- "David S. Bratman" wrote:
> >In accordance with the new Harper-Collins party line, the stories areAs a dissenting view, I read the Magician's Nephew first, on
> >arranged with MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW first.
> I saw that. I opened it to the beginning and read the opening of
> _Magician's Nephew_, a book I hadn't actually read in years. And in the
> very first paragraph it says, without any preamble or explanation of what
> that strange name means, that this story will tell you how the travels
> between our world and Narnia first began.
> OK, you can read that without knowing what Narnia is, but it's obviously
> addressed at people who've previously read of other such travels. How on
> earth anyone, even CSL himself, could think this book is _intended_ to be
> read before LWW - that totally escapes me.
recommendation of those who urged me to read the Narnia series. I knew
what Narnia was before I read the books because they told me. And when I
read it to my younger sister, I read the Magician's Nephew first. I
don't recall any confusion on this issue.
Joan Marie Verba
- At 01:36 PM 11/9/2001 , Joan Marie Verba wrote:
>As a dissenting view, I read the Magician's Nephew first, onJoan, your second sentence answers your own argument. You already knew
>recommendation of those who urged me to read the Narnia series. I knew
>what Narnia was before I read the books because they told me. And when I
>read it to my younger sister, I read the Magician's Nephew first. I
>don't recall any confusion on this issue.
what Narnia was. Such knowledge wouldn't be necessary if you'd read LWW
first, and the fact that you mention this shows that "Nephew" wasn't meant
to be first.
Indeed, I'd go further than that. I wrote about "Nephew":
>> OK, you can read that without knowing what Narnia is, but it's obviouslyIn other words, the book CAN be read first even by people who don't have
>> addressed at people who've previously read of other such travels.
your advantage of having already been told about Narnia. But that's
obviously not the author's intent. Heck, you can even read "The Horse and
His Boy" or "The Last Battle" first. But if the books are going to be put
in order, it's as clear as can be that none of these is the first. (And
don't say "Nephew takes place first" unless you've never heard of flashbacks.)
On the subject of putting books in order, I must confess to a little
practical joke at the bookstore.
Mary S. described
>the seven-vol edition of LOTR recently mentioned here. What catches theeye is
>that each volume has one letter printed at the top of its spine, thusIndeed. There was an unwrapped copy of this at Borders last night, and
> T O L K I E N
after looking through the volumes - and still feeling irritated about that
one-volume Narnia in the wrong order - I found myself moved, perhaps by the
imp of Dean Acheson, to replace them in a new order. Rejecting T O L K E I
N as just too cruel, I tried K I N E L O T and L O N E K I T before
settling on L O K I N E T. LokiNet, sounds like a good Norse ISP.
- I couldn't agree with you more, David. I discovered Pyle's Robin Hood on my
aunt's bookshelf when I was nine years old. At that age, I don't know that
I could have found any better treasure.
The volume, which I still feel slightly guilty about not having returned, lo
these 30 years later, has no printing or copyright date, published by
Doubleday Classics. A hardcover with a yellow spine, an ornate cover and end
pages covered with images of toys in green ink, it is in terribly battered
condition from too many hours lovingly pouring through its pages. And it
has Pyle's illustrations. (If I'm remembering correctly, he thought of
himself as an illustrator first, writing as a secondary activity, really a
Can anyone tell me what its date of printing was? I've always been curious,
as I noticed this even the first time around.
> From: David Lenander <d-lena@...>
> Organization: University of Minnesota
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:32:17 -0600
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [mythsoc] Whose prose?
> I assumed that Mary meant that it was retold by someone else--she probably was
> aware that Robin Hood's earlier incarnation was primarily in ballads, and that
> the pseudo archaic prose employed by Pyle wasn't composed before the 20th
> century, but intended to evoke the 14th--or at least an earlier time. There
> is precedent for this kind of thing, I
> believe that there have been retellings with new illustrations of Peter
> Rabbit, which may be even worse, since Pyle didn't originate Robin Hood.
> Nevertheless, just think how it will be in a few decades, when they get around
> to retelling _The Hobbit_. It's already been re-illustrated a number of
> times, which I wouldn't mind so much if Tolkien
> hadn't done such a perfect job in the first place. (I actually like some of
> the other illustrations, I love Tove Jansson's and have a soft spot for the
> neo-Dulac/Rackham work by Michael Hague). Pyle was a great illustrator,
> however (which most people probably wouldn't allow for JRRT), and replacing
> his work with more up-to-date illustrations
> seems tragic. But if they're retooling his prose, excising it from "the
> collective hindbrain," it is a travesty to continue to put his name on the
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 09:33:01 -0800
>> From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
>> Subject: Re: Robin Hood
>> At 06:00 AM 11/8/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
>>> Then I passed "Howard Pyle, Illustrated Classics Edition, ROBIN HOOD" and
>>> plucked it off the shelf for a reminiscent glance.
>>> Guess what, none of that fine 14th century prose, it was "Retold by..." and
>>> NOT ONLY THAT, the illustrations were by =somebody else=. Howard Pyle, my
>> I'm not sure whether you're lamenting or (ironically) celebrating the
>> absence of that 14th-century prose, but ...
>> There isn't any 14th-century prose about Robin Hood, just ballad-songs and
>> snatches. And there are some Elizabethan plays (also mostly in verse, I
>> think). But apart from cameo appearances in Walter Scott novels and things
>> like that, most of the prose fiction about Robin Hood is Victorian or
>> later. There's really no equivalent to Malory's Morte d'Arthur, but the
>> single closest thing to a full prose rendition of the Robin Hood tale
>> that's lodged itself in the collective hindbrain, and which all later
>> writers either have to follow or play off on, is ...
>> Howard Pyle's.
>> Though it's a shame you couldn't find an edition with Pyle's own
>> David Bratman
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> David Lenander, Library Manager I
> University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library Access Services
> Diehl Hall / 505 Essex SE, / Mpls., MN 55455
> Phone: work: (612)626-3375 fax: (612)626-2454 home: (651)292-8887
> e-mail: d-lena@... web-page: http://umn.edu/~d-lena/OnceUponATime.html
> The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- In a message dated 11/9/01 5:23:38 PM Central Standard Time,
> Indeed. There was an unwrapped copy of this at Borders last night, andWhy Dean Acheson? "Present at the Creation," you mean?
> after looking through the volumes - and still feeling irritated about that
> one-volume Narnia in the wrong order - I found myself moved, perhaps by the
> imp of Dean Acheson, to replace them in a new order. Rejecting T O L K E I
> N as just too cruel, I tried K I N E L O T and L O N E K I T before
> settling on L O K I N E T. LokiNet, sounds like a good Norse ISP.
Oh, David, just think of the poor soul who buys that set, takes them home,
and tries to read THEM in the order you put them in! <GGG> Will =he= (or
she) have a lot of flashbacks to cope with!
- At 06:17 AM 11/10/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
>Why Dean Acheson? "Present at the Creation," you mean?If you've read "Present at the Creation," you'll remember that Acheson had
an impish sense of humor that came out at odd moments. His most famous
such remark was, "I learned everything I know at my mother's knee, and
other low joints."
>Oh, David, just think of the poor soul who buys that set, takes them home,That (seriously) is why I didn't rearrange it as
>and tries to read THEM in the order you put them in! <GGG> Will =he= (or
>she) have a lot of flashbacks to cope with!
T O L K E I N, because a purchaser might not realize anything was wrong,
considering the number of people who actually spell the author's name that
way. (Each title page does identify which volume it is, also.)