Zorg sequence?
Tobias Mummert
I've got Zork I-III, Zork Zero, Beyond Zork and Zork - The Undiscovered Underground.
I want to play these episodes chronologically, so please can anyone tell me in which order I have to play them?
Thanks in advance,
Tobias
--
_________________________________
zo...@baumann-online.net
PGP-Key avaliable (Keyserver, Request)
Andrew Plotkin
> Hi there,
> I've got Zork I-III, Zork Zero, Beyond Zork and Zork - The Undiscovered =
> Underground.
> I want to play these episodes chronologically, so please can anyone tell =
> me in which order I have to play them?
Do you mean chronologically, the order they were written, or
chronologically, the order they take place in the Quendor fictional history?
Order of writing:
Zork 1, Zork 2, Zork 3, Beyond Zork, Zork Zero, Z:UU.
Historical order:
Zork Zero, Zork 1, Zork 2, Zork 3, Beyond Zork, Z:UU.
I think it's better to play games (and read books, for that matter) in
the order they were written. That way you see in-jokes as they're added,
and references to earlier games make sense, etc.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Matthew Murray
> Hi there,
>
> I've got Zork I-III, Zork Zero, Beyond Zork and Zork - The Undiscovered Underground.
> I want to play these episodes chronologically, so please can anyone tell me in which order I have to play them?
Okay... First of all, you're missing a few important chapters.
Enchanter, Sorcerer, and Spellbreaker are >vital< entries in the series.
Don't ignore them. You need to play them as well to get the full
picture. I also highly recommend Wishbringer as well--it will help you
understand the other games better.
Second, I hope when you refer to wanting to play them in
chronological order you mean the order in which they were written. You
>don't< want to play them in the order in which the games actually take
place. Though the only game really affected is Zork Zero, that's a big
difference. Playing Zork Zero first will cause you to look at the entire
series in a way that was never intended. I cannot stress enough how
important it is to play them in the order they were written, >not< the
order in which they historically occur.
However, since you asked: Zork I, Zork II, Zork III, Enchanter,
Sorcerer, Wishbringer, Spellbreaker, Beyond Zork, Zork Zero, Zork:
Undiscovered Underground.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray | Over 185 computer game reviews covering
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu | games from 1979 to the present!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray | http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> I think it's better to play games (and read books, for that matter) in
> the order they were written. That way you see in-jokes as they're added,
> and references to earlier games make sense, etc.
I can think of one exception.
IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
--
At Your Service,
Jonadab the Unsightly One.
remove spaces: j o n a d a b @ b r i g h t . n e t
Andrew Plotkin
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote in article
> > I think it's better to play games (and read books, for that matter) in
> > the order they were written. That way you see in-jokes as they're added,
> > and references to earlier games make sense, etc.
> I can think of one exception.
> IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
> reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
God, no.
Mark J Musante
> IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
> reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
This is a troll, right? You can't be serious. Reading The
Magician's Nephew first would ruin the series.
-=- Mark -=-
Matthew Murray
More likely, reading The Magician's Nephew first would make you
not want to read the rest of the series. (It's because of it I never
>have< read The Last Battle.)
Michael Gentry
Andrew Plotkin wrote in message ...
>Jonadab the Unsightly One (jon...@zerospam.com) wrote:
>
>> IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
>> reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
>
>
Indeed. For the same reason why you wouldn't play Zork Zero before the rest
of the trilogy, and why ten years from now you wouldn't watch chapters one,
two and three of the Star Wars saga before chapters four, five and six.
They're written that way for a reason: because sometimes you have to
understand the end of something before you can attempt to explain the
beginning. This is often counterintuitive, but true.
--Michael Gentry
"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
Jon Petersen
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Mark J Musante wrote:
>
> > > IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
> > > reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
> >
> > Magician's Nephew first would ruin the series.
>
> More likely, reading The Magician's Nephew first would make you
> not want to read the rest of the series. (It's because of it I never
> >have< read The Last Battle.)
Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
True story, except for the tranquilizing part, and the busting-up part,
and, unfortunately, the girlfriend part.
Jon
Paul Francis Gilbert
>Andrew Plotkin wrote in message ...
>>Jonadab the Unsightly One (jon...@zerospam.com) wrote:
>>
>>> IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
>>> reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
>>
>>God, no.
>>
>Indeed. For the same reason why you wouldn't play Zork Zero before the rest
>of the trilogy, and why ten years from now you wouldn't watch chapters one,
>two and three of the Star Wars saga before chapters four, five and six.
>They're written that way for a reason: because sometimes you have to
>understand the end of something before you can attempt to explain the
>beginning. This is often counterintuitive, but true.
>--Michael Gentry
>"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.
>How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
I agree. Has anyone else read the Deverry / Westlands Cycle / DragonMage
[in progress] series by Katherine Kerr. A good fantasy series, and she has
this style of writing where she continually jumps from present through the
past in no order to further the story in all time periods, rather than
just having a series specificially on each time period [the re-incarnation
of a group of souls and how they keep getting intertwined, sort of].
--
Paul Gilbert | p...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (The DreamMaster)
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 5, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia | creatures from Alpha Centauri.
Patrick M. Berry
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Mark J Musante wrote:
>
> > > IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
> > > reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
> >
> > Magician's Nephew first would ruin the series.
>
> More likely, reading The Magician's Nephew first would make you
> not want to read the rest of the series. (It's because of it I never
> >have< read The Last Battle.)
What was your problem with it? In my opinion, "The Last Battle" is by far the
weakest book of the series, but that has nothing to do with "The Magician's
Nephew."
Matthew Murray
> > More likely, reading The Magician's Nephew first would make you
> > not want to read the rest of the series. (It's because of it I never
> > >have< read The Last Battle.)
>
> What was your problem with it? In my opinion, "The Last Battle" is by far the
> weakest book of the series, but that has nothing to do with "The Magician's
> Nephew."
I'm not saying The Last Battle isn't worse, but I found The
Magician's Nephew so horrendously boring, it took away any interest I had
in reading the last book in the series.
Matthew Murray
> Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
> started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
> had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
>
> True story, except for the tranquilizing part, and the busting-up part,
> and, unfortunately, the girlfriend part.
But you were telling the truth about The Magician's Nephew part,
right? ;)
It just makes me mad because the publishers of that series are so
presumptious as to think they know what is better for the reader than the
author of the series. If C.S. Lewis wanted the books READ in that order,
he would have WRITTEN them in that order. I find it very offensive that
the publishers think people are that dumb. C.S. Lewis wrote them that way
for a reason. Publish them in the right order, and then let people choose
to read them in whichever order they choose. That way, the >reader< is
the one making the stupid decision, and they are not having the stupid
decision made >for< them.
Iain Merrick
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Jon Petersen wrote:
>
> > Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> > places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
> > started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
> > had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
>
> > True story, except for the tranquilizing part, and the busting-up part,
> > and, unfortunately, the girlfriend part.
>
> But you were telling the truth about The Magician's Nephew part,
> right? ;)
> It just makes me mad because the publishers of that series are so
> presumptious as to think they know what is better for the reader than the
> author of the series. If C.S. Lewis wanted the books READ in that order,
> he would have WRITTEN them in that order. I find it very offensive that
> the publishers think people are that dumb. C.S. Lewis wrote them that way
> for a reason. Publish them in the right order, and then let people choose
> to read them in whichever order they choose. That way, the >reader< is
> the one making the stupid decision, and they are not having the stupid
> decision made >for< them.
Hang on - it _is_ a prequel to the other books. There was definitely a
mention of this in the introduction - I can't remember whether Lewis
actually hinted that it should be read first or not. You can't assume
that the whole series followed a fixed plan all the way through: Lewis
probably didn't have _The Magician's Nephew_ in mind when he wrote _The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_; it's conceivable that he really did
intend it as a true prequel, to be read before all the others.
I'm not saying that I think one should read _The Magician's Nephew_
before all the other books: I think it should probably be read second,
immediately after _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_.
Using the order of writing as a guide seems pretty arbitrary - I mean,
when _was_ TMN written? At a guess, it's one of the more recent books in
the series; but it would be ridiculous to put it after _The Last
Battle_, even if that happened to be the 'actual' ordering. (I shouldn't
think that's the case, but you get the idea.)
Andrew Plotkin
> Using the order of writing as a guide seems pretty arbitrary - I mean,
> when _was_ TMN written? At a guess, it's one of the more recent books in
> the series; but it would be ridiculous to put it after _The Last
> Battle_, even if that happened to be the 'actual' ordering. (I shouldn't
> think that's the case, but you get the idea.)
I think the order of writing is *not* arbitrary. (As I said, I try to
always read books in the order they were written.)
It would be ridiculous to read _The Last Battle_ anywhere but last, but
this is because it is a final book both chronologically and emotionally. I
don't think it would have been *possible* for Lewis to write that book
first. The development of a work just doesn't work that way. (Yeah, I'm
generalizing from my own experience. You got a problem?)
If he had written a Narnia book after _TLB_, it would have been
retrospective in a certain sense -- no matter where it took place in
Narnia history. Because Lewis would *himself* have experienced _TLB_
already when writing; he would have been older, a person "going back" to a
world, rather than "going to" it.
Robert Masenten
> Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
> started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
> had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
IIRC, this was the order preferred by C.S. Lewis himself.
(Personally, I don't agree. I can't really blame the publishers for
following the author's stated wishes, though.)
Robert Masenten
Lucian Paul Smith
: Iain Merrick (i...@cs.york.ac.uk) wrote:
: > Using the order of writing as a guide seems pretty arbitrary - I mean,
: > when _was_ TMN written? At a guess, it's one of the more recent books in
: > the series; but it would be ridiculous to put it after _The Last
: > Battle_, even if that happened to be the 'actual' ordering. (I shouldn't
: > think that's the case, but you get the idea.)
: I think the order of writing is *not* arbitrary. (As I said, I try to
: always read books in the order they were written.)
