rymenhild

Ah, Narnia....

Heh, what a shrewd move on Disney's part -- if they market it well. I wonder if Second Chapter of Acts' old soundtrack will be on the Christian one. (My mother, a big Narnia fan, would play it often. I can't recall if it was simply for TLTW&TW or for the entire series.) In all truth, the Christian one may, to be frank, suck less -- I've never liked Disney's pop recordings. "Let's take the ballad sung by trained musical actors and re-do it as an off-sync R&B song! Groovy!" We'll see, we'll see...

Hehehe. I've always found it amusing that Tolkien had the children and Lewis did not, yet it was Lewis that penned a far more readable children's series. I always picture Tolkien as the sort of father who had to have his sandwiches just so, with an epic backstory for the bread and exhaustive description of the battle of the lettuce.

From:

fleurdelis28.livejournal.com

with an epic backstory for the bread and exhaustive description of the battle of the lettuce.

Lol! Without which context, it would be a pretty good sandwich, but you wouldn't be able to appreciate its true complexity and grandeur, or understand why the tomatoes kept trying to flee.

From:

Of course, by the time one is finished reading the backstory, the lettuce has gone soggy. This is a sign of the decline of all things that were once great.

From:

To quote Brak:

Corned beef to the left of me! Corned beef to the right of me!
Rye bread in front of me... And cheese coming from behind!

From:

fleurdelis28.livejournal.com

And once again, I laugh. (Fortunately not out loud -- I'm becoming increasingly convinced that my school is really Hogwarts, in which case I'd really hate to annoy the scalpel-wielding surgeons in the adjacent stained-glass window.)

To be fair to Tolkien, from what I've seen he believed that evil just wasn't what it used to be, either. We all get an equal-opportunity chance to decline.

I suppose the implications for the sandwich depend on what one thinks of lettuce.

From:

I actually suspect you're right about the Christian soundtrack... and I'm sure you're right about Tolkien's sandwich-making skill.

From:

I looked it up on Amazon last night; it's already being sold, whereas I couldn't find the secular one at all. It's mix of fairly popular contemporary Christian artists; it seemed cute.

Still, for a concept album, 2nd Chapter of Acts: The Roar of Love (I looked that one up, too) will always hold my fond childhood memories. "He's broken through; he's breathing life on eve-r-y-bod-y..."

(In much the same way that Hannah Fury's Wicked song cycle remains the one true soundtrack for that book, and I choose to believe the musical was never made. ;9)

From:

debka-notion.livejournal.com

I read Narnia and Tolkien's books all about the same time, for my first readings, and I was really more enchanted by Tolkien's world. Narnia was fun, but it never quite came alive for me in the same way, although there were several of the books that I reread quite a bit- Prince Caspian, The Silver Chair, The Dawn Treader and The Last Battle- the others had rather less appeal for me. But Tolkien really got me, and has kept me ever since, which I revisit Narnia rather less often. But well, mabe my tastes don't match the standard children's book reader's taste.

From:

Well, yes, individual children have their own tastes... but I don't think the LOTR tril can really even be considered a "children's" series. The Hobbit, definitely, but by and large I've found the trilogy isn't very popular with children under 10, even among some avid readers... but it has a ripe potential to be loved by children who can understand it. (For one thing, there's very little nasty kissing in it, ewwww, and very clearly established good/evil... even if the temptation makes good guys act bad.)

I often like to bring up the fact that one cannot lump all children's lit together in comparison, as (one would think rather obviously) different books are written for different ages. Currently it's driving me bonkers when people compare A Series of Unfortunate Events -- which is very much in the style of an early reader book -- with Harry Potter, which is making its way towards YA with the later books. But, without fail, if I say something like "You don't read Hop on Pop and The Island of the Blue Dolphins at the same age," someone will say, "But *I* did!"

The point being, I suppose, that we encounter this stuff at different points in our development; if you're already into more racy YA sex-and-betrayal-and-tough-life-decisions type stuff, Make Way For Ducklings might seem just a bit shallow.

I definitely think Narnia is an earlier reader series -- which might be biased by my own early encounter with it -- but it has that sort of rambling, fantastic, disjointed structure that younger kids often love. "Tell me a story!" "Once there was a little boy with your name... and he sailed the seven seas... and then he met, uh... a gorilla... and then they had pizza... and then they... uh... battled some pirates..." That sort. Narnia reminds me of those stories.

