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.