: It would be ridiculous to read _The Last Battle_ anywhere but last, but
: this is because it is a final book both chronologically and emotionally. I
: don't think it would have been *possible* for Lewis to write that book
: first. The development of a work just doesn't work that way. (Yeah, I'm
: generalizing from my own experience. You got a problem?)
I agree.
And, now, to pull this back to IF,...
One thing you can lose in a work of IF is order. Just because I know it,
let's take Edifice as an example.
As it happens, I wrote the three levels in order. If the player plays
through them in order, they experience the work the same way I wrote
it--the first level as the first flush of coding, the second as I
developed my skills, and the third as I ran out of time ;-)
(actually, with the 2-hour time limit, this pattern was probably rehashed
almost precisely in a wide sample of the population.)
But, of course, the player can play them in any old order. And this
changes their experience in a way that it is very hard for me, as the
author, to predict. I could have forced the player to play through them
in order, of course, but that would have been disastrous, I think.
However, in this medium I think it's my duty as a game designer to think
about these things, and try to predict people's experiences anyway.
Actually, as a writer of a series of books, I would probably have a
similar duty, particularly if I was writing a prequel. You have to assume
that some people are going to read them in chronological order.
-Lucian
Second April
> > What was your problem with it? In my opinion, "The Last Battle" is by far the
> > weakest book of the series, but that has nothing to do with "The Magician's
> > Nephew."
>
> I'm not saying The Last Battle isn't worse, but I found The
> Magician's Nephew so horrendously boring, it took away any interest I had
> in reading the last book in the series.
It doesn't work quite as well as a story, admittedly; it functions more as
an explanation of the Narnia universe (and as Lewis' take on the fantasy
counterpart to the Biblical creation-fall story, I guess). If you go into
it expecting the sort of adventure story that "Silver Chair" and "Horse
and his Boy" were, it could be disappointing. I seemed to recall that I
liked it anyway, though. I _loved_ "Last Battle", though--more emotionally
wrenching than any of the others.
ObIF and odd coincidence: I was playing Jim MacBrayne's "The Mission"
recently and ran across a verse lifted almost verbatim from "Magician's
Nephew". ("Make the choice, adventurous stranger,/Ring the bell and bide
the danger,/Or wonder, till it drives you mad,/What would have happened if
you had." It's "pull the rope" in the MacBrayne game.) Oh well--I doubt
Lewis's executors are patrolling the freeware IF market.
Duncan Stevens
d-st...@nwu.edu
773-728-9721
The room is as you left it; your last touch--
A thoughtless pressure, knowing not itself
As saintly--hallows now each simple thing,
Hallows and glorifies, and glows between
The dust's gray fingers, like a shielded light.
--from "Interim," by Edna St. Vincent Millay
Matthew Garrett
> Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
> started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
> had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
When they were reissued several years ago in the UK, someone thought
that it would be a good idea to put a number in the spine of every
book. Fine, except that for some reason they chose to put 1 on The
Magician's Nephew. I seem to remember thinking that the numbering of
The Horse and his Boy was odd as well, but I can't really remember
that far back. For some reason, it annoyed me immensely at the time. I
think I was 10.
--
Matthew Garrett | ca...@enterprise.net
The Campaign for Fair Games -
http://homepages.enterprise.net/cavan/fairgames/
Giles Boutel
Mark J Musante <olo...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<ExwoG...@world.std.com>...
> Jonadab the Unsightly One (jon...@zerospam.com) wrote:
> > IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
> > reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
>
> This is a troll, right? You can't be serious. Reading The
> Magician's Nephew first would ruin the series.
>
Maybe the first time you read the series. After that, though, its fun to
read through the history of Narnia from beginning to end. Well, that's the
way I'd do it when at home with the flu
-Giles
Darin Johnson
> If C.S. Lewis wanted the books READ in that order,
> he would have WRITTEN them in that order.
That's very debateable. That assumes he had plots worked out to all
the books first. If the first book had never sold well, he may never
have even had ideas for the other books.
For instance, in the (hard to find) Marches of Antan books by
James Cabell, I believe the author actually suggested a reading
order that was not the same as the publication order.
But of course, CS Lewis never publicly said to read the books in a
different order, even though he knew the common order that people read
them. So it's moot.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Darin Johnson
> It doesn't work quite as well as a story, admittedly; it functions more as
> an explanation of the Narnia universe (and as Lewis' take on the fantasy
> counterpart to the Biblical creation-fall story, I guess).
Personally, I'll stick my neck out and stand alone here, I liked the
Magician's Nephew, but I haven't read it for awhile. There are images
in it that really stuck with me. But then, images aren't plots.
Hmm. I'd love to do a Narnia IF; except that the CS Lewis estate
still has copyrights, and the players will be unforgiving. (hmm,
maybe if you make the themes of forgiveness strong...).
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Julian Fleetwood
>Matthew Murray wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Mark J Musante wrote:
>>
>> > Jonadab the Unsightly One (jon...@zerospam.com) wrote:
>> > > IMO it is worthwhile to read _The Magician's Nephew_ before*
>> > > reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
>> >
>> > This is a troll, right? You can't be serious. Reading The
>> > Magician's Nephew first would ruin the series.
>>
>> not want to read the rest of the series. (It's because of it I never
>> >have< read The Last Battle.)
>
>places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
>started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
>had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
Ur... My copy is the boxed 1972 Puffin Books edition. Actually I just
checked the edition list and it said it was first published in 1955 by The
Bodley Head. Good for him. (I'm wondering if he is any relation to the one
in Losing Your Grip).
--
Julian Fleetwood (http://surf.to/free4all) | G!>GCS d-- s+:- a16 C+(++) p? L
E-W++ N++
IF: http://www.tip.net.au/~mfleetwo/if/index.htm | o K- w++ O M+ !V PS PE Y+
G e h! PGP-
CBG: http://www.tip.net.au/~mfleetwo/cbg/index.htm | t+ X+++ R(+) tv b+(++)
DI+ D++ r y?
Julian Fleetwood
>> > the order they were written. That way you see in-jokes as they're
added,
>> > and references to earlier games make sense, etc.
>
>> I can think of one exception.
>
>> reading _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_.
>
Absolutely not!
Adam J. Thornton
Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net.removethis> wrote:
>Personally, I'll stick my neck out and stand alone here, I liked the
>Magician's Nephew, but I haven't read it for awhile. There are images
>in it that really stuck with me. But then, images aren't plots.
Some of you probably know the Duke campus.
You know, if you're standing at the top of the garden, there are all these
terraces, and flowers, and funny-shaped trees. And pools.
I was walking there this summer with Amy and Michael. And we all kinda
looked at each other. And then I said "The Magician's Nephew," and
everybody nodded. It was neat.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"There's a border to somewhere waiting, and a tank full of time." - J. Steinman
Paul Francis Gilbert
>Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
>places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
>started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
>had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
>True story, except for the tranquilizing part, and the busting-up part,
>and, unfortunately, the girlfriend part.
> Jon
I've got it (well, our family has). And what's wrong with that? The
Magician's Nephew does happen *chronologically* in the Narnia universe
before the Lion the WItch and the Wardrobe... after all, it was the
rings being buried around the tree which was later made into a
wardrobe that gave it the ability to transport them to Narnia.
Patrick M. Berry
> When they were reissued several years ago in the UK, someone thought
> that it would be a good idea to put a number in the spine of every
> book. Fine, except that for some reason they chose to put 1 on The
> Magician's Nephew. I seem to remember thinking that the numbering of
> The Horse and his Boy was odd as well, but I can't really remember
> that far back. For some reason, it annoyed me immensely at the time. I
> think I was 10.
It's impossible to number the Narnia books in their order of occurrence,
because "The Horse and his Boy" takes place *during* "The Lion, the Witch,
and the Wardrobe."
Patrick M. Berry
> I'm not saying The Last Battle isn't worse, but I found The
> Magician's Nephew so horrendously boring, it took away any interest I had
> in reading the last book in the series.
A matter of taste, I guess. I enjoyed it because it finally answered some
questions that had been nagging me all along, such as "Who was the White
Witch, anyway?", "Why is there a lamppost in the middle of a forest?",
and "What's the deal with Professor Kirke and the wardrobe?" Readers
who prefer to have some questions remain unanswered would, I expect, like
it less than I did.
Patrick M. Berry
> Hang on - it _is_ a prequel to the other books. There was definitely a
> mention of this in the introduction - I can't remember whether Lewis
> actually hinted that it should be read first or not. You can't assume
> that the whole series followed a fixed plan all the way through: Lewis
> probably didn't have _The Magician's Nephew_ in mind when he wrote _The
> Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_; it's conceivable that he really did
> intend it as a true prequel, to be read before all the others.
When Lewis wrote "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," he had no
intention of writing *any* other Narnia books. "Lion" was supposed
to stand on its own (and does so reasonably well). But readers wanted
more, and Lewis eventually obliged them. He wrote the books in the
order in which the ideas occurred to him. If he had followed the
example of his buddy Tolkien and spent decades working out the whole
story first, he probably would have written the books in a different
order.
Matthew Murray
> I've got it (well, our family has). And what's wrong with that? The
> Magician's Nephew does happen *chronologically* in the Narnia universe
> before the Lion the WItch and the Wardrobe... after all, it was the
> rings being buried around the tree which was later made into a
> wardrobe that gave it the ability to transport them to Narnia.
Yes, but chronologically, Zork Zero happens first in the Zork
series. Does that mean one should play it first? Of course not!
Andrew Plotkin
> When Lewis wrote "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," he had no
> intention of writing *any* other Narnia books. "Lion" was supposed
> to stand on its own (and does so reasonably well). But readers wanted
> more, and Lewis eventually obliged them. He wrote the books in the
> order in which the ideas occurred to him. If he had followed the
> example of his buddy Tolkien and spent decades working out the whole
> story first, he probably would have written the books in a different
> order.
And they would have been different, and I probably would still say they
should be read in the order they were written.
