overall negative opinion of the groups on Facebook.  Others have made similar comments.

One of these days, I'm going to focus on Reddit again:  Vintage Series Books.  I find that posts and comments on Reddit tend to contain more detailed commentary than what occurs on Facebook.  I spend much more time on Reddit than I do Facebook.  I love Reddit and think it has great potential.  The problem is getting people there.

Unreasonable and Combative Collectors

This post is from late 2018.  Quite awhile back, I published the text of this post in a private group on Facebook.  This is a story about a combative collector who was irrationally angry with me.

The situation began with this collector making a post about free electronic books in one of the Facebook groups.  This person believes that Simon and Schuster is greedy, and that the company should offer free electronic copies of all Nancy Drew books that are out of print.  This person believes that there is nothing wrong with offering pirated copies of copyrighted works.

Nobody supported this person's belief, and why would we?  We want Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys to remain viable, and free electronic books are not going to help keep the two series in print.  Furthermore, offering free electronic books of works protected by copyright is illegal.  We are not going to support that. 

I had to shut down the thread since this person had become highly argumentative, trying to beat everyone down.  That's when he went off on me through private messages about his personal grievance with me.  This collector told me that he was still angry with me for purchasing his books. 

I made the mistake of telling him that he didn't have to sell the books.  He really went off on me then, telling me about medical bills and offering to show me proof.

Um, okay.  What I meant was that I didn't create the situation.  He didn't have to sell those particular books.  I do understand that sometimes a person is forced to sell items to raise money.  If those particular books were so important that he would be angry—one year later—that he sold them, then he should not have sold them.  This is the irrational world within which we live.

And if he is going to be angry, then he should direct his anger at his life situation and not at me.  I didn't create the situation.  When I see books for sale on eBay, silly me, I think that the seller does want to sell the books.

He also informed me that he doesn't have thousands of dollars to spend on books like I do.  I'm sure others have said that about other collectors who have shared expensive purchases.  After all, we are the privileged few who can spend lots of money on all that we desire.  Actually, no.

Most series collectors are not wealthy.  I certainly am not.  Those of us who make expensive purchases are making sacrifices.  Each of us has found a way to acquire certain items.

I sell books to raise extra money.  My sales finance my collection.  I don't go to the movies, eat out, or go on expensive trips, which gives me more money to spend on books.  Other collectors who have no more money than I do have made similar sacrifices.

Most of us focus on one aspect of collecting.  We pay higher prices for some items while not for others.

This person also told me that he paid something like $2,500 for the books that he sold to me for a few hundred dollars.  I am a bit skeptical, but let's say that he did pay that much.  If so, then he, too, has paid thousands of dollars for series books, contradicting his own statement of how he cannot afford that kind of money.  I find that rather amusing.

Also, this person wanted free electronic books to replace the books he sold to me.  Since I didn't agree about the free electronic books, I was evil indeed.  I had purchased his books, and I didn't support his idea about how to get the stories back for free.  That made me a very bad person.

I had to block this person on Facebook, since the messages kept coming with one attack after another.

I won't link to the post about the books I purchased from this person, but you can look in the blog archive at the posts from November 2016 to find a certain bulk purchase.

Finally, consider this.  If this person had just contacted me and told me about his situation in a polite fashion, I would have found a way to help him.  He could have explained about having to sell the books to pay medical bills and then asked me to let him know if I ever ran across any of the books.  Do you know what I would have done?  I would have started looking for inexpensive bulk lots, and I would have helped him get a new set of the books.  He would have gotten his set and not had to pay that much.  Instead, he chose to attack me.

Facebook Group Behavior

This post was written in 2017 and 2018 and has remained unpublished until now.  My comments are a bit blunt.

......................................................

Last year I wrote about my loss of enthusiasm for Facebook.  My enthusiasm has waxed and waned since that time.  Right now [in March 2018], my main thought is that I greatly miss the wonderful discussions we used to have in the Yahoo! Groups.  I spent several hours recently running searches in one of the Yahoo! Groups to read comments about Kay Tracey.  We had such great discussions in those groups, and members actually paid attention to what other members wrote.  On Facebook, members skim or don't read at all, then in response they make inane comments with little substance.

The comments in this blog tend to be much better, so I feel that a higher percentage of this blog's readers are actually paying attention to what they read.  Facebook is such a mess.

On Facebook, members make openly critical comments directed towards others. This comes in several forms.  Sometimes a member will make a strong statement about how they do not understand why others collect certain books.  These statements come across as rude and demeaning.  I wonder if the members who make them have any idea how they sound.

Members will also make strong statements about how awful a certain series is.  It's not a problem to dislike a series, but these statements are worded in such a fashion that they are guaranteed to upset fans of that series.

