What Are The Best-Selling Titles In The List Of Beverly Lewis Books?

I get asked this kind of thing a lot in book groups, and my short take is straightforward: I haven’t seen any major film adaptations of books by Hilary Quinlan circulating in theaters or on streaming platforms. From my perspective as someone who reads a lot of indie and midlist fiction, authors like Quinlan often fly under the radar for big-studio picks. That doesn’t mean their stories couldn’t translate well to screen — sometimes smaller presses or niche writers find life in festival shorts, stage plays, or low-budget indie features long after a book’s release. If you love a particular novel, those grassroots routes (local theater, fan films, or a dedicated short) are often where adaptation energy shows up first. I’d be thrilled to see one of those books get a careful, character-driven film someday; it would feel like uncovering a secret treasure.

Picking up a book labeled for younger readers often feels like trading in a complicated map for a compass — there's still direction and depth, but the route is clearer. I notice YA tends to center protagonists in their teens or early twenties, which naturally focuses the story on identity, first loves, rebellion, friendship and the messy business of figuring out who you are. Language is generally more direct; sentences move quicker to keep tempo high, and emotional beats are fired off in a way that makes you feel things immediately. That doesn't mean YA is shallow. Plenty of titles grapple with grief, grief, abuse, mental health, and social justice with brutal honesty — think of books like 'Eleanor & Park' or 'The Hunger Games'. What shifts is the narrative stance: YA often scaffolds complexity so readers can grow with the character, whereas adult fiction will sometimes immerse you in ambiguity, unreliable narrators, or long, looping introspection. From my perspective, I choose YA when I want an electric read that still tackles big ideas without burying them in stylistic density; I reach for adult novels when I want to be challenged by form or moral nuance. Both keep me reading, just for different kinds of hunger.

I get a real kick out of how clean VSEPR can make sense of what looks weird at first. For XeF2 the simplest way I explain it to friends is by counting the regions of electron density around the xenon atom. Xenon brings its valence electrons and there are two bonding pairs to the two fluorines, plus three lone pairs left on xenon — that’s five electron domains in total. Five regions arrange into a trigonal bipyramid to minimize repulsion, and that’s the key setup. Now here’s the clever bit that fixes the shape: lone pairs hate 90° interactions much more than 120° ones, so the three lone pairs sit in the three equatorial positions of that trigonal bipyramid where they’re separated by roughly 120°. The two fluorine atoms then end up occupying the two axial positions, exactly opposite each other. With the bonded atoms at opposite ends, the molecular shape you observe is linear (180°). That arrangement also makes the overall molecule nonpolar because the two Xe–F bond dipoles cancel each other. I like to add that older textbook sketches called on sp3d hybridization to picture the geometry, but modern orbital explanations lean on molecular orbital ideas and electron-pair repulsion — either way the experimental evidence (spectroscopy, X-ray studies) confirms the linear geometry. It’s neat chemistry that rewards a little puzzle-solving, and I still enjoy pointing it out to people who expect all noble gases to be inert — xenon clearly has opinions.

I get a little nerdy over molecules like this, so let me walk you through it step by step. Xenon difluoride, XeF2, has 22 valence electrons total: xenon brings 8 and the two fluorines bring 7 each, so 8 + 14 = 22 electrons, which is 11 electron pairs. Two of those pairs form the Xe–F bonds (one pair per bond), leaving 9 pairs as lone pairs. If you break that down by atom, each fluorine wants a full octet and ends up with three lone pairs (6 electrons) in addition to its bonding pair. That’s 3 lone pairs on each fluorine, so 3 + 3 = 6 lone pairs on the fluorines. The remaining 3 lone pairs (6 electrons) sit on the xenon atom. So xenon has 3 lone pairs, each fluorine has 3 lone pairs, and the total number of lone pairs in the Lewis structure is 9. I like to visualize the electron-domain geometry too: Xe has five electron domains (two bonding pairs and three lone pairs), which corresponds to a trigonal bipyramidal electron geometry with the lone pairs occupying the equatorial positions to minimize repulsion. That arrangement is why the molecular shape is linear. It's a neat little example of an expanded octet and how noble gases can still be surprisingly sociable in chemistry — I find that pretty cool.