Mo
> Okay... First of all, you're missing a few important chapters.
> Enchanter, Sorcerer, and Spellbreaker are >vital< entries in the series.
> Don't ignore them. You need to play them as well to get the full
> picture. I also highly recommend Wishbringer as well--it will help you
> understand the other games better.
I agree. However, if you want to include all of the Activision games, this is
the complete list (I hope):
1. Zork I
2. Zork II
3. Zork III
4. Enchanter
5. Sorcerer
6. Wishbringer
7. Spellbreaker
8. Beyond Zork
9. Zork Zero
10. Return to Zork
11. Zork Nemesis
12. Zork: Undiscovered Underground
13. Grand Inquisitor
Someone mentioned that the games Planetfall, Stationfall and Starcross also
take place in the Zork universe because the have "grues", but since they don't
have *any* relation to the Zork series, I wouldn't include them in this list.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Mo | m...@freepage.de |
| Matthias Oborski | Bonn, Germany |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew T. Russotto
Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote:
}In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98081...@titan.cc.wwu.edu>, Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> writes:
}
}> I'm not saying The Last Battle isn't worse, but I found The
}> Magician's Nephew so horrendously boring, it took away any interest I had
}> in reading the last book in the series.
}
}A matter of taste, I guess. I enjoyed it because it finally answered some
}questions that had been nagging me all along, such as "Who was the White
}Witch, anyway?", "Why is there a lamppost in the middle of a forest?",
Tangent time:
In real life, head down to the Liberty Reservoir NW of Baltimore, and
you'll find "No Parking" and other signs posted on various trees in
the forest. They're a few feet above the normal level for such signs.
And they were not put there by jokesters or anything like that.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Jason Compton
: 6. Wishbringer
: Someone mentioned that the games Planetfall, Stationfall and Starcross also
: take place in the Zork universe because the have "grues", but since they don't
: have *any* relation to the Zork series, I wouldn't include them in this list.
All Wishbringer has is grues and the mailbox. That's pretty close to
being as tenuous of a link.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Editor-in-Chief, Amiga Report Magazine VP, Legacy Maker Inc.
http://www.cucug.org/ar/ http://www.xnet.com/~jcompton/
John Francis
Jason Compton <jcom...@xnet.com> wrote:
>Mo <m...@freepage.de> wrote:
>: 6. Wishbringer
>
>: Someone mentioned that the games Planetfall, Stationfall and Starcross also
>: take place in the Zork universe because the have "grues", but since they don't
>: have *any* relation to the Zork series, I wouldn't include them in this list.
>
>All Wishbringer has is grues and the mailbox. That's pretty close to
>being as tenuous of a link.
Well, that and the fact that its game ID is IZ0.
IZ1-3 are Zork I-III, IZ4-6 are the Enchanter trilogy.
That suggests to me that Infocom thought Wishbringer was a Zork game.
--
John Francis jfra...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)933-4692 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die.
Matthew Murray
> >All Wishbringer has is grues and the mailbox. That's pretty close to
> >being as tenuous of a link.
>
> Well, that and the fact that its game ID is IZ0.
> IZ1-3 are Zork I-III, IZ4-6 are the Enchanter trilogy.
>
> That suggests to me that Infocom thought Wishbringer was a Zork game.
Yeah, but for that matter, Trinity's is IZ7. ;)
(By the way, I agree that Wishbringer >should< be considered part
of the series--don't get the wrong impression!)
Matthew Murray
> Mo <m...@freepage.de> wrote:
> : 6. Wishbringer
>
> : Someone mentioned that the games Planetfall, Stationfall and Starcross also
> : take place in the Zork universe because the have "grues", but since they don't
> : have *any* relation to the Zork series, I wouldn't include them in this list.
>
> All Wishbringer has is grues and the mailbox. That's pretty close to
> being as tenuous of a link.
Um, it also has Antharia, the White House, and Y'Gael. I don't
know if I would consider THOSE tenuous links!
Mo
> Well, that and the fact that its game ID is IZ0.
> IZ1-3 are Zork I-III, IZ4-6 are the Enchanter trilogy.
>
> That suggests to me that Infocom thought Wishbringer was a Zork game.
Yes. But then again, why is the ID of Trinity IZ7 ? I suppose "IZ" means
something like "Interactive Zork series", but Trinity doesn't really fit in.
BTW, Wishbringer is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Frobozzica
(http://speedracer.nmsu.edu/~jholder/frobozz/frobttl.html) and in the
Chronology of Quendor (http://home.eclipse.net/~lionheart/quendor/ ), so I'm
not the only one who thinks Wishbringer is part of the Zork universe.
Anyway, it's not really *that* important, is it? :-)
Graham Nelson
<URL:mailto:ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote:
>
> When Lewis wrote "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," he had no
> intention of writing *any* other Narnia books. "Lion" was supposed
> to stand on its own (and does so reasonably well). But readers wanted
> more, and Lewis eventually obliged them. He wrote the books in the
> order in which the ideas occurred to him. If he had followed the
> example of his buddy Tolkien and spent decades working out the whole
> story first, he probably would have written the books in a different
> order.
They're easily the most careless works he ever wrote, and Lewis
was far from being a careful writer at the best of times, even of
academic work ("The Structure of Complex Words" is pretty much
ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
written children's books achieving such popularity...
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Graham Nelson
<URL:mailto:russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
> }
> }A matter of taste, I guess. I enjoyed it because it finally answered some
> }questions that had been nagging me all along, such as "Who was the White
> }Witch, anyway?", "Why is there a lamppost in the middle of a forest?",
>
> Tangent time:
>
> In real life, head down to the Liberty Reservoir NW of Baltimore, and
> you'll find "No Parking" and other signs posted on various trees in
> the forest. They're a few feet above the normal level for such signs.
> And they were not put there by jokesters or anything like that.
Tangent bundle time:
My guess is that Lewis's lamppost is based on an incongruous
lamppost at the top of the vaulted stairs going into the hall
of Keble College, Oxford. It is an extremely out of place object
in what is already a strange architectural experience -- neither
indoors, nor outdoors, somehow.
(Lewis spent his life as an Oxford don, so this is not as
improbable as it might sound. Keble has traditional links with
the Anglican church, too.)
Mark J Musante
> ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
> written children's books achieving such popularity...
Barrie's "Peter Pan" springs to mind.
-=- Mark -=-
Arcum Dagsson
> In article <ant202136313M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>, Graham Nelson
> <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >They're easily the most careless works he ever wrote, and Lewis
> >was far from being a careful writer at the best of times, even of
> >academic work ("The Structure of Complex Words" is pretty much
> >ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
> >written children's books achieving such popularity...
>
> I couldn't stand them as a child (later as a teenager). Forget which ones I
> tried, but I could never get into them (the first two he wrote, I think). Not
> to mention being hit over the head with his not very hidden religious beliefs.
>
> Doe :-) A minority opinion, obviously.
>
> Give me the Oz series (what are there about 15? I have 10 anyway, 4 original,
> well original to the 1900's, published 1907, etc.) for real creativity. L.
> Frank Baum had an incredible imagination. (Wonder if he did drugs?) Hehehe.
Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it caught on as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started a fantasy series based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold is ounces. Whats a yellow brick. Now this was written back in the debate about gold standard vs sliver, etc...
Follow the gold standard, anyone? A bunch of other alligorical stuff in the book got removed from the movie, too..)
--Arcum Dagsson
--Arcum Dagsson
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse
the darkness."
--Terry Pratchett
"Men At Arms"
Jason M Tucker
I myself felt anger when I saw the new boxed set. I still have my old
version, which I received for Christmas in 1980 or 81; I guess I'll keep
that for awhile longer. IMO, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is the
"introductory" novel for the Narnia stories, in much the same way Zork 1
or Wishbringer were the "introductory" IFs. You don't have to read it
or play them first, but they definitely set a certain tone and atmosphere
for all that came after them. I think that the Magician's Nephew is
actually a bit advanced a read than LWW, and might scare younger readers
off from the series.
Interestingly enough, I read LWW after I had read the rest of the series.
I first found out about the books from seeing the animated version of LWW,
and foolish boy that I was, figured that I may as well skip reading that
one, since I had seen the movie.
To pull this back on topic, definitely play the Zorks in the order they
were published. You'll enjoy the later ones much more that way.
Jason
P.S. If anyone actually believes that George Lucas knew that Luke and
Leia were gonna be brothers and sisters when he wrote Star Wars, I'd like
to show them some prime real estate in the Florida Everglades.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Jason Marc Tucker University of Minnesota
P.O.Box 13226
Minneapolis, MN 55414
pager: (612) 818-3555
e-mail: tuck...@tc.umn.edu IRC nick: TikiBoy
Web: http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m010/tuck0052
______________________________________________________________________________
Jason M Tucker
: Graham Nelson (gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
: > written children's books achieving such popularity...
: Barrie's "Peter Pan" springs to mind.
Eeagh!! You're treading on my childhood! What do you mean when you say
badly written? I read them as a child, so I may look at them differently
if I read them today (ohmigod! I just referred to myself as an
adult--what's come over me?). Just so long as you don't start bashin "The
Wind in the Willows", I'll be okay.
Doeadeer3
<gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> writes:
>They're easily the most careless works he ever wrote, and Lewis
>was far from being a careful writer at the best of times, even of
>academic work ("The Structure of Complex Words" is pretty much
>ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
>written children's books achieving such popularity...
I couldn't stand them as a child (later as a teenager). Forget which ones I
tried, but I could never get into them (the first two he wrote, I think). Not
to mention being hit over the head with his not very hidden religious beliefs.
Doe :-) A minority opinion, obviously.
Give me the Oz series (what are there about 15? I have 10 anyway, 4 original,
well original to the 1900's, published 1907, etc.) for real creativity. L.
Frank Baum had an incredible imagination. (Wonder if he did drugs?) Hehehe.
