The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That rocks! Was it at the Eagle and Child?

Tell us more...

Oi, how I wish!! No, I was in college and was a teetotaller. Fool that I was. But I was so enamored with Lewis and Tolkien that when I found out that they had frequent meetings in the Eagle and Child and drank ale---sometimes at LUNCH! well, I just had to try the stuff. So I went to a drinking hole with a properly British air and ordered a bitter. It was bitter, and I didn't finish it.
But later I discovered steak and kidney with a nice Sam Smith Nut Brown--and well, that's a wee slice of heaven there.

[Manveru]

the chronicles of narnia are so good, my fav used to b Prince Caspian, but i think its LWW now, but i like all of them.

[inked]

Well, I am going to go all over nerdy here about the recent publications of the CoN because I came across them numbered IN PROPER CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE PER NARNIAN TIME! The only proper sequence to read them in for the first time is publication order in my inestimable and not at all humble nor modest opinion! It's, it's blasphemy, that's what it is, to number them for unsuspecting gift giving adults to buy for children!!! Some poor soul will now encounter them as though they were historically accurate renditions of Narnia instead of the wonderfully kaleidescoped published sequence. Ahh, the lack of romance and adventure to encounter Aslan as in TMN rather than LWW!!!!

I hear there are persons who consider this chronological series read to be proper and the only correct way to read TCON BUT that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (did I mention I regard that view as erroneous?)! I adduce the very proper stage and television and BBC productions of the series as further evidence of my thesis! And the ERTV/Kraft foods animated movie, as well!
And the intended current productions!!!!!!!!! Everyone knows they should be produced as published! Egads! Has the world gone enumeration delusional?

*breathes*

Oh, the horror of it! Is it the baleful influence of the enumerated HP series casting a bewitchment of arithmancy over the whole publishing industry? DO those chaps/chappettes in the booking world think that works of fiction need be cast all in the modes of artificial history a la Tolkein? Will they next number all the extant Tolkeiniana in the same fashion from Silmarillion to HoME whatever we are at? (And a good long lifetime to 'em if they try that!)
Shall we have Charles Williams novels subjected to the iniquities of this ilk?

*breathes...again*

I dare say sequentially narrative Lord Peter Wimsey novels are published as such for they were produced as such! But this irritatingly anachronistical ephemeral fad of producing numbered TCON is simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! To enter Narnia unaccompanied by Mr. Tumnus on the first visit????
It is sacrilege! Do not succumb to this mania for enumeration!
Go to Narnia as published and read for nearly 6 decades, not some moddish pseudo-historicism route, I beg of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*breathes*
...and tomorrow I'll say how I REALLY FEEL about this atrocity of enumerated publication by historicists!!!!!

[Nurvingiel]

That sucks Inked! I don't think people should mess around with books like that.

People should also dispel the notion that children are stupid. The first time I read the series I wasn't older than 12 (but it's certainly appropriate for younger children). I originally read it as 2-7, then 1. Then I reread them completely out of order, just picking up whichever one struck my fancy. Then I read them 1-7.

Actually 1-7 does work out. And I have some reasonably old publications and TMN is book 1. What's the deal with this new one?

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, I am going to go all over nerdy here about the recent publications of the CoN because I came across them numbered IN PROPER CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE PER NARNIAN TIME! The only proper sequence to read them in for the first time is publication order in my inestimable and not at all humble nor modest opinion! It's, it's blasphemy, that's what it is, to number them for unsuspecting gift giving adults to buy for children!!! Some poor soul will now encounter them as though they were historically accurate renditions of Narnia instead of the wonderfully kaleidescoped published sequence. Ahh, the lack of romance and adventure to encounter Aslan as in TMN rather than LWW!!!!

I hear there are persons who consider this chronological series read to be proper and the only correct way to read TCON BUT that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (did I mention I regard that view as erroneous?)! I adduce the very proper stage and television and BBC productions of the series as further evidence of my thesis! And the ERTV/Kraft foods animated movie, as well!
And the intended current productions!!!!!!!!! Everyone knows they should be produced as published! Egads! Has the world gone enumeration delusional?

