House of Danger should stay on the
syllabus for this course. I agree with Jessie that the book is a simple example
of an author manipulating the reader. Even if you are “in charge of what
happens in [the] story” (Beware and Warning), there are still set outcomes that
the author decided, which ultimately place the author in power. Personally, I
never read the Goosebumps series or
any book of this genre during my childhood. It was refreshing to return to the
simplicity of a children’s book and actually look at the meaning behind it
because it felt as if I were able to see how much I have matured throughout
school. The story explains the concept of “a fork in the road” because there
are always two options to choose from which then determine the remainder of the
story, but the author has already carefully mapped out the story. I do not
think I would have been able to appreciate this blatant form of deception if we
had not read this story in class. By having House
of Danger as the last reading on the syllabus, it wrapped up the course.
The story takes us from heavy readings such as The Things They Carried and Kindred
to a light explanation that sums up the form of manipulation within various
books, which exist even at a children’s level. We were able to explore the art
of deception in a straightforward text without complicated plot twists and time
manipulation.
I agree with you the factors that show manipulation are clean cut and dry which i feel lets the reader experience manipulation from the start which is good in the learning process
ReplyDelete