How to use this Page

What? Oh, I haven't read Harry Potter 7 yet, I'm waiting until it gets to the library! :D

Hi Forestpelt. It must be hard to wait! Well, hopefully the library will get it in soon. The Scholar's Blog Spoiler Zone discussion will be going on throughout August and September, so if you read it before the end of September, you could still go over and participate. In spite of the name of the blog, you don't have to be a scholar to participate - anyone can join in.

I second that (since it's my Blog) - you really don't need a degree, just a love of books, to participate...

In fact, if ever a Blog was in need of a title change, it's mine - I'm thinking "Doctor Who Addicts Anonymous" might be better !

ROFL. That does seem an appropriate name. But seriously, I wouldn't change it. Everyone knows you by that name, and it would just be confusing!

Oh I wasn't serious - it'd require too much effort and time - more than I'm prepared to spare right now, but perhaps I'll change my header description to more accurately reflect my total and utter obsession (and I do mean both those words - when ideas for Doctor Who fiction wake one up at 3-30 am, what else can you call it but "total" and "utter" ?!)

That does sound like total and utter obsession to me!

Yup ! I could have happily lived without that awakening, but...

Anyway I changed my Blog header...

I love it!

Oh good ! I wonder how many people will notice, though, without me pointing it out ?

I don't know. It'll be interesting to see if they do.

I bet they don't - it's part of the "furniture" of the Blog and not many folks are as obsessive about reading *everything* on a Blog every time they visit as um, certain other obsessives of our acquaintance who shall remain nameless but aren't a million miles away from me...

Oh I've been waiting for this discussion to start! I read through this book at a rapid clip. Mostly because my cat was taken seriously ill that Saturday and I ended up spending hours in the ER with him. The book made the time go somewhat faster.

It didn't take me long - seven hours in total - to finish off the bit of candy that was JK Rowling's final Harry Potter novel. I loved it despite some flaws. I really did. I enjoyed it - I was swept right into the story. And I felt rewarded for my diligence in paying attention to details. I'm in awe of Rowling's talent, and I need to remember to read this book considering it's audience. The book just works. At first I wasn't sure - seemed a bit of the same old thing - and yet - no, it wasn't really the same old thing at all.

Here are some random thoughts (mostly stolen whole cloth from my own journal) to get started:

I think the book was too long and would have been better with some editing. There was way too much wandering around in the woods for me. There were some great scenes there, don't get me wrong - but I wish the narrative had been a bit tighter.

Everyone grows up, but I miss the whole genre of the 'boarding school tale' that was present in the earlier books.

I'm probably in the minority by saying I think that the epilogue was unnecessary and could have been deleted. Some things did feel a bit forced. Some things were a LITTLE too neat. And why did nobody name any of their children after Sirius (though it may have been a middle name for James).

My alternate titles for this book were "Harry Potter and the Overused Polyjuice Potion" and "Harry Potter and the Albus ex Machina". I thought the Kings Cross concept was well done, and it tied everything up with a bow, but it rankled.

Harry as an unintentional horcrux bothered me too. I have a problem with this even if it makes perfect sense. First of all, Voldemort wanted 6 horcruxes so that his soul would be split into 7 (6 horcruxes and one piece in his own body). Instead he got a total of 8. It seemed to me that horcruxes (by definition) were intentionally created and that an incidental, accidental one - while technically a horcrux is in reality something else. But it is nit pick. It makes perfect sense that a piece of Riddle's soul was somewhere within Harry. And yet I still have issues with it.

The book is best read unspoiled with no looking ahead. I'm glad I stayed spoiler free.

Some things did feel a bit forced. Some things were a LITTLE too neat. And why did nobody name any of their children after Sirius (though it may have been a middle name for James).

THANK GOD for no Quidditch. I'm sorry but after the first book I didn't really like reading about Quidditch matches - it felt repetitive.

I expected one of the twins to die, but wasn't expecting Percy's finally seeing the light. Didn't expect Delores - but it was nice to see she hadn't changed. Nice excuse to see inside the ministry again. Expected more from the Dursley's but wasn't SURPRISED at what we got.

It is the end of an epic - a true hero cycle. Hooray for Joseph Campbell scholars everywhere.

STILL no idea why some Christians have trouble with this book. Maybe NOW, now that we have a sort of resurrection, they will finally shut up and at least focus on the message in this book about the power of love.

Hooray for Neville! And HOORAY that everyone on the 'team' had something to do with the destruction of the horcruxes. Harry couldn't ever do it on his own - he's always said that and it has been proven. You have to have friends.

And the real magic? EVERYWHERE I went people of ALL AGES were reading this book and talking about it.

I'm going to miss Harry. Time to start re-reading!

Harry as an unintentional horcrux bothered me too. I have a problem with this even if it makes perfect sense. First of all, Voldemort wanted 6 horcruxes so that his soul would be split into 7 (6 horcruxes and one piece in his own body). Instead he got a total of 8. It seemed to me that horcruxes (by definition) were intentionally created and that an incidental, accidental one - while technically a horcrux is in reality something else. But it is nit pick. It makes perfect sense that a piece of Riddle's soul was somewhere within Harry. And yet I still have issues with it.

It bugged the heck out of me too, since I've been swearing all along that Voldemort had no opportunity to turn Harry into a Horcrux. But were there actually eight Horcruxes ? Can anyone confirm that (eg. with a list?)

I was pleased that one of the Horcruxes was in the Room of Requirement - I *knew* when I read of Harry hiding his Snape-annotated Potions book in there that there would be one in there somewhere...

I don't think you're alone in disliking the Epilogue - it seems to have been discussed intensely and largely disliked...

What I most admire about Harry Potter:

It's one story told in 7 volumes; because of that, I don't want to call it a series.

The way that JKR has bits that seem oh so offhand going back to the first book that are important later. That is awesome plotting.

She doesn't do what is expected, so in that, makes the books "real." Who dies, and who doesn't, and how, are all real because of the randomness of it.

The battles that are both violent and scary yet oddly bloodless, because of the nature of a lot of the curses.

Voldemort wanted to have 6 horcruxes, so there would be 7 pieces of soul. There were 7 horcruxes for 8 pieces of soul.

1. The Diary (from Chamber of Secrets)
2. The Ring (from Half-Blood Prince)
3. The Locket
4. The Cup
5. The Diadem
6. Nagini
7. Harry
8. Voldie himself

I think my favorite aspect to Book 7 was the unexpected humor. I found it to be the funniest book by far.

I liked how Dumbledore wasn't perfect.

I loved that Neville's Gran wasn't some little cranky old lady.

And I liked Mrs. Weasley stepping up at the end.

Liz B - I'm totally with you on the awesomeness of JKR's plotting that throwaways become of major importance later on...

Jennie, thanks for the list of Horcruxes - I didn't have time to look them all up earlier...

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to say that I can't wait to participate in this discussion - I've been purposely avoiding any discussions (except among my family) so I wouldn't be burned out before this one.

But right now I'm rereading the book and making notes (look out!) so I'll be back in a few days to comment. We have all through August and September, right?

We most certainly do - there's no rush to discuss today, or even this week...

I was delighted that I was right about Snape. The whole thing wouldn't've worked for me if he hadn't been truly "Dumbledores."

I was most intrigued by the Malfoy family--especially Narcissa's lie to cover up Harry's being alive. The family devotion was, to me, like a bold underline to Rowling's theme of redemptive love/parental sacrifice. I hadn't seen that coming.

I admit to a moment's confusion when Snape was dying. When reading of the silvery blue substance oozing out, I immediately thought of unicorn blood and began arguing to myself--"no, that doesn't work. That can't be right!" Eventually I realized that it was Snapes thoughts, destined for the pensieve.

I thought the time on the run was boring at times. JK should take a page from Tolkien re: how to allow relatively uneventful time to pass without dragging.

I missed McGonagal and Hagrid. I wanted to see Rita Skeeter's comeuppance (Umbridge's, too!)

I thought the time on the run was boring at times. JK should take a page from Tolkien re: how to allow relatively uneventful time to pass without dragging.

I know plenty of Tolkien fans who'd disagree with you on that score !

I must be the only person in the world who wasn't bored by the middle of the book - I thought it started right off with a bang, and kept it up all the way through. I do agree, though, with those who dislike the epilogue. Somebody somewhere has pointed out that it does kind of limit what fanfic writers and others can do with the story. I wonder if they'll include it in the film....

For me, the biggest surprise was finding out who the silver doe was. I had actually considered him, but only for about half a second. The whole chapter about his background was the best part of the book, though. (By the time this book came out I was more interested in finding out about Snape than I was finding out who lived or died!)

I do hope that young James Potter's middle name is indeed Sirius. There ought to be a Remus somewhere in there, too.

I think a lot of people like the chapter on Snape's backstory the best !

I'm with James in that I really, really liked the chapters on the run. I didn't find them boring at all, and I think they really went a long way into showing the dynamic between Ron, Harry, and Hermione.

I'd say, overall, I really enjoyed the book, but really hated the epilogue. Only, because I wanted the epilogue to tell me something I DIDN'T know. It was clear by book 5, that Harry would end up with Ginny, and Ron with Hermoine. Even though it is early in their lives, not many people have been through what they have and their coupling made sense to me.

I did, however, think the mother issue was overemphasized in the book. In other words, Mrs. Weasley sticking up for Ginny was good. Realizing that Snape, Harry, and Voldemort were all motherless was also good. SAYING IT AGAIN, many times. Not good, and not subtle.

Again, though, I did mostly love it and it's hard to imagine anyone not finding something to complain about at the end of this awesome cultural phenomenon.

If everyone HAD loved it, the world would have imploded, I think !

There was a lot of emphasis on mothers, wasn't there ?!

Mothers; I don't think it was too much one way or the other. Yes, Harry lived because of the sacrificing mother; but, at the same time, the person Harry was most interested in learning about thru all the books was his father.