Doe doea...@aol.com (formerly known as FemaleDeer)
****************************************************************************
"In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane." Mark Twain
Doeadeer3
Arcum_...@green.eggs.and.spam.at.hotmail.dot.com (Arcum Dagsson) writes:
>Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it caught on
>as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started a fantasy series
>based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold is ounces. Whats a
>yellow brick. Now this was written back in the debate about gold standard vs
>sliver, etc...
>Follow the gold standard, anyone? A bunch of other alligorical stuff in the
>book got removed from the movie, too..)
>--Arcum Dagsson
>
Personally, I've always disputed that opinion. I think he SET out to write
children's books from the beginning.
But I have never read a good biography on him. I do think, though, that English
classes in college sometimes (I know art history classes do, as well)
overanalyize an artist's work. Often an artist meant what they meant, nothing
else.
I am probably *completely* wrong.
Doe :-)
Arcum Dagsson
> In article <Arcum_Dagsson-2...@ip159.las-vegas.nv.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> Arcum_...@green.eggs.and.spam.at.hotmail.dot.com (Arcum Dagsson) writes:
>
> >Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it caught on
> >as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started a fantasy series
> >based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold is ounces. Whats a
> >yellow brick. Now this was written back in the debate about gold standard vs
> >sliver, etc...
> >Follow the gold standard, anyone? A bunch of other alligorical stuff in the
> >book got removed from the movie, too..)
> >--Arcum Dagsson
> >
>
> Personally, I've always disputed that opinion. I think he SET out to write
> children's books from the beginning.
>
> But I have never read a good biography on him. I do think, though, that English
> classes in college sometimes (I know art history classes do, as well)
> overanalyize an artist's work. Often an artist meant what they meant, nothing
> else.
>
> I am probably *completely* wrong.
>
> Doe :-)
I found this out from a very interesting history class I had, and later spotted some info on it in a book (plus I went back and read the book, specifically to note the diffs between it and the movie)
In the book, before you go into the Emerald City, you have a pair of glasses locked on to you before you enter it, that are supposedly to reduce the glare, but turn out to be green tinted... In other words, in order to enter the Emerald City you have to see green. And if the Emerald City is the White House, the Wizard would be the President...
This shouldn't be taken to detract from the OZ books... They were very creative, and deserved the attention...
Incidentally, project gutenburg made a couple of the OZ books available on the net... a search should turn them up...
Darin Johnson
> I quite agree. As a young child I remember finding the opening to Lion
> the Witch and the Wardrobe to be rather interesting - the whole exciting
> fantasy of going from a wardrobe into a mysterious forest.
I had no idea what a wardrobe was at the time. Sure, people explained
it to me, but I had never seen one in real life. I sort of thought
all wardrobes were supposed to be magical.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Darin Johnson
> Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it
> caught on as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started
> a fantasy series based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold
> is ounces. Whats a yellow brick. Now this was written back in the
> debate about gold standard vs sliver, etc...
As I heard it, he was telling the story to children first, then set
out to write it down. The name Oz came because he needed a name and
was looking around, and saw the O-Z volume of a dictionary. As I
heard it anyway, from several sources. Never heard the political
angle before.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Matthew Murray
> As I heard it, he was telling the story to children first, then set
> out to write it down. The name Oz came because he needed a name and
> was looking around, and saw the O-Z volume of a dictionary. As I
> heard it anyway, from several sources. Never heard the political
> angle before.
There was a TV movie about L. Frank Baum's life (starring John
Ritter, of all people) that aired quite a few years ago. In the movie, he
came up with the name by looking at an O-Z file cabinet.
Arcum Dagsson
> Arcum_...@green.eggs.and.spam.at.hotmail.dot.com (Arcum Dagsson) writes:
>
> > Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it
> > caught on as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started
> > a fantasy series based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold
> > is ounces. Whats a yellow brick. Now this was written back in the
> > debate about gold standard vs sliver, etc...
>
> As I heard it, he was telling the story to children first, then set
> out to write it down. The name Oz came because he needed a name and
> was looking around, and saw the O-Z volume of a dictionary. As I
> heard it anyway, from several sources. Never heard the political
> angle before.
>
> --
> Darin Johnson
> da...@usa.net.delete_me
Well, here's a paper about it...
http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm
and another that refers to the first:
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/dbj5/oz.html
There are also assorted papers about OZ at this address...
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/6188/oz-critics.html
And, yes, the official estate(IIRC) claims thats how he got the name...
Adam J. Thornton
Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net.removethis> wrote:
>I sort of thought all wardrobes were supposed to be magical.
You mean they aren't?
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"There's a border to somewhere waiting, and a tank full of time." - J. Steinman
Adam Atkinson
[re Narnia]
>It's hard to think of comparably badly
>written children's books achieving such popularity...
Enid Blyton? Arthur Ransome (ok, personal antipathy may be clouding
my judgement here)? Goosebumps books?
Narnia of course seems to have achieved both popularity and
respectability. Can't see Goosebumps or Blyton ever being respectable,
though I fear Swallows and bloody Amazons probably are.
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
XYZZY
Adam Atkinson
>Not
>to mention being hit over the head with his not very hidden religious
>beliefs.
Ah, but the religious references were so obvious that you could filter
them out, just like adverts. Or like the romantic scenes in E.E. "Doc"
Smith books.
Doeadeer3
Arcum_...@green.eggs.and.spam.at.hotmail.dot.com (Arcum Dagsson) writes:
>> As I heard it, he was telling the story to children first, then set
>> out to write it down. The name Oz came because he needed a name and
>> was looking around, and saw the O-Z volume of a dictionary. As I
>> heard it anyway, from several sources. Never heard the political
>> angle before.
IMO, this political angle is revisionist history. Probably some academic wrote
a paper on it and it became "conventional wisdom" among academics. Symbolism,
is often open to interpretation. And the Oz books are rich in symbolism.
A summary from the intro to my copy of "Wizard of Oz". L. Frank Baum wrote
over 50 books, most for children. The Wizard of Oz was not his first pulished
children's story. He was greatly influenced by fairy tales as a child. He
wanted to write American fairy tales, become the U.S.'s Brothers Grim. His aim
was to give them an American "tone" and make them less frightening as well. He
kept trying to do this, but his American fairy tales were not a success (sorry,
I have no titles for these -- in the opinion of the author of the intro, they
were pretty bad). But Oz was an instant hit. He resented that Oz succeeded more
than his fairy tales (which is why he kept trying to end the series) and
resented the pressure from his fans to write more. But he gave in and turned
out about 1 Oz book a year until his death.
Many of the following Oz works, IMO, are as good as or better than the Wizard.
(Though a few were sort of uninspired, it is still amazing how he kept up the
quality for most of the series.)
He also wrote two plays, "The Maid of Arran" and "The Queen of Killarny."
Jason Compton
: IMO, this political angle is revisionist history. Probably some academic wrote
: a paper on it and it became "conventional wisdom" among academics. Symbolism,
: is often open to interpretation. And the Oz books are rich in symbolism.
So why is it so unlikely that it was political symbolism? (BTW, I have
read one of the papers that puts the Wizard of Oz in its gold standard
framework and I find it a very compelling argument. They talk about
Baum's involvement and known views, they're not just making this stuff
up.)
Doeadeer3
writes:
>So why is it so unlikely that it was political symbolism? (BTW, I have
>read one of the papers that puts the Wizard of Oz in its gold standard
>framework and I find it a very compelling argument. They talk about
>Baum's involvement and known views, they're not just making this stuff
>up.)
No, my real argument is with the contention that he didn't INTEND to write a
children's book. There is nothing to say that current political events didn't
work their way into his work, either by virtue of his subconscious or by
deliberate intent. (I would tend toward subconscious idea, though.)
However, ALL his works are rich in symbolism. So if one were to really argue
the failed political allegory idea, then all his books need to be
reinterpreted. (They are plenty of things in other books that could be
statements about social "classes", criticism of certian forms of government,
bureaucracy, etc.)
I feel saying he was TRYING to do something other than he did, write a series
of great children's fantasies, is to: detract from what he did and imply what
he did was not "serious" or good enough in its own right.
Of course, people aren't making it up. Symbolism is like that. Interpretation
is very much "in the eye of the beholder". (Besides, someone had to have come
up with this interpretation, so people are quoting someone, even if they don't
who.)
Doe :-) Funny this discussion wasn't around when my parents read Oz.
Is the honey in Pooh, really capitalism? Hehehe.
Arcum Dagsson
> In article <6rpq86$2lj$1...@flood.xnet.com>, Jason Compton <jcom...@xnet.com>
> writes:
>
> >So why is it so unlikely that it was political symbolism? (BTW, I have
> >read one of the papers that puts the Wizard of Oz in its gold standard
> >framework and I find it a very compelling argument. They talk about
> >Baum's involvement and known views, they're not just making this stuff
> >up.)
>
> No, my real argument is with the contention that he didn't INTEND to write a
> children's book. There is nothing to say that current political events didn't
> work their way into his work, either by virtue of his subconscious or by
> deliberate intent. (I would tend toward subconscious idea, though.)
Actually, if you'll read that first paper, he believes Baum wrote it as a childrens book first, and a political allegory second, and then dropped the political angle on the subsequent books...
So, its not so much that he didn't intend to write a childrens book, but that he wrote it as a childrens book, AND political allegory...
(I admit I was a little fuzzy on this area of it 'till I read that paper that I posted the address to recently, since I was going off memories of what my history teacher told me a couple years back...)
If you go to this page, and page down to L Frank Baum, you'll find 8 OZ books online, including the one under discussion...(plus other cool books by people such as Samuel Clemens...)
http://library.tcu.edu/www/staff/dodom/fulltext.htm
Also, the article I was referring to is here, if you didn't get the link the first time...
http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm
Patrick M. Berry
> This is a troll, right? You can't be serious. Reading The
> Magician's Nephew first would ruin the series.
How so?
Patrick M. Berry
> Indeed. For the same reason why you wouldn't play Zork Zero before the rest
> of the trilogy, and why ten years from now you wouldn't watch chapters one,
> two and three of the Star Wars saga before chapters four, five and six.
