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

Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW. Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University s CSL conference Nov. 3.
    Message 1 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
      Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
      conference Nov. 3. Applauders included me. Though I had tried
      severally to read in the publication order, never got further than VotDT.

      Bought the reordered set & sped through those puppies.

      LWW: having re-read it for 3rd? time for smial, it was both better and
      worse than I remembered it was. It will make a smashing film of the
      Action Jackson variety.

      Can we have Mythsoc prize for Most Tolkien Ripoffs in LWW Noted?
      I stopped counting at ten, but I'm sure we can find more.

      Jo & I did a dramatic reading of the Ruth Pitter-CSL debate re:
      catechesis on the Beavers' hospitality that RP records in Hooper's CSL
      Companion in 'Who's Who' to amuse the group. Twice.

      To better understand Aslan, observe sparrows at a bird feeder when a big
      scarlet tom cardinal flies up.

      Cheers,
      Mike

      Guess who won both debates?

      WendellWag@... wrote:

      >
      >In a message dated 12/3/2005 8:11:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      >HughHDavis@... writes:
      >
      >Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
      >chronology (just to stir that pot)?
      >
      >
      >
      >That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
      >publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
      >way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
      >re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions by the
      >Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
      >constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated any thought
      >about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
      >doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.
      >
      >Wendell Wagner
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Hugh Davis
      The letter (on http://www.nthposition.com/blasphemyinnarnia.php) says Magician s Nephew in brackets, so I had that in my head as the one adapted. Perhaps I m
      Message 2 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        The letter (on http://www.nthposition.com/blasphemyinnarnia.php) says
        Magician's Nephew in brackets, so I had that in my head as the one adapted.

        Perhaps I'm wrong, and I admit I didn't know about this radio version before
        this thread. Will someone confirm?

        Hugh


        >From: juliet@...
        >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"
        >Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:54:08 -0600
        >
        >On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 08:09:22AM -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
        > > Thank you. I need to read up on this in the Companion. I'd love to find
        >out
        > > more about the production.
        > >
        > > Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
        > > chronology (just to stir that pot)?
        >
        >Er, doesn't the mail below say "the 1959 LWW" and nothing about
        >Magician's Nephew? Maybe I missed something.
        > >
        > >
        > > >From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
        > > >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        > > >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        > > >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"
        > > >Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:56:17 -0800
        > > >
        > > >At 06:39 AM 12/1/2005 -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
        > > > >I did not know about this radio version. Were the other Chronicles
        > > >adapted
        > > > >during Lewis' lifetime? Do any copies exist?
        > > >
        > > >Walter Hooper's Lewis Companion lists the 1959 LWW as the only
        >Chronicle
        > > >radio dramatization in Lewis's lifetime. (There have been others
        >since.)
        > > >It says nothing about whether it still exists in any form (a lot of
        >radio
        > > >in those days was live and never recorded).
        > > >
        > > >DB
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
      • David Bratman
        ... And that is what the news article originally quoted by Patrick Wynne (based on the letter, presumably) says too, which I didn t notice when I wrote about
        Message 3 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          At 02:23 PM 12/3/2005 -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
          >The letter (on http://www.nthposition.com/blasphemyinnarnia.php) says
          >Magician's Nephew in brackets, so I had that in my head as the one adapted.

          And that is what the news article originally quoted by Patrick Wynne (based
          on the letter, presumably) says too, which I didn't notice when I wrote
          about the 1959 LWW.

          But Hooper's Companion, my source, is very clear that it was LWW. He gives
          a cast list, and I do not recall Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, and Mr Tumnus
          appearing in The Magician's Nephew.

          I suspect what happened is this: whoever added the bracketed reference to
          MN to the letter had registered that the book dramatized was the first of
          the Chronicles, and then went to look at a current copy and found that MN
          was the "first"!!!

          Yet another example of the toxicity of the change of ordering.

          David Bratman
        • David Bratman
          ... That s very interesting; you re the first person I ve encountered to report feeling that way. However, it need not prove that the reordering is better.
          Message 4 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
            >We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
            >Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
            >conference Nov. 3. Applauders included me. Though I had tried
            >severally to read in the publication order, never got further than VotDT.
            >
            >Bought the reordered set & sped through those puppies.

