ŷ������

This is for discussion of Book One and Two, which contain chapters 1-15. These chapters cover the childhoods of Patricia and Laurence. Please restrict your comments to these sections of the book. As usual, I’ll post a few questions to get things started but please feel free to take the discussion in any directions you find interesting.

Do you think these chapters worked well as “origin stories��? What did you think of the relationship between Laurence and Patricia during their childhoods? What were the things that brought them together, and, conversely, what were the things that kept them apart?

Were the parents, teachers, and the other children in these chapters believable? What role, if any, did they play in shaping the lives of the two main characters?

There are very playful elements to this book, as well as very serious ones. Did Anders strike the right tone for the material? Did the humor and the seriousness mix well? How adept was Anders at introducing the fantastic elements into the story without over or under explaining?

While these chapters are a necessary part of the to read to understand what comes after, I also think this section is at least twice as long as needs to be. Given how unpleasant I found this part to read, I consider this a major pacing error. Just how much undeserved misfortune do the characters need? (I suppose you could consider this as a parody of undeserved misfortune trope, but it certainly didn't read that way to me.)

I'll take a shot at the opening questions:

Do you think these chapters worked well as “origin stories��? What did you think of the relationship between Laurence and Patricia during their childhoods? What were the things that brought them together, and, conversely, what were the things that kept them apart?
This group of questions concern the relationship between Patricia and Laurence. While I liked this part of the book best, I found that I liked Patricia better than Laurence. I thought she was more sure of herself as a person than Laurence, i.e., far more mature. Patricia remained loyal to Laurence, even when he started to blow her off. He wanted to be liked by the cool kids far more than Patricia did.

Were the parents, teachers, and the other children in these chapters believable? What role, if any, did they play in shaping the lives of the two main characters?
The parents were sort of believable. Patricia's sister and the teachers were less so. The "guidance counselor" who was the assassin was the most unbelievable character for me. His character just seemed silly to me. He did provide a way to create tension between Patricia and Laurence but he was so ridiculous.

There are very playful elements to this book, as well as very serious ones. Did Anders strike the right tone for the material? Did the humor and the seriousness mix well? How adept was Anders at introducing the fantastic elements into the story without over or under explaining?
I was fine with the introduction of the fantastic elements, but I'm not sure I "got" the humor.

LindaJ^ wrote: "While I liked this part of the book best..."

Wow, you had the exactly opposite reaction to this part of the book than I did! That's really interesting.

Peter wrote: "Wow, you had the exactly opposite reaction to this part of the book than I did! That's really interesting."

Yes. Now I'm very interested to see how we line up on the rest of the book!

Firstly, hello-new member to the group and looking forward to discussing a few books over the coming months.

A fairly interesting first read, and I am at this stage enjoying the layers of quirkiness that makes this stand out as something different. I'm interested to see if I still feel the same way by the end of the book, as it's a fine line to tread!

In response to the questions on the relationship between the characters, I've found Laurence particularly difficult to grasp. I can understand Patricia's draw to a friendship with Laurence-she's recognised that they have common ground in being social outsiders. I also get the sense that she appreciates they're social outsiders for different reasons but respects him for who he is. Laurence however seems less mature in that sense, but at the same time I haven't really got a feel of why-you don't really get a sense of what he's thinking.

I am really enjoying this book so far. I like how the story contains this serious plot about the assassin wanting to kill these children before they have the chance to end the world, yet it remains so light and humorous. The parents remind me of Roald Dahl adults. They can be cruel and disconnected to their children. They are almost insignificant in the grand picture of these kids' lives. And the one person that has any interest in Patricia and Laurence is out to destroy them.

Molly, my reaction to the "assassin" was different. I thought he was a joke and that his purpose was to give the author a foil to use to show how different and similar were the reactions of Patricia and Laurence to his attempts to get them to assist him in ending the other's life.

I'm really liking this book so far. So far it's much funnier than I expected it to be--even if the children were being tortured. I agree with Molly, it is sort of reminiscent of Roald Dahl, or A Series of Unfortunate Events, but written for adults. I'm curious to see where the story goes.

I didn't like this part, but then, I've never really gotten Roald Dahl, either -- I don't find him funny, just creepy. Tastes vary and all that, of course.

I've been contemplating the comparisons to Roald Dahl. I prefer his books to this one, but I'm not sure why Dahl's cruel parents and children don't annoy me the way that Anders' do. Maybe because Dahl isn't trying to be anything but cartoonish?

