Creating your own adventure is awesome!

House of Danger was freakin awesome! It has been way too long that I read a book with pictures. There is something about reading an easy novel with pictures that really takes me down memory. But I digress. What I found to be truly unique and rather obvious about House of Danger, was that you and you alone are the creator of the story. Granted, way off somewhere, there lives a writer who came up with all of those wild posssibilities. But ultimately it is you who holds the power to make the final chices. It really really creates a weird parallel/analogy between literature and predestination. Like most novels for many life is believed to have a predestined course. You go through your daily life without having much interaction in what occurs. The only thing that you choice is how to perceive it. Create your own adventure novels however shatter that theory of predestination and replaces it with active interaction with the space you inhabit. You are the master of your world. You make all the decisions to lead you down the path of your choice. Overall, I found that the concept of a create your own story to be quite entertaining and interesting. It breaks up the monotony of reading in its traditional sense by making the experience more relatable and active for the reader. It allows the audience to break free of the writers plot based strangle hold and allows a freedom of choice.

D'aww, can we keep it?

When we were assigned to read a children's book, I found myself reacting much the way a child would.  I was super happy about it and couldn't wait to start reading.  I would tell my friends in a casual way that made it seem like no big deal that I was required to read a choose-your-own-adventure book for a college class, concealing my true excitement.  Everyone asked "why in the world do you have to read a silly kid's book?" to which I would respond "I dunno, but it's awesome!"  I didn't think about it a whole lot before reading it, but now it makes a whole lot of sense to read it in this class.  From the first day of class Janelle outright told us that we would be manipulated throughout the course, and furthermore that we are being constantly manipulated by professors and other influences, but she was the only one doing so transparently.   House of Danger draws attention to this manipulation like no other text we read.  “Choose Your Own Adventure” sounds so empowering, when in reality the reader has almost no control at all.  Even the title is a command; choose your own adventure – come on, do it! I dare you!  And we all did it.  Most of the sense of control I had dissolved by the first ending I reached about 3 minutes into reading in which I died alone in the house.  Okay, maybe I hadn’t made the best decision - I probably should have sensed that trap.  I was at least hoping that there would be some way for me to survive given my initial choice.  As the text continued, other endings seemed not to be based on my actual choices at all, completely removing any remaining feeling of control.  By the end of the book I felt used and deceived, which I’m betting is the way Janelle wanted us to feel.  The book did a great job driving home the point of manipulation, which is exactly what it was supposed to do.  Sure, it isn’t a beautiful work of literature, but I think it is better that way.  It makes the purpose more transparent. 

Also, it was fun and easy to read.  I think this book is a keeper.

I've Got the Power

            I think we’ve beat the dead horse on the issue of if House of Danger should stay in the curriculum. I thought about writing a post against keeping it in the curriculum, just to play devil’s advocate. But I wholeheartedly agree with everyone else (for all the same reasons) that it should stay. So that’s enough of that. As Jessi pointed out, Janelle telling us to write on that subject is manipulation, so I’m choosing to write on something else.

            In writing my chapter addition to House of Danger, I truly realized how powerless the reader is in that book. I know we talked about it in class, but I didn’t completely buy it. I felt like at least I had more control of the story than in linear novels. Once I wrote some for myself, I learned that all of the power is with the writer. I gave my readers two options to escape the chimpanzees at the beginning of my new chapter, and proceeded to write an alternate ending for each option. It turns out, the choice doesn’t really matter: the ending does not depend on the choice. There are infinite possibilities for each option. In fact, I could easily switch which ending I paired with which option and it would still make sense. I could change the reader’s options and still manipulate it to end in the way I wanted. I already had two endings in my head that I wanted to write. All I had to do was make up two arbitrary choices for the reader and attach my endings to them. As the writer, I controlled it all. While it’s true that the reader does have a choice (definition of choose: to select from a number of possibilities), the reader ultimately has no control. The choice is just a way to get to an ending, dictated by the author, which may have absolutely nothing to do with the choice itself.

