Chronicles of Narnia
Dick Chambers
packet was a small book (62pp) with the long title "The Chronicles of
Narnia. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Peter's Destiny. The Battle
for Narnia". Althogh there was plenty of room on the front cover to give the
author's name, they did not do so. However, both on the Copyright assertion
page, and on the back cover, they state:- "The Chronicles of Narnia (R),
Narnia (R), and all book titles, characters and locales original to The
Chronicles of Narnia are trademarks of C S Lewis Ptc Ltd". Elsewhere, a
copyright assertion for the artwork involves Disney Enterprises.
I have never read any C S Lewis, but would like to do so. I would like to
avoid reading some dumbed-down veresion of it. Can anybody else who has
recently bought a packet of Shreddies please tell me whether this is the
genuine article?
Has anybody seen the (Disney, I think) film? Was it any good? Although I
admire much of the work from the Disney Studios, I was disappointed with
their efforts at Winnie the Pooh. This did not Americanise very well (unlike
Alice in Wonderland, which did). Does Narnia Americanise well.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
THE Entity
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrought:
>I have just opened a packet of Shreddies for my breakfast, and inside the
>packet was a small book (62pp) with the long title "The Chronicles of
>Narnia. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Peter's Destiny. The Battle
>for Narnia".
>
>[...]
>
>Has anybody seen the (Disney, I think) film? Was it any good? Although I
>admire much of the work from the Disney Studios, I was disappointed with
>their efforts at Winnie the Pooh. This did not Americanise very well (unlike
>Alice in Wonderland, which did). Does Narnia Americanise well.
It's not Americanised so much as Harry Pottered, with English actors.
The original story of four children evacuated during the Blitz has
been left as is, so it hasn't been modernised or set in Connecticut,
if that's what you're worried about .
The film, however, was a right crudfest, I thought -- slow,
predictable, and with desperately unfunny "funny" bits. Yes, it all
looks very handsome, but Dead Proper flicks are not made with
good-looking CGI ice castles alone. My 10-year-old nephew
surreptitiously got his GameBoy out in the middle of the thing, which
says it all, really.
--
THE Entity
bert
At only 62 pages, the Shreddies version must be dumbed-down. Any good
bookseller can get you the complete unabridged set of 7 Narnia books.
The film didn't seem to me to have been Americanised. It wasn't bad,
and neither were any of the several previous TV versions, but I think
that most readers already captivated by the books would find them
inadequate in different ways. It's the way they shift the emphasis.
--
THE Entity
wrought:
>Dick Chambers wrote:
>> I have just opened a packet of Shreddies for my breakfast, and inside the
>> packet was a small book (62pp) with the long title "The Chronicles of
>> Narnia. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Peter's Destiny. The Battle
>> for Narnia". Althogh there was plenty of room on the front cover to give the
>> author's name, they did not do so. However, both on the Copyright assertion
>> page, and on the back cover, they state:- "The Chronicles of Narnia (R),
>> Narnia (R), and all book titles, characters and locales original to The
>> Chronicles of Narnia are trademarks of C S Lewis Ptc Ltd". Elsewhere, a
>> copyright assertion for the artwork involves Disney Enterprises.
>>
>> I have never read any C S Lewis, but would like to do so. I would like to
>> avoid reading some dumbed-down veresion of it. Can anybody else who has
>> recently bought a packet of Shreddies please tell me whether this is the
>> genuine article?
>>
>> Has anybody seen the (Disney, I think) film? Was it any good? Although I
>> admire much of the work from the Disney Studios, I was disappointed with
>> their efforts at Winnie the Pooh. This did not Americanise very well (unlike
>> Alice in Wonderland, which did). Does Narnia Americanise well.
>>
>> Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
>
>At only 62 pages, the Shreddies version must be dumbed-down. Any good
>bookseller can get you the complete unabridged set of 7 Narnia books.
It's seems to be only claiming to be one chapter: "The Battle for
Narnia" in the Peter's Destiny section of the first book (TLTW&TW).
>
>The film didn't seem to me to have been Americanised. It wasn't bad,
>and neither were any of the several previous TV versions, but I think
>that most readers already captivated by the books would find them
>inadequate in different ways. It's the way they shift the emphasis.
My main problem with it was that post-Harry Potter and Limony Snicket,
today Narnia just comes over as so... oh, I don't know...Enid Blyton's
Famous Five Go A-Fauning.
Oddly perhaps, I've found that the Rupert books, which were roughly
contemporary with the Narnia saga, still stand up amazingly well.
(What drugs was that guy on?)
--
THE Entity
Salvatore Volatile
> I have never read any C S Lewis, but would like to do so. I would like to
> avoid reading some dumbed-down veresion of it. Can anybody else who has
> recently bought a packet of Shreddies please tell me whether this is the
> genuine article?
I don't understand the question.
> Has anybody seen the (Disney, I think) film? Was it any good?
It was okay. There are limits to how good the underlying story is.
The disappointing thing was the use of modern BrE accents by characters
who were supposed to be living in the 1940s, as I noted recently. Peter,
for example, said "I doyn't knoy".
--
Salvatore Volatile
Father Ignatius
THE Entity <ggu...@yahoo.com> typed:
> The film, however, was a right crudfest, I thought -- slow,
> predictable, and with desperately unfunny "funny" bits. Yes, it all
Like the book, alas. If the movie hadn't followed the book as closely as it
did, they would have been flayed. By avoiding that, they got what they got.
> looks very handsome, but Dead Proper flicks are not made with
> good-looking CGI ice castles alone. My 10-year-old nephew
Computer-Generated Imagery
> surreptitiously got his GameBoy out in the middle of the thing, which
> says it all, really.
He's clearly too young to appreciate how cool and hot Tilda Swinton was.
But, yes -- she was a stand-out from the movie as a whole (another
criticism[1] of the movie as a whole, perhaps).
[1] In the contemporary sense.
--
Nat
"The process of ripening in cheese is a little like the human
acquisition of wisdom and maturity; both processes involve a
recognition, or incorporation of the fact that life is an incurable
disease with a hundred per cent mortality rate---a slow variety of
death."
--John Lanchester, /The Debt to Pleasure/
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Dick Chambers wrote:
> > I have never read any C S Lewis, but would like to do so. I would like to
> > avoid reading some dumbed-down veresion of it. Can anybody else who has
> > recently bought a packet of Shreddies please tell me whether this is the
> > genuine article?
>
> I don't understand the question.
I don't understand why you don't understand.
> > Has anybody seen the (Disney, I think) film? Was it any good?
>
> It was okay. There are limits to how good the underlying story is.
I thought the underlying story was illimitably good--when I was seven,
and for some years thereafter. Dick, do you usually like children's
books? If not, there's better Lewis you could start with.
> The disappointing thing was the use of modern BrE accents by characters
> who were supposed to be living in the 1940s, as I noted recently. Peter,
> for example, said "I doyn't knoy".
Was that the only disappointing thing?
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Maybe a good idea that Disney decided to open in the middle of the
> story. Had they started with The Magician's Nephew
They did start at the beginning of the story. _The Magician's Nephew_
is book six, for all that it takes place years earlier. It pretty
much assumes that you know what's gone before and gives away the
origin of some things that are mysterious in earlier (set later)
books.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When correctly viewed,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Everything is lewd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |I could tell you things
| about Peter Pan,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |and the Wizard of Oz--
(650)857-7572 | there's a dirty old man!
| Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Wood Avens
>I have never read any C S Lewis, but would like to do so. I would like to
>avoid reading some dumbed-down veresion of it. Can anybody else who has
>recently bought a packet of Shreddies please tell me whether this is the
>genuine article?
If you mean "is this excerpted word-for-word from the CSL original?"
the answer (based on my experience of "Lucy's Story" in my
grand-daughter's Shreddies) is No. It's a retelling of the story
according to the movie from the viewpoint of one of the main
characters.
Track down the original and read that. It's worth it.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
the Omrud
I read all the books when I was a child and I gave them to my own
children. I saw the film on the plane back from Japan earlier this
month (you have to do something with a 12-hour flight during the day)
and it was not at all awful. It's in no way comparable to the
assault on Winnie The Pooh, which was totally destroyed. The story
is essentially a little slow and moralistic, and so is the film, but
I reckon they made a good job of it, considering it has to work in
the USA as well as the UK.
C S Lewis also wrote adult Space Fiction (Out of the Silent Planet,
Perelandra) which would now seem terribly dated if I could be
bothered to re-read them, and an entertaining book of discussions
between an older Demon and his Nephew (The Screwtape Letters). He
was a confirmed atheist in his youth but suffered a dramatic
conversion and you will find that the Narnia stories are barely-
disguised Christian parables. However, children of the age for which
they are written don't always notice this (I certainly didn't) and
are prepared to accept them as fantasy.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Evan Kirshenbaum
> He was a confirmed atheist in his youth but suffered a dramatic
> conversion and you will find that the Narnia stories are barely-
> disguised Christian parables. However, children of the age for
> which they are written don't always notice this (I certainly didn't)
Those of us who didn't grow up with the Christian stories are
especially likely to have missed them.
> and are prepared to accept them as fantasy.
