Interview with "Dangerous Boys" author Conn Iggulden

By all accounts, The Dangerous Book for Boys is a hit. The book has been all over the Internet (there's even a YouTube "preview"!), and made a showing on The Colbert Report. I reviewed the book last month, and, from what I can tell from my Amazon Associates reports, it's the biggest seller yet among Parent Hacks readers. I maintain it's an ideal Father's Day gift -- months', even years'-worth of fun lie between those red covers.

Disclosure: HarperCollins, the book's publisher, has taken an ad out on Parent Hacks which will appear on the site starting tomorrow. My review had no connection to the ad -- it was part of a MotherTalk book tour.

I recently had the opportunity to interview one of the book's authors, Conn Iggulden:

As kids, did you and Hal [Conn's coauthor and brother] build forts and look through telescopes and dream of glorious battles? Did you live the sort of childhood this book encourages?

We grew up in a suburb of London. There was a treehouse, though it was a ramshackle thing with walls that occasionally gave way, so that anyone leaning back might suddenly make a dramatic exit. As the treehouse was about three feet from the road, we had to pretend we were in the wild, and passers by had to pretend not to see us peering down at them. I did dream of glorious battles, of course - and having secret powers, like being a karate grand master in a day. I was always a fan of Spiderman and Iron Man comics. I also wanted to be a Ninja for some time, but the entrance exam was too hard.

The book started as a record of all the things we did as kids - making bows and arrows and so on. Some things didn't go in, like the summer we discovered lighter fluid and put it on our trainers. The idea was to light the trainers, then stand on the street corner, chatting nonchalantly as the flames burned. We called it 'Fiery Feet'. The expressions of people as they drove past were pretty funny.

Our father was in Bomber Command and later the Strategic Air Arm in WW2, so had stories of Gurkha parachutists and tracer fire looping up towards him in the darkness. He lost half a finger when he was shot down as well as more serious injuries. At various times he told us that a) He had worked in a sausage factory and lost it in the mincer - achieving the best week's sales in the factory's history, b) that he was being remade as a Bionic man, but the British government could only afford to do a bit at a time or c) a German sniper had seen him going overhead and thought "That's Mr Iggulden. I'll just give him a warning shot."

From my mother, we had stories of martyrdom and courage, some of which we acted out in local parks and woods. It was a great time all in all. I wouldn't be fifteen again for anything, with the spots and the angst. However, if I had the chance, I might spend one more summer as a twelve year old.

What's dangerous about this book?

I suppose in the main, it's the attitude - that danger isn't a dirty word. It became one in the eighties and nineties and as a result, we overprotected a lot of boys, which did them no good at all. Including how to make weapons like a bow and arrow, a catapult and suggesting that it's all right to give a boy a Swiss Army knife is still oddly controversial where once it taken for granted. We also included stories of danger and heroism because boys aren't being taught them any more - and they should be. We pass on our values through stories and no one wants a generation of soft, pale, chubby boys afraid of their own shadow. There's the real danger if you like - parental fear can ruin a generation if we're not careful.

HarperCollins is hitting the Internet hard to promote this book. This is, in fact, the second "tour" I've been a part of, there's a preview video on YouTube...ironic given the book's message about "old-fashioned fun." Have you been participating in all the Internet buzz and conversation?

I read a lot of the blogs and comments on the book, of course! It's fascinating to see the responses. I've been surprised how mild the criticisms are, which is one of the most surprising things. If I'd put this out fifteen years ago, I think it might have crashed and burned under the weight of criticism. Luckily, enough sensible people have sons and like the way the book celebrates them. It's not a crime to say boys are different to girls, though for a while, it almost was one.

As for irony, I work with a computer every day - in replying to these questions, for example. I used to love computer games in my teens. The problem comes when the balance is lost and boys are almost brought up by Sony and Nintendo.

It must be asked: what about girls? As I said in my Parent Hacks review, I fully endorse celebrating the differences between boys and girls, and I love the book as-is. But by excluding girls, the book indirectly, and, I'm sure, unintentionally implies that construction projects, scientific inquiry and danger are uninteresting to girls. As one of my commenters, Nathan, said about strong male and female role models: "Why do we have to parcel out the men to boys and the women to girls? Jane Goodall and Louis Leakey were heroes of mine when I was a kid."

I suppose you could argue that heroic characters like Douglas Bader are inspiring for girls and boys, but that would be to come at it from the other side. It's not how we parcel them out - it's what works best that matters. The simple fact is that boys are inspired by stories of men being courageous and self-sacrificing much more than Jane Goodall and her chimps. That's part of accepting that boys are different to girls, really. No doubt some heroes are suitable for both, but in the main, boys take their values from stories about the men they could one day be. It's not just Edmund Hilary and Sherpa Tensing conquering Everest, it's the fact that they refused to say who reached the top first. That's what will get a boy, every time.

[Psst: Girls are about to get their due! More about this soon. -- Ed.]

Do you have more books in the works?

I'm in the middle of a series on Genghis Khan. The first one is published in the US as 'Genghis: Birth of an Empire'. Now there's a great tale for you - a boy who was abandoned with his mother and six other children, left to die in an incredibly hostile climate. They survived - what a woman his mother must have been - and he went on to conquer four times the land of Alexander the Great. His grandson was emperor of China. That's a story worth telling and history is full of them in all their wonder, despair, triumph and disaster.

Comments

[Ella]

This is a great interview. I could imagine my three boys (all under six) sitting quietly and listening with amazement to his stories!

