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

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

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