Malfoys: I had expected more of a turnaround from the Malfoys, especially Draco, and was so very pleased for that NOT to happen. I thought, oh, Draco will now see the evil of Death Eater ways...but it wasn't that simple, was it? And I found that very real; a person isn't going to just change, it's going to be slow, and in some parts it will be selfishly motivated (Narcissa motivated by the downfall of her family in V's favor and the fear for her son's life.)

Narcissa was another mother who saved her son.

The epilogue seemed glued on the first time I read it but it has grown on me. After all Harry had been through I was happy to know he had kids and friends and a happy life.

It was a nice way to demonstrate that Harry had resolved his feelings for Snape and moved on.

I was so afraid he was going to turn out to be Frodo and "save the Shire" but not be able to enjoy it.

Seeing Malfoy from a distance was interesting. I rather think the Malfoys will always be held at a distance by most of society.

I found myself thinking of Snape a great deal after I finished the book. He was such a tragic figure. He could have found some forgiveness and maybe even a little happiness by helping Lily's son but his guilt ran too deep and he was too damaged.

As a general, in response to no one comment, I found that what helped me enjoy this last book was to remind myself it was always Harry Potter's story; from the names of the books, to the opening chapter.

So even tho I wanted more on some of the other characters, and do wish I had seen more Snape (tho I was pleased with his backstory), Luna, Ginny, etc., it's Harry's story so other characters, or larger issues like the reform of the Ministry of Magic, aren't included.

This is late to chime in, but I wanted to anyway. I enjoyed the book. I didn't love the book. I felt like JK was trying to meet some sort of death quota in the book. I mean, Lupin and Tonks? Was that even necessary? Maybe she felt that since she couldn't dare a death of one of the three main characters, that she had to make up for it by killing a lot of other people so it would be "serious" enough. Typical quantity vs. quality quandary. ;-)

I think Lupin dying was a bit necessary, because he was the last of the marauders and it made sense somehow that all of the marauders should die.

Actually you raise a good point about the rest of the Marauders already being dead by that point...

Now that it's been so long that no one cares anymore, I'm finally ready to post some comments. I hope that someone's still around that's interested in talking about the book!

First of all, I wanted to say that I loved the book. It was very different than I expected, but I loved it even more than I thought I would. I had such a strong emotional reaction to it that for a few days after I finished reading it the first time, I was moody, irritable, and weepy. Is that strange?

I even liked the epilogue. Yes, it was sappy and probably unnecessary, but I felt like Harry & company have been such a big part of our lives for the last decade, that it only seemed fair to see a little bit of their future. It helped to ease the pain of saying goodbye. And the epilogue was totally worth it for the line, "...you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew." I cried when I read that.

I want to respond to some of the comments here, and then I have some other things that I want to talk about that I'll post in separate comments.

I also liked the middle section and didn't find it tedious. In rereading it, I actually think that it's a testament to Rowling's skill as a writer that we perceive it as tedious, because when you look at the total number of pages, there aren't really that many where they are just hanging around the tent. The time on the run is broken up by a number of events that hold your interest: Godric's Hollow, getting the sword, Xenophilius Lovegood, Malfoy Manor. These events actually take up most of the page count of the middle segment, but we perceive the time on the run as long and tedious because it is long and tedious to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. We are supposed to see it as tedious.

The section I had more of a problem with was the Shell Cottage chapter. I thought the pacing on it was off after the exciting events at the Malfoy Manor. Up to that point everything had been moving quickly, from the Malfoy Manor and the escape and Dobby's death, to Voldemort approaching Hogwarts and Harry needing to talk to Griphook and Ollivander immediately. Then everything comes to a complete stop as they sit around Shell Cottage for weeks planning the break-in at Gringotts.

More thoughts on the comments so far:

I join Mai in saying hooray for Neville! For me, Neville was one of the best parts of this book. I knew that Neville was going to do something heroic, but it was so satisfying to see Neville grown into his own and showing himself as the true Gryffindor that he is.

I also loved Mrs. Weasley dueling Bellatrix. I know some people have criticized the way it was done as being just more of the female stereotype - the mother defending her child - but I thought it was awesome seeing her step up and show her true power. I was cheering her on!

Regarding mothers: yes, there was a lot about mothers, but it really is a facet of the theme of the power of love running through the entire series, but especially in the last couple of books. Time and time again, Voldemort discounted the importance of love, and not recognizing its power was his undoing. I loved that even Narcissa betrayed Voldemort when it came down to protecting her son - but then, that was foreshadowed in the Spinners End chapter of Half-Blood Prince. But I also want to point out that it wasn't just mothers: remember that Xenophilius Lovegood spread his arms in a way that reminded Harry of his mother, and not only Narcissa but Lucius neglected the battle of Hogwarts in favor of searching for their son.

Marauders: Before Deathly Hallows came out, I read one person's prediction that Wormtail would die first and then Lupin, because that way the Marauders will have died in reverse order from the way they were introduced - Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs - and indeed, that's what happened. I don't know if it's coincidence or intentional, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Also, regarding the death of Lupin and Tonks, in a way it was setting up a parallel: Teddy is an orphan just like Harry, and Harry even at one point in the book called himself a reckless godfather like Sirius.

I'm totally in agreement with being in awe of all the little details that seemed unimportant in the earlier books, but which turned out to be really important. When I have time I want to go back and read the first six again to be able to really appreciate what it all means!

Sheila, thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful comments... I don't know about anyone else, but I have read them !

I had such a strong emotional reaction to it that for a few days after I finished reading it the first time, I was moody, irritable, and weepy. Is that strange?

No, I don't think so - I've also had reactions that strong to books that I've been heavily invested in - not to this one, admittedly, but in the past I've felt exactly the way you describe...

"and not only Narcissa but Lucius neglected the battle of Hogwarts in favor of searching for their son."

I can't shake the image of Lucius and Narcissa running through the battle looking for Draco. In my head I see them as Mr and Mrs Darling in the recent film of "Peter Pan", the scene where they are running to the nursery to stop the children flying away. (Yes, I know it's Jason Isaacs too!) But that sort of desperation.

Niceorc, I haven't seen the latest version of Peter Pan, but you're right that seems a good example of the same kind of desperation. It was refreshing to see that side of Lucius, who has been one of the vilest villians of the series, and to know that even he feels that kind of parental love. (I love Jason Isaacs's portrayal of Lucius in the movies, and would like to see him show that side of Lucius in the movie, but it's such a small bit that it probably won't make the film).

I've been by to look at this discussion before, but now I'll actually post a comment:

Regarding mothers in this whole series: I think the concept of mother love in these books is one of the reasons adults like them so much. We want to believe that mother love protects the young, that Lily's love for Harry will protect him from beyond the grave, that Molly Weasley's love for her child will make her powerful enough to defeat someone as evil as Bellatrix. That mother love will even be more powerful than evil within one's self as it is with Draco's mother. I believe all the good women characters are mothers. Tonks becomes a mother. Even Professor MacDonagal (forgive me if I have the name wrong), though not, to our knowledge, a biological mother, as a teacher acts in loco parentis and is thus a mother figure. All the major young women characters become mothers after the end of the story.

The most evil female characters are not mothers--Bellatrix and Dolories Umbridge. Petunia is technically a mother, but we're probably supposed to see her as a bad one. And her significance to the story is as an aunt. I believe in one of the books she has agreed to shelter Harry because she is is aunt, and he is safe in her house because she is his aunt. (Though I may not have that one hundred percent correct.) She certainly is not a "good" character.

In reality, we all know case after case where mother love wasn't enough to save someone. But here in these books, we can buy into this mother love fantasy for a while. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, by any means. Just very sad because we know it's a fantasy and the reality we live in is much different.

I will be interested to see if any of the school librarians in my area hold a Harry book discussion group now that school has started again. I am thinking that there are probably lots of kids who wanted a chance to talk about the book over the summer.

I hope they do. This has been so interesting.

The "tent time" did seem to go slowly the first time through, but at the time I was trying NOT to race through the story so I thought it was just me carefully reading every word. Upon re-reading that part though, I can see the plot points she was inserting (like the portrait) and why she took the time she did.

I listened to the editorially reviled book #5 this summer, to review before #7 and was amazed at how much I enjoyed it, much more than the first time I read it.

When I read Book 5 initially, I was dismayed by the length and had many of the thoughts about the editing that have been frequently discussed. I found that listening to it this summer though (maybe because I knew what was going to happen) I was not put off by the length at all. In fact I enjoyed the detail and savored the length. I understood aspects and details of the story I had not noted before.

It made me think of the first time I read Lord of the Rings. I skipped all the songs and poetry (Michele thwacks me again) because they seemed to be slowing me down and because I wanted to get on with the story. My subsequent re-reads and listens have included them.

To me the editing flaws and length are lagniappe, like Tolkien's poems, that I savor now that the story is at an end.

I am going to be listening to Jim Dale's reading of book #7 as soon as I get a new mp3 player. (After resurrecting itself twice, I think my iPod has finally gone to the great circuit board in the sky, sob.)
I expect that will be a whole new experience.

Camille, I'm not going to thwack you... Tolkien's songs and poems aren't to everyone's taste...

Sorry to hear your iPod died...

I confess I found the wanderings around England a little dull the first time I read it - I was reminded of Frodo and Sam's wanderings through Mordor - but less entertained ! Maybe I won't notice it so much next time I read the book ?

Gail, good point about the mothers. It is a very idealized look at mother love. I did think of one example where a mother's love wasn't enough to save the child: Ariana's mother couldn't save her, in spite of the fact that she sacrificed her life for Ariana. But this may be a case of the example that proves the point. I know that Rowling's mother died young, and Rowling was also a young mother herself when she wrote the first book. Both those factors probably had something to do with the idealized and important role that mothers' love plays in the series.