*breathes*

Oh, the horror of it! Is it the baleful influence of the enumerated HP series casting a bewitchment of arithmancy over the whole publishing industry? DO those chaps/chappettes in the booking world think that works of fiction need be cast all in the modes of artificial history a la Tolkein? Will they next number all the extant Tolkeiniana in the same fashion from Silmarillion to HoME whatever we are at? (And a good long lifetime to 'em if they try that!)
Shall we have Charles Williams novels subjected to the iniquities of this ilk?

*breathes...again*
I dare say sequentially narrative Lord Peter Wimsey novels are published as such for they were produced as such! But this irritatingly anachronistical ephemeral fad of producing numbered TCON is simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! To enter Narnia unaccompanied by Mr. Tumnus on the first visit????
It is sacrilege! Do not succumb to this mania for enumeration!
Go to Narnia as published and read for nearly 6 decades, not some moddish pseudo-historicism route, I beg of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL inked. Great rant But just because you got so angry, I can't resist inciting you a little bit more

Lewis may not have been a historicist, but he was certainly a historian. He enjoyed pseudo-history as much as Tolkien did - do you remember what he says in Surprised by Joy about the historical instinct manifesting itself in him when he was still a child, when he made up long histories for Boxen? Narnia is constructed as history - the characters are aware of their historical place and the landscape itself shows signs of the past. It's called "The Chronicles of Narnia. The historicising isn't as elaborate as Tolkien’s, but it’s an important part of the series IMO. And you can’t escape the fact that the books are numbered. They are a series. This is not an imposition by publishers, as it would be if someone decided to publish Jane Austen’s or George Eliot’s works with a recommended reading order. When novels deal with the same world and characters, it makes sense to put them in some chronological context. Now, which chronological order is the matter for debate. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the expression goes

Also, I don’t think there’s much danger that “unsuspecting gift-giving adults” will buy the wrong one first. LWW is the most famous Narnia novel; it’s the book Lewis is most associated with, the one most often taken out of the series to stand alone (as in series of ‘Children’s Classics’ or the recent BBC Big Read poll). The only way someone could be fooled in buying TMN first is if they’d never heard of Narnia at all, and I have to say I think that unlikely.

So my point is, it's definitely best to read LWW first, but it's not completely erroneous to treat CON as a historically-driven series, and it’s not going to be the end of civilisation as we know it.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Actually 1-7 does work out. And I have some reasonably old publications and TMN is book 1. What's the deal with this new one?

AFAIK, the books have been published in reading order for several years now. My own editions are about fifteen years old, are numbered, and give a recommended reading order.

For reference, the original publishing order was:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - 1950
Prince Caspian - 1951
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - 1952
The Silver Chair - 1953
The Horse and His Boy - 1954
The Magician's Nephew - 1955
The Last Battle - 1956

[Nurvingiel]

That explains my own copies then!

Thanks for the list Sun-star. The next time I read the series, I'm going to do it in that order! Regardless of the order of the rest of the books, I still think reading LWW first is the best.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, I am going to go all over nerdy here about the recent publications of the CoN because I came across them numbered IN PROPER CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE PER NARNIAN TIME! The only proper sequence to read them in for the first time is publication order in my inestimable and not at all humble nor modest opinion! It's, it's blasphemy, that's what it is, to number them for unsuspecting gift giving adults to buy for children!!! Some poor soul will now encounter them as though they were historically accurate renditions of Narnia instead of the wonderfully kaleidescoped published sequence. Ahh, the lack of romance and adventure to encounter Aslan as in TMN rather than LWW!!!!

