Oh, I definitely do! Because by knowing the author's surface-level background story after reading a book of theirs for the first time, I got to know what advocacies he/she is fighting for. But I also agree with the other commenter here that it is a double-edged sword. Looking them up can either (1) make you read their next releases or (2) turn you off from something (e.g. critical opinions) that doesn't align with yours.

I can only think of J.K. Rowling from this. I know how well-written her HP books are but after knowing about her side on LGBTQ matters, I stirred clear from her literary pieces. I have always believed that literature should be an empowering tool that represents the grievances of the marginalized and opens up a whole new world of possibilities. So hearing about her take... It honestly just doesn't sit right with me.

Kudos to Neil Geiman though! Haha! Cool and very socially aware dude.

I am a Literature student, so we are given readings to write about afterwards. The last reading for one class is Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" and we were only required to read Part One of it. I have already finished it in December, but I am currently continuing the second half of the book because it is eye-opening and inspiring in a way that puts me in his shoes when he was reminiscing specific moments in the concentration camp/s, but at the same time, I get to acquire life takeaways from the book.

I have not read non-fiction books in so long, so diving into Frankl's work grounded me somehow that I still live in the real world and that there was a reality that I did not get to live but it happened. It's a memoir--a slice of life-- and a heart-clenching literary piece.

I would love to have a physical copy of this because I am only reading a PDF version so I'm planning to buy one soon :)

This is a nice suggestion and reminder on how to keep takeaways from not just non-fic books but everything we read, in general. Thank you for sharing this one!

Oh, I kind of get your point. Haha! Because it really felt that way. How do I put it though... For me, the messenger is an active character in book 2 that he deserved his own arc, and I think he was given justice in book 3. At least that's how I see it, and maybe because I am also partly a sucker for lowkey selfless characters. I have to agree though, that book 3 was such a poor attempt to connect to The Giver.

Oh, and this was my personal take.

I read a post mentioning The Giver quartet, too, and most of us (even you) share the same sentiment.

Oh! I remember one. If I Stay!!! This first book really got me on a rollercoaster ride of emotions, but the sequel did not exactly grasp my love for the story plot. I believe it would have been better if it was just stand-alone.

I kind of agree with the sentiment regarding the following books after The Giver itself because the stories were not as tied as anyone would expect sequels to be. But I do have to mention the third book - Messenger - because I love that part of the whole quartet series -- and it was closely tied to The Giver as compared to Gathering Blue (the second book) -- since it gave justice to the main character, and it has the arc that I did not expect the series would actually touch on. Also, like The Giver, Messenger can be a stand-alone book :)

Other than The Giver quartet, I haven't really read many book series that ruin the book's legacy. Everyday series by David Levithan was really good, and The Secrets of the Immortal Nicolas Flamel was such a fantastic read.