Camille, I agree about the tent time. The first time through I did find it a little tedious, but the second time I read it I really noticed all the details that set things up for later. As I was rereading it, I kept pointing things out to my husband and son: "Listen to this! We didn't realize what that meant the first time we read it!" There's really a lot that happens in that section.

It's interesting that I'm not a big poetry fan (sorry!) but I always loved the songs and poems in The Lord of the Rings. When I was a teen I could quote several of them by heart, but I've mostly forgotten them now.

I haven't heard Jim Dale's recording of Deathly Hallows yet, but I do love the way he does the books. I've always been curious to hear the British versions of the audio books, because I've heard that narrator is very good as well, but I can't imagine anyone doing it better than Jim Dale.

I wanted to share a couple of interesting, although not very important, things that I noticed on my second reading. These are things that I jotted down in my notebook while rereading, and some of them are, like Camille said, things that you don't "get" the first time through.

- After Tottenham Court, while they are on the run, they keep almost saying Voldemort's name, but Ron stops them because it makes him uncomfortable. Ron probably unknowingly saved their lives, because they didn't know about the restriction on the name yet!

- When Harry, Ron, and Hermione discover the importance of the Sword of Gryffindor, and that Dumbledore made a copy, they're pleased that Dumbledore didn't trust Snape enough to tell him about the copy. But Snape does know about the copy since he's the one that ultimately gives them the real sword!

- When Harry first meets Bathilda, the locket against his skin was "pulsing through the cold gold," and he thinks, "Did it know, could it sense, that the thing that could destroy it was near?" But really, it's pulsing not because the sword is near, but because it's in the presence of another horcrux! (Nagini)

- When Harry is in Voldemort's mind and remembering his parents' murders from Voldemort's point of view, it says, "The snake rustled on the filthy, cluttered floor, and he had killed the boy, and yet he was the boy..." That pretty much says right out that Harry is a horcrux!

- If Marvolo Gaunt is really descended from the Peverells as he claims, then Voldemort and Harry are really distant cousins, since Harry is descended from Ignotus Peverell.

All of which just goes to show that a second reading of Harry Potter *always* pays off...

This is the first time since book 4 that I actually haven't immediately re-read the book on finishing it...

LOL. Well, Michele, I think you should immediately forget about all this Doctor Who stuff and go reread Harry Potter... :-)

Interesting. Now that I think of it, this is the first time my youngest daughter did not immediately start a re-read. She ALWAYS starts over when she finishes a Harry for the first time. I might ask her about that.
I found I could not start reading another book for at least two weeks. The presence of Harry was justs to...present.

Sheila, if I COULD forget the Doctor, I would - but alas it's just not possible. He insists on striding about in my head, ranting and rabbiting on all the time... *sigh* It's exhausting some times, having such a talkative Muse, especially one who doesn't sleep because he resents me sleeping !

LOL. That does sound exhausting, Michele.

One more thing I wanted to talk about is the connection between book 7 and book 1. As we've discussed, there were many details in all the books that set things up for the last book. But it seems to me that there is a special connection between Deathly Hallows and Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone, such that there is a circle which book 7 loops back to book 1. Here are some things that I noticed, but there may be others:

- Harry arrives at the Dursley's with Hagrid on the flying motorcycle. He leaves the Dursley's for the last time on the flying motorcycle with Hagrid.

- The very first time we see Dumbledore, he is using the Deluminator (although it's called a "Put-Outer," at least in the American version.) After his death he leaves the Deluminator to Ron in his will.

- In book 1, Harry meets Griphook, goes with him deep down into Gringotts, and learns about the security measures including dragons. In book 7, Harry breaks into Gringotts with Griphook, goes deep into the vaults, and encounters some of the security measures. As he's breaking in, he recalls Hagrid saying, "ye'd be mad ter try and rob it."

- In book 1, he gets his wand from Ollivander. In book 7 his wand breaks.

- In book 1, Dedalus Diggle is one of the first wizards that Harry meets. Also, I've always thought that Dedalus Diggle was the one who hugged Vernon Dursley in book 1 on the day that Voldemort killed Harry's parents, but I can't find any evidence of that. He just seems very Diggle-like. In book 7, Dedalus Diggle is the one who takes the Dursley's away.

- The scene where he dives to catch the diadem as the fire rages reminded me of him diving to catch Neville's rememberall in book 1.

- In book 1, when they are caught in the Devil's Snare, Hermione laments that they have no wood to light a fire. Ron berates her: "Are you a witch, or not?" In book 7, she gets even with him when they are trying to get into the shrieking shack through the whomping willow and Ron wishes that they had Crookshanks. She says, using very similar wording, "Are you a wizard, or what?"

Interestingly, in the Devil's Snare she casts a blue fire, and somewhere in book 7 I think it made a point of saying that being able to light small fires is a particular specialty of hers.

It is exhausting, but satisfyingly so !

As for your comments re. the links between books 1 and 7 - I had noticed them too...

And yes, I do believe it was Dedelus Diggle who hugged Mr Dursley that day...

(Oh and the Deluminator is called a "Put-Outer" in PS too !)

Oh, I'm glad to know it's called a Put-Outer in your version as well. I had wondered if they dumbed it down for us Americans. ;-)

No, they didn't - I suspect that JK hadn't thought up the name when she wrote book 1 - book 7 is the first time that name is used...

Like most of Sachar's books, I read this more than once as a kid. I liked it, as I liked his others, and I read them before I was in middle school myself. I don't own a copy so I can't refer to it right now. I don't recall the epilogue offhand.

My favorite Sachar is still Sixth Grade Secrets, followed by Sideways Stories from Wayside School.

I've not read the Sideways Stories, though I've seen some of them in the library. Haven't seen "Sixth Grade Secrets" though.

I highly recommend Sixth Grade Secrets to every kid entering middle school, and to all librarians / booksellers / etc that work with that age group.

Sideways Stories is a hoot and a half. Each chapter focuses on one character (or a few, in some cases) from the class, and every reader finds someone that is an exaggerated version of themselves.

I'll see if I can remember to pick them up next time I'm in the library...

I also have read a lot of Sachar but this title was new to me and I wouldn't rank it among my favorite -- seemed forced and heavy handed on the guilt and atonement issues. It would be a good title to recommend for a book on peer pressure though, with a warning about the "rude gesture". I'm not surprised it's been challenged -- many parents that use our library would be offended. Most of them are open minded enough to just say "not for my child" though.
I'm not doing Harry Potter, so I'll be back in October. Meanwhile, I'm almost done with Mister Monday with Grim Tuesday waiting and also almost done with Shadow in the North. Unrelated to this book discussion but highly recommended, just finished I am the Messenger by Zusak.

Sorry you found it heavy-handed - I didn't, I thought Sachar had done it quite lightly; different perspectives I guess.

Hi Michele, I've tagged you for a Harry Potter meme:

http://www.wandsandworlds.com/blog1/2007/06/harry-potter-tag.html

Thanks Sheila, I saw that was doing the rounds...

Michele,

I've tagged you for a meme, My Pretty!

http://wildrosereader.blogspot.com/2007/06/memed-again.html

Thanks Elaine - I'll give it some thought...

Michele,

You can include personal goals too.
I forgot to include that in my post. (I think I'll go edit my post now.) Cleaning closets isn't one of my professional goals for sure!

Oh cool ! I think I might manage that then !

I've never participated in one of these book discussions before, so I'm just going to answer the questions in a list format this time:

1. The Golden Compass/Northern Lights and sequels are undoubtedly my favorite YA books ever written, but I wasn't expecting this to be the same type of thing, so I wasn't disappointed. I also read The Tin Princess (which was great) before The Ruby in the Smoke, and I think that prepared me for what it would be like.

2. I read it back in January, but from what I remember, the events of her father on the ship - and, come to think of it, her opium-induced memories of them - didn't seem wholly believable. But, it really didn't affect my enjoyment of the book, and I do think he succeeded for the most part.

3. Sort of. I enjoyed it, but it's not one of my favorite books and I liked The Tin Princess more. I do want to read the other two eventually, but since I have such a long list of books I want to read already, I may not get around to it for a while.

4. You mean it's out?! I heard they were doing one, but I had no idea it's been released already. I haven't seen it, but I'm going to try and get a copy right away.

Hi Thorn and welcome !!

Yes, The Ruby in the Smoke TV movie has been made. My review is here. Strangely Amazon UK don't seem to be selling the Region 2 (UK) DVD, just the Region 1 version (bit odd that !) I've got it on video as I taped it the night it aired and watched it the next day. I meant to watch it again before starting this discussion, but didn't get to it !

You know that Ruby is the first in the series, not The Tin Princess ?

Thought I might be the last to post (as usual) but apparently I'm among the first! I had previously only read one Pullman book which I enjoyed but it was several years ago and now I don't remember which one it was even. Not this one though. Here's what I liked best:
1) the complex storyline
2) build up of suspense beginning with Mrs. Holland taking Adelaide back.
3) the way everything was resolved/explained at the end.

I'll add Pullman's other titles to my, as Thom said, already long list of books I want to read. Even though the cover of the book I read said book one of the Sally Lockhart trilogy, there are four books (or more?) about Sally?

Perhaps I was under the mistaken impression that all of the books we were reading for discussion would be fantasies (because I could tell you are a big fantasy fan!) so I kept waiting for something fantastical to happen. Still a great read though!

No you're not the last Catherine - and thanks for participating.

Yes the series is four books in total - The Ruby in the Smoke, The Shadow in the North, The Tiger in the Well and The Tin Princess...

And yes, you were mistaken in thinking all the books would be fantasy ones. I didn't want to shut out non-fantasy fans so included some non-genre books as well.

I made it here at last! Re the questions, I'm afraid I can only answer one as I can't remember when I first read The Ruby in the Smoke (years ago), have already read the sequels and didn't see the show (though I'd like to). Speaking of the show, though, what did you think of it Michele?

