Comments on: Conspiracy Revisited http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/ A Mock Newbery Blog Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:12:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: A Conspiracy of Kings : the pageturn http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-9207 A Conspiracy of Kings : the pageturn Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:51:55 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-9207 [...] Conspiracy Revisited Conspiracy Revisited Again [...] [...] Conspiracy Revisited Conspiracy Revisited Again [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Hunt http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-9119 Jonathan Hunt Wed, 17 Nov 2010 05:44:54 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-9119 I do think that keeping track of the people, battles, places, and conspiracies can be challenging. Certainly if you had read the previous books you would have spent more time with the people, but not the battles, places, or conspiracies. Getting a handle on the characters, not just who they are, but what makes them tick, without reading the previous volumes does require focus and concentration, but I think it can be done. I'll also say that I have read THE THIEF three times, but not since 2005. I've only read THE QUEEN OF ATTOLIA and THE KING OF ATTOLIA once in the year of their publication (2001 and 2006, respectively). I can't tell you about the plots of these books because they are elaborate and intricate. My advantage, as I mention above, is my familiarity with the major characters, most especially Eugenides. In my rereading, I noticed the points in the story that referred to the previous books. There were several times Sophos mentioned the events of THE THIEF (the theft of Hamiathes's Gift). Any time he recalled a memory of Eugenides from the past it came from THE THIEF, but most of these memories did not exclude any readers from understanding. There were also some references to THE QUEEN OF ATTOLIA (Gen losing his hand, falling for Attolia), and a couple from THE KING OF ATTOLIA (Dites, Relius). Actually, while typing this I had to check the Wikipedia plot summaries of the books to refresh my memory, and I found that I could not only spot the allusions to the other books, but also confirmed to myself that these allusions were minor things. Martha, I'd be curious to know what you make of the Wikipedia summaries. Do they clarify things for you? Or not at all? I do think that keeping track of the people, battles, places, and conspiracies can be challenging. Certainly if you had read the previous books you would have spent more time with the people, but not the battles, places, or conspiracies. Getting a handle on the characters, not just who they are, but what makes them tick, without reading the previous volumes does require focus and concentration, but I think it can be done.

I’ll also say that I have read THE THIEF three times, but not since 2005. I’ve only read THE QUEEN OF ATTOLIA and THE KING OF ATTOLIA once in the year of their publication (2001 and 2006, respectively). I can’t tell you about the plots of these books because they are elaborate and intricate. My advantage, as I mention above, is my familiarity with the major characters, most especially Eugenides.

In my rereading, I noticed the points in the story that referred to the previous books. There were several times Sophos mentioned the events of THE THIEF (the theft of Hamiathes’s Gift). Any time he recalled a memory of Eugenides from the past it came from THE THIEF, but most of these memories did not exclude any readers from understanding. There were also some references to THE QUEEN OF ATTOLIA (Gen losing his hand, falling for Attolia), and a couple from THE KING OF ATTOLIA (Dites, Relius). Actually, while typing this I had to check the Wikipedia plot summaries of the books to refresh my memory, and I found that I could not only spot the allusions to the other books, but also confirmed to myself that these allusions were minor things. Martha, I’d be curious to know what you make of the Wikipedia summaries. Do they clarify things for you? Or not at all?

]]> By: Martha http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-9103 Martha Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:58:12 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-9103 Jonathan, keeping track of all the people, battles, places and conspiracies was a bit confusing. I kept thinking, if I had read the first three I would have enough background to make this an even more enjoyable read. Jonathan, keeping track of all the people, battles, places and conspiracies was a bit confusing. I kept thinking, if I had read the first three I would have enough background to make this an even more enjoyable read.