To Keep or Not To Keep (Yeah, I know it is a pretty cliché title)

           I had mixed feelings about the children's book The House of Danger. I guess because I didn't have a perfect childhood, my parents never gave me books like this one, where the reader gets to choose the ending, and this made me enjoy the novelty of this book even more. At the same time, my fascination with it ended fairly soon and I couldn't understand why I was supposed to read it.  To make this simpler for everyone, here are my feelings in a nutshell (I figured since I already had one cliché quote, I might as well stick with the theme):

            The book brought up interesting issues. I liked flipping around the pages sporadically but when I finished one story, I was the one who had to choose if I wanted to continue reading. This made me realize the amount of comfort I felt when I knew exactly what I was assigned to do. Normally, when we need to read a book, we are given the page numbers we need to go up to or we just need to finish it- there is a definitive end. Yet, here I was with a children's book, feeling uncomfortable because I didn't know how much reading was enough. Do I go to the end? Do I only read a few stories? I was finally given free choice and I did not like it.  

            One the other hand, the book was a children's book, so sorry for judging a book by its cover (that's three clichés), but I did wonder what the point was to it. Since it was a required reading, I figured that Janelle had a pretty good reason for why it was there. In class though, I did not feel entirely satisfied with our explanations of "reading this as adults while understanding that it was meant for children" or how it was the most blatant "free-choice" there was.

            So what is my final decision? Well, seeing the discussion this book ignited in class, which didn't have to do with The House of Danger but spoke about manipulation and free will in the real world, I think we should keep this book. 

A Question, Half a Response, and Another Question

 Should House of Danger stay on the syllabus?

I think, for this blog post, it might be necessary to first establish my personal bias. I was a kid who loved reading Choose Your Own Adventure books. I always had about three or four I would go through on a regular basis, despite the fact that I had discovered all the endings long ago. Maybe I thought they would change if I read them enough.

For this blog post, though, the question doesn't seem to rest on my particular enjoyment of the book. It's a question of the suitability and usefulness of House of Danger within the context of our class. And so yes, I loved the nostalgic feeling of picking up an old CYOA book, going through all the cheesy, strangely written, and wildly detached plots. I also liked that it was short, and took practically no time to read. But I don't think that (apart from simple practicality), the length or even personal enjoyment of a text has much bearing at all on suitability within a course (that being said, I do believe that reading books you like is certainly more educationally accessible than reading books you have no interest in).

As we have discussed in class, it's not so much the plot or narrative that is of any particular interest to us as a student within a class entitled "Truth, Lies, and Literature", so much as the structure and strictures that the book  utilizes. In addition, we have seen a slow collapse between reader and subject, and in that sense House of Danger also builds off of the previous texts that we have discussed. In this way, any CYOA book would be just about as good as another, which makes the use of House of Danger an arbitrary choice, but not necessarily a bad one.

The real question is whether or not their is a more relevant text that could express the same concepts that we extracted from reading House of Danger. And I'm not sure. On the one hand, I don't know if there is another type of fiction writing that better maximizes the "faux choice" shown in CYOA books. But this raises a potentially more important question. If what we arrive at through House of Danger is nothing more than a continuation of the thematic issues that we've dealt with all semester long, doesn't that make it somewhat redundant? It is similar to writing an essay - the last part of any analytical writing shouldn't just be a rephrasing of your thesis and proof, regardless of how interesting and enjoyable you can make it. It has to move beyond the analysis, and make a larger point. My question is: does House of Danger do that, in the context of this class?

If it ain't broke...