I mentioned in my previous post [apparently this post] how members expect low prices for series books since just about the only prices mentioned in the groups are the cheap prices.  I didn't mention why the rest of us don't mention the prices.  Some of the members who expect low prices would make insulting comments directed at us.  It has happened to many of us.  We admit to someone what we paid for something, and their response is that we paid too much.

Over the years, I have seen collectors who expect low prices also sneer at others because they feel that books are being kept away from them by the ones who pay higher prices.  Just read some quotes from issues of a old series book publication.  I mentioned in that post that some of the letter writers are well-known collectors.  Some of those people are now in the current Facebook groups and also read this blog.  Therefore, it is understandable why many of us reveal very little information about what we pay for our books.

Members keep correcting each other if they don't use the proper term.  I have seen that several times recently, and it annoys me.  Let's talk about my online sales listings.  I purposely do not use the proper terms in some of my listings because the average person looking for the Nancy Drew book they read as a child does not know the proper bibliographic terms.  Why create confusion when my buyers are not advanced bibliophiles?

Yet I know some of you read my listings and silently criticize me.  Take for instance when a pastedown is flawed.  I state that the pastedown endpaper is flawed. Oh, I can imagine the smirks, but I want my buyers to know what I mean. Other times, I dispense with the proper term completely and just refer to damage on the inside front or back cover.  Using ordinary language is better when dealing with average people who just want to enjoy a piece of their childhood.  Quit being snobs.

I also should know better than to try to be humorous.  I let my guard down last summer [summer of 2017], and made what I thought were humorous comments on several posts.  I could tell that in every case at least one person misunderstood, thinking I was dead serious.  The lesson learned is that I must quit trying to be funny at all.  People just can't understand humor online.

Speaking of which, this also reminds me that many of you take my reviews way too literally.  When I make humorous (what I think are humorous) remarks in some reviews about how a book tortured me, some of you start comforting me about my absolutely awful experience.  Hey, I don't read books to be tortured.  If I had been truly tortured, I would not have read the book.  Try not to take everything so literally, or you'll discourage me from being even slightly funny.  You've already made me pull back a lot.

On the other hand, when I write about what I intend to do, read, or quit reading, then you should take those statements literally.  I am not exaggerating or trying to be humorous, so you should not read meaning into the statements that is not there.  When I state that I have quit reading something, I get asked for clarification.  If I have quit reading something, then I have quit.  I probably will never ever in a million years get back to it.  I quit reading Grace Harlowe in 2011.  I still haven't gotten back to those books.  I'm not sure if I ever will.  [I never have and never will.  I sold all of my Grace Harlowe books.]

Back to the groups, people keep taking them off topic.  I'm not just referring to the groups I manage, and I am getting tired of it.  Facebook has groups for any type of book you can imagine.  Whatever it is, there is a place for it.   You don't need to take one group off topic to discuss something else.  It is a constant struggle everyday to keep a group on topic.  Some people don't like me anymore because they don't like me telling them that certain topics are not appropriate.

The groupies are annoying.  These are people who have decided that a certain member is just perfect and can do no wrong.  Some people who seem to be groupies are actually just people trying to manipulate a certain person by pretending to be a groupie.  All group administrators, moderators, website owners, blog writers, and online sellers have groupies, both real and fake.  I have had a few groupies of the fake kind who worked hard to ingratiate themselves by gushing compliments or granting me favors that I did not want or care to reciprocate.  Needless to say, those fake groupies are now former fake groupies since I did not respond in the way they wanted.

Other people are real groupies and genuinely love the person they gush over.  Most of the time, this isn't bad, and everyone likes to be appreciated.  However, the behavior can be excessively annoying when they gush too much.  I recall one exchange on Facebook.  I'm not going to give details, since both people might be reading this, but if I did, you'd understand how truly ridiculous and nauseating the compliment was.  The compliment rang false and was completely not based on reality.  I couldn't believe it when I read it, and I wanted to slap some sense into the person who made the fake compliment.

Some Collectors Enjoy Trolling

Last week, a Hardy Boys collector called me a jerk after reading a post of mine from five years ago.  As I begin this post, I will go on the assumption that the collector was truly angered by my post and was not just trolling.

Hardy Boys Wanderer Books and Judy Bolton Picture Covers

The anonymous collector wrote, "You wouldn't 'mind' them falling into your hands? What a jerk. Those of us who have been fans for decades work hard to get a set, not just to [s]ell them and make money."

My first thought was, Wow, such anger.  I then approved the comment, because why not?  If someone wants to act this way, then I might as well let everyone else see.  Finally, I went to the post and quickly skimmed it in order to see what triggered this person's response.