If you're hunting for a laugh-out-loud spin on 'Dune' or a silly retelling of 'The Time Machine', my go-to starting point is Archive of Our Own. AO3's tag system is a dream for digging up comedy: search 'humor', 'parody', 'crack', or toss in 'crossover' with something intentionally absurd (think 'Dune/X-Men' or 'Foundation/Harry Potter' parodies). I personally filter by kudos and bookmarks to find pieces that other readers loved, and then follow authors who consistently write witty takes. Beyond AO3, I poke around Tumblr microfics for one-shot gags and Wattpad for serialized absurd reimaginings—Wattpad often has modern-AU comedic rewrites of classics that lean into meme culture. FanFiction.net still has a huge archive, though its tagging is clunkier; search within category pages for titles like 'Frankenstein' or 'The War of the Worlds' and then scan chapter summaries for words like 'humor' or 'au'. If you like audio, look up fanfiction readings on YouTube or podcasts that spotlight humorous retellings. Reddit communities such as r/fanfiction and r/WritingPrompts regularly spawn clever, comedic takes on canonical works. Personally, I get the biggest kick from short, sharp pieces—drabbles and drabble collections—that turn a grave sci-fi premise into pure silliness, and I love bookmarking authors who can do that again and again.

I still get a little thrill seeing the meta shift in 'Skullgirls'—this season feels like a fresh puzzle. If I had to name the characters at the very top right now, I'd put Parasoul, Peacock, Cerebella, Squigly, and Robo-Fortune in that upper echelon. Parasoul's neutral is just absurd: her zoning tools plus authoritative corner control make her a nightmare to approach, and on a team she brings assists that lock down space for follow-ups. Peacock remains the queen of chaos; her projectile game and ability to dominate matches from a distance forces opponents into raw mistakes, and in the right hands she converts those into huge wins. Cerebella is my pocket grappler pick—her mix of armor, command grabs, and explosive single-touch damage keeps her perma-relevant. Squigly has climbed or stayed high because of her aerial pressure and comeback potential; she can flip momentum in the blink of an eye and her mid-screen success is scary. Robo-Fortune rounds out the top tier for me because players exploit her movement and tricky setups; she's a character that rewards creativity and stage control. Beyond raw chars, this season’s big story is team synergy—some characters look better purely because their assists create unblockable or near-unblockable routes. I love how the meta still values mind games and setups over pure raw stats; watching a well-constructed Parasoul/Peacock team dismantle a rushdown squad never gets old.

Lately I've been diving back into 'Skullgirls' and watching how the tier list mutates after each patch — it's oddly addictive. The big-picture shift I've noticed is that updates tend to compress the extremes: really dominant characters get nudged down while fringe picks receive quality-of-life buffs that make them viable in more matchups. Patches that touch frame data, hurtboxes, or meter gain rarely create brand-new gods overnight; instead they change the matchups you thought were settled. That means players who lab tech and adapt climb faster than the ones who stick to old tricks. Beyond numbers, the meta evolves because of creativity. Players find new confirms, optimize punishes, and sometimes add an unexpected extension or reset that suddenly elevates a character's practical damage output. Community-made resources — patch notes, forum tier lists, and recorded tournament sets — are where you see the slow creep of change. For me the fun is watching a once-middling pick become a pocket specialist at majors; it keeps the roster feeling fresh and the tier talk lively. I personally love when underused characters get a moment in the spotlight — it makes learning matchups more rewarding and the game feel alive again.

Hunting for playful lines that stick in a kid's head is one of my favorite little obsessions. I love sprinkling tiny zingers into stories that kids can repeat at the playground, and here are a bunch I actually use when I scribble in the margins of my notes. Short, bouncy, and silly lines work wonders: "The moon forgot its hat tonight—do you have one to lend?" or "If your socks could giggle, they'd hide in the laundry and tickle your toes." Those kinds of quotes invite voices when read aloud and give illustrators a chance to go wild with expressions. For a more adventurous tilt I lean into curiosity and brave small risks: "Maps are just secret drawings waiting to befriend your feet," "Even tiny owls know how to shout 'hello' to new trees," or "Clouds are borrowed blankets—fold them neatly and hand them back with a smile." I like these because they encourage imagination without preaching. When I toss them into a story, I picture a child turning a page and pausing to repeat the line, which keeps the rhythm alive. I also mix in a few reassuring lines for tense or new moments: "Nervous is just excitement wearing a sweater," and "Bravery comes in socks and sometimes in quiet whispers." These feel honest and human while still being whimsical. Bedtime and lullaby-style quotes call for softer textures. I often write refrains like "Count the stars like happy, hopped little beans—one for each sleepy wish," or "The night tucks us in with a thousand tiny bookmarks." For rhyme and read-aloud cadence I enjoy repeating consonants and short beats: "Tip-tap the raindrops, let them drum your hat to sleep." I also love interactive lines that invite a child to answer, such as "If you could borrow a moment, what color would it be?" That turns reading into a game. Honestly, the sweetest part for me is seeing a line land—kids repeating it, parents smiling, artists sketching it bigger, and librarians whispering about it behind the counter. Those tiny echoes are why I keep writing these little sparks, and they still make me grin every time.