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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.