I think Pullman succeeded in making the cliche a natural part of the story. By the end of the book I was drawn into the story and wanting everything to turn out OK. The melodramatic flair just made the story more fun to read!

Catherine, I know someone else who was waiting throughout the book for the fantasy element to come into play, simply because of Pullman's fantasy trilogy, so you're not alone! And it's not as though this type of dramatic story featuring a gemstone wouldn't turn into a fantasy.

I enjoyed the BBC adaptation of Ruby but then excel at period dramas ! Julie Walters' realisation of Mrs Holland was fantastic, and Billie Piper was pretty good as Sally too. I shall make a point of re-watching at some point this week and see how I feel about it now I've re-read the book.

I've just arranged for Netflix to send me the TV movie, but I decided to join in the discussion before I watch it. Then maybe I'll pipe in again.

I actually read this book because a friend of mine was using it as a text book in her grade 8 English class. That decision sill mystifies me. I don't see the value of this book for that purpose. Turns out it wasn't being taught as a core book, but as a 'quick read' where the students read books and then have a sort of quiz bowl contest.

I don't really know what I think to this story. I am not in a huge rush to read the other books in the series. It just didn't engage me as much as I would have liked. That said, I probably WILL read the other books, but if they are as much of a chore as this one is...I don't know that I'll make it through the whole series.

Pullman did exactly what he set out to do with this book - if I had not KNOWN I was reading a 20th century novel, I would have been sure I was reading something much older.

In some ways, that failed it. The characters were just TOO stereotypical and the cliches too many. I found the book tedious to read and too predictable while at the same time being a bit unbelievable.

It could be that a novel like this translates better to film. The film should be here in a day or so...

Mai, I'm sorry to hear you didn't enjoy Ruby very much... I wouldn't recommend reading the other 3 if you found this one a chore because they are sufficiently similar for you not to enjoy them.

I hope you DO enjoy the TV version - please come back and let me/us know your thoughts on it once you've seen it.

Michelle,

I DID enjoy the movie - if anything it gave me a better appreciation for the book. I thought the movie was well done, but I liked the book better. That sounds odd considering I didn't care for the book so much - but the movie gave me a different perspective.

Interesting that although you didn't care for the book that much, you preferred it to the movie...

If you had read His Dark Materials before reading The Ruby in the Smoke, did this book meet your expectations or disappoint you?

I have read His Dark Materials, and I intensely enjoy that trilogy. I have been meaning to read the Sally Lockhart books for years, but they always fell into the category of "I'll read them when it's time, when they find me." As time went on, the books hadn't found me, so they had moved to another category: "I'll read them when the mood strikes, or when I'm prompted directly."

Earlier this year, I heard about the Masterpiece Theatre movie and wanted to read Ruby prior to that airing, but I didn't get the chance. I watched the movie anyway, and I'll address that in the last part of this post.

Back to the matter at hand: I have read other Pullman novels between now and then - Clockwork, which I enjoyed; The Scarecrow and his Servant, which I did not, not really - and I was not feel half as impressed with the plot and execution of Ruby as I was with Materials. However, the writing was still good, and I enjoyed the majority of the ride. Did it disappoint me? No. Scarecrow disappointed me. Ruby was okay. I wanted more out of it. See the next answer.

Did you like this book enough to want to read the other three in the series?

Maybe. I do not feel compelled to rush out and check out the other stories. I will probably wait for them, as I did for this, and see when the mood strikes me.

Have you seen the BBC TV adaptation starring Billie Piper as Sally Lockhart, and if so did you like it? If you liked it, did you prefer it to the book?

I did see it. It felt rather rushed. In the film, I disliked the reveal* and hoped that the book had more leading up to that moment and more afterwards. (It did not.) I did like the costumes and some of the cinematography. Most of the cast was fine.

Note: Spoilers ahead, but I'll still be somewhat vague!

*The reveal: That he had the ruby for some time, that he didn't tell Sally, and that she was given it by someone else. It was anti-climactic. The ruby was rather lauded in the first third of the story, but I found the final acquistion and then toss-away unfulfilling. I thought the ruby was important, and I do not feel as though it was set up to be a MacGuffin. I was letdown by the last thirty pages or so.

LW, thanks for your long and detailed response. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy The Scarecrow and the Servant which I felt was a clever book that could be read on several levels...

I'm glad that you didn't hate Ruby but I can understand that you didn't feel it matched up to HDM. I think I was lucky to read the Sally Lockhart series before I read HDM, so my enjoyment of the former wasn't coloured by the scope of the latter...

You are welcome! :) I updated the post at my blog as well.

Thanks LW !!

Yay! I have Ruby on request at the library and I have updated my post about the book group.

Excellent, thanks LW !

Lady Friday was a great book, in my opinion. Very exciting, and, just like all the other Keys to the Kingdom books, incredibly imaginative. I agree, Michele, I like the fifth part of the will. I keep thinking that Dame Primus isn't entirely on Arthur's side, that she has intentions of her own... Actually, it's fairly obvious. One would hope that with the dragon, 'Temperance' she will be... well, tempered. Suzy Turquoise Blue is also a great character, I love in this book when Arthur summons all the Keys, and Suzy says, "I bet Dame Primus is going to be really miffed though."

Saturday's note also got me thinking a lot. If Saturday saw right through Friday's scheme, or chose to ignore it, then why all the indications that Saturday's forces were down on the bottom shelf? Why were the Artful Loungers even there, or Saturday's Dusk? Were they simply looking for the note? I can't see why, it didn't have too terribly much information in it. But, perhaps. Did Saturday lie, and go after the Key anyway in a hope to decieve the deciever? Perhaps. I honestly have no idea, it's quite a puzzle. In any case, I cannot WAIT for Superior Saturday to come out!

Hi David - thanks for your thoughtful comments - and for being the first to comment !

I don't think Dame Primus is entirely on Arthur's side - but then I guess that's not entirely surprising. She wants the other parts of the Will found and since Arthur's been half-resisting her (understandably, I feel), she's been a bit cagey with him. There's also the fact that he's a mortal 12 year old and she's a centuries old immortal Denizen, which is bound to give her a different perspective on things. But it's interesting that Garth Nix has made her a fairly unsympathetic character - there aren't too many unsympathetic female characters in children's fiction these days.

I also love Suzy Blue - I really should have mentioned her - she's a really mischievous and irrepressible character who's a joy to know...

Don't forget, re. the note, that it's only a fragment of a letter, not the wohle thing - it's interesting, though that you thought it was from Saturday (given it's only signed with an S). I assumed it was from Lord Sunday - the tone of the note is very uninterested, which Sunday appears to be, whereas Saturday is very, very interested.

I also thought that the note was from Sunday, and my first reaction was that David had misunderstood. It never even occurred to me that it might be from Saturday, as it does seem more in character for Sunday. However, I wonder why the note was signed with only the ambiguous 'S'. Was that intentional or incidental? Nix doesn't seem to me like a writer who would do something like that unintentionally.

It also occurs to me on thinking about it, that we've never actually seen Saturday, have we? We've seen Saturdays minions, and Dusk in particular, but do we know for a fact that they are acting on Saturday's orders? Is it possible that the note was from Saturday to Saturday's Dusk? I really need to reread these books because the details slip my mind.

On the other hand, going back through the book, I notice that the order that Pirkin showed Arthur was "By order of Lady Saturday, Superior Sorcerer of the Upper House, with tacit approval of Lord Sunday." Tacit approval does sound like a euphemism for doesn't care.

I actually don't think that Lady Friday is darker than the other books. I think that all of them have been fairly dark. In Mister Monday, for example, the scene with the Old One is pretty dark and his fate is pretty gruesome.

As I mentioned in my own review, I also liked that Arthur is taking responsibility and becoming a good leader. I like that his growing ability as a leader is reflected in how others react to him, from the paper pushers to the Winged Servants of the Night and Friday's Dawn. With a few exceptions, most of the denizens he meets seem to instinctively respect him and recognize him as a natural leader, something that we never would have anticipated in the first book!

I also really liked Ugham. I like the way that he chooses to literally interpret his orders. The nithlings have been portrayed as pretty mindless entities, and it would be easy to assume that the new nithlings are similar. But Ugham has a lot of ... dare I say humanity? He also becomes quite a heroic figure in the way he chooses to obey the order at the climax. Perhaps he didn't have a choice about obeying the Piper, but in the way he did it, he sure went out in a blaze of glory!

You could be right Sheila, about the writer of the letter - or we could all be wrong ! Guess we'll just have to wait until next year to find out (either that or someone has to grab Garth, tie him to a chair and make him tell !)

No, we've not seen Saturday yet...

I also liked Uggham, and I quite agree with you about how well characterised he was - I'd like to see more of the NewNiths.

And yes, Arthur's earning respect - which he clearly deserves since defeating the Trustees isn't an easy task - AND he's done it without killing any of them, despite the expectations of others around him...

Yes, now that I think about it, I took it for granted it was from Saturday. Now the plot thickens, the note is even more puzzling then before!

It's very true that Sunday does seem very detatched, but that is part of the reason my instict was that it was from Saturday- I think that Garth Nix will keep Sunday's personality and nearly everything about a surprise until his title book. Then again, we have heard from Sunday before, way way back at the very beginning of Grim Tuesday, when the... messenger brings the signed note to Grim Tuesday. My memory is bad though and I don't have the book- was Sunday one of the ones who gave approval?

In any case, it very well could be from either of them. Or, as you said, it could be a total shocker. "S" might stand for... Suzy Turquoise Blue! Or possibly... Skinless Boy! Honestly, it could stand for nearly anybody. But it's more likely that it's Sunday or Saturday. ;)

Also, I did forget to comment about Ugham. Throughout the book, the NewNiths shifted in my mind. It seems that they do not slavishly obey the Piper, nor does his pipe control them. From what Ugham said, It makes it seem that the NewNiths are creatures of honor, and as Ugham said, see themselves as being under an everlasting debt to the Piper for creating them. But perhaps, if some honorable loophole could be found, or they could be forced into a greater debt to one of the good characters... Then, would they be free?

