What you consider the 10 best books ever

Deborah Stevenson wrote:

 > Stephen Kane wrote:

  >> Deborah Stevenson wrote:

   >>> Anita Wilhelm wrote:

   >>>> There aren't any K.M. Peyton books I don't like. With the exception of
   >>>> Flambards Divided, which I try to ignore as much as possible since it gets
   >>>> me so angry.

   >>> Aha. Have we talked here about the theory that Peyton wrote that largely
   >>> because of her response to the actors in the Flambards series? A friend and
   >>> I developed that idea in college (that she couldn't stand to have
   >>> Christina end up with the wooden guy who played Dick), and it turns out to
   >>> be an idea that many people have independently developed. No way of proving
   >>> it, of course, but at least that would help explain an otherwise
   >>> inexplicable event.

  >> I never thought it was inexplicable. Not the outcome I wanted, but (as in The
  >> Owl Service) understandable in terms of social class, education and so forth.

 > It's inexplicable in terms of the genre of the books. I think Peyton was
 > trying to deny the kind of books she was writing, as well, which is part of
 > why it's so annoying, since it's a kick in the face to readers who were
 > reading *because* of the kind of books she was writing.

This reminds me of past discussions about Tehanu and how Ursula Le Guin's
whole outlook on life had changed since writing the original Earthsea
trilogy. Something similar, perhaps?

Stephen.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

In <BC9903B9.120D4%none@none.com> Stephen Kane <none RemoveThis @none.com> writes:


 >Deborah Stevenson wrote:

  >> Stephen Kane wrote:

   >>> Deborah Stevenson wrote:

   >>>> Anita Wilhelm wrote:

   >>>>> There aren't any K.M. Peyton books I don't like. With the exception of
   >>>>> Flambards Divided, which I try to ignore as much as possible since it gets
   >>>>> me so angry.

   >>>> Aha. Have we talked here about the theory that Peyton wrote that largely
   >>>> because of her response to the actors in the Flambards series? A friend and
   >>>> I developed that idea in college (that she couldn't stand to have
   >>>> Christina end up with the wooden guy who played Dick), and it turns out to
   >>>> be an idea that many people have independently developed. No way of proving
   >>>> it, of course, but at least that would help explain an otherwise
   >>>> inexplicable event.

   >>> I never thought it was inexplicable. Not the outcome I wanted, but (as in The
   >>> Owl Service) understandable in terms of social class, education and so forth.

  >> It's inexplicable in terms of the genre of the books. I think Peyton was
  >> trying to deny the kind of books she was writing, as well, which is part of
  >> why it's so annoying, since it's a kick in the face to readers who were
  >> reading *because* of the kind of books she was writing.

 >This reminds me of past discussions about Tehanu and how Ursula Le Guin's
 >whole outlook on life had changed since writing the original Earthsea
 >trilogy. Something similar, perhaps?

Quite possibly. I've never heard her comment on it in print, but I've
never found a reader who liked the fourth book, either.


--
Deborah Stevenson
dstevens RemoveThis @OBSTACLESuiuc.edu
[eliminate OBSTACLES to email me]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

"Deborah Stevenson" <dstevens.RemoveThis@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:c50t1c$284$2@reader1.panix.com...
 > In <BC9903B9.120D4%none@none.com> Stephen Kane <none.RemoveThis@none.com> writes:
 >
 >
  > >Deborah Stevenson wrote:
 >
   > >> Stephen Kane wrote:
 >
   > >>> Deborah Stevenson wrote:
 >
   > >>>> Anita Wilhelm wrote:
 >
   > >>>>> There aren't any K.M. Peyton books I don't like. With the exception
of
   > >>>>> Flambards Divided, which I try to ignore as much as possible since
it gets
   > >>>>> me so angry.
 >
   > >>>> Aha. Have we talked here about the theory that Peyton wrote that
largely
   > >>>> because of her response to the actors in the Flambards series? A
friend and
   > >>>> I developed that idea in college (that she couldn't stand to have
   > >>>> Christina end up with the wooden guy who played Dick), and it turns
out to
   > >>>> be an idea that many people have independently developed. No way of
proving
   > >>>> it, of course, but at least that would help explain an otherwise
   > >>>> inexplicable event.
 >
   > >>> I never thought it was inexplicable. Not the outcome I wanted, but (as
in The
   > >>> Owl Service) understandable in terms of social class, education and so
forth.
 >
   > >> It's inexplicable in terms of the genre of the books. I think Peyton
was
   > >> trying to deny the kind of books she was writing, as well, which is
part of
   > >> why it's so annoying, since it's a kick in the face to readers who were
   > >> reading *because* of the kind of books she was writing.
 >
  > >This reminds me of past discussions about Tehanu and how Ursula Le Guin's
  > >whole outlook on life had changed since writing the original Earthsea
  > >trilogy. Something similar, perhaps?
 >
 > Quite possibly. I've never heard her comment on it in print, but I've
 > never found a reader who liked the fourth book, either.
 >
 >
Is that the fourth book of Flambards or the fourth book of Earthsea?
Because if it's the fourth book of Earthsea, you've "met" at least one
reader who loved it! (me).