Peter, have you read any of Dahl's short stories? I've always preferred those to his children's books.

Whitney wrote: "Peter, have you read any of Dahl's short stories? I've always preferred those to his children's books."

I wasn't aware that he wrote short stories -- I'll have to look some of those up.

Peter wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Peter, have you read any of Dahl's short stories? I've always preferred those to his children's books."

I wasn't aware that he wrote short stories -- I'll have to look some of thos..."

Most have a very dark and frequently darkly funny twist. I think the one most people are likely to be familiar with is "Man From the South", with the bet involving a lighter, a car, and a cleaver. which has been made (and parodied) many times.

There was an anthology TV series "Tales of the Unexpected" mostly based on his stories, as well. Looks like many of them are on YouTube. "Lamb to the Slaughter" is another memorable one.

Peter wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Peter, have you read any of Dahl's short stories? I've always preferred those to his children's books."

I wasn't aware that he wrote short stories -- I'll have to look some of thos..."

They are excellent. I know they have been repacked by try seek out stories from the Kiss Kiss selection. Dahl also wrote an adult novel called My Uncle Oswald (he also wrote a dystopian novel called Sometime Never but I doubt if that will ever republished), which is badly written and puerile but is strangely entertaining.

Whitney wrote: "Peter wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Peter, have you read any of Dahl's short stories? I've always preferred those to his children's books."

I wasn't aware that he wrote short stories -- I'll have to loo..."

Alfred Hitchcock filmed a few of Dahl's stories for his television show and Tarantino parodied Man from the South in the anthology film Four Rooms (which is just four directors displaying their egocentricity but Robert Rodriguez's segment - The Misbehavers- is fun)

Ditto what Robert said about Dahl's short stories. My wife got me The Best of Roald Dahl many years back and I was blown away. Dark, funny, and quite adult.

I am also finding this section my favorite, tortured children and all. It's dark but the humor appeals to me.

It's kind of crazy to think that most of Dahl's stories are marketed "for children". I remember thinking it was a good idea to go and see Matilda with my boys. We hustled out of the theater early on. The Chokey was too much, not sure why I thought it was a good idea.

MichelleCH wrote: "... It's kind of crazy to think that most of Dahl's stories are marketed "for children". ..."

It would be interesting to see how Dahl's children's books would be received if written today. He at least couldn't be accused of pandering to his young audience!

Well David Walliam's books are equally grotesque and have rude elements as well and his books are well received.

Robert wrote: "Well David Walliam's books are equally grotesque and have rude elements as well and his books are well received."

Thanks, Robert. I hadn't heard of Walliams before. I'm glad there are still popular writers who recognize children don't need to be protected from the grotesque.

I'm not all that in touch with children's literature these days, but it always seems to me that children's books by Americans tend to be more constrained by ideas that their work should have a Clear Moral Message for kids. which frequently is a wet blanket for some good, rude fun; as well as morality that may be less on the nose, but is certainly more realistic.

To a certain extent, yes but, thankfully there are some exceptions. One is Dave Pilkey, the creator of the Captain Underpants series. His books are brash and politically incorrect, the only moral message is that good triumphs over evil but everything is so in your face that you don't mind the bad guys losing.

There's also Francesca Simon, the author of the Horrid Henry book. That series has barely any moral message whatsoever. There's even one story which promotes a hatred of reading (which is actually brilliant)

Nice. Captain Underpants aleo occured to me as an exception, but I've never actually read them, just familiar enough with Daniel Pinkwater from NPR to assume they weren't simplistic morality tales.

How are you so well-versed in children's literature? Do you have kids, or are you just a child at heart?

Whitney wrote: "Nice. Captain Underpants aleo occured to me as an exception, but I've never actually read them, just familiar enough with Daniel Pinkwater from iNPR to assume they weren't simplistic morality tales..."

I'm a school librarian by profession :)

Robert wrote: "I'm a school librarian by profession :) "

Well, that would do it! Thanks for sharing your expertise, and a mixed thanks for adding another group of writers to my TBR.

haha my pleasure! :)

Whitney wrote: "MichelleCH wrote: "... It's kind of crazy to think that most of Dahl's stories are marketed "for children". ..."

It would be interesting to see how Dahl's children's books would be received if wri..."

Thank you Robert for the David Walliams recommendation. My 11 yo reluctant reader has been devouring them!

My pleasure :)