Zorg sequence?

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Tobias Mummert

unread,
Aug 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/14/98
to
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?

Thanks in advance,
Tobias

--
_________________________________
zo...@baumann-online.net
PGP-Key avaliable (Keyserver, Request)


Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Aug 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/14/98
to
Tobias Mummert (zo...@baumann-online.net) wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/14/98
to
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Tobias Mummert wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
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_.


--
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

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
Jonadab the Unsightly One (jon...@zerospam.com) wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
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.


-=- Mark -=-

Matthew Murray

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to

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

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to

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?"

Jon Petersen

unread,
Aug 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/18/98
to
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.
>
> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
"Michael Gentry" <edr...@email.msn.com> writes:


>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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980818...@titan.cc.wwu.edu>, Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> writes:
> 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.
>
> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
On 19 Aug 1998, Patrick M. Berry wrote:

> > 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
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.

Iain Merrick

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Matthew Murray wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
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?)

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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Jon Petersen <en...@ucla.edu> writes:
> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Andrew Plotkin (erky...@netcom.com) wrote:

: 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Matthew Murray wrote:

> > 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Jon Petersen:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to

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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Second April <dns...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Jon Petersen wrote in message <35DA6F...@ucla.edu>...
>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.
>>
>> 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.

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

unread,
Aug 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/19/98
to
Andrew Plotkin wrote in message ...
>Jonadab the Unsightly One (jon...@zerospam.com) wrote:
>> 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.

Absolutely not!

Adam J. Thornton

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <tvyn290...@cn1.connectnet.com>,

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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
Jon Petersen <en...@ucla.edu> writes:

>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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <35DB1DCD.M...@enterprise.net>, "Matthew Garrett" <ca...@enterprise.net> writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
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?",
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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <35DAEF...@cs.york.ac.uk>, Iain Merrick <i...@cs.york.ac.uk> writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
On 20 Aug 1998, Paul Francis Gilbert wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
Patrick M. Berry (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.

And they would have been different, and I probably would still say they
should be read in the order they were written.

Mo

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
Matthew Murray wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <6rh9le$73g$3...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>,

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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
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.

--
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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <6rho7a$nec$1...@flood.xnet.com>,

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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
On 20 Aug 1998, John Francis wrote:

> >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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
On 20 Aug 1998, Jason Compton 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.

Um, it also has Antharia, the White House, and Y'Gael. I don't
know if I would consider THOSE tenuous links!

Mo

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
John Francis wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <6rh9vt$73g$4...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>, Patrick M. Berry

<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

unread,
Aug 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/20/98
to
In article <CcZC1.204$sc.5...@newsread.com>, Matthew T. Russotto

<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

unread,
Aug 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/21/98
to
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.


-=- Mark -=-

Arcum Dagsson

unread,
Aug 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/21/98
to
In article <199808220447...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, doea...@aol.com (Doeadeer3) wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
To add to the discussion:

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

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
Mark J Musante (olo...@world.std.com) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to

>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

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
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 :-)

Arcum Dagsson

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to

> 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

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
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.

--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me

Darin Johnson

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
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

Matthew Murray

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
On 22 Aug 1998, Darin Johnson wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
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...
>

> 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

unread,
Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
to
In article <tvy1zq8...@cn1.connectnet.com>,

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

unread,
Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
to
On 20-Aug-98 21:26:36, Graham Nelson said:

[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

unread,
Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
to
On 22-Aug-98 04:47:25, Doeadeer3 said:

>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

unread,
Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
to
In article <Arcum_Dagsson-2...@ip183.las-vegas.nv.pub-ip.psi.net>,
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

unread,
Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
to
Doeadeer3 <doea...@aol.com> wrote:

: 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

unread,
Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
to
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.)

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

unread,
Aug 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/23/98
to

> 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

unread,
Aug 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/24/98
to
In article <ExwoG...@world.std.com>, olo...@world.std.com (Mark J Musante) writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/24/98
to
In article <#uG5uVxy9GA.74@upnetnews03>, "Michael Gentry" <edr...@email.msn.com> writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/24/98
to
In article <35DA6F...@ucla.edu>, Jon Petersen <en...@ucla.edu> writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/24/98
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98081...@titan.cc.wwu.edu>, Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> writes:

> 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