User Profile

One of the things I like about this story is its structure, which isn't a super common way of writing children's books. It's written in the format of multiple letters from the same little girl (Lydia Grace). First, she writes to her Uncle Jim prior to moving in with him while her father looks for work during 1935; second, she writes mostly to her grandmother (but also her parents) while living with her uncle.

I kind of think this format could be used more and provide interesting narratives for kids to read. None of the letters come across forced; they feel very much like something a child would say.

Because my purpose was to read it to see how it'd work as recommendations for students learning English, a lot of my focus will be on how it succeeds in that manner. Personally, this book comes off like it was written to meet the requirements of a 'reading recovery' course or as part of a set of books meant to be used alongside 'leveled reading'. Or maybe more like something intended for a 'reading workshop' (which sounds like a good idea, but actually has a lot of flawed teaching around literacy in the curriculum that's been promoted via Lucy Calkins and her adherents).

That is to say: The story is trite. It's overly predictable (even for someone in the target audience of 9-13), and the narrative is completely lacking in anything that will pull someone in to engage them. I say that it's not good even for its target audience because it mirrors the same stories that my students often complain about when their teachers hand them explicitly labeled leveled readers from publishers like Oxford, Pearson, and Usborne (the latter of which does actually publish engaging materials when they aren't focusing on "being educational," ironically).

With the way it reads, this book is very much one of those that was intended as part of those "educational" 'leveled readers', even though it has a lot of vocabularly that kids might struggle with ('brewski', which wasn't even common slang for a beer in 2011 in most English-speaking countries—they might've done well to use 'brew', which would've been more educational and closer to accurate for Ancient Greece); it includes things that are incomplete and presumes a lower level of intelligence on the part of their readers (the 'old Greek speak for' sections are very much in this vein).

Another tell that this is designed for one of those previously mentioned reading curricula is that the end has a "Discussion" section, which is hyper-common among leveled readers and also workshop-intended books. (Not to mention, the questions are always tedious and don't even really engage the reader with the content of the book except on an incredibly superficial level.)

Personally, there are some weird vibes that I get from this book that make me want to look into the author a bit more. And the publisher, though that might be more complex than the author.

Side note: The Underworld wasn't hot, so why the reference to Christian Hell for people who weren't?

Not that it's inappropriate, but I find it odd that mentions of beer are fine but other alcohol (like wine or spirits) is off-limits. It's very peculiar.

Also weird to use 'brewski'. Didn't that shift out of the language at some point? Or are we all weird 90s and early 2000s frat boys?

This isn't funny as a pun because it doesn't even apply to Cerberus who is anything but an underdog? It doesn't even work as amusing irony because Hades knows who Cerberus is.

Unexpected 'beer' reference, which is kind of funny because every other time? It's really been like they've been trying to ensure that the two have been tied to "child-friendly" things.

-groan- No, that doesn't need to happen. This is modern fiction; they could organise however they want.

N... no?

Though it is interesting because my understanding has always been reversed (nectar is a food, and ambrosia is a drink), but actually... Both can be correct.

In Homer, ambrosia was the food and nectar was the drink; in Alcman, nectar is the food and in Sappho's work, ambrosia is the drink.

But I highly doubt either were cake-like or apple juicey, and this just feels like undermining kids' interaction with the world around them. (Not even for the sake of a joke, but for the sake of keeping them innocent of something.)

And this repetitive used of "old Greek speak" is making me wonder if this was a series of books commissioned out of a need to have "easy to read" books rather than just... writing books that were interesting. It's a huge tell for me because these kinds of 'jokes' are often used as a "we know this word is above you, so we're going to give you synonyms in the text and not footnotes" sort of thing... Which bothers me a lot now, but I've never met kids who like when books do this? Not to say there aren't any, but the complaints I often get if this is something a kid comes across? Is that it's condescending.

... Which makes me want to look more into Capstone Press.

And if it's not a book written for that purpose, then it's a whole entire failure for this writer to understand her audience.

Ughhh, I really am not fond of these sorts of things? I know it's a joke, but again. It's not even a funny one, and it also just undermines any characterisation that could happen? Though, it seems like the author doesn't really like anyone she's writing about at this particular moment, lol.

This is such a regional thing that I don't even understand why it's a pun that was chosen. It's... not even funny? Just say recliner and don't make people try to remember La-Z-Boy is a thing (if it didn't take them a few moments to even realise it was a pun on a regional company of furniture makers).

I feel like the author missed a trick where they should've used 'they' over 'he', since it's a three-headed dog. Which is just more interesting to show wider grammatical usage rather than a statement on anything.

Doing some of my "would this be a good recommendation to my English students" reading.

I've been reading this series with one of my students, so it's taking us time to get through them. We read it together as part of her English lessons (they're learning English, and they love actually reading books). For that purpose, it's great because my student is absolutely engaged by the story; while there are some more uncommon phrases (regional or generational slang) or 'higher level' language, it's mostly put within contexts where they are able to figure out what things mean by the context around it.

Overall, I really recommend it for anyone working with English learners who aren't yet confident enough to read novels that are fully text.

That said, I do feel like there are parts where it's hard to engage with certain characters. Sometimes I find myself forgetting the names of people (such as the Old Man Stonekeeper teacher guy, and it took me until the very end to remember the name of his female student because she wasn't as prominent). I think this kind of comes down to how the characters are presented and then engaged with, and I sort of wish that the characters were more present in their own story.

That isn't to say it's not enjoyable; I do like reading it with my student, and they look forward to reading it. From our conversations, they say that they absolutely adore Emily because she's so determined, and they really like her relationship with her mother because her mother actually apologises when she's wrong... which is not a common familial dynamic that is shown towards children. Personally, I have to agree with them, especially on the latter point.

Sometimes I have to wonder if it's really that Russian literature is more 'dry' (as stereotypes have told me) or if it's the translators making it sound dryer in English than it otherwise would've been.

The more I read Russian literature in translation, the more I lean toward the latter.