CronoDAS comments on On Juvenile Fiction - Less Wrong

24 Post author: MBlume 17 March 2009 08:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (113)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CronoDAS 18 March 2009 05:46:46AM 2 points [-]

Agreed on Goodkind not being for kids.

Anyone else here read the "His Dark Materials" series by Philip Pullman?

Comment author: JulianMorrison 18 March 2009 05:42:52PM 5 points [-]

I found that pretty relentlessly downbeat. It attacks organized religion but gives a free pass to supernaturalism. I didn't approve.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 20 April 2011 01:00:20PM 1 point [-]

While it does invoke certain supernatural elements I would disagree that this makes them less rational. Angels exist, but are fallible, mortal and material creatures composed of Dust. Dust itself is a fundamental particle with known and predictable behaviors, though admittedly ones that are somewhat implausible. The biggest leap is the world of the dead in the final book, but I found it a very good description of how awful an afterlife would actually be, and the problems with an all powerful god figure.

In terms of rationalist virtues, the children succeed by being self reliant and intelligent, and it avoids the heavy handed morality of most YA fiction (for example the main character is a skilled liar, and thats seen as a good thing when used well).

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 04 November 2011 12:05:29PM 4 points [-]

It kind of goes in the opposite direction, to the point where I find it jarring. "The boy is a murderer." "Oh, that means I should trust him." Buh?

Comment author: komponisto 18 March 2009 05:56:23AM 0 points [-]

Not until adulthood, sadly.

It's a shame, because I liked the Narnia books (and was proud of myself for picking up on the Christian symbolism without prompting, before I knew anything else about C.S. Lewis); I could have really used Pullman.