Which they are exceptionally good examples of. I just bought the
boxed set for my son and read through them all again for myself. In
the proper order, of course.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program
(650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
|There'll be time enough for writin'
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>I read all the books when I was a child and I gave them to my own
>children. I saw the film on the plane back from Japan earlier this
>month (you have to do something with a 12-hour flight during the day)
>and it was not at all awful. It's in no way comparable to the
>assault on Winnie The Pooh, which was totally destroyed. The story
>is essentially a little slow and moralistic, and so is the film, but
>I reckon they made a good job of it, considering it has to work in
>the USA as well as the UK.
I also read them as a child. The thing that exasperated me most, in
what was, I admit, not at all a bad shot, was the part where the
children hide in the wardrobe in order to escape the consequences of
having hit a cricket-ball through a window. I don't care at all that
there was no ball-through-window in the book: what grates is the
possibility that the children, and particularly Peter, could even
conceivably not have owned up immediately to such an accident. That
would have been quite unthinkable for a well-brought-up middle-class
child, of the kind that the Pevensie children were, at the period in
which the story is set.
Dick Chambers
> I thought the underlying story was illimitably good--when I was seven,
> and for some years thereafter. Dick, do you usually like children's
> books? If not, there's better Lewis you could start with.
Depends on which children's book. Winnie the Pooh and House at Pooh Corner
are excellent for adults. I read them to my own two children many times, and
never tired of the stories. A simple tale to please the child, and deep
philosophy for the adult reading the book to the child. Don't ask me what
the philosophy is, because I have never fully understood this aspect of A A
Milne. My experience with my own children was that A A Milne's humour made
me laugh, but my children having the story read to them took it all very
seriously, and did not laugh at all. Not even when Pooh and Piglet were
tracking Woozle footprints in the snow. Most parents would report the same.
I am looking forward to reading the Pooh stories to my grandson, now aged 2,
and to my second grandchild (believed to be another boy, but as yet unborn).
Alice in Wonderland and Wind in the Willows are also books that I have
enjoyed as an adult. I did read the first Harry Potter book, but the idea
simply did not appeal to my imagination, and I shall not read another.
C S Lewis was no lightweight children's author - he was in fact an Oxford
academic who wrote the Narnia stories for fun, surprising even himself by
how much money he earned from them. I have not read any Lewis at all, and
would be interested to receive your advice concerning which of his adult[1]
works would be best to start with.
[1]"adult", when applied to books, has changed its meaning in the last ten
or twenty years. I mean "adult" in the traditional sense, of course.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
the Omrud
> C S Lewis was no lightweight children's author - he was in fact an Oxford
> academic who wrote the Narnia stories for fun, surprising even himself by
> how much money he earned from them. I have not read any Lewis at all, and
> would be interested to receive your advice concerning which of his adult[1]
> works would be best to start with.
As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's adult
novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia stories in
preparation for reading them to your grandchildren. Along with E
Nesbitt, of course.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's adult
> novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia stories in
> preparation for reading them to your grandchildren. Along with E
> Nesbitt, of course.
Nesbitt's dead. How can he read the stories to her?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> asked
>
> > I thought the underlying story was illimitably good--when I was seven,
> > and for some years thereafter. Dick, do you usually like children's
> > books? If not, there's better Lewis you could start with.
>
> Depends on which children's book.
> C S Lewis was no lightweight children's author - he was in fact an Oxford
> academic who wrote the Narnia stories for fun, surprising even himself by
> how much money he earned from them. I have not read any Lewis at all, and
> would be interested to receive your advice concerning which of his adult[1]
> works would be best to start with.
>
> [1]"adult", when applied to books, has changed its meaning in the last ten
> or twenty years.
A decade or so longer ago than that, in the U.S.
> I mean "adult" in the traditional sense, of course.
I enjoy the "space trilogy": /Out of the Silent Planet/, /Perelandra/,
and /That Hideous Strength/. Fun adventure novels, very overt
Christianity and (mostly in the third book) politics. The only other
Lewis I've read is his autobiography, /Surprised by Joy/, which I
liked. Well, and some essays and some bits of /Mere Christianity/.
The great thing about Lewis's non-fiction is that he writes and thinks
so clearly that you can see exactly where he's wrong.
--
Jerry Friedman has said that before.
R H Draney
>
>C S Lewis also wrote adult Space Fiction (Out of the Silent Planet,
>Perelandra) which would now seem terribly dated if I could be
>bothered to re-read them, and an entertaining book of discussions
>between an older Demon and his Nephew (The Screwtape Letters). He
>was a confirmed atheist in his youth but suffered a dramatic
>conversion and you will find that the Narnia stories are barely-
>disguised Christian parables. However, children of the age for which
>they are written don't always notice this (I certainly didn't) and
>are prepared to accept them as fantasy.
Considering his background, it's not surprising that Lewis Caroll snuck a lot of
morality stuff into "Sylvie and Bruno"...it *is* surprising that he seems to
have kept it out of the Alice books...what little preaching occurs there can be
accepted as texture; the characters may have certain moral beliefs but we're not
asked to take on those beliefs ourselves....
It's a shame that most writers of fantasy for adults can't walk that tightrope
(Piers Anthony can pull it off when he's not inflicting another Xanth novel on
people)...I remember slogging through three volumes of Stephen R Donaldson,
waiting for a resolution, and at the end hating him for wasting several months
of my life....
Has anybody mentioned the Oz books yet, say as an American counterpart to these
British children's classics?...as a child I only read the first one...even then
I saw it as much richer than the 1939 movie (aired every Easter on television in
those pre-home-video days)....
Never got into the big name "adventure" series much...Hardy Boys left me cold,
as did their younger predecessors the Bobbsey Twins...by the time I could follow
something like that, I was already off with Jules Verne and HG Wells....r
--
I may not know much about art, but I know
what they tell me I'm supposed to like.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Has anybody mentioned the Oz books yet, say as an American
> counterpart to these British children's classics?...as a child I
> only read the first one...even then I saw it as much richer than the
> 1939 movie (aired every Easter on television in those pre-home-video
> days)....
I didn't read them until I was in college, when I went through all of
them (both Baum and Thompson). The first is, in my opinion, by far
the weakest of the lot.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You may hate gravity, but gravity
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |doesn't care.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Clayton Christensen
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R H Draney
>
>the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's adult
>> novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia stories in
>> preparation for reading them to your grandchildren. Along with E
>> Nesbitt, of course.
>
>Nesbitt's dead. How can he read the stories to her?
(Risking Rey's ire....)
Throw in a bit of "where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs?" and it
can still work....r
sage
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> In message <1146265111.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "jerry_f...@yahoo.com" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> I enjoy the "space trilogy": /Out of the Silent Planet/, /Perelandra/,
>> and /That Hideous Strength/. Fun adventure novels, very overt
>> Christianity and (mostly in the third book) politics. The only other
>> Lewis I've read is his autobiography, /Surprised by Joy/, which I
>> liked. Well, and some essays and some bits of /Mere Christianity/.
>> The great thing about Lewis's non-fiction is that he writes and thinks
>> so clearly that you can see exactly where he's wrong.
>
>
> Brian Eastman, who must be England's most talented and most prolific
> film producer, with something like 100 movies to his credit, made a
> brilliant film about Jack Lewis with Tony Hopkins playing Lewis. Damned
> if I can remember the title of the film, though. Outland or something.
> It's of little consequence. Damned good film but a bit of a tear jerker.
>
> It featured Jack Lewis's gatherings in a pub with drinking cronies such
> as the chappie who wrote the hobbit stories.
>
It is called Shadowlands (1993), directed by Richard Attenborough. Debra
Winger played Joy Gresham.
Cheers, Sage
Robert Bannister
> C S Lewis was no lightweight children's author - he was in fact an Oxford
> academic who wrote the Narnia stories for fun, surprising even himself by
> how much money he earned from them. I have not read any Lewis at all, and
> would be interested to receive your advice concerning which of his adult[1]
> works would be best to start with.
The first books I read by him were his science fiction books.
--
Rob Bannister
Father Ignatius
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> typed:
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's adult
>> novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia stories in
>> preparation for reading them to your grandchildren. Along with E
>> Nesbitt, of course.
>
> Nesbitt's dead. How can he read the stories to her?
He was a she with one t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Nesbit
Father Ignatius
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> typed:
> Considering his background, it's not surprising that Lewis Caroll
> snuck a lot of morality stuff into "Sylvie and Bruno"...it *is*
> surprising that he seems to have kept it out of the Alice
> books...what little preaching occurs there can be accepted as
> texture; the characters may have certain moral beliefs but we're not
> asked to take on those beliefs ourselves....
IIRC, he got guilted into it late in life. He was disparaged for not having
made a Contribution: he was a p-p-p-parson who never p-p-p-preached, and
"wasted" his Alice opportunities of ramming Christian theology down little
throats.
He was writing /Sylvie and Bruno/ in parallel with /Symbolic Logic/, in his
last months, and they leak into each other. He may have been losing his
grip.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In news:zmi5cn...@hpl.hp.com,
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> typed:
>> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's adult
>>> novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia stories in
>>> preparation for reading them to your grandchildren. Along with E
>>> Nesbitt, of course.
>>
>> Nesbitt's dead. How can he read the stories to her?
>
> He was a she with one t.
Hence the "to her". "He" was Dick Chambers. I'll admit to not
noticing (and therefore propagating) the spelling error.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Father Ignatius
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> typed:
> "Father Ignatius" <FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> writes:
>
>> In news:zmi5cn...@hpl.hp.com,
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> typed:
>>> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's adult
>>>> novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia stories in
>>>> preparation for reading them to your grandchildren. Along with E
>>>> Nesbitt, of course.
