Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.73 AVERAGE
3.73 AVERAGE
I feel about this much the same as I did [b:Five Children and It|45181|Five Children and It (Five Children, #1)|E. Nesbit|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1327882197s/45181.jpg|975095] — just okay. I do love stories about groups of children falling into some magical adventure (or in this case, a series of them), but most of what these kids got into was just somewhat entertaining to me and not all that exciting. It also sort of lost me a bit at the end. Oh, and there's a part where one of the kids puts on blackface to pose as an "Indian conjurer" at a carnival. Of course that was nothing in 1907 when this was written but to a modern reader it's a bit uncomfortable. I wasn't overly bored by the book but nor was I all that enriched by it.
I'm not going to finish this one...too archaic, not enough action.
This is definitely from 1907, so its really charming at points, but then you hit the part where one of the characters put on blackface and a bad accent to pretend to do magic.
Yeeeeeessssssshhhh. There's a couple of points like that in this. I mean, its really British and lovely at parts and then there's points like that. I wonder, do you judge things like this on enjoyment level now or on how it was viewed then? Do you give books a pass for racism or do you say, hey this is pretty messed up in a modern context? I know that rereading Narnia, it felt uncomfortable for some of the same reasons, so I think its something I am still figuring out. I also just think I didn't enjoy this one as a whole as much now as if I had read it as a kid first
Yeeeeeessssssshhhh. There's a couple of points like that in this. I mean, its really British and lovely at parts and then there's points like that. I wonder, do you judge things like this on enjoyment level now or on how it was viewed then? Do you give books a pass for racism or do you say, hey this is pretty messed up in a modern context? I know that rereading Narnia, it felt uncomfortable for some of the same reasons, so I think its something I am still figuring out. I also just think I didn't enjoy this one as a whole as much now as if I had read it as a kid first
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
First published over a hundred years ago, this book is still utterly delightful. While its time-setting is clearly not ours - and one can see that not only in the physical setting but in the ways of the various adults who are important to the story - it has a timelessness in the playing and being of the children.
In short, three siblings find their way through a secret entrance to the grounds of the local stately manor (the "castle") and there they find a sleeping princess. She's a sleeping princess with a difference, but she knows the castle inside and out, so maybe her story is true . . . And when she magics up a room full of jewels and then turns herself invisible .... well, magic is definitely real even if she isn't actually who she says she is.
This is completely irrelevant, but I wouldn't mind betting this book is why my mother liked the name Kathleen and gave it to me. She always said, "I just loved the name" but she almost certainly would have read this book when she was a child. I shall claim it - she's a nice character.
In short, three siblings find their way through a secret entrance to the grounds of the local stately manor (the "castle") and there they find a sleeping princess. She's a sleeping princess with a difference, but she knows the castle inside and out, so maybe her story is true . . . And when she magics up a room full of jewels and then turns herself invisible .... well, magic is definitely real even if she isn't actually who she says she is.
This is completely irrelevant, but I wouldn't mind betting this book is why my mother liked the name Kathleen and gave it to me. She always said, "I just loved the name" but she almost certainly would have read this book when she was a child. I shall claim it - she's a nice character.
Inti ceritanya sih bisa dimengerti, tapi editannya kurang sedap... :p
I liked this book, but I often found myself distracted by other things whenever I picked it up. I enjoyed noticing things that inspired C.S. Lewis, such as the writing style, the absence of parents, the two boys and two girls, and the magic ring.
I'm interested in reading more Nesbit, but I wish I'd liked this one more.
I'm interested in reading more Nesbit, but I wish I'd liked this one more.
When three children discover a castle, a sleeping princess, and a magic ring over their summer holiday, what they find are magics false and true and tricky, beginning them on a rambling journey of enchanted adventure. The Enchanted Castle is a book of fluff and whimsy, but it's not without heart. Much of the plot is the near-episodic doing and undoing of mischievous magics—tales of "be careful what you wish for," but never quite in the way either characters or audience expect. Characterization is slightly more colorful than realistic, and Nesbit's voice is wry, humorous, and hugely enjoyable to read—and while it's antiquated, that serves to make it quaint rather than unapproachable. These adventures are simply fun, and the book's other aspects help to sustain their longevity, but for me they nonetheless began to run a little long. It's not that aren't some wonderful moments: it's just that they begin to run together after a while, with too little forward movement to give them purpose. Luckily the book's final third revives it, rediscovering the plot to give the story backbone. And what a plot it is: there's still plenty of fluff and fun and silly character interaction, but the truth of the remarkable enchanted castle is original and gently breathtaking. In the end, sprinkled selectively within the froth are a few sympathetic events, some beautiful images, and true enchantment—which is never a small thing to find, and in The Enchanted Castle it twinkles brilliantly from the hidden corners of our own real world. This book is engaging, color, clever, unusual, and well stands the test of time—and though its architecture was not always to my personal taste, I enjoyed it. I recommend it.
I remember loving this as a kid so while re-reading it I definitely understood why...a magic ring that makes you invisible! Other magic things! I've also read this described as not that dated (being written in early 1900's--that date was surprising to me) but I did find some problematic moments going through it again. However, I've started rereading childhood books and often give up and wish I had left the books in nostalgia. I didn't necessarily feel that way about this book.
I read this book years ago and the only thing I really remembered about it was the children finding a princess in the center of a hedge maze, who turned out to be the housekeeper's daughter. (That's basically chapter 1.) I liked E. Nesbit's writing style, but the children in the book were rather selfish at times. The book is okay, but it didn't make me want to go on a big E. Nesbit kick or anything.