Debbie<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

In <n%Zcc.5837$2H4.4715@clgrps12> "D. Gascoyne" <chumleybee.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> writes:

 >Is that the fourth book of Flambards or the fourth book of Earthsea?
 >Because if it's the fourth book of Earthsea, you've "met" at least one
 >reader who loved it! (me).

Flambards. I have met people who liked the fourth book of Earthsea, too.
Fourth book of Flambards, no.






--
Deborah Stevenson
dstevens.TakeThisOut@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu
[eliminate OBSTACLES to email me]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

I can't believe no one in this thread has mentioned either _Charlotte's
Web_ or _The Trumpet of the Swan_ yet.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

<< Because if it's the fourth book of Earthsea, you've "met" at least one
reader who loved it! (me). >>


Make that two. It's a lovely book, but not the triology (as I grow older, I
find I like it better than the triology!)
Regards,
Rosemary Jones, lostlvs DeleteThis @aol.com
co-author, Collector's Guide to Children's Books, v1-3
new in 2002: Boys & Girls Series Books
http://members.aol.com/lostlvs/
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

"LostLvs" <lostlvs DeleteThis @aol.combks> wrote in message
news:20040408221851.00537.00000018@mb-m07.aol.com...
 > << Because if it's the fourth book of Earthsea, you've "met" at least one
 > reader who loved it! (me). >>
 >
 >
 > Make that two. It's a lovely book, but not the triology (as I grow older,
I
 > find I like it better than the triology!)
 >
It certainly has a totally different tone than the trilogy, which I also
love. I've never understood the complete hatred with which _Tehanu_ was
received in some circles, as though it were some kind of betrayal, just
because LeGuin presents a more "feminist" point of view. It's not in the
least polemical (which is the criticism I've seen levelled at it). I do,
however, acknowledge that it seems to appeal to women *ahem* at least over
30, more than other readers. My response to it was also coloured by the
fact that I read it while I was in the middle of teaching a course on
"women's" mythology, and had been thinking about a lot of the same issues
that Le Guin had (what constitutes the female equivalent of Campbell's hero
myth, for example)...

I wasn't quite as enthralled with _The Other Wind_, though it was a
satisfying conclusion.

Debbie<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:50:23 GMT, "D. Gascoyne"
<chumleybee DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote:

 >
 >"LostLvs" <lostlvs DeleteThis @aol.combks> wrote in message
 >news:20040408221851.00537.00000018@mb-m07.aol.com...
  >> << Because if it's the fourth book of Earthsea, you've "met" at least one
  >> reader who loved it! (me). >>
  >>
  >>
  >> Make that two. It's a lovely book, but not the triology (as I grow older,
 >I
  >> find I like it better than the triology!)
  >>
 >It certainly has a totally different tone than the trilogy, which I also
 >love. I've never understood the complete hatred with which _Tehanu_ was
 >received in some circles, as though it were some kind of betrayal, just
 >because LeGuin presents a more "feminist" point of view.

It's not that (for me). It was that she completely changed Ged's
character, and the foundations of Earthsea in TEHANU and the later
writings. If *they* are true - story sense true - then Roke should
have fallen apart due to lack of balance long before Ged's time.

It doesn't hang together.

--
Elaine Thompson <Elaine DeleteThis @KEThompson.org><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:18:19 -0700, Elaine Thompson <Elaine.TakeThisOut@KEThompson.org>
wrote:

  >>It certainly has a totally different tone than the trilogy, which I also
  >>love. I've never understood the complete hatred with which _Tehanu_ was
  >>received in some circles, as though it were some kind of betrayal, just
  >>because LeGuin presents a more "feminist" point of view.
 >
 >It's not that (for me). It was that she completely changed Ged's
 >character, and the foundations of Earthsea in TEHANU and the later
 >writings. If *they* are true - story sense true - then Roke should
 >have fallen apart due to lack of balance long before Ged's time.
 >
 >It doesn't hang together.

I read the trilogy twice about 25 years before I re-read it with _Tehanu_. I
found _Tehanu_ boring, but perhaps it was just me, because I didn't enjoy the
trilogy as much either. It didn't seem as good as I remembered it.