            That's very interesting; you're the first person I've encountered to report
            feeling that way.

            However, it need not prove that the reordering is better. After all, by
            your own account you had read LWW, PC, and VDT before you first read MN.
            So in fact your first-reading order (the ordering debate is not meant to
            apply to subsequent readings) was closer to a publication-first order than
            to a chronological order, even though it was not exactly the same as either.

            The one good argument against publication-first order is that Lewis became
            a better writer as he went along through the Chronicles. Or at least I'd
            agree with that statement, though that hasn't prevented LWW from becoming
            the most indispensable classic volume of the set (which is why the first
            movie was made of it, and why, for instance, children's lit expert K.V.
            Johansen believes you should read LWW first, even though she accepts the
            chronological order). But despite Lewis's improving writing I'd call the
            best books SC (my own favorite of the set) and HHB, as MN and LB, though
            written later, to my mind suffer slightly from being too concerned with
            wrapping up beginnings and endings.

            David Bratman
          • WendellWag@aol.com
            In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:16:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, WendellWag@aol.com writes: That s unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the
            Message 5 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:16:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
              WendellWag@... writes:

              That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
              publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
              way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
              re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions
              by the
              Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
              constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated any
              thought
              about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
              doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.



              When I wrote that, I was *not* discussing whether the publication or the
              chronological ordering is "better." That's an argument about literary opinion,
              and while I have an opinion about it, I'm willing to concede that there's an
              argument for each side. On the subject of whether the subject of the
              ordering of the books even came up before the mid-1990's though, I don't think
              there's any question. No one even discussed the issue of the ordering before
              then. The only reason that the change happened is because of the taste of
              Douglas Gresham.

              Wendell Wagner


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mike Foster
              This rather reminds of some of my more purist JRRT students who suggested beginning course readings with The Silmarillion. Right, I would say. And who
              Message 6 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                This rather reminds of some of my more purist JRRT students who
                suggested beginning course readings with The Silmarillion. Right, I
                would say. And who besides the three or two of you wd. be still be
                enrolled as of week 4?

                Mike

                WendellWag@... wrote:

                >
                >In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:16:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                >WendellWag@... writes:
                >
                >That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
                >publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
                >way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
                >re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions
                >by the
                >Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
                >constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated any
                >thought
                >about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
                >doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.
                >
                >
                >
                >When I wrote that, I was *not* discussing whether the publication or the
                >chronological ordering is "better." That's an argument about literary opinion,
                >and while I have an opinion about it, I'm willing to concede that there's an
                >argument for each side. On the subject of whether the subject of the
                >ordering of the books even came up before the mid-1990's though, I don't think
                >there's any question. No one even discussed the issue of the ordering before
                >then. The only reason that the change happened is because of the taste of
                >Douglas Gresham.
                >
                >Wendell Wagner
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mike Foster
                ... Obviously others were applauding to in Nashville. ... Agreed! LWW has some of the same flaws of Out of the Silent Planet Perelandra, to a lesser extent in
                Message 7 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Bratman wrote:

                  >At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >>We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
                  >>Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
                  >>conference Nov. 3. Applauders included me. Though I had tried
                  >>severally to read in the publication order, never got further than VotDT.
                  >>
                  >>Bought the reordered set & sped through those puppies.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >That's very interesting; you're the first person I've encountered to report
                  >feeling that way.
                  >
                  Obviously others were applauding to in Nashville.

                  >
                  >However, it need not prove that the reordering is better. After all, by
                  >your own account you had read LWW, PC, and VDT before you first read MN.
                  >So in fact your first-reading order (the ordering debate is not meant to
                  >apply to subsequent readings) was closer to a publication-first order than
                  >to a chronological order, even though it was not exactly the same as either.
                  >
                  >The one good argument against publication-first order is that Lewis became
                  >a better writer as he went along through the Chronicles.
                  >

                  Agreed! LWW has some of the same flaws of Out of the Silent Planet
                  Perelandra, to a lesser extent in the second but Lord, Perel. drags. THS is the best written of
                  the Ransom trilogy but as John Rateliff so aptly said, OotSP, attempts
                  least but succeeds most.

