Re: [mythsoc] New Narnia books
>At 12:45 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, Wendell Wagner wrote:Some people consider Ruth Plumly Thompson a better author than L. Frank
>This policy actually makes a lot of sense to me. Although there have been
>some cases where a series was continued after an author's death and the new
>books were quite good, there's lots of other cases where the new books were
>distinctly mediocre and not in the tradition of the original author at all.
>(Can anyone think of any cases where the new books written by another author
>after the death of the first author were actually better than the original
>series?) Perhaps it makes better sense to simply decline to continue a
>series after an author's death, even though there's a chance the new books
>might be good.
Baum. I don't, but the existence of her Oz books doesn't seem to me to
harm my appreciation of the originals. On the other hand, that could also
be because 1) the Thompson books were already around when I arrived, so I
never had to get used to the idea; 2) Oz is such a genial slapdash
imaginary world, you can't really ruin it. Narnia is considerably more
finely-wrought and hence delicate and susceptible to harm. (And if Oz is 1
on a scale of 10 and Narnia is a 7, Middle-earth is about a 50.)
Is everyone aware there are already "new" Narnia books of a sort
around? I've seen really pointless-looking versions of some of the
original books, stripped-down for beginning readers.
>Remember, the C. S. Lewis estate isn't owned by anyone related to LewisI can think of lots of better reasons to be worried about where my money goes.
>anymore. In the mid-'70's, Douglas and David Gresham sold the estate to a
>company called the C. S. Lewis Company, Ltd. This company is owned by a
>holding company with a Dutch name that has an address in Singapore. No one
>knows who owns that company. The directors of it are clearly just lawyers
>who are figureheads for the real owners. It makes me very edgy anymore to
>buy a Lewis book knowing that the royalties will go to some corporation
>that's hiding its ownership.