>
> They're written that way for a reason: because sometimes you have to
> understand the end of something before you can attempt to explain the
> beginning. This is often counterintuitive, but true.
Yes, but "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" isn't the end of anything.
Patrick M. Berry
> Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> places The Magician's Nephew first in the series? I was so mad I
> started ranting and raving at my girlfriend, and Barnes & Noble security
> had to tranquilize me before I busted up the place.
>
> True story, except for the tranquilizing part, and the busting-up part,
> and, unfortunately, the girlfriend part.
I hope you're joking. What would have been the point of harassing the
B&N employees about it? They didn't publish the boxed set.
Patrick M. Berry
> It just makes me mad because the publishers of that series are so
> presumptious as to think they know what is better for the reader than the
> author of the series. If C.S. Lewis wanted the books READ in that order,
> he would have WRITTEN them in that order.
You seem to think that Lewis planned out the entire Narnia series before he
wrote any of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. If he had
done so, the order of the series might well be different.
> Publish them in the right order, and then let people choose
> to read them in whichever order they choose.
How are people who haven't read the books yet supposed to decide what
order to read them in? They don't know anything about them.
> That way, the >reader< is
> the one making the stupid decision, and they are not having the stupid
> decision made >for< them.
But isn't that exactly what you're doing? You've decided what the "right"
order is, and you want to make readers read them that way. But you have no
more right to make that decision for them than the publisher does.
The fact that Lewis wrote the books in a particular order does not mean
that he necessarily intended them to be read in that order. Did he ever
express an opinion on the subject? I don't recall hearing of one, but
that doesn't mean he didn't.
Patrick M. Berry
> Graham Nelson (gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > written children's books achieving such popularity...
>
Or the whole A.A. Milne "Winnie the Pooh" series. Reading those books is
like drowning in saccharin.
Patrick M. Berry
> And what's wrong with that? The
> Magician's Nephew does happen *chronologically* in the Narnia universe
> before the Lion the WItch and the Wardrobe... after all, it was the
> rings being buried around the tree which was later made into a
> wardrobe that gave it the ability to transport them to Narnia.
Did Lewis actually say that? I got the clear impression that it was
because the tree grew from Narnian seeds . . . that's why its branches
moved when it was windy in Narnia, even if the air was still in England.
The rings may have had nothing to do with it; the method of transporting
them to Narnia was entirely different (it didn't involve the Wood Between
the Worlds), and the series shows numerous other way in and out of Narnia
that aren't connected to the rings.
Patrick M. Berry
>
> My guess is that Lewis's lamppost is based on an incongruous
> lamppost at the top of the vaulted stairs going into the hall
> of Keble College, Oxford. It is an extremely out of place object
> in what is already a strange architectural experience -- neither
> indoors, nor outdoors, somehow.
I'm no expert on Lewis, but I seem to recall that he said Narnia
originated as a series of mental images that just sort of popped into
his head, apropos of nothing. A faun in the snow, carrying a stack of
packages and an umbrella, was one of these. A lamppost in the forest
may have been another one.
But I was referring to the origins of the lamppost *within* the story.
T.J.A. Thurman
> >Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> >places The Magician's Nephew first in the series?
> I've got it (well, our family has). And what's wrong with that? The
> Magician's Nephew does happen *chronologically* in the Narnia universe
> before the Lion the WItch and the Wardrobe... after all, it was the
> rings being buried around the tree which was later made into a
> wardrobe that gave it the ability to transport them to Narnia.
ISTR hearing that the "standard" publication sequence varies by country.
[BTW, the simplest proof that TMN comes first chronologically, whatever
happened in our world, is that Narnia is created in TMN. :^) Naturally
that doesn't say anything about which order they should be read in the
first time-- and it's not the sort of thing you can easily change
afterwards...]
Thomas
--
Thomas Thurman, Sidney Sussex College, | "This is the Worksop High Road,
Cambridge. CB2 3HU | tj...@cam.ac.uk | not Sesame Street!"
http://www.sid.cam.ac.uk/~tjat2/ | ><> | -- MMMM, "Driving Ambition"
J. Robinson Wheeler
> Matthew Murray wrote:
> > Jon Petersen wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> > > places The Magician's Nephew first in the series?
> > presumptious as to think they know what is better for the reader than the
> > author of the series. If C.S. Lewis wanted the books READ in that order,
> > he would have WRITTEN them in that order.
> Hang on - it _is_ a prequel to the other books. There was definitely a
> mention of this in the introduction - I can't remember whether Lewis
> actually hinted that it should be read first or not.
From same:
"The HarperCollins editions of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA have been
renumbered in compliance with the original wishes of the author,
C.S.Lewis. This is the first time the series has appeared in this
order in the United States."
> Using the order of writing as a guide seems pretty arbitrary - I mean,
> when _was_ TMN written? At a guess, it's one of the more recent books in
> the series; but it would be ridiculous to put it after _The Last
> Battle_, even if that happened to be the 'actual' ordering. (I shouldn't
> think that's the case, but you get the idea.)
1950 Lion, Witch; '51 Prince Caspian; '52 Dawn Treader; '53 Silver Chair;
'54 Horse & His Boy; '55 Magician's Nephew; '56 Last Battle.
Graham Nelson (gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> They're easily the most careless works he ever wrote, and Lewis
> was far from being a careful writer at the best of times, even of
> academic work ("The Structure of Complex Words" is pretty much
> ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
> written children's books achieving such popularity...
Gee, I read them for the first time only recently, and I thought
they were kind of evocative and fun. I can see what you mean by
careless, though, I suppose.
--
J. Robinson Wheeler
whe...@jump.net http://www.jump.net/~wheeler/jrw/home.html
Second April
>
> They're easily the most careless works he ever wrote, and Lewis
> was far from being a careful writer at the best of times, even of
> academic work ("The Structure of Complex Words" is pretty much
> ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
> written children's books achieving such popularity...
*snort* Oh, come on. Try Sweet Valley High, R.L. Stine...even other
canonical children's writers (like Madeleine L'Engle, say) aren't great
writers by adult standards. Sure, the Narnia books are sentimental at
times, and the tone varies a bit, and occasionally it seems like he
forgets about paragraphs. But they're certainly no worse than the general
run of children's books, and, compared with the current state of the
genre, I don't think they look so bad at all. They had a terrific sense of
atmosphere--reread the Underworld section of "Silver Chair"--characters
that were far from interchangeable, and plots with resonance beyond "brave
kids go do something".
As for the Oz books--well, after the first one or two, as I recall, they
got painfully formulaic. Plucky/cute characters go adventuring, get put in
danger by local malign force, get rescued by other plucky/cute characters.
(Yes, I read some of them, but I was 6.) There was a whole lot more depth
to the Narnia series (of course, Lewis didn't drag the series out over
20-plus books), and the characters were a whole lot more real.
Duncan Stevens
d-st...@nwu.edu
773-728-9721
The room is as you left it; your last touch--
A thoughtless pressure, knowing not itself
As saintly--hallows now each simple thing,
Hallows and glorifies, and glows between
The dust's gray fingers, like a shielded light.
--from "Interim," by Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sheldon Nylander
Whatever happened to that new Narnia book/series that was being written? I heard about it nearly a year
ago, but haven't heard anything since.
--
Dalboz Dragon
<<UDIC>>
ICQ: 14285834
--------------
d+++ e-- N+ T- Om+ U147 u- uC+ uF++ uG++ uLB+ uA++++ nC+ nH+ nI++ nPT nS+ nT+ oA+++ y a20
--------------
"It fits in a post-redereconstructionalist/surrealist sort of way." - Cat
Sheldon Nylander
> In article <ant202159f7fM+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>, Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > My guess is that Lewis's lamppost is based on an incongruous
> > lamppost at the top of the vaulted stairs going into the hall
> > of Keble College, Oxford. It is an extremely out of place object
> > in what is already a strange architectural experience -- neither
> > indoors, nor outdoors, somehow.
>
> I'm no expert on Lewis, but I seem to recall that he said Narnia
> originated as a series of mental images that just sort of popped into
> his head, apropos of nothing. A faun in the snow, carrying a stack of
> packages and an umbrella, was one of these. A lamppost in the forest
> may have been another one.
Whatever happened to that new Narnia book/series that was being written? I heard about it nearly a year
ago, but haven't heard anything since.
--
ICQ: 14285834
Doeadeer3
<Arcum_Dagsson-2...@ip106.las-vegas5.nevada.pub-ip.psi.net>,
Arcum_...@green.eggs.and.spam.at.hotmail.dot.com (Arcum Dagsson) writes:
>If you go to this page, and page down to L Frank Baum, you'll find 8 OZ books
>online, including the one under discussion...(plus other cool books by people
>such as Samuel Clemens...)
>http://library.tcu.edu/www/staff/dodom/fulltext.htm
>
>Also, the article I was referring to is here, if you didn't get the link the
>first time...
>http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm
>
>--Arcum Dagsson
>
>"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethro
Thanks for the url. Will visit sometime and argue (mentally) with the author.
Doe :-)
Jonathan Badger
>In article <Ey0sC...@world.std.com>, olo...@world.std.com (Mark J Musante) writes:
>> Graham Nelson (gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> > ad-hoc, for instance). It's hard to think of comparably badly
>> > written children's books achieving such popularity...
>>
>> Barrie's "Peter Pan" springs to mind.
>Or the whole A.A. Milne "Winnie the Pooh" series. Reading those books is
>like drowning in saccharin.
Suit yourself. Personally I think at least the first Winnie-the-Pooh
book (titled creatively enough "Winnie-the-Pooh") is one of those
books like "Alice in Wonderland" where every scene seems to have
insights applicable to real life. The chapter about the Heffalump in
particular is very good. I've re-read it many times.