>>>
>>> Nesbitt's dead. How can he read the stories to her?
>>
>> He was a she with one t.
>
> Hence the "to her". "He" was Dick Chambers.
Ack. Posting-Before-Coffee syndrome. Sorry.
Steve Hayes
>X-No-Archive: yes
>In message <8xppea...@hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
><kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes
>>JF <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Maybe a good idea that Disney decided to open in the middle of the
>>> story. Had they started with The Magician's Nephew
>>
>>They did start at the beginning of the story. _The Magician's Nephew_
>>is book six, for all that it takes place years earlier.
>
>No they didn't. They were way out by nearly half a century! Jack Lewis's
>reading order may not be the writing order, but in the Doug Grisham
>licensed set from Harper Collins the seven volumes are clearly labelled
>as Book 1. The Magician's Nephew; Book 2. The Lion, the Witch and the
>Wardrobe; Book 3. A Horse and his Boy; and so on. See Mr Grisham's
>foreword and www.narnia.com or thereabouts.
Nevertheless, Mr Grisham didn't write them. He was the author's stepson.
He may be able to decide that they be renumbered, but in the logic of the
works themselves, _The lion, the witch and the wardrobe_ comes first.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
><jerry_f...@yahoo.com> asked
>
>> I thought the underlying story was illimitably good--when I was seven,
>> and for some years thereafter. Dick, do you usually like children's
>> books? If not, there's better Lewis you could start with.
>
>Depends on which children's book. Winnie the Pooh and House at Pooh Corner
>are excellent for adults. I read them to my own two children many times, and
>never tired of the stories. A simple tale to please the child, and deep
>philosophy for the adult reading the book to the child. Don't ask me what
>the philosophy is, because I have never fully understood this aspect of A A
>Milne. My experience with my own children was that A A Milne's humour made
>me laugh, but my children having the story read to them took it all very
>seriously, and did not laugh at all. Not even when Pooh and Piglet were
>tracking Woozle footprints in the snow. Most parents would report the same.
>I am looking forward to reading the Pooh stories to my grandson, now aged 2,
>and to my second grandchild (believed to be another boy, but as yet unborn).
I read the "Winnie the Pooh" books as a child, and took them very seriously.
When I was in my twenties a groups of us read them aloud, and found them
screamingly funny, and were in fits of laughter.
I did not read the Narnia stories as a child, however, and only discovered
them at about the same time as the reading of Winnie the Pooh described above.
I've reread them several times since then, and discover new things each time.
There might be better newsgroups to discuss the literary nuances, though.
>Alice in Wonderland and Wind in the Willows are also books that I have
>enjoyed as an adult. I did read the first Harry Potter book, but the idea
>simply did not appeal to my imagination, and I shall not read another.
The Alice books I've read several times, both as a child an an adult. My
mother gave me Kenneth Grahame books as a child, but I didn't like them. I
read them as an adult, and enjoyed them, but not enough to want to reread them
-- there was too much of an adult outsider looking in. I've re-read the Harry
Potter books several times. I think I enjoyed them better than reading Billy
Bunter as a child.
>C S Lewis was no lightweight children's author - he was in fact an Oxford
>academic who wrote the Narnia stories for fun, surprising even himself by
>how much money he earned from them. I have not read any Lewis at all, and
>would be interested to receive your advice concerning which of his adult[1]
>works would be best to start with.
Fiction or non-fiction?
I suggest, if you read the Narnia stories, that you start with "The lion, the
witch and the wardrobe", and go on reading them in publication order, and not
the "chronological" order. His adult fiction includes the "space trilogy" -
"Out of the silent planet", "Perelandra" and "That hideous strength", and also
"Till we have faces", an ancient Greek myth retold. There are also the
Screwtape books, "The great divorce" and "The pilgrims regress", which all
have a more overt theological content (the others have a theological context),
and the last is allegory in the style of Bunyan.
He wrote a variety of non-fiction, from literary criticism to pop theology,
much of it in the form of essays rather than monographs. I suggest
alt.books.inklings or alt.books.cs-lewis if you are looking for
recommendations from people who know his works well.
If you liked the Alice books, you may like the Narnia ones. Though separated
by nearly a century, the authors are both Oxford dons. Lewis Carroll (Charles
Dodgson) was a Church of England clergyman and a methematician. Lewis was a
Church of England layman and a literary critic, so you won't find Narnia
filled with the kind of mathematical puzzles and allusions you find in the
Alice books, but there are literary allusions, and allusions to classical and
Norse mythology etc. And, of course, the Christian theological context.
The "space trilogy" has, as protagonist, a university philologist (which his
friend J.R.R. Tolkien was in real life).
While the three books have the same protagonist and villains, they are very
different in many ways, not least because each one is set on a different
planet. The middle one, Perelandra, is quite heavily theological and fairly
universal. The other two reflect their time -- the mid-twentieth century. _Out
of the silent planet_ can be seen as a polemic against racism, imperialism and
the military-industrial comples. The last, "That hideous strength" deals with
the dehumanising effects of bureaucracy, technocracy and academic ambition.
Lewis must have been intimately acquainted with the last -- the back-stabbing,
infighting and jockeying for position of academic politics.
You could say that all three deal with the dehumanising effects of modernity
and the omnicompetent state. But you don't have to read them like that, you
can also just read them as stories.
Eric Schwartz
> I think you'll find that chronicles suggests chronological order but
> it's of little consequence.
I beg to differ; in the set I had as a lad, they were numbered:
1. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
2. Prince Caspian
3. Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4. The Silver Chair
5. The Horse and His Boy
6. The Magician's Nephew
7. The Last Battle
My fiancee read them in the order you cited, and was left at the end
of The Magician's Nephew rather unsatisfied, and feeling as if she was
meant to understand more about Digory and Jadis. Which feeling was,
of course, entirely appropriate, as they were originally intended to
be introduced much earlier, and their revalation as the creator and
chief nemesis of Narnia, respectively, to be recognized by the careful
reader from TLTWATW. Just because you can arrange a series
chronologically doesn't mean you should-- Steven Brust rather snarkily
wrote one of his Taltos books to take place both at the end of one
book and during the middle of another specifically to tweak the sort
of completist who has to read a series in chronological order.
Unfortunately, it seems that you can't buy an omnibus edition that
reproduces the Narnia series in publication order, it seems. I wish I
could remember who produced the edition I remember. It was for the
US, and had each volume bound individually in paperback. IIRC, I
bought it in 1982, as I was boarding a plane to live in Eindhoven for
an eternity (2 years, but I was only 8-- it seemed an eternity at the
time). The box they were contained in was white, and the pictures on
the cover probably looked modern in the early '70s, but by that time
just looked odd. Any ideas?
-=Eric
Steve Hayes
No ideas, but I discovered the series in 1965, just before leaving to study in
England. And also just before leaving, I lent a copy of LWW to a friend's
daughter, aged 7. She enjoyed reading it, so when I got to England and found a
boxed set, I sent it to her as a present for her 8th birthday. They were
exactly the same as the single books, published by Puffin, and in the order
you listed above, so the publication date would have been 1965.
Lewis had been dead two years by then, but his literary heirs had not had time
to mess with the publication order of the books.
the Omrud
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's adult
> > novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia stories in
> > preparation for reading them to your grandchildren. Along with E
> > Nesbitt, of course.
>
> Nesbitt's dead. How can he read the stories to her?
I intended that she would do some of the reading.
Father Ignatius
Dick Chambers <richard....@ntlworld.com> typed:
> Wind in the Willows are also books that I have
> enjoyed as an adult.
Hmmmm. At what point, if any, did you grok "The Piper at the Gates of
Dawn"?
Steve Hayes
>X-No-Archive: yes
>In message <tc1652tr3dpph1tdc...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>I suggest, if you read the Narnia stories, that you start with "The lion, the
>>witch and the wardrobe", and go on reading them in publication order,
>
>That is stupid advice! Read Jack Lewis's opening paragraphs in 'The
>Magician's Nephew' as to why it's important to read it first!
>
>Taking your advice, reading the LWW first, means that the wardrobe
>exists before its made from the wood of a tree from Narnia!
I quote the opening paragraph"
"This is a story about something that happened long ago when your grandfather
was a child. It is a very important story because it shows how all the comings
and goings between our world and the land of Narnia first began."
It assumes that the reader *already* knows about "all the comings and goings
between our world and the land of Narnia", and sets out to explain the origin
of a phenomenon already familiar to the reader.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Dick Chambers
> Depends on which children's book. Winnie the Pooh and House at Pooh Corner
> are excellent for adults. I read them to my own two children many times,
> and never tired of the stories. A simple tale to please the child, and
> deep philosophy for the adult reading the book to the child. Don't ask me
> what the philosophy is, because I have never fully understood this aspect
> of A A Milne. My experience with my own children was that A A Milne's
> humour made me laugh, but my children having the story read to them took
> it all very seriously, and did not laugh at all. Not even when Pooh and
> Piglet were tracking Woozle footprints in the snow. [ . . . ]
I forgot to mention the counterpoint to my experience of reading Winnie the
Pooh to my children. When my daughter was 11, and my son 9, I hired a video
of the film of Orwell's /Animal Farm/. This classic, which I rate as the
best animated film I have ever seen, made a great impression on both
children. They did not understand, and asked me, why the green van came to
pick up the two hard-working but worn-out horses. I thought it best to tell
them the truth, that the pigs had sold the horses to the knacker's yard.