--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com
Web: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

Elaine Thompson <Elaine.RemoveThis@KEThompson.org> wrote in message news:<p7me709k2c1e2f6kqit49p1v5kh492ejct.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
 > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:50:23 GMT, "D. Gascoyne"
 > <chumleybee.RemoveThis@netscape.net> wrote:
 >
  > >
  > >"LostLvs" <lostlvs.RemoveThis@aol.combks> wrote in message
  > >news:20040408221851.00537.00000018@mb-m07.aol.com...
   > >> << Because if it's the fourth book of Earthsea, you've "met" at least one
   > >> reader who loved it! (me). >>
   > >>
   > >>
   > >> Make that two. It's a lovely book, but not the triology (as I grow older,
 > I
   > >> find I like it better than the triology!)
   > >>
  > >It certainly has a totally different tone than the trilogy, which I also
  > >love. I've never understood the complete hatred with which _Tehanu_ was
  > >received in some circles, as though it were some kind of betrayal, just
  > >because LeGuin presents a more "feminist" point of view.
 >
 > It's not that (for me). It was that she completely changed Ged's
 > character, and the foundations of Earthsea in TEHANU and the later
 > writings. If *they* are true - story sense true - then Roke should
 > have fallen apart due to lack of balance long before Ged's time.
 >
 > It doesn't hang together.

That's pretty much the way I felt about Tehanu as well - the complete
change of character felt very wrong, and changed the atmosphere of the
books dramatically.
When I re-read the series, I treat Tehanu and The Other Wind as a
separate series to the original trilogy. It's less grating that way.

I think the story would have made it's feminist point far better if
the women had achieved their power without having to remove Ged's
magic. There was no reason to alter Ged so dramatically - it only
enforces the now out of date sterotype that women can't achieve
equality unless the men have their power removed.

I liked the story and direction behind The Other Wind far more than I
liked Tehanu. I had always wondered why the women had only a little
magic, so the expanded roles in TOW were great. I also enjoyed the
explanation about Dragons and people ( no spoilers, you know what I
mean ). I just thought that there was nothing gained from leaving Ged
powerless.

The ending of The Farthest Shore was a much better conclusion to Ged,
as he summoned Lookfar and sailed off into the distance.

Cheers,

Adam<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

Steve Hayes wrote:

 > 3Lllama wrote:

  >> Steve Hayes wrote:

   >>> 3Lllama wrote:

   >>>> 2. A High Wind in Jamaica (Preferred it to TLOTF somehow. Compelling,
   >>>> disturbingly realistic characters.)

   >>> I would never have thought of that as a children's book.

  >> Hmm... yes and no. I wouldn't encourage a child of nervous disposition to
  >> pick it up - especially if they really *had* been abandoned in any way - but
  >> it is written in the form of a children's adventure story (albeit not a very
  >> jolly one) and it's not a difficult read. I'd rate it PG rather than 18,
  >> along with His Dark Materials. I'd never heard of it until a few years ago
  >> when I heard Freeman Dyson mention it in an interview. It had quite an impact
  >> on him, apparently.

 > I first reead "A high wind in Jamaica" as an adult, and perhaps I would have
 > enjoyed reading it when I was younger, too, but though it is written about
 > children, I don't think it was written *for* children.
 >
 > I found quite a lot of it useful to interpret my own experience -- I bought it
 > to read on a bus journey in England, when I had been there for six months, and
 > found that a lot of the children's bewilderment in encountering the reality of
 > things they had read about or been told about echoed my own -- toy shops, for
 > example. While reading that on top of the bus I glanced down and suddenly
 > realised that the untidy mass of gegetation at the side of the road was a
 > "hedge". As St Matthew must have felt when he wrote "That it might be
 > fulfilled which was written by the prophet so-and-so". I'd read about hedges
 > before going to England, and terraces too. My picture of the former was of a
 > neatly trimed garden hedge, not the jungle at the side of the road between
 > Oxford and Aylesbury. My picture of the latter was the grassy banks of the
 > lawn in our hillside home.
 >
 > I don't think many children would have got the allusion to St Matthew.
 >
 > His dark materials I would rate as a children's book, even though some of the
 > allusions would probably go over the heads of younger readers there too.

Quite coincidentally my father gave me a copy of A High Wind In Jamaica a
couple of weeks ago and given its mention here I read it straight away.

As a child psychiatrist I didn't find the children's reactions to their
various vicissitudes and traumas either congruous or convincing (unlike,
say, The Lord Of The Flies). There was, however, a subtly disturbing
undertone that was _very_ convincing and still sticks in the mind a week
later. Perhaps a book for older teenagers, but _not_, to my mind at least,
for children.