I hear there are persons who consider this chronological series read to be proper and the only correct way to read TCON BUT that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (did I mention I regard that view as erroneous?)! I adduce the very proper stage and television and BBC productions of the series as further evidence of my thesis! And the ERTV/Kraft foods animated movie, as well!
And the intended current productions!!!!!!!!! Everyone knows they should be produced as published! Egads! Has the world gone enumeration delusional?

*breathes*

Oh, the horror of it! Is it the baleful influence of the enumerated HP series casting a bewitchment of arithmancy over the whole publishing industry? DO those chaps/chappettes in the booking world think that works of fiction need be cast all in the modes of artificial history a la Tolkein? Will they next number all the extant Tolkeiniana in the same fashion from Silmarillion to HoME whatever we are at? (And a good long lifetime to 'em if they try that!)
Shall we have Charles Williams novels subjected to the iniquities of this ilk?

*breathes...again*

I dare say sequentially narrative Lord Peter Wimsey novels are published as such for they were produced as such! But this irritatingly anachronistical ephemeral fad of producing numbered TCON is simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! To enter Narnia unaccompanied by Mr. Tumnus on the first visit????
It is sacrilege! Do not succumb to this mania for enumeration!
Go to Narnia as published and read for nearly 6 decades, not some moddish pseudo-historicism route, I beg of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*breathes*
...and tomorrow I'll say how I REALLY FEEL about this atrocity of enumerated publication by historicists!!!!!

Were there an applause icon, I would put it here! Well said, mon ami!! Well said, indeed!!

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by sun-star

LOL inked. Great rant But just because you got so angry, I can't resist inciting you a little bit more

Lewis may not have been a historicist, but he was certainly a historian. He enjoyed pseudo-history as much as Tolkien did - do you remember what he says in Surprised by Joy about the historical instinct manifesting itself in him when he was still a child, when he made up long histories for Boxen? Narnia is constructed as history - the characters are aware of their historical place and the landscape itself shows signs of the past. It's called "The Chronicles of Narnia. The historicising isn't as elaborate as Tolkien’s, but it’s an important part of the series IMO. And you can’t escape the fact that the books are numbered. They are a series. This is not an imposition by publishers, as it would be if someone decided to publish Jane Austen’s or George Eliot’s works with a recommended reading order. When novels deal with the same world and characters, it makes sense to put them in some chronological context. Now, which chronological order is the matter for debate. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the expression goes

Also, I don’t think there’s much danger that “unsuspecting gift-giving adults” will buy the wrong one first. LWW is the most famous Narnia novel; it’s the book Lewis is most associated with, the one most often taken out of the series to stand alone (as in series of ‘Children’s Classics’ or the recent BBC Big Read poll). The only way someone could be fooled in buying TMN first is if they’d never heard of Narnia at all, and I have to say I think that unlikely.

So my point is, it's definitely best to read LWW first, but it's not completely erroneous to treat CON as a historically-driven series, and it’s not going to be the end of civilisation as we know it.

I don't think Inked was treating CoN as a-historical--just that the sequence of introduction should be from LWW to TLB and shouldn't renumber them.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by sun-star

AFAIK, the books have been published in reading order for several years now. My own editions are about fifteen years old, are numbered, and give a recommended reading order.

For reference, the original publishing order was:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - 1950
Prince Caspian - 1951
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - 1952
The Silver Chair - 1953
The Horse and His Boy - 1954
The Magician's Nephew - 1955
The Last Battle - 1956

No longer! The new order starts with TMN, then HHB, LWW, PC,VDT, SC, TLB.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

I don't think Inked was treating CoN as a-historical--just that the sequence of introduction should be from LWW to TLB and shouldn't renumber them.

Really? That wasn't the impression I got from comments like this:

Some poor soul will now encounter them as though they were historically accurate renditions of Narnia instead of the wonderfully kaleidescoped published sequence...

Is it the baleful influence of the enumerated HP series casting a bewitchment of arithmancy over the whole publishing industry? DO those chaps/chappettes in the booking world think that works of fiction need be cast all in the modes of artificial history a la Tolkein?...

