Re: RE: Is AR a 'childrens writer'?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Previous # Next ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]

Posted by Robert Hill on October 12, 2004 at 20:05:31 from 195.92.168.164 user eclrh.

In Reply to: RE: Is AR a 'childrens writer'? posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett on October 12, 2004 at 15:30:00:

"The Hobbit" is definitely a children's book, complete with all the surgary trappings of the sort of late-Victorian children's books that JRR Tolkien would have known as a child, and which Edith Nesbit and Arthur Ransome scrupulously avoid. You cannot introduce an adult to Tolkien via "The Hobbit" (I have tried!)

I don't know if you count 19 as an adult, but my introduction to Tolkien was to read The Hobbit at that age, and I've been a big (though by no means uncritical) fan of him ever since. I introduced my parents to Tolkien via The Hobbit and they both loved it.

"Sugary" is not an adjective that would occur to me to describe The Hobbit. What do you have in mind?

To whoever it was who said they'd read the first Potter book and didn't want to read any more, I'd say that it's a terrible pity to dismiss the series on the basis of the first book. Whereas you could read any of the AR series and have a reasonable idea of what the rest of the series is like, it's part of the plan of the Potter series that Rowling's style and content develop as Harry grows older. Try one of the later books, maybe Prisoner of Azkaban or Goblet of Fire.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
Eel-Mail:

Existing subject (please edit appropriately) :

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

post direct to TarBoard test post first

Before posting it is necessary to be a registered user.


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TarBoard ]

Courtesy of Environmental Science, Lancaster

space