Both children seemed quite upset.
They watched and re-watched the video several times, always sobbing
uncontrollably whenever the green van came to take the horses away.
Later that day, I explained to them that although the film might seem to be
a children's tale, it was in fact intended for adults. I told them why, and
explained the allegory to them. By her own initiative, Claire later went to
the library and took Orwell's /Animal Farm/ out, read it, then passed it on
to Stephen, who also read it.
Claire is now a PhD in English, and lectures at Leeds Metropolitan
University.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Salvatore Volatile
> It is called Shadowlands (1993), directed by Richard Attenborough. Debra
> Winger played Joy Gresham.
BTW, as Gresham, Winger used one of the most inaccurate renditions of a
New York (LCIA) accent I've ever heard in a film. She might as well have
been British.
--
Salvatore Volatile
Salvatore Volatile
> Unfortunately, it seems that you can't buy an omnibus edition that
> reproduces the Narnia series in publication order, it seems. I wish I
> could remember who produced the edition I remember. It was for the
> US, and had each volume bound individually in paperback. IIRC, I
> bought it in 1982, as I was boarding a plane to live in Eindhoven for
> an eternity (2 years, but I was only 8-- it seemed an eternity at the
> time). The box they were contained in was white, and the pictures on
> the cover probably looked modern in the early '70s, but by that time
> just looked odd. Any ideas?
Probably Ballantine Books?
--
Salvatore Volatile
Derek Turner
> made a Contribution: he was a p-p-p-parson who never p-p-p-preached, and
> "wasted" his Alice opportunities of ramming Christian theology down little
> throats.
I don't think you do (RC). AIUI he was ordained Deacon in the Church of
England but never priested. He never held a living and was therefore
never a parson. Deaconning was, in those days, a necessary qualification
for being a fellow at the Universities. He was a mathematics don IIRC.
He was never expected to preach.
the Omrud
Even that late?
> He was a mathematics don IIRC. He was never expected to preach.
His dad was a vicar. of course, at the parish church of Daresbury - a
couple of miles from me here in the south of Warrington. Every year
they appoint a young girl as "Alice".
Derek Turner
> Derek Turner <some...@odds.invalid> had it:
>> for being a fellow at the Universities.
>
> Even that late?
"After receiving a Second Class in classics and a First Class in
mathematics in December 1852 he was awarded a Fellowship of 25 pounds a
year for life. This came with the right to live in Christ Church
College, but although there were no requirements to any further academic
achievements, he was required to take Holy Orders and to remain unmarried."
source: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Printonly/Dodgson.html
>
>> He was a mathematics don IIRC. He was never expected to preach.
>
> His dad was a vicar. of course, at the parish church of Daresbury - a
> couple of miles from me here in the south of Warrington. Every year
> they appoint a young girl as "Alice".
>
from the same source:
"Charles Dodgson senior was born in 1800 and studied at the University
of Oxford where he gained a First Class degree in both mathematics and
classics. He was appointed as a mathematics lecturer at Oxford where he
held a Fellowship but, on marrying his cousin Frances Jane Lutwidge in
1827, he had to give up his Oxford Fellowship. He then became a curate
at All Saints' Church in Daresbury and it was in that town that ten of
Charles and Frances' eleven children were born."
To this day the Universities retain the advowson of a number of livings,
including my own. (Baliol)
Donna Richoux
>
>
> from the same source:
> "Charles Dodgson senior was born in 1800 and studied at the University
> of Oxford where he gained a First Class degree in both mathematics and
> classics. He was appointed as a mathematics lecturer at Oxford where he
> held a Fellowship but, on marrying his cousin Frances Jane Lutwidge in
> 1827, he had to give up his Oxford Fellowship. He then became a curate
> at All Saints' Church in Daresbury and it was in that town that ten of
> Charles and Frances' eleven children were born."
>
> To this day the Universities retain the advowson of a number of livings,
> including my own. (Baliol)
Your own college, I suppose you mean, not your own living.
"Advowson" -- that's a new one on me.
Advowson is the right in English law of presenting a
nominee to a vacant ecclesiastical benefice. In
effect this means the right to nominate a person to
hold a church office in a parish.
-- Wikipedia
Wow. Wonder why I never came across it in an English novel. The concept
of being appointed to a living was all over (such as Mr. Collins and Mr.
Wickham.)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Derek Turner
> Derek Turner <some...@odds.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> To this day the Universities retain the advowson of a number of livings,
>> including my own. (Baliol)
>
> Your own college, I suppose you mean, not your own living.
>
Nah, I went to Bangor: my own living - sorry for ambiguity. We get to go
to Baliol about once every three years to be royally wined and dined and
to hear a few of the fellows speak about their work. 'Study' leave! It's
about the only way they can spend the restricted funds for the benefit
of 'their' clergy.
John Dean
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <mTH4g.2927$k72....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Dick Chambers
> <richard....@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>> I forgot to mention the counterpoint to my experience of reading
>> Winnie the Pooh to my children.
>
> Christmas. "A book, miss."
> "What was it called?"
> "Thomas the Tank Engine, miss. All about choo-choos."
> Little Tommy was sternly admonished, told he was too old to use
> baby talk, and that his book was about trains. She turned to Little
> Charlie and asked him what he had for Christmas. He replied: "A book,
> miss."
> "What was it called?" asked teacher.
> Charlie hesitated and blurted out: "Winnie the shit, miss."
What a blessing none of the dear childer had been reading Wind in the
Willows or anybody's collection of Fairy Tales.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Evan Kirshenbaum
Also difficult when metabolically challenged.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support
|opportunities.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis
(650)857-7572
the Omrud
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> had it:
> >
> >> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > As I've mentioned elsethread, I wouldn't bother with Lewis's
> >> > adult novels, but I would encourage you to read the Narnia
> >> > stories in preparation for reading them to your grandchildren.
> >> > Along with E Nesbitt, of course.
> >>
> >> Nesbitt's dead. How can he read the stories to her?
> >
> > I intended that she would do some of the reading.
>
> Also difficult when metabolically challenged.
OK, OK, I'm not perfect.
Steve Hayes
>X-No-Archive: yes
>In message <tc1652tr3dpph1tdc...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>I suggest, if you read the Narnia stories, that you start with "The lion, the
>>witch and the wardrobe", and go on reading them in publication order,
>
Al in Dallas
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:54:52 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I read all the books when I was a child and I gave them to my own
>>children. I saw the film on the plane back from Japan earlier this
>>month (you have to do something with a 12-hour flight during the day)
>>and it was not at all awful. It's in no way comparable to the
>>assault on Winnie The Pooh, which was totally destroyed. The story
>>is essentially a little slow and moralistic, and so is the film, but
>>I reckon they made a good job of it, considering it has to work in
>>the USA as well as the UK.
>
>I also read them as a child. The thing that exasperated me most, in
>what was, I admit, not at all a bad shot, was the part where the
>children hide in the wardrobe in order to escape the consequences of
>having hit a cricket-ball through a window. I don't care at all that
>there was no ball-through-window in the book: what grates is the
>possibility that the children, and particularly Peter, could even
>conceivably not have owned up immediately to such an accident. That
>would have been quite unthinkable for a well-brought-up middle-class
>child, of the kind that the Pevensie children were, at the period in
>which the story is set.
I agree. If there's no ball-through-window in the book, why do they
end up in the wardrobe?
--
Al in St. Lou
Derek Janssen
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <tc1652tr3dpph1tdc...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> lion, the
>> witch and the wardrobe", and go on reading them in publication order,
>
>
> Magician's Nephew' as to why it's important to read it first!
>
> Taking your advice, reading the LWW first, means that the wardrobe
> exists before its made from the wood of a tree from Narnia!
Taking your advice, and reading "Nephew" first, means why the hell
should we care about four bored kids who wandered in out of the blue??
Derek Janssen
eja...@comcast.net
Alan Jones
From the Harper Collins website: "This [hardback]edition presents all seven
books unabridged in one impressive volume. The books are presented here
according to Lewis's preferred order, each chapter graced with an
illustration byt the original artist, Pauline Baynes." Unfortunately it
doesn't say what that "preferred order" is, but I will see whether the local
Ottakars has a copy. At 25GBP it seems a good buy - cheaper than buying the
seven paperbacks. The illustrations were originally line drawings, but
Baynes later coloured them in (for a Folio Society boxed edition, IIRC). I
suppose the new(ish) Harper Collins volume reproduces the coloured
illustrations.
Alan Jones
Wood Avens
In the book, they're hiding in the wardrobe in order to get out of the
way temporarily while the housekeeper shows a group of tourists round
that bit of the house.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Alan Jones
> the Omrud wrote:
>> Derek Turner <some...@odds.invalid> had it:
> Deaconning was, in those days, a necessary qualification
>>> for being a fellow at the Universities.
>>
>> Even that late?
>
>
> "After receiving a Second Class in classics and a First Class in
> mathematics in December 1852 he was awarded a Fellowship of 25 pounds
> a year for life. This came with the right to live in Christ Church
> College, but although there were no requirements to any further
> academic achievements, he was required to take Holy Orders and to
> remain unmarried."