Stephen.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:46:25 +0100, Stephen Kane <none.RemoveThis@none.com> wrote:

 >
 >Steve Hayes wrote:
  >> I don't think many children would have got the allusion to St Matthew.
  >>
  >> His dark materials I would rate as a children's book, even though some of the
  >> allusions would probably go over the heads of younger readers there too.
 >
 >Quite coincidentally my father gave me a copy of A High Wind In Jamaica a
 >couple of weeks ago and given its mention here I read it straight away.
 >
 >As a child psychiatrist I didn't find the children's reactions to their
 >various vicissitudes and traumas either congruous or convincing (unlike,
 >say, The Lord Of The Flies). There was, however, a subtly disturbing
 >undertone that was _very_ convincing and still sticks in the mind a week
 >later. Perhaps a book for older teenagers, but _not_, to my mind at least,
 >for children.

What was the undertone?

To me it seemed that the author's view of cvhildren was that they are an alien
species, whose minds are so different from those of adults that real
communication is not possible. It is true, I suppose, that children (like
adults) see what they want to see, and interpret situations in relation to
what is most important to them - like the child who was concerned about her
"babies" almost to the exclusion of anything else.

I don't think that is true, however, that there can be no comunication, or
that children's worlds and adults' worlds are so different.

Many years ago, in the partheid time in South Africa, I was banned, and
staying with some friends whose children were aged 10, 8 and 6. In an outburst
of government repression several more people and organisations were banned,
including some others known to the children.

The 8-year-old said

"Why does God allow it? Why does God let our friends be banned?"

And her older sister said, "It isn't God, it's the green snake" (a reference
to C.S. Lewis's "The silver chair").

"But that's not true, it's in a book, somebody wrote it?"

"Yes, but what it means is true."

Those were real-life children, much the same age as those in "A high wind in
Jamaica", yet their behaviour was very different. They interpreted (or at
least the 10-year-old did) the adult world in the light of things they had
read in books, could distinguish between fact and fiction, and yet see a
connection between fact and fiction, and could use fictional symbols to
interpret real-life events.

Maybe they won't remember that now (both have children of their own), and
their memories of childhood might be a series of rather disconnected pictures.
But at the time they seemed far more connected than the children in "A high
wind in Jamaica".


--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw.RemoveThis@hotmail.com
Web: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever 

Hi Deborah!

After I ranted abovt my dislike of Flambards Divided, yov posited an
interesting theory that I had never before heard.

 > Have we talked here abovt the theory that Peyton wrote that largely
   > >> becavse of her response to the actors in the Flambards series? A
friend and I
   > >> developed that idea in college (that she covldn't stand to have
Christina end
   > >> vp with the wooden gvy who played Dick), and it tvrns ovt to be an idea
that
   > >> many people have independently developed. No way of proving it, of
covrse,
   > >> bvt at least that wovld help explain an otherwise inexplicable event.

It's the only theory that makes sense to me! I was disappointed in the
television series becavse of the "wooden" actor who played Dick, and maybe
becavse having read the trilogy before I saw the series, it jvst didn't
match vp in tone, content, or portrayal of the characters that I knew so
well.

To have Christina end vp with arrogant, crvel, heedless Mark, who will tvrn
into his father bvt maybe a slightly milder version if he doesn't cripple
himself first, was jvst like a betrayal to me. In Flambards I think we can
vnderstand the adolescent Christina being attracted to Mark for his good
looks, their mvtval love of riding, and his manipvlative charm. Bvt by
Flambards in Svmmer she has the trve measvre of Mark.


I'm so sorry that I forgot who wrote this passage:

  > >I never thovght it was inexplicable. Not the ovtcome I wanted, bvt (as in
  > >The Owl Service) vnderstandable in terms of social class, edvcation and
  >>so forth.

And Deborah responded:

 > It's inexplicable in terms of the genre of the books. I think Peyton was
 > trying to deny the kind of books she was writing, as well, which is part
 > of why it's so annoying, since it's a kick in the face to readers who were
 > reading *becavse* of the kind of books she was writing.

I wovld also respond that the whole point of the trilogy, its central irony,
was that Dick was the trve "gentleman"; he possessed all the physical
covrage of both Mark and Will, loved riding, bvt he was also caring and
attvned to the feelings and needs of others. In the first two books Dick is
trapped by his "social class" bvt is not inherently bovnd to "class"
attitvdes, except as society forces it vpon him. Flambards in Svmmer shows,
very clearly I think, the trve measvre and worth of Dick, and why his
marriage to the vnconventional Christina is perfect. It is not that a
difference in class and edvcation *can't* make a svch a vnion vnlikely, bvt
there was no previovs hint of Dick's character tvrning into what Peyton
tvrned him into in Flambards Divided. Having Christina ending vp with Mark
is a total betrayal of everything that had come before. It that sense it is
inexplicable--at least to this reader!

Thanks for an interesting thread.

Anita<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What you consider the 10 best books ever