We own two copies of their book and I have to read from it daily. I have to say I've learnt a thing or two doing so.

[emjaybee]

That would be the bloodthirsty murdering brutalizing Genghis Khan? Interesting choice for a kids' bio...lots that will have to be left out, methinks.

[Liz]

It isn't a kids book on Genghis Khan, but part of a historical fiction series on Emperors for adults- or at least people who have the attention span to read a 458 page book.

[ZeitgeistMama]

I have to say, I'm still put off by the Boys Only vibe of this book, and even more so having read the author's thoughts!

I simply don't buy it that boys are inherently MORE interested in that "first to the top" mentality than girls - I think that's a socialization issue. And not to get all hippy-dippy here, but don't you think maybe there'd be a whole less warmongering and violence by men if maybe they had role models (male and female!) that were about more than "me first!"?

Plus, I would have LOVED this book as a child - I was all about running wild in the woods, making forts, etc. If I had a daughter, I'd love to give it to her- but would love it even more if it weren't so obviously framed "JUST FOR BOYS"

And this is all said as the mother of a 2yo boy - a sweet, sensitive, active, digger-loving, play-kitchen-playing boy.

[hedra]

Actually, I think he meant it to imply that despite the 'first to climb it' mentality, it was the 'we refuse to either one insist we were THE first - we were first TOGETHER' thing that he was bringing up. There's a loyalty/morality/honor issue there that can really capture the imagination. (Granted, there's also a lot of other subtle issues in the deeper story that are fodder for some serious discussions, too.)

I looked over the book in the bookstore, and revised my 'BOYS CLUB' irritation somewhat. It is still too 'boys club' to me, but the range of activities is pretty broad. (the upcoming companion book for girls should solve much of the angst about 'but this is for ME, I love this stuff!' from many of us) Taken as a whole, the 'dangerous' thing is pretty obviously not SERIOUS. It is more just an eye-catcher. Dangerous tree identification! Um. Yeah. The 'For Boys' thing also is pretty broad. The narrowest interpretation of what is guy-interest stuff is the stories/heroes info. There's crafts (though I don't recall any cooking?), at least.

I revised it from a DO NOT BUY (for me) to a B- mostly inoffensive except the title thing. There's good stuff in there, all of it fairly lightly explored (IMHO). The lightness may be a boon to those who want more breadth (they're so short they can be used as teasers - read more on this person, or find similar tales that show more range of experience or gender or whatever interests your child). There's enough info to DO the stuff, if you don't want to go any further that that, too. Reasonable balance there, and the sections are short enough to not overwhelm a child who struggles with reading. As that kind of 'stepping off point' it could be a very useful resource.

But if you already do most of this stuff? Eh, pretty useless. We already do this stuff. We don't need a general guide to the most obvious constellations, my kids are into trying to observe the horsehead nebula. We don't need stories of great mountain climbers, they have an aunt who is a vet in Alaska (you want both-gender heroics, compassion, competition, danger, strategy, and hey, DOGS, try reading about the Iditarod!). We have family members who were in the military, and family members who marched for peace (and those who did both). We teach the kids how to lash branches together to make a square-rigger pirate ship in the yard, and make bows and arrows, and get out dad's fencing equipment and learn to parry, and identify rocks they find on their walks, and ... well, obviously, we just do not NEED this book. In our area, there's already plenty of backlash against the 'helicopter parent' thing - hovering too much is frowned upon, at least in our peer group. Getting really grubby and scraped up is more of an indicator that they were having a good time than it is a reason to call the play off and sit them in front of a video.

So, yeah, okay place to start, if you need it (and frankly, many people do NOT know how to do an eye splice, or whittle an animal in a branch, or identify plants on a walk in the woods). If there's any issue at all with the title, it is simple enough to find the same information by buying a selection of small books on the same general subjects (used bookstores are great for this kind of exploration, as are the Scholastic book club papers sent home from every blessed school in the US, it seems). With a selection, you can skip the issues with the title (and with the range of role models) entirely. Which is what we did. We already have those other books, anyway.

[mountainbunny]

We don't have boys (we were blessed with daughters), but I am planning to buy this book for our kids.
The lives of children today are too often micromanaged and wholly artificial; they spend too little time outside doing unstructured (by adults) activities, and as a result, children are losing out on the one time in their lives when they can dream and wish, learn about themselves and life, and decide who and what they'd like to be.
Toys today don't often teach a useful skill, and frequently leave the child with nothing of real value. Too many books today are written with a hook in mind - a cute character than can be marketed and sold to kids in other forms, for example; or are written formulaically to sell the next installment, not to edify or challenge the mind of the reader.
On the other hand, the archetypal stories in this book serve the purpose of teaching character development and critical thinking. Stories of well-defined heros and bravery (think: fairy tales and myths) have been used since forever to teach life lessons.
It is great to see that skills which have fallen away in favor of video games and artificial play are being reintroduced (the bow & arrow mentioned in the interview, for example). The skill taught isn't limited to hitting a target, but expands to the ability to create a tool, and become proficient in using that tool.
The title of the book may be somewhat off-putting to some, but it is not enough to keep me from buying it and enjoying it.
As an aside, we have both the "The American Boy's Handy Book: What to Do and How to Do It" and the "American Girls Handy Book: How to Amuse Yourself and Others" books, which are similar in scope and which we have enjoyed for many years.

[daisy]

I'm glad I already bought this (a father's day present to my husband from his sons) before I read this interview as the boys-focus turned me off as well, but the interview made it sound much more intentional and worse!