> source:
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Printonly/Dodgson.html
Usage notes:
Christ Church is an Oxford college but doesn't use the term "college" in its
name, which in English is simply "Christ Church" and in Latin "Aedes
Christi", familiarly known as ""The House"; its chapel is also the cathedral
church of the diocese of Oxford. Christ Church uses the term "Student" for
what in other colleges are called "Fellows" ("student" for an undergraduate
or junior member wasn't the usual word in 1546).
Alan Jones
Steve Hayes
I have it, and indeed that was the one I used to quote the first paragraph of
"The magician's nephew", which, unfortunately, it had placed first. The
"preferred order" comes from a single letter that he wrote, and I doubt that
Lewis thought really seriously about the consequences of a casual remark..
If I had been his editor, and if the books had been published in this
"preferred order" while he was alive, I would have suggested numerous changes
for consistency with the new order, including changes to that first paragraph.
But the new order only came about after his death, and so it was too late to
make the consequential changes.
Most of the changes would affect "The lion the witch and the wardrobe" and
"The magician's nephew".
Lewis also tells us that the story started with a mental picture of a faun
loaded up with parcels passing under a lantern in a forest. He later explains
how some of the things get there in "The magician's nephew", that that was
later. And some things he never explained -- like where the faun did his
shopping in the snowbound wilderness, or how sewing machines got to Narnia.
Steve Hayes
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>In message <6u47521ohutbmb25i...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>I quote the opening paragraph"
>
>I've already done that!
>>
>>"This is a story about something that happened long ago when your grandfather
>>was a child. It is a very important story because it shows how all the comings
>>and goings between our world and the land of Narnia first began."
>>
>>It assumes that the reader *already* knows about "all the comings and goings
>>between our world and the land of Narnia", and sets out to explain the origin
>>of a phenomenon already familiar to the reader.
>
>Where on earth did you get that bizarre idea from? Look -- let me spell
>it out for you. Volume 1 in any chronicles means the first book. It
>doesn't matter when the volume was written. Volume 1 of The Narnia
>Chronicles is 'The Magician's Nephew'. One means the first. Say it to
>yourself over and over again. Sorry about the big words.
Is there any evidence at all that it was called "The chronicles of Narnia"
during his life time? I doubt it. He wrote a book called "The lion, the witch
and the wardrobe", a stand-alone book, complete in itself. When it proved
popular, he wrote a sequel, "Prince Caspian", and so eventually there were
seven books, but until some time after his death "The lion, the witch and the
wardrobe" was Book 1 in boxed sets. And I don't think the boxed sets were
called "The chronicles of Narnia". That's a recent innovation, as is calling
is "spce trilogy" "The cosmic trilogy" - a posthumous publishing decision.
Perhaps your publishers might decide to do something similar with some of your
writings when you pop your clogs.
>Right. Now for the second phase in the awesome task of spreading
>enlightenment. Volume 2 in any chronicles mean the second book. In The
>Narnia Chronicles it's 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'. Just to
>be helpful, in the boxed set Volume 2 is printed on the paperback's
>spine just above the title: LWW. Not Volume 6 or 9, or even 69. But
>Volume 2.
But in this case, however bizarre in may appear, the books themselves preceded
the "chronicles". They were not conceived or not published as "chronicles"
until much later. It is an anachronism (sorry about the big word, but I can't
think of a shorter one).
>To recap: the first book is volume 1, the second book is volume 2. The
>third book, A Horse and his Boy, is marked 3. Are you beginning to see a
>pattern emerging?
The first book, "The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe" is Volume I, later
changed to Volume II. The second book, "Prince Caspian", is Volume II, but I'm
not sure where they put it now, not that it matters.
>I was going to remove the cross-posts because I avoid posting to groups
>I don't subscribe to. I thought it would be a kindness to you, then I
>saw that it looked to me as if you'd added them in the first place.
Yes, I did add them, because the original poster was asking for advice on
reading Lewis's books, and especially his children's books, and the other
groups might be better sources of advice than aue.
Peter B. Juul
> That is stupid advice! Read Jack Lewis's opening paragraphs in 'The
> Magician's Nephew' as to why it's important to read it first!
Actually Lewis was a horrible judge of this. Knowing his own work so
well, he obviously failed to see that reading the books
chronologically confuses more than it helps.
The world in LWW really doesn't sound much like a place where humans
has ever been, and I don't think Lewis thought they had, when he wrote
it. But as the world grows, calormenes, telmarines and finally(!) the
first king, Frank, turns up as well.
That's all good and well. Lewis never bothered about building a
complete and consistent universe in the way Tolkien did. That doesn't
make his books less entertaining.
But if you start out reading TMN - don't you wonder why nobody ever
mentions Frank?
> Taking your advice, reading the LWW first, means that the wardrobe
> exists before its made from the wood of a tree from Narnia!
That's nonsense. Noone said that you should pretend the events in LWW
HAPPENS before the events in TMN. There's nothing unusual in an author
going back and writing prequels.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "I'm not ignoring any facts.
The RockBear. ((^)) I'm simply ignoring you.
I speak only 0}._.{0 Slight difference."
for myself. O/ \O -jms
Peter B. Juul
> From the Harper Collins website: "This [hardback]edition presents all seven
> books unabridged in one impressive volume. The books are presented here
> according to Lewis's preferred order, each chapter graced with an
> illustration byt the original artist, Pauline Baynes." Unfortunately it
> doesn't say what that "preferred order" is, but I will see whether the local
> Ottakars has a copy.
Said preferred order is based on a letter Lewis wrote to a boy
once. And it is the chronological order.
However, as I have just explained in another posting, it's a popular
opinion that Lewis was simply wrong about this, him knowing his own
works perhaps too well to see what would be the most giving order for
a new reader.
Peter B. Juul
> Where on earth did you get that bizarre idea from? Look -- let me
> spell it out for you. Volume 1 in any chronicles means the first
> book. It doesn't matter when the volume was written. Volume 1 of The
> Narnia Chronicles is 'The Magician's Nephew'. One means the first. Say
> it to yourself over and over again. Sorry about the big words.
Repeating an false statement doesn't make it true. Repeating an
opinion doesn't make it fact.
If you read Asimov's prequels to Foundation before reading the earlier
novels (early by 30+ years I think), you will get the early Foundation
novels spoiled.
If you watch ep. 1-3 of Star Wars, you will get ep. 4-6 spoiled.
The order in which a story was written is usually also the best order
to read it. At least the first time around.
I wonder, when you read a book, do you go through it and find any
flashbacks, so you can read those first? I mean, they DO happen before
the rest of the book, right? So it's the right way to read it
according to you, right?
Lewis wrote LWW. He had at the time no plan to write another Narnia
book. He did so any way. This pattern repeated several times. There
was no master plan for the Narnia Chronicles. Uncle Andrew didn't
exist, when LWW was written. Heck, the professor wasn't even named at
the time.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Well," said Aslan, "I suppose we could try lasers."
The RockBear. ((^))
I speak only 0}._.{0
for myself. O/ \O
Nicholas Young
news:De3CAvEF...@marage.demon.co.uk...
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <tc1652tr3dpph1tdc...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >I suggest, if you read the Narnia stories, that you start with "The lion,
> >the witch and the wardrobe", and go on reading them in publication
>> order
>
> Magician's Nephew' as to why it's important to read it first!
Pity the poor people who read LWW when it first came out, then. Very
remiss of CSL not to have told them to wait until he'd written all the
other books before reading that one.
See also Steve's reply.
> Taking your advice, reading the LWW first, means that the wardrobe
> exists before its made from the wood of a tree from Narnia!
There appears to be a moderately serious logical disconnect here ...
How about thinking a little before throwing words like "stupid" around?
(If by any chance your whole post was tongue-in-cheek - which is to be
hoped - perhaps you could make it clearer with a smiley or two. It
comes across as quite straight.)
Nicholas.
--
"Macbeth" is ... by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion,
to have written a story, if he had the skill or patience. - JRRT, _On
Fairy-Stories_
To email me, use vnich...@vinchbare-yv.vfsnetv.co.uk, removing all
occurrences of the letter "v".
Wendy E. Betts
Nicholas Young <nich...@inchbare-y.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"JF" <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:De3CAvEF...@marage.demon.co.uk...
>> Magician's Nephew' as to why it's important to read it first!
>
>Pity the poor people who read LWW when it first came out, then. Very
>remiss of CSL not to have told them to wait until he'd written all the
>other books before reading that one.
Snort!
--
My son reviews _Come Back, Amelia Bedelia_:
"This book is scary, because it's about creampuffs."
spankin' new reviews and blog: http://bunnyplanet.blogspot.com/
Dick Chambers
> Where on earth did you get that bizarre idea from? Look -- let me spell it
> out for you. Volume 1 in any chronicles means the first book. It doesn't
> matter when the volume was written. Volume 1 of The Narnia Chronicles is
> 'The Magician's Nephew'. One means the first. Say it to yourself over and
> over again. Sorry about the big words.
>
> Right. Now for the second phase in the awesome task of spreading
> enlightenment. Volume 2 in any chronicles mean the second book. In The
> Narnia Chronicles it's 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'. Just to be
> helpful, in the boxed set Volume 2 is printed on the paperback's spine
> just above the title: LWW. Not Volume 6 or 9, or even 69. But Volume 2.
No need to go on, I think I've got it already! Just to check, does all this
mean that Volume 2 is followed by Volume 3?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 19:06:54 +0100, JF <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Where on earth did you get that bizarre idea from? Look -- let me spell
>>it out for you. Volume 1 in any chronicles means the first book. It
>>doesn't matter when the volume was written. Volume 1 of The Narnia
>>Chronicles is 'The Magician's Nephew'. One means the first. Say it to
>>yourself over and over again. Sorry about the big words.