Agreeing with what you have now read for the past 15 blog posts, I also support Obam—I mean, House of Danger as a part of the syllabus next semester.  For the same reasons the bloggers before me have articulated much more elegantly, House of Danger is 1) very short, 2) clear in its purpose to our course, and 3) a nice change-of-pace.  1) Who doesn’t like a quick read?  Unless I held an irrational amount of animosity toward these potential unnamed students, I do not see any reason to make them read something longer and more convoluted.  2) Unlike the previous novels assigned where Janelle, at times, had to spell out the purpose of the novel in the course, everybody seemed to pick up on how House of Danger highlighted the manipulation of choice.  3)  Within the coursework and college life in general, taking 30 minutes to read a children’s book provides a nice change-of-pace for an otherwise overworked brain.  Now that we've got that out of the way...

In my opinion, Joe asked a good question in his blog post, “Should it not be the choice of the next class to decide whether or not they will read the House of Danger?”  And this question led me to ponder, “Would the next class pick differently?”  Granted most of these future students may read this book, because like most of us, they were just following instructions.  I would contend, however, that even if the students were presented with all the reasons of why or why not they should read this book, almost none of them would choose not to read it.  Looking at the past 15 posts, the closest anyone got to deciding not to bring the book back was offering an alternative (+1 to Sarah for mentioning the Magic Tree House series) or providing a neutral opinion.  Does anybody have a compelling reason why House of Danger should not be brought back?  Because I have yet to read or think of any.

Small But Mighty

House of Danger should definitely stay on the syllabus. This book's whimsical and juvenile nature provides an intellectually provoking contrast against the heavier books in this course. This text aids to our understanding of the omnipresence of manipulation. It is not just Vonnegut and Dick's texts that take advantage of us, as Montgomery shows us, we have been victims since our early years. This text acts as a liaison of sorts between our manipulation as readers, and our manipulation as members of society. After reading this book I find myself more conscience of the manipulation I too blindly follow.
An interesting tactic may be to have students read this text in the middle of the semester. This way, in addition to an nice break from the longer books, students can apply their understanding of this alternative mode of manipulation, alternative in the sense of blatant rather than discrete, to the denser texts in the latter half of the semester. Another suggestion is to require students to read one of the books of the "Choose Your Own Adventure", but not specify which one. This way, the students all have even more variant experiences with the texts, but yet all still experience Montgomery's (His team of writers, really) mode of manipulation.  
At a mere half inch in thickness, House of Danger's benefits highly outweigh its drawbacks. I vote for this book to keep its spot on the starting roster.

In a Different Context

 Although I never read the House of Danger series as a child, I have to admit, I did read some this summer. The little eight-year-old boy I babysat had a bit of an obsession with them, so much that his parents even told me to make sure he also read “real” books once in a while. While he read them out loud to me, I half-heartedly listened along, more concerned with correcting his pronunciation of words than the actual story line. Once in a while, however, I did get enthralled in the story and secretly disagreed with some of his decisions throughout the reading. I often had to stop myself from asking why he chose one way, when it was clearly the wrong choice. I had the unique and often frustrating experience of having the listen through these books without actually getting to choose my own adventure. Alas, I realized I better keep quiet not fight with an 8 year old about his fictional choices if I wanted to keep my job…

When I saw it was on the syllabus for this course, I was a little confused, but quite honestly, I was excited to finally be able to choose my own adventure instead of following along with the little boy’s clearly wrong choices. Although I was expecting an increased freedom, what I found was one of the most constricting books I’ve ever read. I felt the same sense of entrapment that I had before, the words were so matter of fact, so absolute. There was no choice, no room for the analysis of behavior. The boy I babysat was beyond excited by the idea of choosing his own adventure, he totally bought into the freedom, as children naturally should. Reading the book through a more critical lens, where we focused on the concept of choice, I realized his sense of freedom was largely synthetic. I found this application of the reader’s ability for choice within fiction was an extremely interesting way to read House of Danger and saw clearly how it related to the other books from this semester. It demonstrated how the ability to choose and control the reality in fiction is much more open in a disconnected narrative than one where you are told every step of the way. Although the House of Danger claims to give you the ability to choose, it is much more constricting than a text like Cat’s Cradle, where almost every action and emotion can be interpreted and changed. I thought the book very easily proved this point and therefore should be kept in the class. On a more personal level, I really enjoyed reading the book in completely different way than this past summer. It was rather strange, yet exciting to be exposed to the same text in two very different contexts. When I go back home on breaks and listen to little Teddy chose his mystery, fully believing in his power of choice, I’ll be just a little cynical in regards to his sense of freedom.