Which is not to say personal preference doesn't have a lot to do with it; I could barely slog through The Two Towers as an adult. "And the rocks were grey... and also the trees. Lots of grey, grey rocks. Under a grey sky. They were walking through this grey land. Still walking. Walking, walking under the grey, grey sky." I think it's a much more established world, though -- to reveal my geeky past, it's a roleplaying world: completely developed, ready-to-live in. Whereas Narnia (or Xanth, or even Oz) are much more piecemeal, more completely random adventures.

From:

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Spiderwick Chronicles when you say "early reader"? SoUE is pretty solidly middle grade, I'd say. And linguistically far more complex than HP, even if the content remains middle grade. Or maybe you're just using "early reader" the way I use "middle grade"? When someone says "early reader" I think Frog and Toad Are Friends, so you confused me. :)

It always irritates me when people refer to LoTR as children's books (as in, "Ian McKellan gives a fine performance, but I don't think we'll be seeing any Oscars handed out to movies based on kids' fare this year" -- an actual review of FoTR in my college newspaper). The Hobbit is definitely a children's book, as Tom Sawyer is definitely a children's book; LoTR, while often read by children, is no more a children's book than Huckleberry Finn is.

From:

Well, I'm not rightly sure which early reader I mean, either; I was homeschooled, so my sense of average grades/ages for things are entirely off half the time, as I've no sense of it.("Oh, how old were you then?" "I was in fourth grade." "Er, but how OLD were you?")

Series of Unfortunate Events seems much the same, to me, as The Bobbsey Twins, if you've heard of that series. Perhaps the Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys books, though I didn't read too many of those. Fairly large print, short chapters, highly formularized, a series of adventures with the constant family of lovable hero/ines. And the good/evil roles are pretty clearly definied, aside from the sad-ending-gimmick of the series. I think the linguistic polish is intentional, as one of those "we're tricking you with educational material." I really ADORE those segments in which they present a vocabulary word and then explain the context of the word. "And in this case, we mean the sensation you get when you've just eaten something spoilt."

Obviously, literature is more of a blurry developmental progession, but there are some big leaps in there. Reading "chapter books" was a mark of pride for my younger sister. I'd say the Series of Unfortunate Events, while they may not be the first "chapter books" one reads, are probably a good hook to get one addicted to novel-type serials. I'd place them before the Blume-Cleary and vast wealth of paperback children's novels talking about new little sisters or stepmothers or pets dying.

I tend to judge both by structure (how long, how complex, how formularized) and content (how is good/evil definined, how are relationships handled, do things betray them, can the good guys lose, etc.) Any real exploration of sexual feelings and nasty kissing places it firmly in the YA section for me. Well, some of those old Blume-Cleary books talked about periods and boyfriends a lot, but I found those ones dreadfully dull as a younger child. I certainly did NOT want to read about nasty kissing when I was eight. Yuck. Pets or grandmothers dying was a real and frightening fear; wanting to make-out with boys was, well, gross.

The Hobbit is definitely a children's book, as Tom Sawyer is definitely a children's book; LoTR, while often read by children, is no more a children's book than Huckleberry Finn is.

Yes! Exactly. Although I do think it's accessible to children who do want to read it in a way that certain other "adult classics" are not... which could possibly be said for a great deal of the fantasy/sci-fi genre. LOTR was a bit of a slog (to me), but it's very highly fantastically-themed and understandable, compared to the shades of grey/the misery of life that makes up a lot of adult fiction. I would certainly be horrified if my seven-year-old was reading 1984 or Crime and Punishment... or even The Color Purple, as I'd rather s/he wait until she was old enough to deal with the themes. (Again, bias: My own auntie-type insisted my friend and I wait until our teens to read The Color Purple for that very reason.)

From:

Eeek! Well, I agree with how you define "early reader" -- it's just that I swear you've read a different SoUE than I have! Good/evil roles clearly defined? Simple structure, short length? Not the ones I've read! Or the vocabulary "lessons" -- I feel like those aren't real lessons so much as linguistic in-jokes, funnier if you *do* know what the word means. As for structure -- I'd say they're not so much formulaic, as moderately sophisticated satire of formula books.

In my bookstore, we have Bobbsey Twins with the ages 4-8 section and SoUE in the ages 9-12 section. I'd say they're *definitely* not at the same level. (They might be somewhat closer to Nancy Drew, but it's been so long since I read those, I couldn't say.)

I'm sorry if I'm being irritating about this... it's what I do for a living, you see :-)

From:

Mmm, mind, I only read the first four or five in the Series, as I figured I'd just read the rest once they were out, so I may be missing from the newer books.