Another thing I neglected to mention: The Mariner. I have the strangest feeling Arthur will use up his final 'Genie in the Medallion' and will thus be left alone in his epic clash with Lord Sunday. It also seems that both the Piper and the Mariner have... I'm not sure, Lesser Keys? The Mariner has his electro-spear, and the Piper has his... pipe. Both seem to act like keys, for example, the Piper could make the Improbable Stair with his pipe. Were these given them by the architect? If so, would Lord Sunday then have one of these AND his key? Many mysteries. In any case, Saturday should be the best book in the series yet, whenever it comes out!

Nice theory David, but I doubt the note is from anyone other than either Saturday or Sunday...

I've just looked at Grim Tuesday and there's no indication about who the letter is from, it just mentions that the first part of the Will has escaped and found itself a Rightful Heir. (I assumed you were referring to the letter that's mentioned in the first chapter, which Tuesday is holding in his hand when he gets off his train?)

I suspect you're right to think that the Mariner's Harpoon and the Piper's Pipe are both objects of power, though whether they're a form of Key, or just devices, isn't clear or obvious - I suspect the latter, however...

I hope Superior Saturday isn't the best book of all the series ! Just the best so far...

I think the note had to be from Saturday or Sunday, because the sealing wax on the note was the rainbow wax used by all the Trustees. But there's another strange thing: the seal itself isn't visible, just the traces of wax, so that's another thing that leaves the sender of the note ambiguous. It does seem strange that Nix would include *two* things that make the sender ambiguous. You are clearly meant to assume that the note is from Sunday, but if so, why the ambiguity?

Interesting points that you make about Ugham, David. It raises the issue of whether a being owes a debt of obedience to his or her creator.

Yes, I agree, I hope SUNDAY will be the best. That's why I said "The best yet". ;)

And that's not the letter I was speaking of, sorry if I was unclear. It was a movement that had been signed by three of the trustees, and the other three had not approved. Grim Tuesday thought that the movement was lost, but the messenger reminded him it still needed Tuesday himself's signature. Forget what the movement was for, though... Ah well. Wonder what the trustees know that makes them keep getting killed. I also wonder why Mister Monday, after he was made good, wouldn't spill the beans instantly. Perhaps it wasn't a secret, but some power? No idea.

I don't think any being should owe a debt of any kind to its creator - that's a really horrible thought. The being may feel gratitude for their creation but there should be no compulsion to feel that gratitude.

Let's hope Garth reveals all regarding the identity of the mystery writer of the letter or we're going to be terribly frustrated !

David, I'll try to check Grim Tuesday later and see what the letter said and how it was signed.

Just another comment about the note at the end of Lady Friday. Why does it say, "It will make little difference in the end?" What does 'S' know that we don't?

Probably an awful lot... And I'm so bad at not knowing what it is I don't know...

(Sorry, being silly now - too tired !)

I have been enjoying the series from the start. In fact, I feel that each book has been better than the one that preceeded it - except for Lady Friday. This is not to say that LF was poor, but I just didn't feel as though it raised the bar yet again. I wanted more explanation/exploration and more insight into Lady Friday's background and intentions.

I must admit that Lady Friday is a bit more of a cipher than any of the other Trustees were - which is a shame...

What I liked:
1) the Paper Pushers and the whole idea of the canal moving type through textually charged water. Made me think of how cool that could be in a library for sorting, shelving, pulling holds -- many possibilities!
2) time relatedness: days of the week, minutes of the hour in the circles of the place where Lady Friday keeps the sleepers, etc.
3) the imaginative names and titles of the characters many of which are also time related.
4) another new author and series to be enjoyed.

What I didn't like: Would have liked it more had I read books 1-4 first. Felt like I would have appreciated it more having the background of the previous books. Lots of things seemed confusing and it was difficult to determine if I would have known more having read them. I could have read your comments (or elsewhere about the other books) but I'm the type who doesn't want anything to spoil the story so I try not to even look at the book jacket until finishing the last page. Of course now I do want to read the whole series so perhaps this is not a negative.

Catherine, I'm glad that you enjoyed the book despite not having read the earlier ones - and yes, it really does help to have read the other four first. I actually found I need to re-read the previous books before starting a new one. I didn't re-read the first two before reading Drowned Wednesday and I actually felt quite lost at one point...

I hope you get hold of the others and enjoy them !

I also liked the Paper Pushers - the very name made me grin, given how bureaucratic so many of the Denizens of the House are !

Really interesting theories...My thoguhts are that we know that the seven deadly sins are intertwined with the story; Monday is Sloth, Wednesday is gluttony, Thursday is Anger, but then we're left with a slight confusion, I feel. Would Tuesday represent Envy or Greed? I feel that it is more likely to be envy, and Friday is Greed. What do you think?
We are thus left with Lust and Pride. It is easy to say that Sunday could be pride but then think of Saturday and her just-below-sunday situation.
This leaves Sunday and maybe a connection with the note. What does lust have to do with "it will make little difference in the end"?
sorry to sound wierd, I'm not but it was playing on my mind so do you think you could shed any light?

I loved Suzy in this one, she really is a great creation by Nix. Also thought that Feorin and Milka were very amusing, Nix is so random and imaginative.

Thanks
George
P.s. have meet Mr Nix, he's great!

Grim Tuesday was greed - he was endangering the House and everything else in his greed for more Nothing to use to make things - and he was always taking ideas from the Secondary Realms...

Friday was greed - her appetite for "experiencing" humans grew and grew...

But I think we're just going to have wait and see with regard to Superior Saturday and Lord Sunday.

I'm jealous you've met Garth Nix !!

The Parts of the Will seem to have a very extreme version of their coresponding virtues. Part One-fortitude, Part Two- prudence, Part Three- faith, Part Four- Justice and Part Five Temperence. Personally, I think the last part will have the virtue love/charity simply because the Will has been putting down "love" since Arthur didn't execute Monday. This leaves hope for Part Six. Kind of strange... hope vs envy

Pleeeeeeease review some of those books! I'm dying here!

Um, I was planning to !

(Dances with impatience) Well *hurry*! I really need to know!

Hey "Impatience", if you quit nagging, I might be able to finish one of the reviews I'm trying to write, and post it !

Thanks for the prompt to re-read this book, Michele. I had forgotten how good A hat full of sky (what a great title) was! I think it might be my favourite of the three Tiffany Aching books as well, although I need to re-read Wee free men before I can make the call.

Unfortunately I can't think of any intelligent comments about it! I gobbled it down too quickly as a reader rather than as a reviewer. I think a lot of the aspects I liked about it were Pratchett trademarks, such as the practical and insightful character of Tiffany. There was the cast of interesting supporting characters (I liked Petulia, the super nice witch who stands up to the alpha girl by the end of the book). Underlying everything was the lovely solidity of discworld, which has magic as a type of science. And of course, there were many witty observations about people and society.

If I am struck by inspiration I will come back and add more comments!

gI actually read this one last. I read Wintersmith first, because it was a Cybils nominee, and I liked it so much that I went back and read the other two. I love the whole series. It's hard to say which one I liked best. I think The Wee Free Men was the funniest, but I loved all the wisdom and philosophy tucked away in this one.

Things I especially liked:

- The Nac Mac Feegle, of course. I absolutely adore the Feegles and would love to have a clan of little blue men watching over me (but not when I'm changing). Crivens!

- I loved Oswald, the obsessive-compulsive ondageist.

- Did I mention the Feegles? I love Rob Anybody's PLN.

- I loved Granny Weatherwax's speech about the soul and center of witchcraft. I love that witchcraft isn't so much about doing magic as it is about taking care of people. Granny Weatherwax is a great character; I love the way she tries to come across as stern but she can't hide that she really cares. I also liked the echoes of Granny Aching in Granny Weatherwax.

There wasn't much that I didn't like about this book. I didn't particularly care for Miss Level too much. I didn't dislike her, I just didn't find her as interesting a character as the other witches.

I'm glad that you both enjoyed A Hat Full of Sky (yes Emmaco it is a great title!)...

Tiffany is a great character, especially for children, to aspire to... Petulia is very nice, isn't she ? But strong too, as it turns out.

I forgot to mention, in my discussion starting piece, how much I love the concept of witches having First, Second and Third Thoughts (and First Sight, although that doesn't get mentioned in this particular tale).

Hello! Just popping in again to have my thoughts. I LOVE Hat Full Of Sky, It's a hilarious book. But I have to admit, I really do like The Wee Free Men better. But the entire series is great. Especially the feegles, as my mom said. I like when the Feegles were in the 'Man Costume'.... And tore it in two. You can just imagine the looks on the faces of the other people at the bar. I also, like my mom, like the good ol' Ondageist. Does anyone know if 'Ondageist' is a term that has been used before or if it was made up for this book? I also liked Granny Weatherwax's sign: "I ATEN'T DEAD". There are many hilarious quotes in the book, such as, "Do you have a plan?" "Yes, I have one right here."....
Funny.

And, like my mom, I like the echoes of Granny Aching in Granny Weatherwax(You took all the good points, Sheila!)

All in all, this is a really great book that I probably will want to re-read sometime soon.

Hi David, thanks for your comments. Ondageist, like noonlight (in The Wee Free Men), is entirely made up by Terry Pratchett (he's good at it !)...

Yes - the bit where the Feegle-man tears itself in two is laugh out loud funny - I can just picture the looks of utter horror on the faces of the pub customers !

I'm glad that you want to re-read AHFoS at some point. You read Wintersmith during the Cybils, didn't you?