                  For short but more detailed observations on this, interested readers can
                  post me separately.

                  So LLW has that same baby-lion's-first-stumbling-steps charm.

                  But if Tolkien and Rowling have what Auden called "the nominative gift",
                  CSL lacks it. Rumblebuffin?

                  Mike

                  > Or at least I'd
                  >agree with that statement, though that hasn't prevented LWW from becoming
                  >the most indispensable classic volume of the set (which is why the first
                  >movie was made of it, and why, for instance, children's lit expert K.V.
                  >Johansen believes you should read LWW first, even though she accepts the
                  >chronological order). But despite Lewis's improving writing I'd call the
                  >best books SC (my own favorite of the set) and HHB, as MN and LB, though
                  >written later, to my mind suffer slightly from being too concerned with
                  >wrapping up beginnings and endings.
                  >
                  >David Bratman
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • David Bratman
                  ... Not clear exactly what aspect they were applauding. Your story - which, don t forget, essentially amounts to finding MN easier to read AFTER you d already
                  Message 8 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 08:03 PM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                    >>That's very interesting; you're the first person I've encountered to report
                    >>feeling that way.
                    >>
                    >Obviously others were applauding to[o] in Nashville.

                    Not clear exactly what aspect they were applauding. Your story - which,
                    don't forget, essentially amounts to finding MN easier to read AFTER you'd
                    already read LWW, apparently more than once - remains the only one I know
                    that thereby leads to a preference for the MN-first order.

                    >This rather reminds of some of my more purist JRRT students who
                    >suggested beginning course readings with The Silmarillion. Right, I
                    >would say. And who besides the three or two of you wd. be still be
                    >enrolled as of week 4?

                    Beginning Narnia with LWW would only remind me of beginning Tolkien's
                    legendarium with The Silmarillion if LWW were as difficult and challenging
                    as The Silmarillion. Not very likely.

                    DB
                  • Stolzi
                    ... Umm, I =like= Rumblebuffin. I think there are far more problematic names elsewhere in Lewis. Bardia? Redival? I never even cared much for Elwin as
                    Message 9 of 23 , Dec 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > But if Tolkien and Rowling have what Auden called "the nominative gift",
                      > CSL lacks it. Rumblebuffin?
                      >

                      Umm, I =like= "Rumblebuffin." I think there are far more problematic names
                      elsewhere in Lewis. Bardia? Redival? I never even cared much for "Elwin" as
                      Ransom's first name, Tolkien-tribute though it may be.

                      Elwin Ransom
                      Was very handsome.
                      He kindled in Jane a romantic spark,
                      But then sent her back to silly old Mark.

                      Diamond Proudbrook
                    • Stolzi
                      ... Where or when did he do that, Mike? I asked him a question at the banquet which touched on this, but don t remember such a specific defense in his answer;
                      Message 10 of 23 , Dec 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >
                        >>At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>>We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
                        >>>Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
                        >>>conference Nov. 3.

                        Where or when did he do that, Mike? I asked him a question at the banquet
                        which touched on this, but don't remember such a specific defense in his
                        answer; but then I have a memory like a sieve, and I don't mean a Pensieve.

                        Diamond Proudbrook
                      • Mike Foster
                        At the banquet on Nov. 3, during the Q&A after his speech. Reepicheep is the worst nominative offender. Mike ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
                        Message 11 of 23 , Dec 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At the
                          banquet on Nov. 3, during the Q&A after his speech.

                          Reepicheep is the worst nominative offender.

                          Mike

                          Stolzi wrote:

                          >>>At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>>We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
                          >>>>Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
                          >>>>conference Nov. 3.
                          >>>>
                          >>>>
                          >
                          >Where or when did he do that, Mike? I asked him a question at the banquet
                          >which touched on this, but don't remember such a specific defense in his
                          >answer; but then I have a memory like a sieve, and I don't mean a Pensieve.
                          >
                          >Diamond Proudbrook
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >


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