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.