Kris suggested that a Fantasy Book might be a good follow-up to the science fiction ‘Last Book in the Universe’. She suggested we read something by Raold Dahl (author of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). I looked at a couple of his books and decided to read “BFG” (which stands for Big Friendly Giant). Ben and I started reading it as a read aloud on Monday. Yesterday (Tuesday) we took advantage of a nice day and went and read outside in a nearby park.
Monday and Tuesday I did the reading. Today Ben helped, taking the part of Sophie and also the Bloodbottler (evil giant). We are both enjoying the way the giants talk. I suggested that the BFG talks similarly to me, but Ben thought the BFG used better grammar.
There are many great turns of phrases in the book. My favorite so far is when the BFG talks about a listening to ‘Caddypiddlers’. We did not know what he was referring to until a couple of paragraphs later when he said they were arguing over who would be the prettiest ‘Buttery Flys’.
We have been comparing characters to LBITU. We find the BFG is ‘Rhyter’-like. He has a good heart, and wisdom to share. Sophie is like SPAZ – smart, and unsure of what to make of what the BFG is saying. (We both thought that the Bloodbottler reminded us most of Lotti Getts.)
We are still thinking about the essential elements that make the Fantasy book BFG different from the Science Fiction book LBITU.
Despite being about Giants that eat children, the BFG (conveniently already an acronym) is not as dark as the LBITU. Thought ‘Human Bean’-eating giants lurk nearby, why does this book not seem as menacing as LBITU?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Cattypiddlers
Posted by Mr. Z at 10:33 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 Comments:
Enjoying either Science Fiction or Fantasy requires us to ‘suspend disbelief’. If we are spending a lot of energy figuring out why what is going on in the book is ‘not possible’ then we will not be fully connected to it. I find it easier to suspend disbelief with BFG then LBITU.
Both of these books present us with plenty of reasons to disbelieve them. As I was reading LBITU I was trying to put myself in the book. I was trying to visualize the situations and I was thinking about how I would respond in the situations. I do not find myself looking at the BFG that way. I feel like I am reading the book from the outside.
I find BFG less dark because I cannot conceive of finding myself in the situation whereas LBITU presents a scenario that might be exaggerated but seems possible (and consequently more scary) to me.
I think a fantasy book is a good runner-up to a science fiction book, because it is also fistion, but gives another view. In science fiction, things are usually dark, and you barely see a happy side. In fantasy, things are the other way around.
I think that the reason The BFG is brighter than LBIT Is the fact that we dont see all the giants as much. We only see the BFG normally. In The Last Book In The Universe, We are mainly looking at the darker sides of things. See the difference?
The LAST BOOK IN THE UNIVERSE is very dark, although I found it hopeful at the end. I cannot conceive of a world without books having never experienced one. Conversely, THE BFG seems very fantastic to me as i've never been in a world with giants. i also think that the made up language of the two books makes them very different. "Buttery Flys" is very different from "Bully Bangers" and adds to the non-threatening nature of the BFG while Bully bangers sounds tough and menacing. these books really are a study in contrast.
Post a Comment