Sorry I am late, I had trouble with my google account!
I have not read the first in this series but I did like the Nac Mac Feegle, they are such funny characters. It was good the way they were able to combine their small brains into one workable intellegence!
Tiffany was mature well beyond her years - even for a trainee witch! I liked the way she handled the hiver, showing it a way out rather than destruction of another body.
Now the hiver I felt rather sorry for, to be condemmed to inhabit other bodies because you dont have one of your own - shame!!

Lesley, you're not late in posting ! The discussion is ongoing, even after a new one starts...

I'm glad that you liked the Nac Mac Feegle - I do too !

And yes, the poor hiver...

I liked the book and posted a comment last week (I thought) -- should have saved a copy as now my mind is blank and I returned the book to the library already... Here's a few things I remember:
1) Glad finally to have gotten into a Terry Pratchett book as lots of people rave about him/his books.
2) I liked Wee Free Men better, but perhaps only because I read it first.
3) I'm intrigued by Roland, the boy Tiffany rescued in Wee Free Men, and his importance in the second book by giving Tiffany the charm/necklace/pendant/whatever of the horse that she uses in the battle with the hiver.
4)Can't wait to start Wintersmith and then on to some adult discworld titles!

Thanks, Michele!

Er no, Catherine, I had nothing from you - mind you, Blogger was being a bit picky about comments last week !

Welcome to the wonderful Discworld!

Anyway I'm glad that you enjoyed the book, even if you preferred The Wee Free Men... I recommend Wintersmith if you want to know more about Roland !

Thanks for the mention, Sheila ! Personally I can hardly wait for next month's discussion !

You're welcome. I'm looking forward to it!

I liked the writing and the story to a point. The overall story was not quite as supernatural as I would have liked. I thought the main character's dreams and nightmares would lead to time travel or prophecies and ancient evils. I was disappointed when they did not, as I enjoy stories of that nature.

I wanted there to be more of a threat, more research done, more of a climax.

I liked the characters and their interactions. The household felt comfortable. I enjoyed the banter between the great aunts, sisters who knew each other well and who took care of each other.

I enjoyed the poem Old Furniture by Thomas Hardy which started the story.

I'm sorry that it didn't meet your expectations in terms of the supernatural. I guess I was already familiar with Lively's style and method of writing such books (having read several others before I came to Norham Gardens), so I knew what sort of thing to expect...

I'll post more later this weekend. But for now, I wouldn't have read this book without the book discussion; because my library didn't own it so this discussion pushed me to buy it and I'm glad I did.

What I liked: there is some wonderful language here. I found myself copying down a lot of quotes.

The relationship between Clare & the aunts was also very good; and I liked the fears that were shown in a very subtle manner. Subtle is a good word for this; because I also think that I wouldn't call this supernatural at all. That the dreams were just her own fears and concerns about change and the future materialized.

Liz, you're quite right, "subtle" is the word that best describes Lively's children's fiction (I've not read any of her adult fiction as yet). There is nothing overt about her story telling. I'm glad that you found lots you wanted to quote - I did too, but for the sake of clarity, I didn't quote too much here.

I found this a very enjoyable book to read. Clare has a very special relationship with her aunts but needless to say has a very real fear of losing them. I think that it is because of her empathy with the old house that Clare picks up the fears and feelings from the old tribe and realises that it is too late to return their property to them.
A very readable book, I will be looking out for more Penelope Lively books!

I'm glad that you enjoyed it - and that you want to read more of Lively's books.

Like Liz B, I had to scramble to get this book -- although ILL was my method of choice -- and I just finished it today, forcing myself not to look at any comments until I was finished. Now I'm wishing I had been able to borrow the newer version to read Pullman's thoughts on time.

Clare's thought on the passing of time and how she often felt stuck was what I enjoyed most about the book, I especially liked on page 90 where Clare thinks: "It's [time] like being on a train, and seeing a lovely station with flowers and cows in long grass, and not being able to get off at it." And the ending sentences of the book where Clare realizes how she can save particular moments: "She looked at them, intently, at their faces and their hands and the shape of them. I'm learning them by heart, she thought, that's what I'm doing, that's all I can do, only that."

Like Little Willow, I thought there might be more of the supernatural, but being a person ground firmly in reality myself, I was easily able to identify with Clare and felt the minimal information about New Guinea still managed to convey the changes that finally arrived in New Guinea.

I enjoyed the addition of John, the African man, but thought about how dated that made the book, a mere 30+ years later, when one would not dream of bringing a strange man home. Maureen's purpose as a character in the book, seemed vague, except when Clare discusses her with John.

All in all I enjoyed it immensely. Here's a quote from Lively I got from a website (http://www.postcolonialweb.org/uk/lively/livelybio.html) : "Perhaps what I'm interested in..is the operation of memory, the ways in which the physical world is composed of memory, the ways in which it's an encumbrance and the ways in which it's an asset... I can hardly decide which it is. But it's something that I'm constantly aware of and constantly seeing new ways of exploring fictionally."

Thanks, Michele!

Catherine, thanks for participating ! I'm glad that you enjoyed the book as much as you clearly did.

I also liked the reference to passing a station at which one cannot get out - it reminded me rather of Edward Thomas' poem Adlestrop.

I am more than half finished reading the book. I'm avoiding reading any of the comments until I'm done.

That's great Gail - I look forward to your thoughts !

Well, I have lots of thoughts.

First, I want to say that I enjoy this kind of book. It's what I think of as an English woman's book--elegantly written and about the details of life that men often do not write about. I have read one of Lively's books for adults--Moon Tiger--which is about an elderly woman recalling her life. That same time thing that Michelle tells us Pullman talks of is there, too. I remember little about the book except that I read it soon after I read The English Patient. I felt it covered some similar ground--recalling a lover during World War II but was far, far better. It was published some time before The English Patient.

I read The House In Norham Gardens book under strange circumstances. Last weekend I had a lengthy discussion with my son regarding literary vs. popular fiction. Then, via Liz B.'s blog, as a matter of fact, I stumbled upon a blog that discussed literary and "commercial" fiction saying that literary fiction's plot is below the surface while commercial fiction's plot is above the surface. The plot of a literary work is often all within a character. Then I started reading Norham Gardens.

That's what I think is going on here. Everything that truly happens, happens within Clare. This is possibly the most literary work for kids/teenagers I can recall reading. The only thing I can think of that even comes close is The Book Thief, which I don't think is as well done.

To some extent Norham Gardens reminded me of The Outcasts of Schuyler Place, though that book was very, very preachy and thinly written. But it had the child living with elderly relatives in an older house and "an issue" message.

I was afraid "Norham Gardens" was going to turn into an "issue" book--bad western imperialists robbing the culture of another people. (Not that that isn't a hundred percent true, of course.) I was very impressed when it turned out to be about something else--people growing past the need to old onto their past through material things.

I will stop here.

Gail, I'm glad that you enjoyed the book, and I know *exactly* what you mean about it being an "issue" book - I wondered that myself, though I'd already read a lot of Lively's children's books by that point and knew she was more subtle than many authors in that regard.

I did wonder, however, about John the African student. I wasn't sure why he was necessary. Unless it was to open up the story a bit so there was a little something happening outside of Clare's head. I know he does bring a little information in and gets Clare out of the house. But why make him African?

I honestly don't know, unless it was to create a foil for Maureen, with him being African and male, and her being white and female...

Thanks for the mention Liz, and can I assure your readers that it definitely isn't too late to jump into this conversation, which I've been thoroughly enjoying !

And thanks for participating !

The March discussion of The House In Norham Gardens will begin on March 6.

Scary to be the first commenter!

This was a great book choice, Michelle! I really enjoyed this book on its second read (I have only a vague sense I wasn’t too fussed the first time around).

I’m a sucker for acting stories and I liked how the book showed the discipline and camaraderie of acting. And how the differences and similarities between the profession were shown over time.

I loved how Cooper infused such a sense of warmth into the scenes in the past. I was miserable along with Nat at his returning to the present.

I also admired how the time travel was handled, and that Nat spent time being sleepless and worried but didn’t spend pages and pages being in (boring) time travel shock.

My big problem with the book is the whole reason Nat was switched in time. It seemed weak. If the original actor had the plague as badly as he did when he arrived in the hospital, he would presumably have been too ill to act with Shakespeare. And most cases of the bubonic plague are not transmitted from person to person, but rather from rats and their fleas, so I don’t think it was the best illness to pick anyway.

What did people think of how the language problem was handled? Although it might be unlikely Nat so happily settled into the language, I thought it worked well just having some thees and thous like he said, so that readers of all ages could enjoy it!

I also found myself looking for the storyline of Midsummer Night's Dream, and found that reading through the story version (Favorite Tales from Shakespeare by Bernard Miles, illustrated by Victor Ambrus) brought new insights to both Shakespeare and Susan Cooper. Normally not a person who pays attention to illustrations, I even appreciated Ambrus having labeled the characters by name.

On the negative side, I wondered about the youth audience of this book. Yes, it would be classified as both historical fiction and fantasy, but would I be able to interest any child in reading this book? The appeal of time travel would be countered by the "heavy" use of Shakespeare to most of the kids at my library.

I kept waiting for some other character from 1999 to show up in 1599 and suspected it might be Arby who makes the comment about directing the play in "this century" but then I didn't make the connection to him and Burbage until Arby suggests that Nat saved Shakespeare from the plague at the end of the book.

By contrast, Shakespeare Stealer by Gary Blackwood, a historical novel about the same time period, has a bit more exciting action but did not entice me to delve into Shakespeare myself. Thus Cooper's book wins points for awakening an interest in Shakespeare.

emmaco, thanks for starting the discussion !

I confess, I cry every time I read it, when Nat returns the present - and I've read it four or five times now...

And I'm with you on the sense of warmth...

