Aye or Nay?

I loved the three musketeers and remember enjoying the count of monte cristo. thus exhaustath my dumas supply, but based on those two, I will say aye.

books with sentences that are five (or more) lines long? like tom jones, which im still laboring through, ack!

Nay, Nay, Nay My brain cant handle it.

The Three Stooges?

Noooooooooooooooooo!

Harold Lloyd

HL: (nyuck nyuck) soitainly !

Snape ?

oh that's a good one. I mean, he's so loathsome for the most part throughout the story, but then you find out he's actually on the good guys side, and then even more, that he loved harry's mother. and to top it off, harry names his own son after him.

but he was so mean to harry and its tough to know if that was a part of the act in order to protect him, and his (snapes) position, or if he really didn't like harry. I lean towards the latter.

but all that said, I have to say aye in so much has he was a character who loomed indispensably large in the story.

cover versions/remakes of very famous songs?

(I recently watched across the universe. go give a listen to dana fuchs and martin luther McCoy's version of "don't let me down" for starters )

Aye. There's some good ones, and sometimes it makes people remember great artists and great songs. But there's always the failures... like the remake of "Behind Blue Eyes". Limp Bizkit should have let the The Who's song alone ahah

Android cellphones?

Aye.
Here we use more Android than the Apple versions. Apple is expensive and has got less apps.

Novels with many sequels?

lendo ive got a folder on my pc full of cover versions, plenty of great ones...and maybe some so-so ones. as a general rule I enjoy them.

major aye to sequels---they are like visiting old friends.

although, its making me think about the difference between a sequel, or just another story with the same characters. hmmm.

salt on apples?

Nay. Cinnamon on apples or maybe suggar.

I like sequels too if it is a good story. I think to have a sequel you need to have a timeline.
I am trying to remember a story with the same characters which is not a sequel but can´t remember any one just now.

Pets?

aye to pets for sure. what a more dismal life without them, and animals need love.

im thinking of a difference between Agatha Christie's that have hercule poirot & colonel hastings, or Sherlock holmes and Watson, over and over, but each book is a distinct story and other characters come and go as the story changes, as opposed to books like harry potter that has the same characters, and each smaller story is a part of, eventually, an overall recognizable larger story.

id call the latter sequels, but not the former. but then, ive read some books by Patrick robinson that kinda work in the grey area.

have probably asked this one before---giving up on a book before it ends?

Aye, if one doesn´t like it, unless one has to read the book as a task.
By sequel I think, for example, of the Dumas stories about the three musketiers. They get older from one book to the other and I think they remember older episodes. I don´t know if the same applies to the Leatherstocking stories (Sorry, bounty, I know that my references are very old). I think in the Agatha Cristie stories only the detectives are the same, the other characters are different, so I think they are individual stories.

Taking into account the number of pages when reading books?

ive only read the three musketeers and the counte of monte cristo, so I cant speak to dumas, but the leatherstocking series, the only constant character in all of them is the main character. chingachgook is missing from one and all the other characters, for the most part, are cameo appearances so to speak. id have to go back to refresh to see how much recollection of any one, exists in the others. in my memory it strikes me as small to non-existant. although, ive not read the book where gnatty is old and out west (and dies), so maybe there is a lot of harkening back in that one. the stories don't overlap and one doesn't really grow into or out of the other.

holmes and Watson typically makes reference to past stories/cases in their present ones, even though the particular story is distinct and stands alone. poirot does a little of that too.

I suppose the question comes down to how strictly the word "sequel" is defined and applied. oxford says "what follows or arises out of an earlier event...a novel or film that continues the story of an earlier one."

is there a difference between the continuation of a story, vs the continued telling about a fictional character's life?

nay on the page accounting...usually anyways...i'll read a book because the topic/genre/content, etc, is appearly at the moment regardless of the page amount.

jumping in ice covered water and then heading into a hot sauna?

Naaayyy!
Ice covered water only in the upper part of the fridge in this country. And the sauna you have at 34°
(Though there are real and much frequented saunas too)
I think sequel is the continuation of the story. For example, a Sherlock Holmes story is not a sequel IMO because it is not related to a former story. Harry Potter probably is, but I haven´t read the books, only seen one or two films.

Fruit juice?

Aye, i love it.

Dancing?

Aye, though I myself don´t dance.

Playing an instrument?