Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Chronicles of Narnia

Expand Messages
  • Stolzi@aol.com
    There s been quite an argument in recent years: read them in order of publication, or chronological order? In fact recent editions have had numbers on the
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 21, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      There's been quite an argument in recent years: read them in order of
      publication, or chronological order? In fact recent editions have had numbers on the
      spine, in chronological order (beginning with THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW),
      apparently to direct the reader.

      Here's what Puffin Books thought in 1965. All the books were by then
      available. However, on the flyleaf of THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER, the
      publisher's note says:

      "This is the third of the classic stories by Professor C.S. Lewis about the
      kingdom of Narnia. It comes after THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE and
      PRINCE CASPIAN, and if you want to enjoy it properly you should read these first."



      Diamond Proudbrook


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Croft, Janet B.
      I thought Peter Schakel s argument in Mythlore 88 was convincing -- they should be read in the order published. LWW is the proper introduction to Narnia --
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 21, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I thought Peter Schakel's argument in Mythlore 88 was convincing -- they
        should be read in the order published. LWW is the proper introduction
        to Narnia -- the reader experiences the wonder of it along with the
        children. MN presumes some previous knowledge of Narnia, and if it is
        read first, there are gaps in this knowledge which are not really filled
        in by the story. (This article was also published as part of his
        Imagination and the Arts in CS Lewis.)

        Janet Brennan Croft


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Stolzi@... [mailto:Stolzi@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:33 AM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [mythsoc] The Chronicles of Narnia

        There's been quite an argument in recent years: read them in order of
        publication, or chronological order? In fact recent editions have had
        numbers on the
        spine, in chronological order (beginning with THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW),
        apparently to direct the reader.

        Here's what Puffin Books thought in 1965. All the books were by then
        available. However, on the flyleaf of THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER,
        the
        publisher's note says:

        "This is the third of the classic stories by Professor C.S. Lewis about
        the
        kingdom of Narnia. It comes after THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
        and
        PRINCE CASPIAN, and if you want to enjoy it properly you should read
        these first."



        Diamond Proudbrook


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Joan Marie Verba
        ... I read the article, but I m not convinced. I read The Magician s Nephew first, and I think that worked well for me. Joan
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 21, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          "Croft, Janet B." wrote:
          >
          > I thought Peter Schakel's argument in Mythlore 88 was convincing -- they
          > should be read in the order published.

          I read the article, but I'm not convinced. I read The Magician's Nephew
          first, and I think that worked well for me.

          Joan
          ******************************************
          Joan Marie Verba
          verba001@...
          http://www.sff.net/people/Joan.Marie.Verba
        • Stolzi@aol.com
          In Macmillan s US edition of 1988, the VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER was still being referred to, on the dust jacket, as Book 3 in The Chronicles of Narnia. I
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 22, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In Macmillan's US edition of 1988, the VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER was still
            being referred to, on the dust jacket, as "Book 3 in The Chronicles of Narnia."


            I checked this out to compare the two versions of Ch. 12, "The Dark Island,"
            because I thought the second version might be the one Mr Lewis would want me
            to read aloud (I'm doing tapings for the blind). He had changed it (as I
            understand) in response to some concerns about children who have bad dreams. Lewis
            knew well what this meant, being subject to nightmares himself.

            No longer (in the second version) does he dismiss them lightly by saying
            "There was nothing to be afraid of, and never had been." But otoh, no longer does
            Aslan cause the evil island to disappear; it is still behind them as they
            sail away (ugh). So I like both versions and am undecided. (Note that my earlier
            copy is Puffin Books, from England, a 1967 printing.)

            Anyone who knows more about this than I do, is welcome to advise.

            Diamond Proudbrook


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Stolzi@aol.com
            BTW, caught Mr Lewis out in a little error - I think - while reading the chapter of PRINCE CASPIAN where the wounded mouse, Reepicheep, is presented nearly
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 22, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              BTW, caught Mr Lewis out in a little error - I think - while reading the
              chapter of PRINCE CASPIAN where the wounded mouse, Reepicheep, is presented nearly
              dead to Queen Lucy, Aslan and the others after the battle.

              Am leaving this as an exercise for the reader to discover.

              Diamond Proudbrook


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • jamcconney@aol.com
              I have always thought that Dawn Treader was the most problematic of the Narnia books, not only for the reasons already cited but for others as well. It s
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 22, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I have always thought that 'Dawn Treader' was the most problematic of the
                Narnia books, not only for the reasons already cited but for others as well. It's
                very popular (as are all the Narnia books) with youth leaders in churches,
                and I've always said "Yes, use it for discussion--if you make certain things
                clear."

                My primary objection is the treatment of the Dufflepuds, who are depicted as
                being changed in a way that might be called a handicap and has certainly
                changed their way of life. It is stated that the change is not welcome to them and
                IS PRESENTED AS A PUNISHMENT. Moreover, the 'normal' people in the story find
                their hopping about to be hilariously funny.

                My personal opinion is that Lewis got caught up in his story and didn't stop
                to think about the underlying message he was sending. I certainly would not
                like to think that he considered physical differences a punishment or wanted to
                suggest that they were humorous.

                I think I've posted this before...but it bears saying again.

                Anne


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Stolzi@aol.com
                Recently I wrote BTW, caught Mr Lewis out in a little error - I think - while reading the chapter of PRINCE CASPIAN where the wounded mouse, Reepicheep, is
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 26, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Recently I wrote

                  "BTW, caught Mr Lewis out in a little error - I think - while reading the
                  chapter of PRINCE CASPIAN where the wounded mouse, Reepicheep, is presented
                  nearly dead to Queen Lucy, Aslan and the others after the battle."

                  Sorry, my error - not Mr Lewis's. I thought that the "bandaged stump" of a
                  leg had been mentioned, calling into question what he says later about the
                  cordial perhaps not being able to make things grow again. But no, it was the
                  "bandaged stump" of Reep's tail, and the tail alone, that was mentioned.
                  Careless reading on my part.

                  Diamond Proudbrook


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.