Jonathan
Jonathan Badger
>forgets about paragraphs. But they're certainly no worse than the general
>run of children's books, and, compared with the current state of the
>genre, I don't think they look so bad at all. They had a terrific sense of
>atmosphere--reread the Underworld section of "Silver Chair"--characters
>that were far from interchangeable, and plots with resonance beyond "brave
>kids go do something".
Yes, that part of the "The Silver Chair" was better than the rest of
the Narnia books. However, the great atmosphere appears to stolen from
John Keats' poem "La Belle Dame Sans Merci". Not that stealing
atmosphere from English poets is in any way bad, of course (say from
T.S. Elliot...)
Jonathan
Adam J. Thornton
Jonathan Badger <bad...@aquarius.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Yes, that part of the "The Silver Chair" was better than the rest of
>the Narnia books. However, the great atmosphere appears to stolen from
>John Keats' poem "La Belle Dame Sans Merci". Not that stealing
>atmosphere from English poets is in any way bad, of course (say from
>T.S. Elliot...)
Of course, Eliot stole almost everything noteworthy in his oeuvre. He just
managed to recombine it in some rather striking ways. Not a creator, but a
marvellous synthetist (synthesist?).
Doeadeer3
(Jonathan Badger) writes:
>Suit yourself. Personally I think at least the first Winnie-the-Pooh
>book (titled creatively enough "Winnie-the-Pooh") is one of those
>books like "Alice in Wonderland" where every scene seems to have
>insights applicable to real life. The chapter about the Heffalump in
>particular is very good. I've re-read it many times.
Insights abound. They even inspired someone (sorry, not sure of author) to
write the "Tao of Pooh".
Julian Fleetwood
>In article <199808220447...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>> Give me the Oz series (what are there about 15? I have 10 anyway, 4
original,
>> well original to the 1900's, published 1907, etc.) for real creativity.
L.
>> Frank Baum had an incredible imagination. (Wonder if he did drugs?)
Hehehe.
>Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it caught
on as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started a fantasy
series based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold is ounces.
Whats a yellow brick. Now this was written back in the debate about gold
standard vs sliver, etc...
Nah! Its just a big add for Pink Floyd's Dark Site of the Moon, ya see,
Roger Waters went back in time...
>"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse
> the darkness."
>--Terry Pratchett
> "Men At Arms"
Nice quote (reading Sorcery at the moment) !
--
Julian Fleetwood (http://surf.to/free4all) | G!>GCS d-- s+:- a16 C+(++) p? L
E-W++ N++
IF: http://www.tip.net.au/~mfleetwo/if/index.htm | o K- w++ O M+ !V PS PE Y+
G e h! PGP-
CBG: http://www.tip.net.au/~mfleetwo/cbg/index.htm | t+ X+++ R(+) tv b+(++)
DI+ D++ r y?
Jonadab the Unsightly One
<fake-mail-220...@van-52-0244.direct.ca>...
> doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:
>
> > I couldn't stand them as a child (later as a teenager). Forget which
ones I
> > tried, but I could never get into them (the first two he wrote, I
think). Not
> > to mention being hit over the head with his not very hidden religious
beliefs.
> >
>
> I quite agree. As a young child I remember finding the opening to Lion
> the Witch and the Wardrobe to be rather interesting - the whole exciting
> fantasy of going from a wardrobe into a mysterious forest. But hearing
the
> series on the radio again as a teenager I was quite turned off by the
> heavy-handed proselytizing that's so self-evident in the book. Urgh.
>
> - Neil K.
>
Bigots.
Listen to yourselves. Humanists, Darwinists, Deists, and Muslims
can have Humanist, Darwinist, Deist, and Islamic literature (to name
but a few), but Christians cannot have Christian literature?
Yes, Lewis' works are highly symbolic. So what? So is (just
one example here) "By the Waters of Babylon". Do I complain
because the views it espouses are not Christian and therefore
are foreign to my worldview? No, I do not. In fact, I
rather like "By the Waters of Babylon", although I by no
means agree with all the views of the author. But it is a
good work of fiction nevertheless.
Same holds for Star Wars. The underlying philosophy is
antithetical to my worldview, but I enjoyed the movies --
saying quite a bit, because I am not much for movies. Do
I believe everything in them? No, I am not an animist or
a pantheist or an evolutionist.
But I enjoyed the stories anyway.
--
Dyslexic email address: ten.thgirb@badanoj
Doeadeer3
<jon...@zerospam.com> writes:
>Listen to yourselves. Humanists, Darwinists, Deists, and Muslims
>can have Humanist, Darwinist, Deist, and Islamic literature (to name
>but a few), but Christians cannot have Christian literature?
Agreed.
That wasn't the point. I don't really want to get into this, so I'll just say,
proselytizing is always annoying, no matter who does it. No matter whether it
is your own personal religious belief or not. No matter how nicely it is
dressed up.
IMHO.
Doe (Here's a real shocker, I hide when Jehovah's Witnesses ring the doorbell,
too.)
Michael Buck
: 1. Zork I
: 2. Zork II
: 3. Zork III
: 4. Enchanter
: 5. Sorcerer
: 6. Wishbringer
: 7. Spellbreaker
: 8. Beyond Zork
: 9. Zork Zero
: 10. Return to Zork
: 11. Zork Nemesis
: 12. Zork: Undiscovered Underground
: 13. Grand Inquisitor
Does anyone remember the difficulty ratings of the text adventures on
this list? (I.E. "Beginner","Standard","Intermediate","Advanced","Expert")
I know it used to be printed right on the front of the boxes when they
were sold separately long ago, but on my Masterpieces of Infocom set, I
don't seem to be able to find these rankings.
Michael Buck
mb...@ix.netcom.com
Weird Beard
standard
>: 2. Zork II
advanced
>: 3. Zork III
advanced
>: 4. Enchanter
standard
>: 5. Sorcerer
advanced
>: 6. Wishbringer
introductory
>: 7. Spellbreaker
expert
By the time of Beyond Zork, Infocom seems to have dropped their rating
system.
Patrick M. Berry
> In article <tvyww80...@cn1.connectnet.com>, Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net.removethis> wrote:
>
> > Arcum_...@green.eggs.and.spam.at.hotmail.dot.com (Arcum Dagsson) writes:
> >
> > > Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it
> > > caught on as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started
> > > a fantasy series based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold
> > > is ounces. Whats a yellow brick. Now this was written back in the
> > > debate about gold standard vs sliver, etc...
> >
> > out to write it down. The name Oz came because he needed a name and
> > was looking around, and saw the O-Z volume of a dictionary. As I
> > heard it anyway, from several sources. Never heard the political
> > angle before.
> >
> Well, here's a paper about it...
> http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm
Yes, the notorious Henry Littlefield paper that established the standard
political interpretation of Baum's work in 1964. There's only one problem
with it: nowhere does Littlefield say that he thinks this is actually what
Baum was writing about. Littlefield's paper is an allegorical
reinterpretation of "Oz," nothing more. He created it when he was teaching
high school history classes, as a teaching tool to help his students grasp
the concepts of turn-of-the-century American populism. That's all it was.
Littlefield freely admitted that "there is no basis in fact to consider
Baum a supporter of turn-of-the-century Populist ideology."
Unfortunately, the academics who seized on Littlefield's analogy paid
no attention to his caveat; they though he was serious. In spite of
the ample evidence that Baum's political leanings were anything but
populist, the lit-crit crowd have been pontificating about the hidden
political message of "Oz" for the last three decades. It's all pure hot
air. For an analysis of the history of this ivory-tower myth, read
David Parker's "The Rise and Fall of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a
`Parable on Populism'" at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6641/ozpopul.html
or
ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/t/tiktok/oz/parable.txt
> And, yes, the official estate (IIRC) claims thats how he got the name...
I see no reason to disbelieve them. I mean, isn't it a little odd that
no one even *noticed* the alleged political subtext until six decades
after Baum wrote the book? Things that are that hard to see aren't
subtle, they're invisible.
David Glasser
> > >Anyone else seen the Narnia boxed set in current release which actually
> > >places The Magician's Nephew first in the series?
It does more than that. It moves around Horse and His Boy, too, to the
second book.
--David Glasser
gla...@NOSPAMuscom.com | dgla...@NOSPAMfcs.pvt.k12.pa.us
http://onramp.uscom.com/~glasser | http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6028
DGlasser @ ifMUD : fovea.retina.net:4000 (webpage fovea.retina.net:4001)
Interactive Fiction! MST3K! David Eddings! Macintosh!
Allen Garvin
fake...@anti-spam.address (Neil K.) writes:
I quite agree. As a young child I remember finding the opening
to Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe to be rather interesting -
the whole exciting fantasy of going from a wardrobe into a
mysterious forest.
I had no idea what a wardrobe was at the time. Sure, people explained
it to me, but I had never seen one in real life. I sort of thought
all wardrobes were supposed to be magical.
My father had a wardrobe in his room when I was little, a giant hardwood
thing that went all the way to the ceiling. I used to crawl up inside it
of it and hide for long periods of time (a great place for hide-and-seek),
surrounded by my father's suits and shirts and the thick scent of his
cologne. So when I later read Lewis' books, I was instantly transported
back to that old wardrobe. I could easily imagine it leading someplace
secret and fay.
--
Allen Garvin I think I'll
--------------------------------------------- Let the mystery be
eare...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu
http://faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu/~earendil Iris Dement
Patrick M. Berry
>
> I couldn't stand them as a child (later as a teenager). Forget which ones I
> tried, but I could never get into them (the first two he wrote, I think). Not
> to mention being hit over the head with his not very hidden religious beliefs.
>
> Doe :-) A minority opinion, obviously.
Not really. Lewis set out to write a Christian allegory, and made no
attempt to hide the fact. If that's not your cup of tea, you won't like
the Narnia stories. Nothing wrong with that.
> Give me the Oz series (what are there about 15? I have 10 anyway, 4 original,
> well original to the 1900's, published 1907, etc.) for real creativity.