But this irritatingly anachronistical ephemeral fad of producing numbered TCON is simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!...

Do not succumb to this mania for enumeration!

And he called it "this moddish [modish, I assume] pseudo-historicism route", "this atrocity of enumerated publication by historicists". It sounds to me like he's opposed to numbering the series at all, and to any 'historicist' approach.

Inked?

EDIT: I forgot to ask - did most people here read Narnia as children?

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Really? That wasn't the impression I got from comments like this:






And he called it "this moddish [modish, I assume] pseudo-historicism route", "this atrocity of enumerated publication by historicists". It sounds to me like he's opposed to numbering the series at all, and to any 'historicist' approach.

Inked?

But you seem to have missed this:

The only proper sequence to read them in for the first time is publication order in my inestimable and not at all humble nor modest opinion!

The order, I might add, that you ennumerated in your next post is the order that Inked endorses in this statement along with that order being what the BBC and other productions have followed in the past. So this recent trend of reordering and numbering the series is, well, blasphemy. Previous editions didn't put numbers on the spine of the set, but rather simply ordered them in publication order. New editions of the series reorder the series and put numbers on the spine, rather imperiously demanding that one read TMN FIRST because it is #1.

BTW Inked, the scheme was introduced and quietly appeared on bookstore shelves BEFORE the Harry Potter series, so one can not blame HP and Rowling for this howler, but some well-intentioned by idiotic marketing "genius."

I didn't read Narnia until college.

[inked]

I entered Faerie via The Chronicles of Narnia as a Junior in college. The only Lewis I had read priorly was THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS in high school (and rather odd reading for a strict Southern Baptist, at that). In fact, I only read Lewis's LWW on the recommendation of a fellow employee at the Movie Theatre where I worked. We all gathered behind the concession stand after the film began to eat popcorn, drink CocaCola, and discuss stuff. She loaned me her copy of LWW and I was hooked. I went to the Used Book Exchange and immediately purchased all the CoN for a whopping $3.50 ! And I read them through in publication order by arranging them in that order from the imprinting dates. Turns out I had missed them in my earlier years since I only arrived on the planet in 1955, and didn't start reading until age 5-6 years. My parents had many books for me and I was a voracious reader, but I missed TCON. So when I did meet them, I was enthralled with the stories, but able to perceive the symbolic nature of the writing style. (They are not allegories!)

In truth, I was so taken with CSL after Narnia in published order, that I immediately reread them in chronological order. Then I read everything else I could get my hands on by Lewis. THEN, I read Tolkein - mainly because he was an Inkling. *Tolkein has his own charm, wouldn't you agree?* Then I read Dorothy L. Sayers' corpus. And I have continued in that vein and sequence for 3 decades.

So you will have to pardon my ranting on the new ordering. It makes my blood boil to think that anyone enters Narnia other than by a wardrobe and with Lucy or Mr. Tumnus. Of course I know that people have read the books out of published sequence, but that is not "merchandising" them as such a sequence. It is such merchandising I object to, for it gives a false impression of 'necessary' order. One may enjoy Narnia in that fashion, but I feel it lacks the "magic" of subcreation. It is as tho' one had to read THE SILMARILLION before one could have LOTR. (But most of us came to Tolkein via LOTR and then had the Silmarillion - eagerly awaited its publication, in fact, while beating back the dinosaurs attacking us booksorms, IIRC!)

And, Sun-starr, I don't know for sure, but civilization might end if this persists!
I mean, if they ever complete the Star Wars bit, can you imagine having to go at it in the "proper 'chronological'" sequence at the theatres? Bit boring that, IMO! The only reason I have seen the ones I have was because of the hook the original placed (and I have yet to see the most recent one of those, even on VHS or DVD).