>
>
> Is there any evidence at all that it was called "The chronicles of Narnia"
> during his life time? I doubt it. He wrote a book called "The lion, the witch
> and the wardrobe", a stand-alone book, complete in itself. When it proved
> popular, he wrote a sequel, "Prince Caspian", and so eventually there were
> seven books, but until some time after his death "The lion, the witch and the
> wardrobe" was Book 1 in boxed sets.
All so different from "Star Wars" where the first book actually had a
number other than 1 when it was published.
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The preface to TMN gives the Jack Lewis's preferred reading order as
> being Vol 1, Vol 2 etc. Also in the opening paras of TMN he writes:
> "This is a very important story because it shows how all the toing
> and froing between our world and the world of Narnia came about."
> Maybe that's not the exact wording, but that's good enough for
> ministry work.
Yeah, that's a very good clue that this wasn't intended to be read
first, but only after one was already familiar with "all the toing and
froing between our world and the world of Narnia."
>
> The Harper boxed set has another huge clue. 'The Magician's Nephew' is
> marked in big bold letters as 'Volume 1'. '1' meaning first although
> hardened aue campaigners might argue that it could mean another number.
And the boxed set I had as a kid had it very clearly marked as "Volume
6".
I'm willing to be persuaded that Lewis really did say that he thought
that readers should read TMN first, but if so, I'd say that he did
that without considering what that did to the story. There are things
in TMN that don't have any importance if you haven't read TLTWATW, and
there are things in TLTWATW that lose their suspense or force if
you've already read TMN.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus"
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
Right. So get a copy of the Macmillan edition, and start with volume
1, _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_. Then proceed to volume 2,
_Prince Caspian_ and volume 3, _The Voyage of the Dawn Treader_.
Otherwise, when you get to the line in TLTWATW in which the narrator
says "None of the children knew who Aslan was, any more than you do,"
you're going to be a bit confused, having read all about him in a
"previous" book.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Its like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe
John Dean
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <pi5652l9donqsv6rr...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> Lewis had been dead two years by then, but his literary heirs had
>> not had time to mess with the publication order of the books.
>
> Wrong. Doug Grisolm, or whatever is name is -- it's of little
> consequence -- never messed with publication order. He didn't have a
> Tardis wardroobe to go back into the past and reset the presses.
>
> All this nonsense has happened before. C S Forester was so surprised
> by the unexpected success of a novel about a naval captain, that he
> did a retro and wrote novels about the sea captain's adventures as a
> midshipman, and then a lieutenant. When the first boxed set was
> released in his lifetime, they were numbered in chronological order
> -- that is: intended reading order.
CSF actually wrote 5 of the novels (taking Hornblower from Post-Captain on
the Lydia to the Peerage in Lord Hornblower) in chronological order over
nearly 10 years before starting on the prequels. So the Hornblower series
was already a considerable success before he thought of the retro.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
> "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
>> From the Harper Collins website: "This [hardback]edition presents
>> all seven books unabridged in one impressive volume. The books are
>> presented here according to Lewis's preferred order, each chapter
>> graced with an illustration byt the original artist, Pauline
>> Baynes." Unfortunately it doesn't say what that "preferred order"
>> is, but I will see whether the local Ottakars has a copy.
>
> Said preferred order is based on a letter Lewis wrote to a boy
> once. And it is the chronological order.
>
> However, as I have just explained in another posting, it's a popular
> opinion that Lewis was simply wrong about this, him knowing his own
> works perhaps too well to see what would be the most giving order for
> a new reader.
Wikipedia quotes the letter:
"I think I agree with your order (i.e. chronological) for reading the books
more than with your mother's. The series was not planned beforehand as she
thinks. When I wrote The Lion I did not know I was going to write any more.
Then I wrote P. Caspian as a sequel and still didn't think there would be
any more, and when I had done The Voyage I felt quite sure it would be the
last. But I found as I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in
which order anyone read them. I'm not even sure that all the others were
written in the same order in which they were published [1]." (Dorsett & Mead
1996)
[1] They weren't. "The Horse and His Boy" was written before "The Silver
Chair" but published after it.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Janet Puistonen
As it happens, I read The Magician's Nephew first, quite by accident. I was
in third grade, and I got it at a school swapmeet. (This must have been
sometime around 1961, and the books were not widely known amongst the
children I knew. I had never heard of them.) I then went on to read the rest
in order.
It didn't harm my experience of the series a bit. Frankly, I don't think it
matters much, except that since TMN is weaker than the alternate first
volume, kids are perhaps more likely to persevere if they don't start with
it.
Steve Hayes
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>JF <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Right. Now for the second phase in the awesome task of spreading
>> enlightenment. Volume 2 in any chronicles mean the second book. In The
>> Narnia Chronicles it's 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'. Just to be
>> helpful, in the boxed set Volume 2 is printed on the paperback's spine
>> just above the title: LWW. Not Volume 6 or 9, or even 69. But Volume 2.
>
>No need to go on, I think I've got it already! Just to check, does all this
>mean that Volume 2 is followed by Volume 3?
The problem is that the books were originally published as stand-alone books,
without volume numbers. Then when all had been published, some new editions
were published as boxed sets, with volume numbers. Then, some time after Lewis
died, they were published with *different* volume numbers. And some time after
that, the publishers decided to issue a boxed set, which they called "The
chronicles of Narnia", and James Follett has decided that this title defines
the order in which the books ought to be read.
Actually there is a logical order and a chronological order. I recommend the
logical order for a first reading:
_The lion, the witch and the wardrobe_ should be read first.
_The last battle_ should be read last.
_The magicians nephew_ and _The horse and his boy_ can be read anywhere
between the first and last.
_Prince Caspian_
_The voyage of the Dawn Treader_
_The silver chair_
Should be read in that order.
After you've read them once and know the characters and plots, you can reread
them in any order. The books that were written later assume that you are
familiar with some of the characters and events in the ones that were written
earlier. If Lerwis had ever seriously intended _The magician's nephew_ to be
published as "Volume I", then he would have rewritten it to make the series
logically (rather than chronologically) consistent, but he never did.
Reading _The magician's nephew_ as Volume I makes Lewis look like a sloppy
author with an incompetent editor who failed to notice the logical
inconsistency
R H Draney
>
>If you read Asimov's prequels to Foundation before reading the earlier
>novels (early by 30+ years I think), you will get the early Foundation
>novels spoiled.
>
>If you watch ep. 1-3 of Star Wars, you will get ep. 4-6 spoiled.
And if you need a *real* narrative mess, try resequencing the events of the
three "Back to the Future" movies in calendar order...(doing the same with much
of the Heinlein oeuvre is just too horrible to contemplate)....
(ObMovieTrivia: it can be shown that, for a period of about six hours in 1955,
there are two Marty McFlys, two Doc Browns, two Biff Tannens, and *four*
DeLoreans in and around Hill Valley)....r
--
I may not know much about art, but I know
what they tell me I'm supposed to like.
JF
Nicholas Young <nich...@inchbare-y.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"JF" <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>(If by any chance your whole post was tongue-in-cheek - which is to be
>hoped - perhaps you could make it clearer with a smiley or two. It
>comes across as quite straight.)
Crap writers use such childish devices.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> Fiction authors usually manage to end up with some egg -- especially
> when they're caught out by unexpected success of a character.
> [...]
> In the case of the Jack Lewis retro, The Magician's Nephew, at least
> he made a bold attempt to remedy the cock-up brought about by the
> success of LWW. As Douglas Grisham explained when he introduced
> TMN as the opening story in the Narnia Chronicles, Jack Lewis
> considered it the most important of all the novels. Although authors
> have absolutely no say in the manner of their publishers' design and
> presentation of their work, Harpic Collins did, at least, honour Jack
> Lewis's intentions in the volume sequencing, and Douglas Grisham
> stuck to his stepfather's insistence that it should be the first story
> when he produced the definitive and only correct dramatisation for
> the Focus on the Family production. [...]
Well you can see why those lovely people at FotF, armed only with an
epistle from the 1950s, would like the Narnia stories to be seen as some
intelligently-designed creation. The rest of us believe it just evolved
naturally, with the inevitable cock-ups and red herrings providing much
of the charn^Hm.
Matti
Mike Lyle
JF wrote:
[...]
> C S Forester had to write retros for his hero captain when said hero was
> a junior officer. Capt W E Johns did something similar with his
> Bigglesworth hero.
You no doubt know more about Biggles than I do, so perhaps my
recollection is faulty -- that the first Biggles really was the first
chronologically: a chain-smoking, badly shaken RFC pilot with a voice
always on the edge of squeaky hysteria. There's a brief but permanently
haunting description of an aerial dog-fight viewed from above. Johns's
gardening writing wasn't bad.
[...]
>
> In the case of the Jack Lewis retro, The Magician's Nephew, at least he
> made a bold attempt to remedy the cock-up brought about by the success
> of LWW. As Douglas Grisham explained when he introduced TMN as the
> opening story in the Narnia Chronicles, Jack Lewis considered it the
> most important of all the novels.[...]