]]> By: Jonathan Hunt http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-8823 Jonathan Hunt Sat, 13 Nov 2010 23:09:37 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-8823 Martha, I do think the book can be hard to follow at times, not necessarily because of the first three books, but rather because of the amount of inference that Turner requires of the reader. I know it's probably been awhile, but can you recall what you found confusing? Martha, I do think the book can be hard to follow at times, not necessarily because of the first three books, but rather because of the amount of inference that Turner requires of the reader. I know it’s probably been awhile, but can you recall what you found confusing?

]]> By: Martha http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-8822 Martha Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:25:16 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-8822 I read Conspiracy of Kings without having read the others in the series. It was hard to follow at times and did get confusing. It felt like something was missing and it was - the background of the first three books. I admire Turner's writing and am reading the rest of the series now. Distinguished writing? YES! Can the book stand on its own? I'm not so sure. I read Conspiracy of Kings without having read the others in the series. It was hard to follow at times and did get confusing. It felt like something was missing and it was – the background of the first three books. I admire Turner’s writing and am reading the rest of the series now. Distinguished writing? YES! Can the book stand on its own? I’m not so sure.

]]> By: Jonathan Hunt http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-8809 Jonathan Hunt Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:53:05 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-8809 Simon & Schuster has labeled THE CURSE OF THE WENDIGO for ages 14 and up, but as Wendy suggests, the Newbery committee is not bound by publisher designations. Even if they were, the Newbery can be given for a book for fourteen-year-olds. With that said, is THE CURSE OF THE WENDIGO likely to be recognized? Highly unlikely to the point of being impossible. I bring it into the conversation to point out that there is always a discrepancy between what twelve-year-olds, thirteen-year olds, and fourteen-year-olds actually read and what the committee recognizes. For all that the committee is criticized for reaching for older books, they do tend to be pretty conservative. I think A CONSPIRACY OF KINGS is conservative enough. And, my goodness, yes, if there are any middle school kids reading this blog, then stop reading THE CURSE OF THE WENDIGO immediately. It's too scary and inappropriate for you! Stop! Simon & Schuster has labeled THE CURSE OF THE WENDIGO for ages 14 and up, but as Wendy suggests, the Newbery committee is not bound by publisher designations. Even if they were, the Newbery can be given for a book for fourteen-year-olds. With that said, is THE CURSE OF THE WENDIGO likely to be recognized? Highly unlikely to the point of being impossible. I bring it into the conversation to point out that there is always a discrepancy between what twelve-year-olds, thirteen-year olds, and fourteen-year-olds actually read and what the committee recognizes. For all that the committee is criticized for reaching for older books, they do tend to be pretty conservative. I think A CONSPIRACY OF KINGS is conservative enough.

And, my goodness, yes, if there are any middle school kids reading this blog, then stop reading THE CURSE OF THE WENDIGO immediately. It’s too scary and inappropriate for you! Stop!

]]> By: Wendy http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-8806 Wendy Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:56:08 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-8806 Well, I haven't read your book, but the Newbery goes up to and including age fourteen; grade 9 is ages 14-15. Also, unlike with the Printz, no book is ruled out of the Newbery based on a target age range. Books published ostensibly for adults are eligible, for instance. Well, I haven’t read your book, but the Newbery goes up to and including age fourteen; grade 9 is ages 14-15. Also, unlike with the Printz, no book is ruled out of the Newbery based on a target age range. Books published ostensibly for adults are eligible, for instance.

]]> By: Rick Yancey http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/11/13/conspiracy-revisited-part-one/#comment-8803 Rick Yancey Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:08:28 +0000 http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=887#comment-8803 While it's nice to see WENDIGO mentioned in a Newbery discussion, it's my understanding it would NOT be eligible, based on the target audience of grades 9+ (Young Adult). If I saw the book in the hands of a middle schooler, I might be tempted to rip it away to avoid irreparable harm to their psyche. While it’s nice to see WENDIGO mentioned in a Newbery discussion, it’s my understanding it would NOT be eligible, based on the target audience of grades 9+ (Young Adult). If I saw the book in the hands of a middle schooler, I might be tempted to rip it away to avoid irreparable harm to their psyche.

]]>