Baum wrote the first 14 Oz books. His publisher continued the series with
other authors, publishing a total of 40 Oz books. Since then, other authors
and publishers have continued producing sequels. For details, see the Oz
FAQ at http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ozfaq.html.
Den of Iniquity
>As I heard it, he was telling the story to children first, then set
>out to write it down. The name Oz came because he needed a name and
>was looking around, and saw the O-Z volume of a dictionary.
Cool! Just think - if he'd had the right encyclopaedia, Oz could have been
populated with Daleks!
--
Den
Darin Johnson
> *snort* Oh, come on. Try Sweet Valley High, R.L. Stine...even other
> canonical children's writers (like Madeleine L'Engle, say) aren't great
> writers by adult standards.
Of course not. Children's books are not the same as adult books.
Children don't care about the same things. Even adult books have
widely different types, and peole differ on what makes a good book.
Ie, some adults think that witty word play is very important, others
want complex braiding of plots, others think characterization is
prime. Some think even the worst Shakespeare is better than the best
Clancy.
Recently, there was a list of the 100 greatest English books produced
(by some university I think, can't recall). Many radio talk shows
I've heard have questioned the selection for a variety of reasons
(most were nonpolitical objections). Ie, I would hear things like
"why list that book so high up, it's vague and confusing", or "that
book is really dull when you look past the train of thought style".
So - children's books. Is characterization important? Probably not;
subtleties that make for a good adult book would be lost on children.
And even with broad strokes, a character that changes world view or
personality during the course of a story would confuse many children.
Is plotting important? Yes. Is visualization important? Yes, it's
probably one thing that really sets apart good children's books. Use
of language and word play will fall flat with most children, even with
teenagers probably. Complex and subtle motivations (revenge, desire
for power, or self loathing) won't be understood by a child.
For children's books, characters and plots have to be easy for them
understand.
To tell the truth, I suspect the books that get the highest praises as
good children's literature are those that also serve as good adult
literature. After all, it is the adults who do the judging and
praising.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Andrew Plotkin
> To tell the truth, I suspect the books that get the highest praises as
> good children's literature are those that also serve as good adult
> literature. After all, it is the adults who do the judging and
> praising.
You horrify me.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
David Glasser
> Bigots.
>
> Listen to yourselves. Humanists, Darwinists, Deists, and Muslims
> can have Humanist, Darwinist, Deist, and Islamic literature (to name
> but a few), but Christians cannot have Christian literature?
>
> Yes, Lewis' works are highly symbolic. So what? So is (just
> one example here) "By the Waters of Babylon". Do I complain
> because the views it espouses are not Christian and therefore
> are foreign to my worldview? No, I do not. In fact, I
> rather like "By the Waters of Babylon", although I by no
> means agree with all the views of the author. But it is a
> good work of fiction nevertheless.
The thing is, these days the Narnia books (though I don't know if this
was Lewis' intent) are generally thought of as "kid's books" and not
"kid's books preaching Christianity"; you get something unexpected. I
don't know if my parents (I'm Jewish) realized when I was reading them
that they were Christian literature. (Most likely, they wouldn't have
particularly minded, but still...)
Adam J. Thornton
Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net.removethis> wrote:
>Second April <dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
>> *snort* Oh, come on. Try Sweet Valley High, R.L. Stine...even other
>> canonical children's writers (like Madeleine L'Engle, say) aren't great
>> writers by adult standards.
>Of course not. Children's books are not the same as adult books.
>Children don't care about the same things. Even adult books have
>widely different types, and peole differ on what makes a good book.
[snip]
This much, I'm willing to agree with. However, from here, I start to take
Grave Exception to Mr. Johnson's arguments.
>So - children's books. Is characterization important? Probably not;
>subtleties that make for a good adult book would be lost on children.
>And even with broad strokes, a character that changes world view or
>personality during the course of a story would confuse many children.
Yes. Why, children's books *never* feature The Bad Guy Redeemed After
Seeing The Error Of His/Her Ways.
>Is plotting important? Yes. Is visualization important? Yes, it's
>probably one thing that really sets apart good children's books. Use
>of language and word play will fall flat with most children, even with
>teenagers probably.
That's why _The Phantom Tollbooth_ sucked, right? Why no one reads _Alice
In Wonderland_ and _Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There_
anymore?
>Complex and subtle motivations (revenge, desire
>for power, or self loathing) won't be understood by a child.
>For children's books, characters and plots have to be easy for them
>understand.
But you know, what it really comes down to, as far as I'm concerned?
Authors of great children's books _respect_ their readers. Unlike Mr.
Johnson. They don't say, "wait, I'm writing for kids, I need to dumb this
down." That formula doesn't give you great children's literature. It
gives you Barney.
In fact, let's take these three.
Revenge: _Rumplestiltskin_. _Cinderella_. *Most* classic fairy tales, in
fact.
Desire for Power: Thorin Oakenshield in _The Hobbit_. His whole *point* is
that he wants his kingdom, that Smaug has stolen, back, isn't it?
Self-Loathing: _A Wrinkle In Time_
>To tell the truth, I suspect the books that get the highest praises as
>good children's literature are those that also serve as good adult
>literature. After all, it is the adults who do the judging and
>praising.
Is it?
Is it really?
Why don't you go into the children's section of your local library
sometime? Take the ten most worn, ratty-looking books you can find. Then
tell us what they are. And ask yourself if they're all that way because
adults have decided they're great books, or because authors who know enough
to produce formulaic treacle have churned them out with no respect for
their readers.
And did it ever cross your mind that *maybe* adults can actually remember
what books they liked to read *as children*? That they could actually
manage to remember books that meant something to them at that age, rather
than because they appeal to them now?
I remember being a little kid who read way too much. And I distinctly
remember forming my *own* damn opinions about books. Opinions that have
changed with time. I loved the Narnia books; rereading them as an
adolescent, I saw all the treacly Christian allegory I had missed and I
didn't love them so much. I adored Lloyd Alexander's Prydain novels.
Haven't read them in fifteen years. I thought _The Phantom Tollbooth_ was
the greatest thing ever written. These days, I have to admit _Gravity's
Rainbow_ is superior, although Norton Juster still comes pretty damn close.
The Oz books were my constant companions. And while I no longer ask myself
what the Scarecrow would do in my situation, they're still marvellous
books. Or let's take the defining book of third grade: _The Hobbit_.
Still reread that one every couple of years. And there are Tove Jansson's
Moomin books, which I haven't read in *at least* fifteen years, but which
I'd probably still love.
Albert Payson Terhune would doubtless nauseate me now with the
thinly-veiled Teutonic racism I've heard his stories are--as far as I was
concerned, they were great books about wonderful collies. I have
deliberately avoided rereading them now that I know they aren't. I
remember being confused by the Nietzsche embedded in _The Sea-Wolf_, but
London's _White Fang_ was an ass-kicking read.
On the other hand, there were plenty of books grownups wanted me to read,
and assured me were terrific, that just didn't do much for me. The
collected works of Maurice Sendak, for instance. I never thought much of
_Charlotte's Web_. _Little House on the Prairie?_ Please. I know I read
it because I remember wondering why I was supposed to like it. Most of them
I've forgotten, but there were plenty of supposedly-great kids' books, that
in my own considered *and self-formed* opinion, blew goats.
I liked those authors that wrote stories that interested me, and who had
enough respect for me to write their stories without worrying that I was a
drooling moron who wouldn't get it. Daniel Pinkwater *always* respected
me, and I treasure his work, from _Lizard Music_ through _Borgel_, for that.
And I think you're *very much* in the wrong newsgroup if you want to
portray children as incapable of making informed critical judgments about
books. In fact, I'll give you very long odds that *most* people who read
this newsgroup were children who read far too much and formed their own
tenaciously held beliefs about the books they read.
Zarf says "You horrify me."
Now, for all I know, you're a perfectly nice person. But I do have one
request: kindly stay the hell away from my children and their teachers.
If I may be permitted a *single* trenchant observation: I hope Daniel
Pinkwater comes to your house and *sits* on you until you learn the error
of your ways.
Thank you.
Rotonoto
oddly enough, as "Standard" despite its size ... I decided that Advanced
referred to the danger level rather than increased difficulty of puzzles:
less time to perform an action, more chance of getting killed, etc. So
there are really only three levels of difficulty & two of danger:
JUNIOR/INTRO STANDARD ADVANCED EXPERT
easy puzzles harder puzzles harder puzzles hardest puzzles
fairly safe fairly safe fairly dangerous fairly dangerous
What d'you think?
Giles Boutel
Doeadeer3 <doea...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808250813...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> In article <01bdcfa6$a2545b00$LocalHost@jonadab>, "Jonadab the Unsightly
One"
> <jon...@zerospam.com> writes:
>
> >Listen to yourselves. Humanists, Darwinists, Deists, and Muslims
> >can have Humanist, Darwinist, Deist, and Islamic literature (to name
> >but a few), but Christians cannot have Christian literature?
>
> Agreed.
Definitely. Christians cannot have Christian literature ;-)
>
> That wasn't the point. I don't really want to get into this, so I'll just
say,
> proselytizing is always annoying, no matter who does it. No matter
whether it
> is your own personal religious belief or not. No matter how nicely it is
> dressed up.
I remember hearing someone say once that if Christianity was more like the
Narnian version he might even convert. There's some moral philosophy in
there that is rather funky - but certainly isn't 'orthodox' (to my limited
heathen understanding). Like when Aslan says that someone who does a good
deed in Tash's name is actually doing it in Aslan's name - it's the deed
rather than the object of worship which is important. I always liked that
one.
I'm not even sure I'd describe it as proselytising, either (being quite
allergic to such things). Though it's allegorical nature is undeniable,
when I read it as a young atheist (I never quite got the concept of
religion until about age 9, my parents never mentioned it and life was
weird enough without wondering what other folks did on Sundays) I certainly
didn't go off thinking 'hmmm, maybe I should go and find out some more
about God'. I just took it as an enjoyable story with some beautiful
concepts and some fairly wise words. There's stuff I learned from those
books that I still stick to today - like not being automatically entitled
to (and thus not worrying about) "Somebody Else's Story" (The Horse and his
Boy IIRC)
>
> IMHO.
