I read PR often as a child and although I can't exactly remember my first response I don't think I was thrown by the Brontes or those long discussions. I've always enjoyed them, and I think they balance the two "set-pieces" - the Twelth Night Party and the Hunt which are both more obviously exciting and dramatic.
If anything was/is off-putting I think it is the rather slow opening chapter - just inside Peter's head mainly, clearing out the Old Shippen. I think an editor might ask for a punchier start.
I think the general warning against fantasy in the books is on two levels: first, if you get completely immersed it can get dangerous (most notably illustrated by Patrick, the near jumping on Nicola and the near shooting) second, there's a danger you just moon around in a mediocre day-dream (the argument put by Karen when she said Emily B. should have been writing novels rather than "rather bad Gondal verse") I think it's a wonderful book, but I'm not sure how successful it is really in terms of these central themes. It seems to me its a big problem when you have dual narratives (or a narrative within a narrative) to make them equally compelling, and although I admire the Gondal bits, they don't suck me in completely. And so its hard to see why the characters might find them more appealing than the rather interesting lifes they already seem to be leading. I can't immediately think of any other children's or adults book where a characters purely imaginary world achieves this feat either.
In children's books, I think the most successful examples give some kind of reality to the children's dreams/imaginings - eg Tom's Midnight Garden or Marianne Dreams - and make sure that the "real" existence of the children is pretty dull so it can't compete with the more vivid dream/inner lives of the characters. That said, I'd still much rather read Peter's Room any day!
no subject
If anything was/is off-putting I think it is the rather slow opening chapter - just inside Peter's head mainly, clearing out the Old Shippen. I think an editor might ask for a punchier start.
I think the general warning against fantasy in the books is on two levels:
first, if you get completely immersed it can get dangerous (most notably illustrated by Patrick, the near jumping on Nicola and the near shooting)
second, there's a danger you just moon around in a mediocre day-dream (the argument put by Karen when she said Emily B. should have been writing novels rather than "rather bad Gondal verse")
I think it's a wonderful book, but I'm not sure how successful it is really in terms of these central themes. It seems to me its a big problem when you have dual narratives (or a narrative within a narrative) to make them equally compelling, and although I admire the Gondal bits, they don't suck me in completely. And so its hard to see why the characters might find them more appealing than the rather interesting lifes they already seem to be leading. I can't immediately think of any other children's or adults book where a characters purely imaginary world achieves this feat either.
In children's books, I think the most successful examples give some kind of reality to the children's dreams/imaginings - eg Tom's Midnight Garden or Marianne Dreams - and make sure that the "real" existence of the children is pretty dull so it can't compete with the more vivid dream/inner lives of the characters. That said, I'd still much rather read Peter's Room any day!