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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Laurence Krieg and the order of the books

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    Actually, if you re-read the Narnian books frequently, I would suggest trying them in internal chronological order at least once. It gives a different
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, if you re-read the Narnian books frequently, I would suggest trying them in internal chronological order at least once. It gives a different perspective on the story. I've done that myself, and I've done it when re-reading other stories not told in chronological order, like Le Guin's "The Dispossessed." The imperative for a reading beginning with LWW is really only for a _first_ reading, because the critical matter is how you _first_ encounter Aslan and Narnia. Once you already know all about it, the shock of discovery is no longer relevant.

      That's one of the reasons I don't take Lewis's letter to Larry Krieg as definitive. He's writing to an already-experienced reader of Narnia and is therefore, by implication, discussing the order to RE-read the books. If he wants to say he thinks, on balance, that it's better to re-read them in internal chronological order, that's perfectly reasonable. It's only if you take it as saying that that's the order to read them the first time that it's so wrong-headed that some scholars have concluded that Lewis had forgotten what his own books said (though that, in Lewis's case, is not implausible).



      -----Original Message-----
      >From: Sue <suebridgwater@...>
      >Sent: Jun 5, 2013 7:45 AM
      >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Laurence Krieg and the order of the books
      >
      >Hmm - I thought he seemed evasive - as evidenced by the ...... with which I finished my post. Well, I shall continue to read in the right order, as I'm sure we all shall.
      >
      >--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> If Walter Hooper left you with the impression that he disapproved of the renumbering, he gave you quite a false impression. He has been the principal advocate and instigator of the TMN-first order, declaring flatly that this is "the sequence in which Lewis meant for them to be read" (e.g. CSL Companion & Guide p. 408), and citing in support not just the Krieg letter, which is actually much more ambiguous than it looks at first glance, but what Lewis supposedly told him orally in 1963.
      >>
      >>
      >> Sue <suebridgwater@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> >This has always irritated me too - in 1986 at a Tolkien Conference at Exeter College I pointed it out to Walter Hooper, if you'll pardon the name-dropping, and he seemed unaware that recent editions even had numbered spines, let alone that TMN was now numbered '1'. he said he would look into it.....
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.orgYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Sue
      I certainly see your point, but rather enjoy the repeated shock-that-isn t. That s all personal preference though. More important is what you say about
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 6, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I certainly see your point, but rather enjoy the repeated shock-that-isn't. That's all personal preference though. More important is what you say about remarks taken out of context, the bane of literary research and commentary!

        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <suebridgwater@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hmm - I thought he seemed evasive - as evidenced by the ...... with which I finished my post. Well, I shall continue to read in the right order, as I'm sure we all shall.
        >
        > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@> wrote:
        > >
        > > If Walter Hooper left you with the impression that he disapproved of the renumbering, he gave you quite a false impression. He has been the principal advocate and instigator of the TMN-first order, declaring flatly that this is "the sequence in which Lewis meant for them to be read" (e.g. CSL Companion & Guide p. 408), and citing in support not just the Krieg letter, which is actually much more ambiguous than it looks at first glance, but what Lewis supposedly told him orally in 1963.
        > >
        > >
        > > Sue <suebridgwater@> wrote:
        > >
        > > >This has always irritated me too - in 1986 at a Tolkien Conference at Exeter College I pointed it out to Walter Hooper, if you'll pardon the name-dropping, and he seemed unaware that recent editions even had numbered spines, let alone that TMN was now numbered '1'. he said he would look into it.....
        > >
        >
      • lynnmaudlin
        I think it works fine for a re-reading - but, for the first visit to Narnia, I am convinced the best introduction is through Lucy and the wardrobe. Otherwise,
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 6, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I think it works fine for a re-reading - but, for the first visit to Narnia, I am convinced the best introduction is through Lucy and the wardrobe. Otherwise, who is this Lion? Where is the pleasure in the mysterious origin of the lamppost if you don't know it's already there?

          I am a strong advocate for the written order for an initial reading.