Control Is A False Form Of Manipulation

I think this book should remain on the syllabus because it shows how manipulation and control intertwines. Each book we read before House of Danger had one critical aspect to it. It is that the reader is completely removed from the protagonists of each novel. The order of which they were read is to give more control to the reader step by step.  Manipulation can only occur when the reader is fully immersed in the text through the process of gaining control.  Granted, some may argue that the 1^st person 2^nd or 3^rd plays a major role in how removed the reader is. I respectfully disagree with that notion under the premise that control in a novel comes when the reader is able to attach an emotional register to the novel not the characters. This action means the reader experiences a moment of surreal emotions and because of that they start to be manipulated the same way as the characters are. Readers start to believe they have a stake in the outcome, and seek to control the world of the novel to fit a certain outcome they want. Once this idea is realize the book is able to manipulate the reader because they are not being objective. In addition, my critics may say that they were still manipulated; I would say on this topic that if you become conscious of the fact no matter if it was during the reading or after, then the manipulation of the novel failed. Being conscious rids all forms of manipulation because the greatest aspect of manipulation is ignorance to a certain extent. House of Danger gives all control to the reader. It is a clear cut example once a person gains control that they can be manipulated. The reader experiences free will however; the book decides what you can choose from and already knows the outcome of each choice, this action shows how manipulation is displayed in the book. The book should remain because this is when the reader has full control and understand how manipulation is able to take place.

Lesson Learned

I think that House of Danger should definitely remain on the syllabus for this course. I appreciated, of course, the brevity of the reading, and the fact that the content was fun and something I could get through without over-analyzing. Mainly though, upon reaching the ending I was led to based on my choices, I realized that the text really had taught me a lesson about manipulation. The children’s book is so incredibly transparent in its manipulative strategies that it made me aware, more so than any other text, of the forces acting upon me. Montgomery gives the reader “choices” when in reality he has mapped out every path the reader could possibly take, and ultimately decides the fate of the main character for the reader. There is no alternative, other than ceasing to read the book (which we didn’t do because we allowed ourselves to be manipulated by our professor), to succumbing to the author’s influence. He or she may fall under the illusion that they are deciding the outcome of the case, especially because of the second person narrative mode that makes the reader feel like they embody the protagonist, but throughout the story they are entirely under the author’s control. After all, there are only twenty possible endings—it’s not as if the author directs us to write our own ending.

In this way, reading House of Danger also helped me understand the purpose of the chapter addition assignment. It is an exercise in acting against manipulation. Free of anyone else’s maneuvering or exploitation, we employ our free will and determine the ending of a piece of literature. In my opinion, this is a nice break from closely picking apart the work of others to figure out what the “truths” and “lies” are, like we have been doing all semester. The realization I came to after finishing Montgomery’s story and the chapter addition assignment also serve as a reminder to constantly think about and try to act against manipulation in everyday life, as was discussed in class. Although just a children’s book, House of Danger, combined with Tuesday’s class discussion, enhanced my general awareness of life’s manipulative techniques and the importance of determining for yourself the value of the decisions you make. 

Why not?

House of Danger is only 108 (miniature) pages long, and you can read a page in about ten seconds. It's short, fun, and makes an interesting contrast to the grim style of Aura. It's a nice study break from something much more intense, for example studying the biochemical mechanism of various vitamins, and it led to a interesting conversation about the illusion of choice.