In the post, I mentioned how much I enjoyed reading the Hardy Boys Digest set.  I stated how I wouldn't mind having a set of the Wanderer books in hardcover with dust jackets.  Even so, I didn't want to spend the time and money involved in building a set, simply because I am not obsessive about the Hardy Boys series like I am with Nancy Drew.  I was happy acquiring whichever books I was lucky enough to find should they "fall into my hands."  The purchase that was detailed in the blog post resulted in me acquiring a few extras.  I mentioned that I would be selling the extras.  I never stated that I would be selling any of the rest of the books.  

Apparently those statements angered this person so much that they had to call me a jerk for selling books.  The bottom line is this:  If no one ever sold books, then collectors would never be able to buy books. 

It's now five years later, and I still have all of those books, except for the few extras that were sold at too low of a price.  Here are pictures of my set, which is incomplete since I am not trying hard to finish it.  Even though completing the set is low priority, I would like to do so eventually.

It took me over two years to sell the extras.  It shouldn't have been that hard.  The books were ultimately sold for well below what I should have gotten for them and well below what I would now get for them.  I remember that a reseller purchased a number of them.  The anonymous commenter thinks that I am a big bad reseller, but instead, I am often used as a supplier by other people who then resell the books at much higher prices.  I am a small fish, not one of the big ones.

I mentioned the person who purchased some of the Hardy Boys Wanderer books with dust jackets in this post.  Here is the portion of the post about that buyer.

I would just love to tell you who this person is, but I will refrain.  The buyer is a prominent seller on sites like Amazon, AbeBooks, Biblio, and others.

This person purchased a book from me, and then sent a message asking if I combine shipping.  I said that I do.  I made a grave error in not setting a time limit for combining orders.  I will never make that mistake again.

The buyer purchased a second book and sent a message thanking me for combining the orders.  I figured that the buyer was finished, which was my second grave error that evening.  I combined the orders in one box and refunded the extra postage.  Around 30 minutes after that, the buyer purchased some more books, each individually so that postage was charged on every order.  The buyer also sent another message thanking me for combining all the orders.  This time, I did nothing.  I waited.  Around four hours later, the buyer came back yet again and purchased another book.

This time I sent a link to the remaining ones, telling the buyer that if he wanted them as well to go ahead and purchase them.  He did not make any additional purchases.  Maybe I annoyed him.  Whatever.  I was more than just annoyed myself.  I was furious about his lack of consideration.  He was causing me extra work, and I could not get the books packed until he was finally finished.

In case the problem is not obvious, I had already packed the first two books thinking that the buyer was done.  The buyer received shipping notices for those books, since this was on eBay, so he knew that I had already packed the books.  The buyer then proceeded to purchase additional books, expecting me to combine them with the books that were already packed.  If I hadn't agreed to combine shipping, I would not have unpacked the first two books and repacked them with the later books.

I want to touch on another thought I had a few days ago.  This person who just called me a jerk didn't consider how my attitude towards the Hardy Boys Wanderer editions in dust jacket has saved the diehard collectors some money.  Since I stay out of the fray, I don't drive the prices of auctions up.  My inaction is keeping the prices lower than they otherwise would be.

This recent comment might just be the latest trolling by one of a small number of collectors who enjoy trolling.  They especially enjoy anonymous attacks.  In the late 1990s, there was a Usenet group called alt.news.nancy-drew.  The remnants of that newsgroup still reside on Google's servers.  A few collectors went after each other ruthlessly.  They created dozens of fake ids, using them to trash each other and a few other prominent collectors.  They ended up destroying the newsgroup, so everyone had to leave. 

The attacks that have been made in this blog and in other places online over the last 20 years are tied to the collectors from alt.books.nancy-drew.  Those same collectors are also some of the people who sparred in the letters pages of The Mystery and Adventure Series Review during the 1990s.  Read these past posts from 2011 for more of the background information.

An Explanation and My New Blog Policy

Series Book Collecting and Prices 

The first of the two linked posts mentions "unfortunate events" that upset me.  Those events occurred in the comments to the post "The Tenth Nancy Drew 1930A-1 Old Clock Dust Jacket."  One of the collectors took a shot at me via an id created to hide their identity.  I responded in anger, and then another person who had previously always been very friendly to me then told me I was the problem.  I  deleted my original response, feeling like everyone was against me.  After the events of that summer, my skin became quite thicker, and I no longer care about the collectors who keep throwing out insults while hiding behind various screen names.  

On more than one of the above linked posts, at least two of the collectors who participated in the disputes in alt.news.nancy-drew made comments.  One of those collectors identified himself while the other one used more than one alias for different comments.