Of course
>
> Doe (Here's a real shocker, I hide when Jehovah's Witnesses ring the
doorbell,
> too.)
>
I invite them in and show them my pentagram collection.
-Giles
Darin Johnson
> > To tell the truth, I suspect the books that get the highest praises as
> > good children's literature are those that also serve as good adult
> > literature. After all, it is the adults who do the judging and
> > praising.
>
> You horrify me.
Well, children read and judge them, but adults write the reviews and
pass out the awards, etc.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
solomon the heretic
Boutel" <Giles....@wcc.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> I remember hearing someone say once that if Christianity was more like the
> Narnian version he might even convert. There's some moral philosophy in
> there that is rather funky - but certainly isn't 'orthodox' (to my limited
> heathen understanding). Like when Aslan says that someone who does a good
> deed in Tash's name is actually doing it in Aslan's name - it's the deed
> rather than the object of worship which is important. I always liked that
> one.
actually, that's biblical. it's not just c.s. lewis' point of view.
--
the bittersweet way
http://members.xoom.com/bittersweetway
Darin Johnson
> portray children as incapable of making informed critical judgments about
> books. In fact, I'll give you very long odds that *most* people who read
> this newsgroup were children who read far too much and formed their own
> tenaciously held beliefs about the books they read.
I don't think I was saying that at all. Maybe I came across wrong. I
was not giving a formula for how to write books. I was also talking
about the average child as well. But I still find it hard to believe
that even a gifted child is going to get much out of Les Miserables.
But if a child wants to read it, I'm not advising against it. I never
meant to imply that there are not exceptions, or even huge numbers of
exceptions.
I was broadly stereotyping books based upon what is read by above
average children and adults, on the average. I'm sorry for ever
considering that talking about the average would be ok. Heck, why
even have a concept of "children's literature", if there is no
difference to the books children and adults read? My original point
was just that broader strokes usually appeal more to the average child
than the minute subtleties that make people revere the great classics;
I just took it too far.
Really, I'm not a child hater. Forgive me.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Darin Johnson
> There's stuff I learned from those
> books that I still stick to today - like not being automatically entitled
> to (and thus not worrying about) "Somebody Else's Story" (The Horse and his
> Boy IIRC)
I get the impression that Lewis was putting stuff in to think about
and ponder, from a Christian perspective usually, but not to be
proseletizing. Ie, he wrote the book generally for Christians, or
people with Christian backgrounds (ie, gone to Sunday school), not to
convert some unsuspecting atheist who might pick it up; but it's
accessible even without the background.
On the other hand - your example seems more like a gentle joke to the
reader, even though is has a deeper philosophical level. The
characters in the book are essentially being told that this is real
life, you don't get to find out what happens to other people. But the
reader knows it isn't really real life, it's just a story, and you
usually get to learn this sort of stuff in a story (often in
parentheses).
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Second April
> remember forming my *own* damn opinions about books. Opinions that have
> changed with time. I loved the Narnia books; rereading them as an
> adolescent, I saw all the treacly Christian allegory I had missed and I
> didn't love them so much. I adored Lloyd Alexander's Prydain novels.
I agree with you, for the most part, but this--stated here and elsewhere
in the thread--irritates me a bit. Yes, I know that Christian allegory
isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I'm not saying that you should appreciate
it if you don't. But I happen to think that the Christian-allegory
elements in the Narnia books were actually fairly well done, and I rather
doubt that you "saw all" of them in a way that enables you to judge. Did
you pick up on the Moses/Exodus story in "Horse and his Boy"? The
Revelation references in "Last Battle"? The Jonah parallels in "Silver
Chair"? The parallel to Paul in the dragon story in "Voyage of the Dawn
Treader"? No doubt you recognized the death sequence in "Lion", but how
about the analogues to Judas, Peter, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary and
Martha, the ideas about faith in the part about discovering Narnia
through the wardrobe...there are no doubt plenty more that I haven't
discovered, and your "treacly" comment makes me suspect that I've spent
more time around the Bible than you. I also don't understand why Christian
elements in a story are "treacly"; yes, Lewis's writing is sentimental,
but he's by no means only sentimental when he's drawing Christian
parallels. If you don't like treacle, you don't like the series, Christian
angles or not.
I don't stand by the statement made elsewhere that those who didn't care
for the Christian element are bigoted, even though I suspect that they
wouldn't complain about being "hit over the head" with, say, an
environmentalist message. But I do think that the series works nicely from
a Christian perspective: it makes a lot of Bible stories accessible and
fresh for young readers in ways that just reading the text wouldn't be.
And those who threw the book down after the Stone Table sequence might
have been better served by reading on, because Lewis has some interesting
takes on a lot of things, notably the "you worshiped Tash sincerely so you
were really worshiping me" bit referred to elsewhere. He doesn't, in other
words, simply parrot a conservative Christian outlook in every instance.
> Albert Payson Terhune would doubtless nauseate me now with the
> thinly-veiled Teutonic racism I've heard his stories are--as far as I was
> concerned, they were great books about wonderful collies. I have
> deliberately avoided rereading them now that I know they aren't. I
I've never heard that. *puzzlement* How so? I read them a long time ago
and enjoyed them, but I honestly can't remember any paeans to Aryans.
Duncan Stevens
d-st...@nwu.edu
773-728-9721
The room is as you left it; your last touch--
A thoughtless pressure, knowing not itself
As saintly--hallows now each simple thing,
Hallows and glorifies, and glows between
The dust's gray fingers, like a shielded light.
--from "Interim," by Edna St. Vincent Millay
Second April
> > I remember hearing someone say once that if Christianity was more like the
> > Narnian version he might even convert. There's some moral philosophy in
> > there that is rather funky - but certainly isn't 'orthodox' (to my limited
> > heathen understanding). Like when Aslan says that someone who does a good
> > deed in Tash's name is actually doing it in Aslan's name - it's the deed
> > rather than the object of worship which is important. I always liked that
> > one.
>
> actually, that's biblical. it's not just c.s. lewis' point of view.
Er, kinda. There's a verse in Romans 2 about those who "do not have the
law but are a law unto themselves," meaning that they live righteous lives
even without being commanded to, but Paul's sort of vague about what
happens to them. And there's a verse in John 14 where Christ says that "he
who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me...and I will
love him and manifest myself to him." The import of those is disputed,
though, and most folks who consider themselves orthodox don't go along
with what Lewis seems to be saying. (For what it's worth, I was rather
surprised to find that when I reread the books, since Lewis was fairly
conservative in many respects. I'm not sure if I just misread him
elsewhere or if he wimped out.)
Arcum Dagsson
> Arcum Dagsson wrote in message ...
> >In article <199808220447...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> >> Give me the Oz series (what are there about 15? I have 10 anyway, 4
> original,
> >> well original to the 1900's, published 1907, etc.) for real creativity.
> L.
> >> Frank Baum had an incredible imagination. (Wonder if he did drugs?)
> Hehehe.
> >Actually, on his 1st book, he did political alligory. Then, when it caught
> on as childrens fantasy, he denied it was alligory, and started a fantasy
> series based on it... (Oz stands for ounce. You measure gold is ounces.
> Whats a yellow brick. Now this was written back in the debate about gold
> standard vs sliver, etc...
>
> Nah! Its just a big add for Pink Floyd's Dark Site of the Moon, ya see,
> Roger Waters went back in time...
>
> >"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse
> > the darkness."
> >--Terry Pratchett
> > "Men At Arms"
>
> Nice quote (reading Sorcery at the moment) !
Thanks. One of my current favorite authors... I change quotes every so often, but half the time it winds up being from one or another Discworld novel. Makes me wish that the Discworld game was still being sold for the Mac, really... Oh, well, I'll just go by the books for now... I've actually read all but 3 or 4 of 'em at this point...
--Arcum Dagsson
Doeadeer3
Thornton) writes:
> In fact, I'll give you very long odds that *most* people who read
>this newsgroup were children who read far too much and formed their own
>tenaciously held beliefs about the books they read.
Sure sounds like from all the reactions (including mine).
The Three Muskeeters. The Count of Monte Cristo.
Not exactly children's books, but I read them as a "child" (or in early teen
years, anyway, not quite sure when, somewhere 10-12, I'd guess).
Lots of character development. It depends on the age and reading skill of the
child, but I think children can understand quite a lot, given a chance.
I am trying to remember the name of the Beverly Cleary series, if that is
spelled right. Character development (making changes after doing wrong, moral
choices) were in those too. And they were intended for children (younger).
Most of us were probably readers as children, right. That is also probably why
most of us are so *damn* opininated now. We developed our critical facilities
young (and never stopped exercising them... vigorously).
Doe :-)
Doeadeer3
(Patrick M. Berry) writes:
>Unfortunately, the academics who seized on Littlefield's analogy paid
>no attention to his caveat; they though he was serious. In spite of
>the ample evidence that Baum's political leanings were anything but
>populist, the lit-crit crowd have been pontificating about the hidden
>political message of "Oz" for the last three decades. It's all pure hot
>air.
>I see no reason to disbelieve them. I mean, isn't it a little odd that
>no one even *noticed* the alleged political subtext until six decades
>after Baum wrote the book?
Yes, my parents were around when some of the original Oz books came out (well,
around as older people, not just children, when some of them came out) and they
never heard such discussions.
THANK YOU for clearing that one up. If you read his other books it is rather
obvious that he has tends to support "ruling" classes (oligarchies) which would
be rather strange for a populist (but not for a middle to upper class
Victorian).
Thanks again, very, very much.
Doe :-)
Was beginning to think "conventional wisdom" would hold that all great (or
thought to be great by some) children's literature had a whole other "subtext",
ala Alice In Wonderland, C.S. Lewis and Jonathan Swift.