Sadly, I never met Lewis, but my supervisor knew and loved him, so I'm
always a little diffident on the subject. But I'm here to tell you all
that Narnia is poor stuff, and should only be read by (or, allowably,
to) those under fourteen or so (or, also allowably, in recollective
mood) in much later life. LWW etc make LOTR look good.
--
Mike.
Nicholas Young
How do you define crap writers? My own initial suggestion would be
those who
address only a minor side-issue of an article instead of its substance.
Care to try again?
Steve Hayes
>
>JF wrote:
>[...]
>> C S Forester had to write retros for his hero captain when said hero was
>> a junior officer. Capt W E Johns did something similar with his
>> Bigglesworth hero.
>
>You no doubt know more about Biggles than I do, so perhaps my
>recollection is faulty -- that the first Biggles really was the first
>chronologically: a chain-smoking, badly shaken RFC pilot with a voice
>always on the edge of squeaky hysteria. There's a brief but permanently
>haunting description of an aerial dog-fight viewed from above. Johns's
>gardening writing wasn't bad.
>[...]
The retro was "Biggles goes to school". I haven't seen any suggestions that
one should read that first.
John Dean
> JF <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> The preface to TMN gives the Jack Lewis's preferred reading order as
>> being Vol 1, Vol 2 etc. Also in the opening paras of TMN he writes:
>> "This is a very important story because it shows how all the toing
>> and froing between our world and the world of Narnia came about."
>> Maybe that's not the exact wording, but that's good enough for
>> ministry work.
>
> Yeah, that's a very good clue that this wasn't intended to be read
> first, but only after one was already familiar with "all the toing and
> froing between our world and the world of Narnia."
>
>>
>> The Harper boxed set has another huge clue. 'The Magician's Nephew'
>> is marked in big bold letters as 'Volume 1'. '1' meaning first
>> although hardened aue campaigners might argue that it could mean
>> another number.
>
> And the boxed set I had as a kid had it very clearly marked as "Volume
> 6".
>
> I'm willing to be persuaded that Lewis really did say that he thought
> that readers should read TMN first, but if so, I'd say that he did
> that without considering what that did to the story. There are things
> in TMN that don't have any importance if you haven't read TLTWATW, and
> there are things in TLTWATW that lose their suspense or force if
> you've already read TMN.
It seems to me a subjective decision in every case where an author has
written a saga in several volumes where the volumes are not written in
chronological order. In many cases, as with Lewis, it's never entirely clear
what the author thinks is "best" or "right". And, unfortunately, new readers
can only make the choice once.
Len Deighton, frinstance, wrote a series of novels, in chronological order,
about a British SIS operative Bernard Samson. But half way through he wrote
a prequel which can be read as a stand-alone novel or *as* a prequel or as
an end-piece to the series. And the 6th novel (of nine) in the main series
is actually a recap of events in the first five novels but told from a
different perspective and revealing new information. And Deighton himself
has said the novels can be read in any order.
We've mentioned elsethread the Hornblower novels where CS Forester started
writing prequels after publishing several Hornblower novels. I think the
argument for reading them in publication order no worse than that for
reading them in chronological order.
And then we have the Flashman novels ...
--
John Dean
Oxford
Tim Bruening
JF wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <pi5652l9donqsv6rr...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >Lewis had been dead two years by then, but his literary heirs had not had time
> >to mess with the publication order of the books.
>
> Wrong. Doug Grisolm, or whatever is name is -- it's of little
> consequence -- never messed with publication order. He didn't have a
> Tardis wardroobe to go back into the past and reset the presses.
>
> All this nonsense has happened before. C S Forester was so surprised by
> the unexpected success of a novel about a naval captain, that he did a
> retro and wrote novels about the sea captain's adventures as a
> midshipman, and then a lieutenant. When the first boxed set was released
> in his lifetime, they were numbered in chronological order -- that is:
> intended reading order.
I've noticed that the Left Behind series has a prequel series (saying what happened
BEFORE the Rapture), and I've seen all three prequel Star Wars movies.
Tim Bruening
Steve Hayes wrote:
Or how the animals and the deciduous trees survived the 100 year winter.
THE Entity
>Sadly, I never met Lewis, but my supervisor knew and loved him, so I'm
>always a little diffident on the subject. But I'm here to tell you all
>that Narnia is poor stuff, and should only be read by (or, allowably,
>to) those under fourteen or so (or, also allowably, in recollective
>mood) in much later life. LWW etc make LOTR look good.
The problem I have with both LWW and LOTR is that both fall woefully
short of what I think fantasy fiction, even for children, should do.
Rather than spurring our imagination, they stifle it (if by
"imagination" we mean imagining worlds that work in different ways,
not just one populated by fauns, trolls and talking trees).
LWW is, of course, notorious for being thinly disguised Christian
allegory wrapped up in a boys' own adventure. But LOTR is no less
reprehensible, with the rancid reek of Olde England that issues from
every pore of its sociopolitics. Middle-earth is a world where
everyone knows his place. Sam is "Mr Frodo's" cap-doffing servant,
women are mere love interest (or, at best, a doolally oracle in a
tedious subplot), and even the wizards have strict colour-coded
degrees of hierarchy -- think freemasons with staffs instead of
set-squares. The moral of the whole long, long tale: evil and chaos
can only be vanquished with the glorious restoration of a hereditary
monarchy. How fantastic.
By the end of both sagas we're comforted -- or "mollycoddled", as cool
new-school fantasy writer (and uncool old-school Trot) China Miéville
has called it* -- about the world as we know it (or at least knew it
when the books first came out). But I suppose that's what you get if
you choose mid-20th-century Oxford dons as your mythmakers.
Inklings, schminklings.
[*For more Miéville on JRRT, see
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr259/mieville.htm]
[Trimmed to AUE only; I'm not sure I'm up for preaching to the
unconvertible.]
--
THE Entity
Father Ignatius
THE Entity <ggu...@yahoo.com> typed:
> women are mere love interest (or, at best, a doolally oracle in a
> tedious subplot)
> Inklings, schminklings.
Well, that all seems very perspicuous. Well ranted, that man. The only
point I'd pick up is that it seemed to me -- in my desultory and ultimately
unsuccessful attempts to read through the thing at least once -- that, to
the first approximation, wimmyn do not occur at all.
> [Trimmed to AUE only; I'm not sure I'm up for preaching to the
> unconvertible.]
So what led you to post to AUE, then?
--
Nat
"The process of ripening in cheese is a little like the human
acquisition of wisdom and maturity; both processes involve a
recognition, or incorporation of the fact that life is an incurable
disease with a hundred per cent mortality rate---a slow variety of
death."
--John Lanchester, /The Debt to Pleasure/
Django Cat
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> In message <j2v352hvjl3v6u47a...@4ax.com>, THE Entity
> <ggu...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> > Oddly perhaps, I've found that the Rupert books, which were roughly
> > contemporary with the Narnia saga, still stand up amazingly well.
> > (What drugs was that guy on?)
>
> The radio drama series of the Narnia Chronicles, currently running on
> BBC7 have mouth-watering production values. I've an idea that the
> Family Radio Theatre, or something like that, that produced them, are
> an American outfit. David Suchet as Islan, God in the shape of lion,
> is amazing. How does he get those deep growls and rumbles into his
> voice? He must've acted them.
Would that be like Aslan?
Wood Avens
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is there any evidence at all that it was called "The chronicles of Narnia"
>during his life time? I doubt it.
Actually yes, but not necessarily the complete set: the first editions
of both The Silver Chair (1953) and The Horse And His Boy (1954) have
inside their front covers a list of the previous books, under the
heading The Chronicles of Narnia.
The Magician's Nephew (1955) has no such list, possibly because it was
published by Bodley Head while the previous five belonged to Geoffrey
Bles.
The Last Battle (1956) has a list, under the heading Tales of Narnia,
and the first of these is TLTWATW, with the others similarly listed in
order of writing.
[aue only]
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
R J Valentine
} X-No-Archive: yes
} In message <1146436963.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
} Nicholas Young <nich...@inchbare-y.fsnet.co.uk> writes
}
}>> >(If by any chance your whole post was tongue-in-cheek - which is to be
}>> >hoped - perhaps you could make it clearer with a smiley or two. It
}>> >comes across as quite straight.)
}>>
}>> Crap writers use such childish devices.
}>
}>How do you define crap writers?
}
} Writers so incapable of expressing themselves using words that they have
} to draw silly pictures using punctuation symbols.
Kind of like how crap writers define writers so incapable of expressing
themselves using highfalutin words that they have to use vulgarities?
--
rjv
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
>Mind you, I don't think you meant that; I think you were trying to have
>a pot at me but were too scared of me to come out and speak plainly. I
>don't blame you: the intellectual wankstain pygmies that adorn this
>newsgroup like blowflies on a camel's turd often steel themselves to
>take a bold pot at me and promptly lose their nerve when they crawl out
>from under their stone and find themselves blinking and confused in the
>awesome light of my terrible presence.
Ooh, er. Hark at her!
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e)
R J Valentine
} X-No-Archive: yes
}
} In message <e3506v$3sq$2...@pcls4.std.com>, R J Valentine <r...@TheWorld.com>
} writes
} That's Jeff Chaucer, Jimmy Joyce and a few others banged to rights good
} and proper.
}
} Mind you, I don't think you meant that; I think you were trying to have
} a pot at me but were too scared of me to come out and speak plainly. I
} don't blame you: the intellectual wankstain pygmies that adorn this
} newsgroup like blowflies on a camel's turd often steel themselves to
} take a bold pot at me and promptly lose their nerve when they crawl out
} from under their stone and find themselves blinking and confused in the
} awesome light of my terrible presence.