I think there's a point where parody becomes the genre itself, though, and I'd say they're fairly close to that -- I know lots of adults who love them FOR the element of satire, but many kids who read those along with other formularized books, and don't really get that. And I've heard adults complain about the formula... *eyeroll* Yeah, they weren't written for you, college kids, sorry. Anyway, I found the vocabulary lessons the same way -- funny if you got the joke, but actually pretty informative if you didn't... my sister actually learnt a few words, she mentioned to me once. Now, this ability to work so well on multiple levels makes them much more sophisticated, I would say, than those old-timey formulas... but it seems to still be in the family.

I always thought the good/bad roles were pretty clearly defined, but again, I've only read the first few. It was always OLAF WHO IS BAAAAAAD. And if bad things happen it's the fault of the bad guys, who are bad, and hate children. They lack the requisite happy ending (since that's the gimmick) but the Evilness of the Evil Guys seems the same, to me, as the evilness of most early-ish children's content. It's all the same Evil -- at least from the first ones. The bank guy is ineffectual, so I suppose he could be considered a shade of grey, but I just saw him as more evidence that No One Listens to Children. ;9

I'd consider the plot structures fairly simple and short, but again, it's all relative to one's notions of short. I could read (the early) Series in about an hour or two... it's been years and years since I looked at a Bobbsey Twins book, I couldn't really compare, but they're in the same style... and, I could argue, closer in structure and content than Series is to Potter -- if you adjust for the modernism of the content... obviously Series and Potter are more thematically similar. I mean, obviously, most 8 year olds nowadays are going to think The Bobbsey Twins are pretty hokey. (I did in the early nineties.) Compared to the weighty tambling tomes of Potter, Series is much more early-reader-formula-book style.

From:

*points above* I've lost my ability to write tonight. Too many papers. Need more tea. Children's books good. ;9

From:

I agree with

ayelle here that SoUE are satires of the formula books, not formula books in themselves.

I would say, though, that I wouldn't advise judging SoUE on the basis of the first five books. With every successive book, SoUE reveals more of its underlying complexities. Snicket doesn't begin to hit his stride as an author until about Book 6, and I'd argue that the series gets truly great starting in volume 8, The Hostile Hospital. By Book 9 we begin to see that good and evil are not really that clear after all, and that, perhaps, not everything is Olaf's fault.

Also, behind every one of the books is a separate story about Lemony Snicket, the Baudelaire parents, and the problems and issues of their generation. It's the reader's job to find and decode the hidden narratives; once these have been found, the books appear significantly richer.

From:

Ah, well, that clarifies it -- as I said, I was judging it on the first five or so, and wasn't sure if it became more devilish later on. Sounds a great deal more satirical in the later books... I'm looking forward to the final book, so I can read them in a mad streak before anyone can spoil it for me.

From:

::Agreeing with everything you said:: except that it was The Austere Academy that vaulted the series to a new level of sophistication and enjoyment for me.

From:

debka-notion.livejournal.com

I'm not good at the idea of children's books, for the most part: I was one of those kids who did children's literature scattered in with the adult-level sci-fi/fantasy starting around the end of 2nd grade. (I still remember by first "grown-up" book. The Witch Queen or something like that by Paula Volsky, with a light blue cover with this frightening woman on the front. I don't even know how I acquired it. I do remember trying to describe the plot to my mother, and her being incredulous that I'd want to read such a thing. THe man-eating squash might have just been the first of those reasons...) Maybe that's why I feel the way I do. But really, only a few of Lewis' characters equal Tolkiens, even if Lewis' prose is entirely more readable, regardless of age. And characters tend to be what I care about.

From:

*shrugs* I was/am an avid sci-fi/fantasy reader too, and started on them practically as soon as I could read... but I do think sci-fi/fantasy is a great deal more, mm, imaginatively-friendly to children, as a genre, than other "adult" lit. I don't know if it's actually common to read sci-fi at young ages, but among my geeky-er, academic friends, it seems to be the norm. Ursula LeGuin and Piers Anthony warped my childhood, I'm sure.

I just get annoyed some people who don't allow children's literature to just exist -- or insist every series be written to a level that intellectually stimulates whatever their personal adult fancy may be. Unwilling to accept that children might not be little miniature-adults who might WANT to watch Pokemon or read formula novels. Dern it, Bunnicula is the best series ever written... stupid adults... er... something... (Edit: Not to imply you would be that sort, I just once met a man who insisted Potter was crap and he'd be forcing his children to read the Sandman series instead. Those things give ME nightmares, as pretty as they are.)

I was always an action girl -- still am. I don't want to slog through too much character description, I want them to have adventures. ;)

Yarg, posting troubles.

From:

Did I really just read a sentence saying that the Narnia books are not as well written as the Potter books?

From:

That one did rather boggle my mind. CS Lewis is not known for the overuse of ellipses and all-caps, after all.

From: