Book Discussion: Over Sea, Under Stone

This is as good a time as any to start this! I can't participate much, as I've only finished off the first four chapters. I am enjoying it, though. It reminds me of exactly the kind of book I would have adored as a Middle School student.

Hopefully I'll be able to come back to this thread in a day or two, and see what all of you have had to say.

Don't be shy, either. Those of you who have not been enjoying this, please elaborate on what it was that didn't thrill you.

Ok I'm going to come out and say it... I'm not really enjoying Over Sea, Under Stone at the moment - though I'm not too far into it yet.. one of the things that sticks out to me is the way the Cornish accents are written, I would've preferred them to be written straight rather than trying to emulate a distinctive accent by phonetically spelling things out.

Anyway, I need to give it some more time, and I'm far from writing it off at this early stage.

Ok - I blasted through the first one and have just started the second. Like Tane, I could have done without the Cornish accents. (Actually, I hate it when any author does that). The book had a very slow start (I may have mentioned), but it really gets going though near the middle. I like the children - all three of them actually. They seem like great little kids.

I have not finished Over Sea, Under Stone, but I have started The Dark is Rising. I did not enjoy the part of Over Sea, Under Stone that I read. To me, it was very boring and predictable. After I finish the second book (which I am enjoying very much) I will try to finish the first.

I agree with radiantarchangelus about the children. As a child, I would have wanted to be friends with them. I wish the story written around them was better. Maybe I will have a different attitude when I pick it back up to finish.

Sorry to be so negative. :(

Any one have a thought as to how old the kids are? I'm thinking Simon is around 12yo, Jane 11yo and Barnie 10yo. It kind of bugs me that she hasn't out right said so, and I'm about halfway through. Otherwise I'm enjoying it well enough. Actually, more so than The Magician's Nephew which I read as a kid and had decided to reread. I ended up putting it down after a couple of pages and never got back to it.

I am a little over 75 pages into Over Sea, Under Stone, and can't help but feel that it's a little like a Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys mystery at this point... I'm just to the bit where the lower floor of the house has been ransacked. But I am liking the story and the kids so far. The parents are a bit one-dimensional though, aren't they?

#5 - Well, I thought along those lines, but there is a reference to Barnie being half as high as Simon. And since my 10yo sister is almost as tall as i am (165 cm) I changed my view and think he may be seven or eight.

Having said that, I know my little sister really is an oddball and shouldn't be as tall as she is, but your experiences are what establishes your opinions :)

Over Sea, Under Stone is a very different book from the rest of the series, which is not to say that it's bad, but it's not a big fantasy epic. #6 - I agree, it is a little Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys, and I think it's charming if you're not expecting the epic. I read it years ago, and I seem to remember that she never makes it entirely clear if what's happening is fantasy or childhood imagination, which I liked.

I always felt like Cooper wrote this one, ruminated on the characters for a few years, and then found they were part of another story she was telling.

Publication dates support my theory:
Over Sea, Under Stone - 1965
The Dark is Rising - 1973
Greenwitch - 1974
The Grey King - 1975
Silver on the Tree - 1977

The Dark is Rising, by the way, kicks ass.

I haven't actually started re-reading this yet, as I'm ploughing through other things, but:

Ages - I think there are later references to school years and holidays outof sync, which is sufficient to approximate the ages. I've always put Simon as being more than 2yrs older than Barney.

Parents - a bit 1D maybe, but then the POV is very much a child's and parents are just there - not really in your world, mearly a rock to lean on when needed, and a food provider, so a lot of the interplay that goes to define a 3D adult, is missed as a child.

Wouldn't you have loved to have discovered a map that you could follow whilst on holiday!

Yes! What an adventure! What freedom to run around and explore a new place at will. Nowadays, we'd almost never consider letting our children explore like this. Because of the nasty things we've heard that have happened to children we've become more protective and they wouldn't get a chance to have an adventure like this. Was there less for parents to worry about back then or is it that our awareness of the evil that can happen has changed?

That said, I agree with reading_fox about the parents. For this story they're not important. The same thing happens in the Narnia books and the books by E Nesbit. It's all about the kids and their adventure, being able to figure out the puzzle for themselves and come up with the solutions.

Just finished the first book. It's a smart little adventure story about some kids on holiday, with some good/evil overtures and the like. The parents do not to have a big role, but then there were a large number of significant adults involved - some of whom are fairly well developed as characters. The 1-D parent doesn't seem to work so well for me in the early 21st century, especially in the US where we have 24/7 news about kids in trouble (drugs, gangs, kidnapping, and worse). But more than that, those parents don't seem much to bother with the kids' lives. The Mom goes off on her own to paint... that's it? There's a major break-in at the house, and then they leave on a small holiday without the kids?? Sure, it helped to have them gone so the focus could be on the map and the search for the grail. But they didn't seem to know Mrs. Palk at all! And Gumerry was a little too absent to be considered a caregiver, eh?

That's enough complaining though. Glad they found the Grail and all, and that it's safely ensconced in a famous museum for all the world to ogle and wonder about. Too bad Dan Brown didn't see it before he wrote The Da Vinci Code! LOL.

I got the impression from the book that the story was set in the early 20th century. I think it was Mrs. Palk saying how she hated the phone when it rang that gave me that idea. Anyone else?

#12 - I agree. The story seems set in the mid-20th century. If you were commenting on my reference to the 21st century, I meant that as a comparative reality-check. My role as a parent now makes me wonder about the relative absence of the parent in the situations that the author describes. Perhaps it should be chalked up to "that is the author's intention", but I found that part of the story a bit implausible (even in the 1950s). That's all... Now the Grail, THAT's totally believable.

:)

I've always assumed that the story was set as current when I first read it - late 80's. LT says the first copy is '65 which is actually much earlier than I pictured it. As child in the 80's I certainly had the freedom to run off for the day. My parents knew where I was, well the general area that I was likely to be in. So it seems quite acceptable to me, although I can see how it would be dated now! They are not city children, that is very clear, and the differences between town and country where much more marked back then.

"But they didn't seem to know Mrs. Palk at all! And Gumerry was a little too absent to be considered a caregiver, eh?"

Only in this day and age. Certainly in the past and up until only the last decade or so, any adult could be expected to provide sufficent care for children. Leaving them with a housekeeper would be fine. She would be expected to report back if they'd caused any trouble. the reverse would not be imagined. Gumerry is family(ish) - hence fine by default! The media has a lot to answer for, by emphasing the very few cases where this is not the case.

Hmm on my own turf as a child I would have been startled if anyone sugested that I needed to see my parents for anything other than food and sleep during the summer holidays.

On Holidays things were a bit different with both my parents and I wary of me getting lost. not that it stopped it happening on occasion. Today well Marshall McLuhan was wrong the media have not converted the world into a global village rather it has become a global inner city.

#15 The media did not make the world an inner city. Human behavior did. I just believe we all are to blame for the world today.

Although we're straying rather far from the books......

#15 We are certainly all to blame for the world today, but how we feel about that world is dependant on what we know about it - which comes from the media. An isolated incident in London whilst depressing, shouldn't effect anybodies behavior on holiday in Cornwall. Thanks to todays connected and over emphasised society it does.

The duex ex machina I liked least in OverSea was Rufus' behavior. Although obviously a likeable beast I really don't think he should be given extra sensory powers.

#17 - Rufus. I had forgotten about it. It was rather ham-fisted of her. I got the impression she didn't quite know how to get out of that scenario.

The absence/non-entityness(?) of the parents so the children had the freedom to carry the plot forward is pretty fairly standard, I think, in YA. I'm remembering, particulalry, Trixie Belden books which I devoured as a child. Those parents were almost NEVER in sight. Currently too, in Harry Potter (or Artemis Fowl), the adults are frequently absent. They have to be to allow for the kids to have the freedom to have the adventure.

I don't think I phrased that well...but, I hope everyone gets what I am trying to get at.

#18

Agreed - it's why Dumbledore had to die - so Harry has no 'backup' in the final battle. You can't have the parents around in a childrens' story. They have to be absent.

I mean imagine... "Sis! Hey look! A dark cave by the beach!" "Wow, brother! It looks spooky! Wanna go in?" Suddenly their Mother calls out: "Get back here kids! You'll trip in the cave, break your necks and poke your eyes out!!" "Aww... okay Mom" THE END.

#19...Lo, all these many years since the Harry Potter books, and I've managed to avoid that spoiler, until now.

I haven't read book five and six yet.

Ah well, me bad.

Here's one for ya: Rosebud is the SLED!!!!

Bwahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

That entire series was awesome; one of the best pieces of YA fiction I've ever read.

#20

...and you know what they're saying about Soylent Green, don'tcha?

It's people!

LOL

I finished it last evening! YAY! I can join the conversation now!

I did enjoy it, and I did not find it that slow going. I was surprised that there really is little, if any, element of magic in the first book. Except for, possibly, Uncle Merry's identity.

Yes, the parents were rather superfluous to the story. These kids might as well have been orphans visiting a family friend. In some respects it reminded me of L'Engle's book A Wrinkle in Time but I enjoyed this much more. There's nothing preachy about this book.

I was also surprised to find out that the book was written 40+ years ago. But it made perfect sense. These kids are sweet and unspoiled by our popular culture. Sometimes making a story too trendy can really ruin the atmosphere. It's wonderful that Barney doesn't get his baggy gangsta rapper pants caught on that boulder and drown when the tide comes in! ;o)

As to the kids ages, I think Barney is around 7 or 8. The older two are only 11 months apart. Jane mentions that at some point. So I'm thinking 12 and 11 or so.

I'm really looking forward to the next one!

At last - I finished the first book some two nights ago but have been busy (and focused on other threads, you have to prioritize sometimes...).

I did not reflect over the absense of the adults. When I grew up my mom was home (not very usual even in the 70's) and my sister and I roamed the woods pretty freely, playing and wandering for hours. When we was 10-12+ yrs we went alone to the beach swimming during the summer, and that was some 2 miles away from home (it was a big beach, with lifeguards and all, though).

I tought the book resided well in the mainstream ya genre as it was expressed during the mid 20th century. I did not find it slow going, but it reminded me of Enid Blyton's Five-series, which I devoured when I found them at my grandparents summerhouse - they had belonged to my aunt when she was a kid. I was about 9 or 10, and my father read the LoTR aloud, two reading sessions a day, and I read those others in between ;-)

The same with this one - not too demanding.
Iv'e started on The Dark is Rising, and it seems to be a completely another kind of book...

I read the kids as being 8, 11, and 12 as well, or maybe each a year older.

This was my third time reading (trying to read) this book - I got the whole set at a book fair in grade school (maybe 10 years old?), tried to read the first one, couldn't get into it, and didn't touch the rest. I went back and read the whole series in 2003 (while waiting for Harry Potter 5 to come out). So... I remember being a lot more impressed by Over Sea, Under Stone the first time around than I was this time.

I think part of my hesitation is that it was never really clear to me why the grail is so important. Yes, it has to do with Arthur, and yes, bad things will happen if the forces of dark get their hands on it, eternal battle, blah blah, but it's never really clear WHAT would happen and WHY its so important, and when the forces of light get their hands on it, it just winds up in a museum and feels kind of anti-climactic.

Also, knowing what comes later in the series, the constant reminders of just how Mysterious great-uncle Merry is got kind of wearing. Yes, we get it. He's Mysterious(tm). Moving along?

And not really related to anything, but I had it very clear in my memory that they were stuck in the cave by the rising tide for a long time and had to wait until the tide went down to leave. I was actually surprised when that didn't happen. Did I just invent this memory, or did I co-opt it from some other book or movie or something?

I read OSUS first in 1981, when I was 9 and spent most of my free time up in the Chilterns (very near where TDIR is set) with a friend, all summer long. The adventures of the children in OSUS don't surprise me in the least, nor does the apparent detachment of the parents and other adults. We were 14, nearly 15, before adults started worrying about our whereabouts during the day (mostly because they thought we might start smoking!). If the Cornwall adventure takes place around 1965, it doesn't surprise me that their parents weren't at all concerned about Mrs Palk or Gumerry.

I've always thought Barney is 7, with Jane and Simon 11 and 12, as Clamairy says.

I'm on Book 5, and noticed ... again ... how she makes the people with red hair into the bad guys.

As a redhead, I'm miffed.

;-)

AlannaSmithee - do you feel books 3-5 are worth reading? Are you enjoying them?

#27 - I noticed that in book 2, and was appalled. And I'm not even a redhead. All I could think of was The Shade in Eragon, and I wondered if Christopher Paolini got his idea from there.

Also, I wasn't pleased with how she kept referring to 'The Rider' as 'The Black Rider' towards the end of book 2.

"Hey," I wanted to yell out, "that name is taken!"

#30 a White Rider does appear in book 5. there is a need to differentiate between the two, and as is quoted in book 5 the Dark takes all extremes and turns them to its owns ends.

RedHeads: good point, hadn't really noticed. Doesn't get any better thoughout the series, its those firey Welsh foreig bloods you know. The issue of being non-british is important, fighting the invaders. Remember its the 60s PC was probably just about born in that "nigger" shouldn't be used. I very much doubt there was concern for anybody else.

I finally finished the book today since I've been reading other things too. I've enjoyed reading the comments, but I really feel OLD now! I am a child of the 60's, and the freedom that the Drew children enjoyed brought back wonderful and delightful memories. For that reason, it didn't strike me as strange at all that they were out on their own, having an adventure. I spent lots of time trying to find one when I was a kid! I was never successful, although we formed several clubs and tried to build a treehouse once. (Thankfully, my dad and another dad stepped in to help with this, once they saw the mess we were making!)

I digress . . .

I enjoyed this book. I like the hints of things to come, especially with Barnie's musing over Great-Uncle Merry's name and Merry's references to having seen Hastings in other forms in other times. I also wasn't too crazy about the accents, especially since I am not sure if I have ever heard a Cornwall accent.

The accents can be pretty strong, so much so that anyone non-local can find them hard to understand - hence I suspect why they are written that way, the Drews probably wouldn't have understood every word said.

Unfortunetly in this day and age of homogenisation such differences are fast being eroded, and a truly strong accent is only found in older people who have never left the area, and don't listen to TV/radio much.

British accents and dialects can change within a few 100 miles very markedly. I don't believe the differances in the USA are anywhere near as marked.

I don't think the accent diffferences are as pronounced in the US either. I have a good friend with a very pronounced Southern accent,and I teach students who have very strong New Jersey accents, and I can understand them all just fine. On the other hand, I have heard some British accents that leave me totally clueless!

Even if the differencies are in recline (searching memory for the right word, but I hope you understand) here in Sweden there are major differencies still. Most people understand each other, but not everyone, and not effortless. We're kind of a border country, where people in the far north are influenced by the finnish language (Finland/Soumi), in the west by the norwegian and in the far south by the danish. In between we have a number of dialects that are as separate from swedish as to be their own languages - in fact, a few of them are. Plus we have two kinds of sapmi/lapp dialects, which is another language altogheter. To me this writing in dialect thing is... well, let's say I understand why an author choses to do so. It's part of the setting, part of the environment. But I have a hard time with them sometimes, regardless of language.

And Hobbitprincess (#33) - it feels good that I'm not the only one who don't understand every word some of those Brits says! I've always thought it was because I'm not good enough at the english language.
US dialects are easier, but I've a hard time with some of the southerns accents. Not that it's impossible to understand what they are saying - it's more like it takes some time getting used to :-)

Here is an example Black country Podcast not extreme accents though there might be a few few dialect words but i wonder how Americans get on with it. I recall an old Londoner saying in a documentary that when Talkies first came out no one could understand anyone in the American films.

Him say??

Actually, I caught some of the words, but not enough to understand exactly what was going on. Something about music and a Christmas show and making suggestions for music to be played? I could be WAY off here! I did pick up a reference to a website, but I couldn't figure out the address. Definitely a lot different than my friend in Royston's accent!

Royston - (just outside Cambridge UK?) has a very very mild accent, as it is very close to London. They tend to speak "BBC english" or "the Queen's english". (note both of these are distinct from the "cockney" accent of London proper. The further away from London you get the more pronounced the dialect can become.

As a guide to scale the black country of the podcast, can't be more than a couple of hundred miles away 3-4 hrs drive tops.

yes I was dancing with someone last week who veered alarmingly between Sarf London and Public School. I had no idea which was the affectation, oh for the days when you could tell.

Home counties rural accents used to be very distinctive even amongst themselves but they are all becoming esturine now.

#38 OK, here's a word I don't know, and no luck in any dictionary at hand. Someone? What's the word "esturine"?
I think I get the general meaning ("diluted"?), but I'd like to know :-)

Nope - actually the meaning in this context is "in the region of the estuary" THE Estuary being London speak for the Thames estuary because as everyone knows the only location of anything of importance is London, everywhere else requires designators in case it could be confused with London, anything without a designator is in London. /rant.

OK... maybe he are trying to say that England is becoming "Londonized", kind of, at least languagewise?

Yes, that's the general point - everybody is speaking in increasingly similar accents, but that accent is degraded slightly from its former "proper" style.