With regard to your comment about the 16th century Nat Field, he had only just arrived at the Globe from St Paul's - as in within the past 24 hours - that's why no one knew that 20th century Nat wasn't the Nat Field they were expecting...

As for the language problem, Rachel tells Nat, in chapter 2, that Nat's accent is far closer to a 16th century English accent than a 20th century English person's accent would be - and I know that's accurate, from my own language studies at college - so I don't see that as unlikely... I thought Cooper got it right, with the "tha's", etc.


Catherine - I don't know myself, about children's reactions to the book, but there are some librarians in this group and I'm sure someone will be able to answer your question !

I also enjoyed the book, Michele. I thought that the historical detail was excellent, and a good source of amusing moments, when Nat interpreted what he was seeing (and tasting, and smelling). I especially liked his reference to all of England being buzzed most of the time. Of course Cooper writes well, so that helps, too.

But I do agree with Emmaco that the reason for the time travel was weak. It left me unsatisfied and questioning. If Arby/Burbage had the power to switch the two Nats, to save Shakespeare, why couldn't he have saved Shakespeare some other way? Like keeping the original Nat from getting the plague in the first place. Or arranging for 1599 Nat to get run over or something, so that Shakespeare wouldn't be infected. But of course any time travel story has paradoxes, and it's a bit unfair to speculate like this.

I also personally felt that Nat put Shakespeare on a bit too much of a pedestal. It was like either he really thought that Shakespeare was God (or Jesus, at any rate), or he had some other overwhelming and non-platonic attachment to him. Maybe I'm just cynical, or not enough of a Shakespeare fan, but Nat's awe, and later sadness when he left 1599, seemed overdone to me. I realize that this may be controversial, since the relationship will be the reason a lot of people like the book. And I did find the characters of both Shakespeare and Nat engaging and likable. But Nat thinks about Shakespeare with a devotion that one usually sees either for a religious figure, or a hopeless crush. Or, I'll admit, maybe a fatherless kid looking for a role model... I'm just not sure.

Putting on my pedant's hat now Jen - if Arby had found some other way to save Shakespeare, we wouldn't have had a story ! I have to say I've never had any priblem with the means Arby uses to save Nat...

And as a huge fan of Shakespeare, I'm inclined to take Nat's side, and say that I found Nat's reaction to Shakespeare wholly understandable. Nat's father was a poet and killed himself, Shakespeare's a poet (and a playwright, obviously) and has lost his son - I think they needed each other: Shakespeare for the inspiration that Nat's "Puck" gave him, and Nat for the father figure and the emotional unlocking. I thought Cooper made it quite clear that Nat had locked his grief and anger (at his father's action) away for three years and there's no way that's healthy !

I loved this book! But then, I have yet to read anything by Susan Cooper that I haven't loved. It actually reminded me a bit of Victory, because both of them involved a modern child experiencing a historical period through supernatural means.

I had wondered if it would be difficult to read for someone not familiar with A Midsummer Night's Dream, since the play is such an integral part of the story. I'm familiar with the play, so it was hard for me to judge. I'm glad to know that it's possible to enjoy it without knowing the play. For me, though, knowing and loving A Midsummer Night's Dream enhanced my enjoyment of King of Shadows.

I loved the relationship between Nat and Shakespeare, and didn't find anything odd about it. I agree with Michele that Shakespeare became a surrogate father to Nat.

As for kids liking it, I can only give an example of one: my 11-year-old son liked it (and he plans to pop over here and join the discussion when he can). I suspect that any kids who love acting and the theatre would love and be able to relate to this book. Librarians and teachers trying to interest a child in this book might promote it along those lines. Love of the theatre comes through in every line of this book.

Oh that's great, Sheila ! I'm delighted to know David will be joining us !

I had absolutely no problems enjoying this book without being familiar with A Midsummer Night's Dream - I'd read it twice before I saw the film...

Let me just say, I loved loved loved this book.

Catherine - an 11 year old (Sheila's son) a 16 year old (me) and my friend who's 14 all highly enjoyed this book, so I think maybe that clears up your youth appeal question? :)

Michele, I liked how you mentioned the time travel - "You don't have to worry about the science, you can just enjoy the magic of the story." So many time travel stories seem to be overly worried about the scientific aspect. Which can get kind of annoying!

And I have to disagree with Jen. If I was the one meeting Shakespeare, I would be completely in awe. Add Nat's need for a fatherly figure in his life, and I think that part of the story makes sense.

This was the best Shakespeare-related book I've read (I've read the Gary Blackwood books too, Catherine). And as A Midsummer Night's Dream holds a special place in my heart (I acted in a play-version as the main Fairy...you know, the one who talks to Puck in his first scene) I adored reading about what the production might've been like in Shakespeare's day and age.

Also, I'm a theatre/acting fanatic, so that added to my liking of the book...

As I often say, Erin, "Time Travel does my head in" - but I thought Cooper's approach was just right...

Sheila, I forgot to say, that I also compared Victory to King of Shadows when I'd read the former - although it's done rather differently to King of Shadows. Folks, if you've not read Victory (which I reviewed here), I recommend it heartily !

Michele, I think reading it twice counts as being familiar! Although for me, it's a lot easier to understand Shakespeare seeing it than reading it. I wasn't sure from the descriptions here whether everyone had read and/or seen it prior to reading this book or not. Catherine mentions reading a story version of it but I wasn't sure whether that was before or after reading King of Shadows. Is there anyone here who hadn't read or seen the play before reading the book? I'm just curious to know how comprehensible it is without having some background.

We had also recently read Shakespeare Stealer and I couldn't help comparing as I read King of Shadows. I liked both books, but I enjoyed King of Shadows a little more. I think it's partly that the characters are so vivid and the relationship between Nat and Shakesoeare so poignant, and partly because Nat, being from our time, comes from a frame of reference closer to our own.

Hello! I'm Sheila's son, 'popping in' to talk about the king of shadows! I only just finished it this morning- I started yesterday afternoon. It was very entertaining! Especially having watched A Midsummer Night's Dream myself. Just a note, did anyone ever realize the joke in bottom's name?(It's a bad word, sorry) Bottom = 'Ass' 'Ass' = Donkey. Bottom's Head = Donkey. Sorry about that, i just thought it was interesting.

And yes, time travel is hard to wrap your head around. Always. However, having read, watched, and heard much time travel stories, it just made it all the more enjoyable for me. Although, I do have one question. If Arby is Burbage, how is he still alive? Sorry if this is obvious, sometimes I just can't figure things like that out.

And about appealing to kids... Well, I enjoyed it. That much I can say. Frankly I don't like the stereotype that seems to be spreading lately, that kids do not enjoy anything educational. I enjoy educational things very much! And I do believe that many other children do too. ;) I think that no matter how you think of it, anyone could enjoy anything.

But back to the book itself. I enjoyed seeing how Nat reacted when one of the 'Groundling's' shouted out, "It's not him!". However, It seems strange to me that Gil and Rachel accepted the whole thing so easily.

David Ruth

Sheila, I may not have made myself clear (it's been a shatteringly tiring day !) - I meant I had read KoS twice, before I saw the film of A Midsummer Night's Dream (I haven't actually read the play yet - I insist on watching a performance of Will's plays before I read them, since they're designed to be viewed, not read !)...

David, welcome - and thanks for sharing your views on this book, it's good to know there are still some children around who enjoy educational things (I always did when I was a child !). You asked how Arby could still be alive in 1999 ? I presume that in the same way that he has the power (whatever that power is) to swap the two Nats back and forth in time, so too he has the power to send himself backwards and forwards in time...

I didn't find it strange that Gil and Rachel accepted Nat's story so easily - I got the impression that they were two very open-minded people - and as Gil points out, there were just too many authentic details in Nat's account for it to have merely been a dream...

And yes, Bottom the Donkey/Ass is funny !

I watched the play (in London, nonetheless!) and read it AND was in it. So I think I got full enjoyment out of KoS. ;)

This book was so amazing! I really enjoy acting and reading William Shakespeare’s writings.This book was perfect for me!!

I participated in the theater production of A Midsummer Nights Dream a couple of years ago. It was so fun going back into the world of Oberon, Puck, and the fairies. I could totally relate to the actors and their joys and struggles. I give Susan Cooper two thumbs up for thinking up all that amazing stuff!

Erin, I'm totally envious !

actinggal, I'm glad that you enjoyed it so much...

Has anyone here read James Shapiro's 1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare ? It's a thoroughly readable, historical and political biography of Shakespeare, and fills in all the background politics of King of Shadows in great detail. I can highly recommend it.

Coming in late here, but hopefully not too late...

I didn't get a chance to reread, but remember the book fairly well, and I loved it. As did both my daughters, who read it in their early teens. I love it for all the reasons Emma mentions, and many of Michele's reasons too.

I do have a reservation, all the same, about the rationale for the switch, as a few other people have mentioned. Possibly it's a slightly different angle though, as I'm really more than a bit unhappy at the idea that the universe can be rearranged in order to save any one individual's life, though only as a sort of once-off thing. Is someone who is going to be viewed later as a literary genius more worth saving than anyone else? And why does someone else get to make that decision anyway? I agree in many ways that the book is stronger for leaving the hows and whys of the switch totally vague, but on the other hand, I do feel a bit uneasy about the expectation that the hows and whys can go unexplained in this case simply because it's Shakespeare.

That said, it didn't bother me much while reading the book, as it was all about Nat and his experience with the players and back at home for me, but it did rather niggle a bit underneath. It's possible to let a lot of niggle of that sort go for the sake of a really strong story (which I felt this to be), but it didn't make the question entirely unproblematic either.

A favorite quote from the book:


"But theater? It's not a sport, it's not about winning, it's about people."

"And applause," Gil said, needling. "All those lovely hands clapping. That's what we all like most."

"Not true," Rachel said.

He grinned at her. "An actor's not much use without an audience."

"There you go then," said Rachel. "It's about people."