So, now having been excruciatingly polite, I feel I must once again rant against this abomination of forced chronicity which no doubt arose from the stygian depths of hell as a noxious fume first breathed by the adversary and then vented towards the easily misled denizens of the publishing industry on the wings of demons intent on discouraging the reading of these marvelous books by children or adults on the Screwtape-ian notion that genuine pleasure in a good book is a step off the broad onto the narrowing path - and therefore to be mitigated howsoever. AND, since this rant has its basis in my totally personal and biased and correct view of EVERYTHING, I must be RIGHT/Correct/JUST/ affirmed/HONEST/
brave/LOYAL/trustworthy/TRUE/courageous/
FAITHFUL/right/RIGHT/right/RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


(I believe this is known as fanman behaviour!)

[azalea]

Originally Posted by inked

To enter Narnia unaccompanied by Mr. Tumnus on the first visit????
It is sacrilege!!

I love this statement, and heartily agree!

What the hey? Why publish in chron. order? That ruins the clues for the "mystery" of Prof. Kirke's identity, etc.
And WHY do they have HHB before LWW? That makes no sense!

I first read the Chronicles at age 9, and my set is numbered in the CORRECT order (ie, LWW-TLB, properly).

[Manveru]

wow i didnt know that this was such a heated subject. i first read them when i was... ok i cant remember the exact age but i must have been around around 10 or so. i received them as a present from my parents and entered narnia through the pool in the enchanted woods (the only way in that i knew of!). i was so in love with the books that my parents got me the hobbit a few years later, and the lord of the rings soon after that. so it is really because of the chronicles of narnia that i read the lord of the rings in the first place (although im sure i would have read them by now anyway). i guess next time i read the TCON again ill read them in published order and see what i like better.

[inked]

Manveru,

i surmise from your witness that it is indeed possible to enter the enchanted wood and Faerie and Narnia as you did. i abase myself (BUT I AM STILL RIGHT, by Aslan's mane!)

PS: You do admit that Tolkein has a certain charm of his own, I hold?

It is my firm hope that when we ascend to Aslan's Country (which connects with all lands) that I shall tour Narnia and Middle Earth in my glorified and resurrected body. (Those who hold the view that this earth and existence is all there is are going to be so disappointed and surprised, I most earnestly hope, pleasantly ).

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by sun-star

For reference, the original publishing order was:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - 1950
Prince Caspian - 1951
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - 1952
The Silver Chair - 1953
The Horse and His Boy - 1954
The Magician's Nephew - 1955
The Last Battle - 1956

Thanks for posting the titles, since I own the series in the Dutch translation I've been wondering for half a thread what LLW and TMN was.

I've read the Narnia books when I was about 14ish IIRC. Any references and allegorial elements to Christianity went completely over my head at the time (which I actually still prefer). I read them in the order of translation which went from The Lion, Witch and the Wardrode (which is called in Dutch The Land behind the Wardrobe) till The Last Battle. I liked them, but wasn't blown away by them (that was reserved to LoTR which I read afterwards) although I loved Cair Paraval.

[inked]

Well, one needn't get the Christian symbolism. I mean TCON are rollicking good stories (as I am sure I commented earlier!). It is fascinating though to see all the literary connections and draw the parallels. The same is true for those who perceive the Christian symbols and connections. I find the use of these older mythologies by Lewis and Tolkein to be most interesting and entertaining. If one is familiar with their other works (literary and professional) the correlations are intriguing.

For example, there are illuminating ideas in THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE, THE DISCARDED IMAGE, and PREFACE TO PARADISE LOST in CS Lewis' professional work. If you have time and inclination, these are very worth your while in regard to Narnia.

[sun-star]

I had an exciting moment of revelation when I realised that the C.S. Lewis whose theological books I was reading was the same C.S. Lewis of Narnia! I read the Narnia books when I was tiny (longer ago than I can remember...), but I didn't connect the two until I was halfway through The Screwtape Letters). I suddenly realised that all the little asides in Narnia which reveal the author's opinions - the political as much as the religious ones, really - were actually part of a whole philosophical worldview thingy...

[inked]

Yes, world-view thingy stuff has a way of getting in to everything!