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.