It's not at all too late - I was hoping the discussion would run for several days (if not a couple of weeks) !

It's interesting that people find the business of the switch to be problematic. Of course, you can easily argue that no one person, not even a literary genius, is worth saving in that way - but then you'd be doing yourself out of a terrific story ! And besides, I feel the switch is as much about helping Nat, as it is about saving Shakespeare - I feel that there's no one else he could have opened up to as he needed to do, except Shakespeare...

I liked that exchange too, Erin...

I really enjoyed this book, read the first time on Michele's recommendation but really enjoyed the re-read too.
I have to admit to never having read Shakespeare or seen one of his plays but after reading this book I now want to!
I think that the way Susan Cooper writes brings both worlds to life in an interesting and informative way. I am sure that young readers will enjoy reading this book and lose themselves in the story as I did.
Just one question, how many books has Susan Cooper written and does our library have all of them?
Great choice of book to set the discussion off Michele.
Lesley

Thanks Lesley! I'm really glad you enjoyed it enough to read it twice - and that it's inspired you to want to see some Shakespeare.

Susan Cooper has written dozens of books - and continues to write them. I've read almost all her children's books (and reviews are on my main Blog). The Oxfordshire library service has most of them on its shelves...

I knew nothing about the book going in. I didn't read the inside cover, a review, or anything else. And that's relevant for me, because I was expecting a totally different book. Between the dark, creepy cover Michele showed (mine had the softer, gentler cover) and Michele's Sci-Fic/Fantasy preference, I thought it would be a more heavy and dark fantasy.

But the fantasy element isn't actually in the book very much. It made me wonder at first what was the point of it being a time travel book if eighty percent of the book was going to take place in 1599. Especially since the time Nat spends in 1599 isn't trying to go back to his time or solve a mystery. He's just being and acting in that time.

Later I realized that if it wasn't a time travel book, Nat wouldn't be able to point out the world of 1599 with the eyes of the outsider. So, while it needs to be a time travel book for the outsider perspective, it still seems a lot more like historical fiction.

I've seen the Midsummer Night Dream movie, but I still found all the references to the play a little hard to keep track of. I'm curious how it reads when you don't know it at all. Did anyone else think of the scenes of the play as done in Dead Poet's Society? It may be just me because my cousin played that part in that movie.

I wasn't crazy about the quick resolve ending of the time travel. I wanted more explanation or magic.

Overall, I enjoyed the book. I wouldn't put it as one of my favorites, but a fun and interesting read for me.

To add to what Michele said, the switch also may have saved the 16th century Nathan Field's life, as well; if he hadn't been sent to the future, he may well have died of the plague. So, not only did the switch save Shakespeare, but it possibly saved both Nathan's, in different ways. And who knows how many other people were helped in a ripple effect, by coming into contact with those three people? So, although Arby says that the switch was to save Shakespeare, it's obvious that the reasons were much more complex than that.

I wish more details had been shared about his time living with Will himself. The idol worship was obvious (it's Shakespeare! fans would say) and seemed natural, but for kids who have never read his works or have little information about him, some more background might have been nice.

I love stories with a time-travel element - always have, always will - especially when they are meaty. This was a lighter read, and it definitely felt like wish fulfillment rather than a full-fledged action-adventure or a trying to figure out how-do-I-get-back-home? (or EARN-my-way-home) mystery.

Overall, I liked it. I like Shakespeare's works, and A Midsummer Night's Dream is my favorite Shakey comedy, so I enjoyed its inclusion and interpretation.

MotherReader: It's a time-slip book - which means there's little concentration on the SF element of the story (as opposed to a time travel book, which does concentrate more on the SF element). It's a small distinction, but an important one, I think.

I must admit that I did remember Dead Poet's Society, but I think the similarities are superficial. The play is very important to both the central characters (in the film and the book), and they both interact with someone inspirational, but I think that's it, as Nat's a very different character to Neil Perry.

Sheila: You make a good point and one I should have brought up myself !

LittleWillow: I too wanted more of Nat's life with Shakespeare, but I assumed that Cooper left that out for the sake of keeping the story moving...

Re-posted my Book Group blurb at my LJ and added my comments from here to expand later. Waiting to post Gardens thoughts 'til next month. Reading SIR THURSDAY today/tomorrow.

Oh, I didn't think there was much in the parallel of the stories of Dead Poet Society and King of Shadows. (though it's interesting that there is any). But several of the chosen scenes written about in King are the same (most "famous") scenes that were portrayed in DPS. So, I kept reading the scenes in King and thinking of the scenes as done in DPS. Of course, that may be that I saw that movie dozens of times in my youth.

Great LittleWillow - I'll come and take a look !

MotherReader: that may be it ! I've not seen DPS *that* often (maybe three times in total), that it's fixed quite firmly in my head !

I originally read this book when it came out in 1999. The first thing I noticed was the dedication, "For my actor." I felt like I knew who she meant but of course, never could know for sure until last spring. She was at Tx Library Association meeting and when I had my moment with her, as she signed my books, I asked her if I was correct and she looked at me and very quietly said, "Yes."

I see the novel as a work of love about the theater and to her husband, Hume Cronyn.

-- I'm torn about the switch. I believed it was one of those time switch stories where things "just happened" -- that somehow both boys paths crossed and boom, switch -- until the realization that Arby is like Mr Highlander guy. I have a much easier time believing in the switch just happening (having read plenty of time slip books) but I'm still scratching my head about Mr Immortal.

-- thought this was a wonderful love story -- the love of theatre and Shakespeare shone thru out. (SC wrote this for her husband, right?)

-- speaking of love -- and I know I'll be alone on this one -- Nat's adoration of Shakespeare was almost too much for me; too much of a crush, much more than a father figure; a little too over the top (I get that SC was making the parallels to Nat's dad, but there was a part of me saying the emotion here is too much.)

-- my favorite Shakespeare book is Master Skylark by John Bennett.

-- I think as a kid, I would have loved King of Shadows; its the grown up in me that wonders about Arby's longevity & the exact aspects of Nat's crush

-- I loved the history part. I think sometimes that historical fiction can best be told thru straight forward time travel books, because then there is the perfect excuse to have modern bias and observations. Like how Nat noticed the smells etc; someone of the time wouldn't mention it

-- I want to spend my entire weekend watching Shakespeare plays or movies with Shakespeare in them

Camille, I knew you'd mention the dedication - and I see Liz B. did too...

It's interesting that so many of you are commenting on Nat's "crush" on Shakespeare...

Don't you think that Nat's 'crush' is a normal childs thing? Most children get this feeling at some point, either for a teacher, a pop singer or a sports star. I think that as Nat is an actor in Shakesperian plays he is an ideal canditate for meeting Shakespeare and developing this 'crush'.
Lesley

Actually, Lesley, I do see it as a normal child's thing, which is why I'm slightly puzzled by people's dislike or feeling that it's over the top...

I know I had crushes as a child, and they were pretty intense...

Did anyone see this article with an interview with S Cooper: From the Grail to the Globe. http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/childrenandteens/0,,125318,00.html

and this from her website: http://www.thelostland.com/kosbook.htm (only a few lines, but still interesting!)

the wikipedia entry for nathaniel field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Field

from the globe website: http://www.globe-theatre.org.uk/nathan-field-actor.htm

I find it very interesting that SC decided to use a "real" person for the switch.

I had seen the bit from the "Lost Lands" site, and I had looked up the real Nat Field via Google, but the Guardian article was new to me, so thank you for sharing !

One of the things I liked most about KING OF SHADOWS is the way Susan Cooper transports readers back to Elizabethan England. I am talking here about the aspects of everyday life--especially the sights and sounds and smells of the city--that she includes in the text. She brought ME back in time.
As I read the book, I almost felt I was there as an invisible observer.

Books like this are wonderful vehicles for providing young people with a sense of specific historical periods--and for helping those times come alive for them. Textbooks aren't the only way to teach history.

Exactly ! That's why I enjoy reading novels with an historical bent...

(And explains why I'm writing a story with an historical bent, as well !)

King of Shadows: Library request made

The House at Norham Gardens: Will make request for that too

I have never read any John Gordon.

Lady Friday: I'm still waiting for Sir Thursday to be available at the library! This series is getting better with every book.

Philip Pullman: Love HDM Trilogy more than words can relate. I have been meaning to read the SL Trilogy for eons. Thanks for the nudge.

Louis Sachar - The Boy Who Lost His Face: You are taking me back here. I'll have to re-read this.

Alan Garner - The Owl Service: Another long-time-intend-to-read.

Well, well ! I'm so pleased that you're so keen on this list... I will probably schedule Lady Friday for May, given I've a deadline that will probably be in March, and I want to re-read the preceding four before I read the new one !

I hadn't read any John Gordon either, until this one - someone was raving about it in the Guardian as it was reissued...

Posted at Bildungsroman!

Thanks Little Willow !

The House in Norham Gardens - read yesterday, inspired my Poetry Friday pick today

Excellent !!

Let me know what the pick is for April -

Terry Pratchett's A Hat Full of Sky - I'll post an announcement here on Tuesday as well as starting the discussion on House...

(It's the second in his "Tiffany Aching" series.)

I would like to join in the book discussion too!
Lesley

Excellent ! Welcome aboard...

I would love to join the discussion. Love Susan Cooper.

Welcome Gwendolyn.

Count me in -- Susan Cooper is one of my favorite authors but haven't read this title (yet)!

Good to have you on-board Catherine.

Read it today!

I hope you enjoyed it ! I'm looking forward to our discussion.

Hi! I'd be interested in some of the future discussions. I'm too late for February (don't even own the book), but I might participate in others.

Actually, Elizabeth, you're by no means too late - the discussion can continue, even after the discussion of the next book begins. There's no time limit to participation! However, if you can get hold of Penelope Lively's The House In Norham Gardens the discussion for that will start on March 6.