Actually, I was agreeing with you. As a Famous Author, you probably have
a lot of people hovering about to bask in the sunshine or plant their
eggs, depending on the metaphor. Me, I treat you like a regular person.
} Try doing it with some gusto. Take a deep breath and come storming out
} of your mud dwelling, yelling and cursing, and spitting venomous verbal
} paraquet. This faffing about like a blunt gimlet skating about on an
} ebony log doesn't do much for me.
Oh, if I were to be out to insult you, there's be no doubt about it. Look
at how Uncle Mal ducks for cover when I draw attention to his rapidly
thinning hair.
} --
} James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
} The Silent Vulcan trilogy, starting with 'The Temple of the Winds', on BBC7
} Sundays 1840.
For instance, if I wanted to needle you, I'd point out that on my copy in
all cases (on the front of the jacket, the spine of the jacket, the inside
front flap of the jacket, the front of the cover, the spine of the cover,
the page before the title page [there's probably a word for that that Rey
will supply], the title page, the back of the title page in the British
Library Cataloguing in Publication Data, and at the top of most of the
right-hand pages), the title is _Temple of the Winds_ (no "The" before
"Temple"). Now I'm not so bold as to say you're _wrong_ in your sig.
Could be you meant it to have a "The" and the publisher failed you.
Could be the British edition has a "The". Could be the print version
doesn't, but the radio version does. I don't know. I've probably needled
you about it three times before (googlers would know; they know almost
everything), but you just didn't notice (and I'm honored that you noticed
my comment on crap writers, because I suspect it has some ironic content,
but it's beyond my competence to know for sure).
This time, though, I wasn't especially picking on you.
_Real_ good bluster, though. Thanks.
--
rjv
Mike Lyle
Father Ignatius wrote:
> In news:58kb52tk4tu9aogt0...@4ax.com,
> THE Entity <ggu...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
> > women are mere love interest (or, at best, a doolally oracle in a
> > tedious subplot)
>
> > Inklings, schminklings.
>
> Well, that all seems very perspicuous. Well ranted, that man. The only
> point I'd pick up is that it seemed to me -- in my desultory and ultimately
> unsuccessful attempts to read through the thing at least once -- that, to
> the first approximation, wimmyn do not occur at all.
They do occur -- one of them is even human. Bit of a tomboy, natch.
>
> > [Trimmed to AUE only; I'm not sure I'm up for preaching to the
> > unconvertible.]
>
> So what led you to post to AUE, then?
A good rant deserves an audience! I will confess, though, that I
devoured LOTR as a boy, and it's become quite as much a part of my
setup as Winnie-the-Pooh. But I think it may be significant that I
found the films better than the book: that doesn't happen often.
--
Mike.
Steve Hayes
>LWW is, of course, notorious for being thinly disguised Christian
>allegory wrapped up in a boys' own adventure.
I'm not sure that discussion of literary genres belongs in AUE, but I'm
wondering what constitutes a "thinly disguised allegory", Christian or
otherwise.
An allegory is a narrative in which real life characters or qualities are
disguised as something else -- Bolsheviks as pigs, for example, in Orwell's
"Animal Farm" (and capitalists as human beings). But what happens when you
disguise a disguise, as "thily disguised allegory" seems to suggest?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Evan Kirshenbaum
> JF wrote:
>
>> The radio drama series of the Narnia Chronicles, currently running
>> on BBC7 have mouth-watering production values. I've an idea that
>> the Family Radio Theatre, or something like that, that produced
>> them, are an American outfit. David Suchet as Islan, God in the
>> shape of lion, is amazing. How does he get those deep growls and
>> rumbles into his voice? He must've acted them.
>
> Would that be like Aslan?
I wonder what Lewis would have made of Aslan's recent book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812971892/102-1280670-0840904
I found it quite interesting.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Graeme Thomas
Turner <some...@odds.invalid> writes
[ Re: Lewis Carroll aka Charles Dodgson ]
>I don't think you do (RC). AIUI he was ordained Deacon in the Church of
>England but never priested. He never held a living and was therefore
>never a parson. Deaconning was, in those days, a necessary qualification
>for being a fellow at the Universities.
When my brother went to Oxford University just over 30 years ago he was
ordained into "minor orders", as were his fellow-undergraduates. I'm
not sure whether this was a requirement of the University or of his
college (Keble; "Mais n'est-ce pas la gare?"). I'm also not sure what
would have happened had he any religious scruples about that sort of
thing.
I believe that the relaxation about the status of Oxford dons occurred
in the 1920s. Until then they had to remain single, and to live in the
colleges. The great expansion of houses along the Banbury Road was due
to the sudden demand for them from newly-liberated dons.
--
Graeme Thomas
sage
All this C.S. Lewis chat caused me to get Screwtape out of the library
on Saturday for a re-read. Of interest (perhaps) is that the stack the
book is in sits at right angles to that which holds the two copies of
Mr. Follet's work.
Cheers, Sage
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> >
> >} X-No-Archive: yes
> >} In message <1146436963.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >} Nicholas Young <nich...@inchbare-y.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >}
> >}>> >(If by any chance your whole post was tongue-in-cheek - which is to be
> >}>> >hoped - perhaps you could make it clearer with a smiley or two. It
> >}>> >comes across as quite straight.)
> >}>>
> >}>> Crap writers use such childish devices.
See below.
> >}>How do you define crap writers?
> >}
> >} Writers so incapable of expressing themselves using words that they have
> >} to draw silly pictures using punctuation symbols.
> >
> >Kind of like how crap writers define writers so incapable of expressing
> >themselves using highfalutin words that they have to use vulgarities?
>
> That's Jeff Chaucer, Jimmy Joyce and a few others banged to rights good
> and proper.
>
> Mind you, I don't think you meant that; I think you were trying to have
> a pot at me but were too scared of me to come out and speak plainly. I
> don't blame you: the intellectual wankstain pygmies that adorn this
> newsgroup like blowflies on a camel's turd often steel themselves to
> take a bold pot at me and promptly lose their nerve when they crawl out
> from under their stone and find themselves blinking and confused in the
> awesome light of my terrible presence.
Heck, some people in a.u.e. are so mild-mannered that we pass up
straight lines.
> Try doing it with some gusto. Take a deep breath and come storming out
> of your mud dwelling, yelling and cursing, and spitting venomous verbal
> paraquet. This faffing about like a blunt gimlet skating about on an
> ebony log doesn't do much for me.
"Paraquet"? Typo for "paraquat", the herbicide? If so, it's a bit of
a let-down after what came before.
--
Jerry Friedman
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On 30 Apr 2006 13:06:01 -0700, "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrought:
>
> >Sadly, I never met Lewis, but my supervisor knew and loved him, so I'm
> >always a little diffident on the subject. But I'm here to tell you all
> >that Narnia is poor stuff, and should only be read by (or, allowably,
> >to) those under fourteen or so (or, also allowably, in recollective
> >mood) in much later life. LWW etc make LOTR look good.
>
> The problem I have with both LWW and LOTR is that both fall woefully
> short of what I think fantasy fiction, even for children, should do.
> Rather than spurring our imagination, they stifle it (if by
> "imagination" we mean imagining worlds that work in different ways,
> not just one populated by fauns, trolls and talking trees).
Hm. Middle-Earth works quite differently from our world, it seems to
me. Maybe not so differently from the way Tolkien thought our world
worked. Ditto Mieville (v. infra) and his world.
> LWW is, of course, notorious for being thinly disguised Christian
> allegory wrapped up in a boys' own adventure. But LOTR is no less
> reprehensible, with the rancid reek of Olde England that issues from
> every pore of its sociopolitics. Middle-earth is a world where
> everyone knows his place. Sam is "Mr Frodo's" cap-doffing servant,
> women are mere love interest (or, at best, a doolally oracle in a
> tedious subplot), and even the wizards have strict colour-coded
> degrees of hierarchy -- think freemasons with staffs instead of
> set-squares. The moral of the whole long, long tale: evil and chaos
> can only be vanquished with the glorious restoration of a hereditary
> monarchy. How fantastic.
Agreed, mostly.
> By the end of both sagas we're comforted -- or "mollycoddled", as cool
> new-school fantasy writer (and uncool old-school Trot) China Miéville
> has called it* -- about the world as we know it (or at least knew it
> when the books first came out). But I suppose that's what you get if
> you choose mid-20th-century Oxford dons as your mythmakers.
...
My mythmakers, but not my only ones. I like Mieville too, and he too
can be criticized for, say, uncritical formulaic sociopolitics, or the
rather silly moral of the allegorical ending of /Iron Council/. If I
read only flawless books, I wouldn't read much.
--
Jerry Friedman
Mike Lyle
jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
> JF wrote:
[...]
> > Try doing it with some gusto. Take a deep breath and come storming out
> > of your mud dwelling, yelling and cursing, and spitting venomous verbal
> > paraquet. This faffing about like a blunt gimlet skating about on an
> > ebony log doesn't do much for me.
>
> "Paraquet"? Typo for "paraquat", the herbicide? If so, it's a bit of
> a let-down after what came before.
>
Well, I'd generally choose to be out of the beaten zone if it was
parquet. Or even parakeets. Both are quicker-acting than Weedol.
--
Mike.