          -- Lynn --


          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
          >
          > Though I share JRRT’s lack of sympathy with the Narnia pastiche parables for the most part, I find that the revised (chronological) order succeeded best with me.
          >
          > See you in Michigan.
          >
          > Mike Foster
          >
          > From: WendellWag@...
          > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:40 PM
          > To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Laurence Krieg and the order of the books
          >
          >
          >
          > No, that's the new order that the publishers decided on. Here's the original order and the new order:
          >
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Reading_order
          >
          > As you can see, the new order was imposed in 1994.
          >
          > Wendell Wagner
          >
          > In a message dated 6/4/2013 3:37:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, michv@... writes:
          >
          > 
          >
          > Hi if we are talking about the Narnia books I was always under the impression that tmn was number one followed by the lion the witch and the wardrobe. from Mich.
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: David Bratman
          > To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:02 AM
          > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Laurence Krieg and the order of the books
          >
          >
          > If Walter Hooper left you with the impression that he disapproved of the renumbering, he gave you quite a false impression. He has been the principal advocate and instigator of the TMN-first order, declaring flatly that this is "the sequence in which Lewis meant for them to be read" (e.g. CSL Companion & Guide p. 408), and citing in support not just the Krieg letter, which is actually much more ambiguous than it looks at first glance, but what Lewis supposedly told him orally in 1963.
          >
          > Sue <mailto:suebridgwater%40yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
          >
          > >This has always irritated me too - in 1986 at a Tolkien Conference at Exeter College I pointed it out to Walter Hooper, if you'll pardon the name-dropping, and he seemed unaware that recent editions even had numbered spines, let alone that TMN was now numbered '1'. he said he would look into it.....
          >
        • Grace Monk
          Lynn, you speak for me. The order in which they are written make the most sense in many ways. Grace Monk ...  Lynn, you speak for me. The order in which they
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 6, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
             Lynn, you speak for me. The order in which they are written make the most sense in many ways.

            Grace Monk

            On Thursday, June 6, 2013, lynnmaudlin wrote:
             

            I think it works fine for a re-reading - but, for the first visit to Narnia, I am convinced the best introduction is through Lucy and the wardrobe. Otherwise, who is this Lion? Where is the pleasure in the mysterious origin of the lamppost if you don't know it's already there?

            I am a strong advocate for the written order for an initial reading.

            -- Lynn --

            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
            >
            > Though I share JRRT’s lack of sympathy with the Narnia pastiche parables for the most part, I find that the revised (chronological) order succeeded best with me.
            >
            > See you in Michigan.
            >
            > Mike Foster
            >
            > From: WendellWag@...
            > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:40 PM
            > To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Laurence Krieg and the order of the books
            >
            >
            >
            > No, that's the new order that the publishers decided on. Here's the original order and the new order:
            >
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Reading_order
            >
            > As you can see, the new order was imposed in 1994.
            >
            > Wendell Wagner
            >
            > In a message dated 6/4/2013 3:37:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, michv@... writes:
            >
            > 
            >
            > Hi if we are talking about the Narnia books I was always under the impression that tmn was number one followed by the lion the witch and the wardrobe. from Mich.
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: David Bratman
            > To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:02 AM
            > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Laurence Krieg and the order of the books
            >
            >
            > If Walter Hooper left you with the impression that he disapproved of the renumbering, he gave you quite a false impression. He has been the principal advocate and instigator of the TMN-first order, declaring flatly that this is "the sequence in which Lewis meant for them to be read" (e.g. CSL Companion & Guide p. 408), and citing in support not just the Krieg letter, which is actually much more ambiguous than it looks at first glance, but what Lewis supposedly told him orally in 1963.
            >
            > Sue <mailto:suebridgwater%40yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
            >
            > >This has always irritated me too - in 1986 at a Tolkien Conference at Exeter College I pointed it out to Walter Hooper, if you'll pardon the name-dropping, and he seemed unaware that recent editions even had numbered spines, let alone that TMN was now numbered '1'. he said he would look into it.....
            >

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.