Who Wants To Read The Chronicles of Narnia?
August 8th, 2007 | by Scott |I know that I have tested the patience of my blog audience by talking so much about C.S. Lewis in recent weeks. Trust me, I haven’t said 10% of what I want to say. Thus far, being about half-way through his living published works, I’ve come to some rather startling conclusions that I wasn’t prepared for. But more about that on Monday.
Next up in my chronological quest is the Chronicles of Narnia. At this point I have to do it a little bit differently. If I read them in the order they were published I wouldn’t be able to read them in the order that Lewis intended. For instance, the first book in the series was the 6th of the 7 to be published. So I will pull the Chronicles out of the process and read them in the order that Lewis intended. I will not stop throughout to read his other works that were published during this time. After reading through Narnia I will come back to Mere Christianity, English Literature in the 16th Century, and Surprised By Joy. I don’t think doing it this way will mess up the process.
My question is this: Is anybody interested in reading through the Chronicles of Narnia with me? Maybe you would like to read them again and discuss the wonder and allegory of Lewis’s greatest work. Or maybe you have always intended to and never taken the time.
I will take some time off from Lewis while I see if anybody is interested in this. Let me know and we could have some fun discussion on Digory and Aslan, of wardrobes and magicians. We will begin sometime next week.
Here is the order that Lewis intended with the publication order in parenthesis.
1. The Magician’s Nephew (6th)
2. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (1st)
3. The Horse and His Boy (5th)
4. Prince Caspian (2nd)
5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (3rd)
6. The Silver Chair (4th)
7. The Last Battle (7th)
10 Responses to “Who Wants To Read The Chronicles of Narnia?”
By Phil Wilson on Aug 8, 2007 | Reply
I still think they should be read in the order they were published. It’s a much better read to me that way.
By Scott on Aug 8, 2007 | Reply
Legalist. I’m easy either way. I just thought it might be easier for people to follow if they could follow the numbers on the books. If no one chooses to do this with me I will read it in the publication order. Or if those who decide they would rather do it the original way that would be fine to.
I know that this is a source of controversy for some people. In Lion he states that no kid had heard of Aslan. So it would seem that would make it first.
However, Digory was born in 1888, Peter Pevensie was born until 1927.
In addition, the foremost Lewis historian Walter Hooper claims the above mentioned order was the one Lewis intended. However, Lewis had originally meant only to write Lion.
So, anyway, it’s a hard call. I’ll consent to the desires of those who choose to go along with me.
By Jonathan on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
I’ll give it the old college try. Don’t care about order.
I had been thinking that you should try it more like a book club assuming that you could get anyone to join in and could slow down enough for anyone to keep up.
By That Girl on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
Donna has all the books on cd and I listened to them last spring. I’m not much on re-doing stuff so I’ll just sit back and watch y’all.
By Donna on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
I’ll give it a re-do….just tell me what order, I am all about changing things up!!
By Dan on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
I recommend the order he (eventually) intended - the compilation book I read had them printed thus and it really helped me keep the timeline and development of consequent events in my head.
By Scott on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan, is 2 days per book enough time?
By Jonathan on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Probably not, but go at whatever pace you want…don’t adjust for me because I’m not sure I’ll actually do it no matter what the pace.
By Scott on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan, I was kidding. I know most people don’t read like I do. I’m open to going slower if that will encourage people to throw in.
By Jonathan on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
I was surprised by your idea of slowing down but was too slow on the uptake to catch on.