Eh.... Honestly, I don't give a shit who reads the book next year and I don't want to write anymore about it.

Instead, let's learn about R.A. Montgomery.
This friendly old gent was born in 1937, which makes him 75 years old. He went to Williams for his undergrad, and went to Yale and NYU for graduate skill. You can dig on the man for his simplistic writing style, but it's certainly planned to be so. In addition to his academic experience, he also has a lot of 'adventure' experience. He served in the Peace Corps, he's been on an ambulance crew, hiked in the Himalayas and served on ski patrol in Vermont. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that R.A. isn't just some random guy who couldn't write so he decided to write kids books. He's a highly educated, adventurous guy that wanted to write books that were more interactive than the standard children's fare. The whole style of the book series is planned carefully.

 He's also not into cheesy morals, like the end of every Fairly Oddparents episode.



A lot of people ask, and have asked over the years, is there a moral imperative behind the choices that are presented in Choose Your Own Adventure and the answer is: actually, no. Life throws you many curves. The choice you make might very well have a moral tone to it. Should you go in and save your friend in the ice fall now, or should you wait? Waiting may very well end up in his death, so if you choose to rush ahead, that’s a choice based on “good morals,” but in CYOA this doesn’t necessarily net a successful ending. This is accurate to the decisions you make in life.

~R.A. Montgomery

http://www.gradyhendrix.com/r-a-montgomery-interview/

So even though the CYOA series limits your choice by offering you choice, at least we can respect them for not trying to plug our youngins full of unrealistic, clear cut, moral lessons.

Thanks, Ray.






I got this information from an interview here: http://www.gradyhendrix.com/r-a-montgomery-interview/

Don't Take Me Away

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.

In Defense of House of Danger

I know that, in class on Tuesday, I said that House of Danger made me feel like a bit of a weak minded, cowardly failure. This remains the case, but with that said, I think it should definitely remain on the syllabus for future classes. Yeah, it is rather facile, especially if you are a cynical, jaded college student unwilling to stoop back down to a text that is more Accelerated Reader than literary genius. Sure, this text was designed with kids a good eight to nine years younger than us in mind. However, the value of House of Danger is found not in the quality of its plot or in the stylistic prowess of R.A. Montgomery (though I’m sure you already knew that). No, one need only consider the discussion that arose out of the common reading of this text when pondering its true value. It matters not whether House of Danger drew you in. What is important is that this text did succeed in making us think and talk about a variety of fairly weighty, important topics both within and without the context of this course. The discussions we had on Tuesday were, at least in my opinion, some of the best we have had this entire semester. House of Danger served as a launch pad for musings on the nature of choice, the personal philosophies of various members of the class, and bits and pieces of Professor Schwartz’ life story (hooray!) Also, admit it: it was at least kind of fun to read.   

It's a Keeper

I do believe that House of Danger should be included on the book list for this class in the future. Here's why: 

For the majority of the books that we have read already, I felt a constant desire to find the "truth" and discover what was "real."  For instance, in The Things They Carried, though I realize the truth of O'Brien's stories didn't truly matter, I still felt a little concern that everything was a lie, and I yearned to discover “happening truth” in any of his stories.  Similarly with Man in the High Castle, I was engrossed in trying to figure out which world was reality: the one where Japan/Germany lost the war or the one in which they won.  But House of Danger provides a new level of understanding truth and reality, because there is not one true ending.  Every storyline takes you somewhere completely and utterly different, and as much as I searched for the one round, perfect ending, I never could find one that I was satisfied.  Some were optimistic, some were depressing, some came far too abruptly, but you never could say that one was more “true” than another, especially with such silly, unrealistic storylines.  This forced me to think about the value I place on truth as well as reflect on the fact that there may not always be a clear truth, nor a perfect ending to any choice we make.  House of Danger challenged us to take something as seemingly simple as a children’s book and find deeper layers of meaning in it.  Though analyzing like this can sometimes be annoying, it is a very valuable lesson to learn, so I believe that House of Danger deserves to remain on the syllabus.  Plus, it is always a great break from studying chemistry to read about killer monkeys and alien invasions.

Jolly Good Fun and Whatnot

I think that House of Danger should stay in the course reading because it provides a simple read and can have a huge impact. The text itself is interesting in the context of the class because it doesn't seem sophisticated enough to belong in a college course. And to be utterly frank, it isn't. The narrative is poorly written and serves no other purpose but to be marketed as a chance to make kids want to read. But there lies the genius; the entire writing premise of the text is manipulative. Its purpose is to manipulate children into wanting to read because it gives them “freedom”. The narrative is constructed so that there are a finite number of realities and paths you can execute and therefore gives you very little “choice” as it claims it does. The book even erases the choice to choose by saying in its opening page, “You are responsible because you choose!” The entire work is based on the premise that you have to make choices.

Now, I know that little tirade probably sounded somewhat angered, but in reality I think House of Danger is great fun. It allows me to access a part of my childhood, a part largely dominated by Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Rocket Power, which I thought I had lost. The book is simple and quirky and makes very little sense, but it also provides mental relief. As we near the end of the semester our brains, well at least my brain, is feeling a little fried and picking something up like this helps to alleviate that. House of Danger should stay on the syllabus because it provides a much needed break and is the final step in collapsing the barrier of reader and narrative. 

Reading List

I would make the argument that House of Danger should remain on the reading list for future classes. Although it is definitely not as sophisticated a book as the others we have read in this course, that does not mean it is without merit. House of Danger is a book about the illusion of choice and manipulation in its most blatant form. It fits into the progression from insidious, almost unnoticeable manipulation, like in Cat’s Cradle and Man in the High Castle, to highly obvious manipulation. This also mirrors the progression of our awareness of manipulation. Whereas at the start of the course, we were not as aware of the influence of the forces of literature on our understanding, we gradually grew more and more aware. Then, to end the year with House of Danger is the logical conclusion of this progression. The manipulation is so obvious that it leaves very little to discuss within the realm of the book itself and so we must extrapolate from there about the role of manipulation in real life. I noticed in class today that very little of the discussion actually focused on the content of the book. After all, it’s a kid’s book and the manipulative forces are so blatant that there is little reason to delve into the text in search of them, the way we have done for the other texts. Therefore, the discussion naturally moved to how the lessons we’ve learned about manipulation can be seen in real life and how that awareness can affect our actions. House of Danger is not an impressive piece writing; it lacks depth, subtlety, character development, and all the other elements that make up literature. But its place in the course is invaluable precisely because it is so lacking in subtlety that it leads perfectly into a discussion of our awareness of manipulation.

Stay or Go?

I think that House of Dangers should be kept on the course’s list of required readings. Content wise, as well as sophistication of the writing, this book is not up to par with the others on the list. The silly children’s book serves no real purpose as far as literary analysis goes. Nonetheless, I would not take this book off of the reading list.

            As Janelle has pointed out probably every class, this course is a course on manipulation. Especially this past class, she stressed how much she wants us to be aware of the manipulation around us. I think what this book does is provide a blatant example of this. The majority of us came into class and recognized that even though we had a choice of our adventure, we were still being controlled by the confinements of the book. There were not infinite options as far as the outcome of each of our individual stories. This is inherently the main concept of the course. Yes we have choices that we can make, but we limit ourselves to the ones given to us by Janelle. We never push past those boundaries and create our own direction for the course. Now in all fairness, I really enjoy the direction of the course. I like looking at the manipulation of both the texts and the class itself. I personally believe that the way the class is run makes kids not want to push back against the class or the lessons because it is enjoyable to make the journey into awareness. Therefore, House of Dangers provides the perfect end point to the texts within the class because although it explicitly states the amount of choices we have, it actually is more limiting than any of the other texts we read.