CoN in Published Order

[Aurvidt]

This thread is not intented to re-introduce the argument about which order is best for the reading of the Chronicles.

I however, am interested in purchasing a "hardcover" "SET" of all 7 books in the Chronicles of Narnia - just like the one I have in softcover from when I was a boy. However, I can not find a set of the books, let alone a hard cover set, that is not based upon the new numbered chronological order.

I do NOT want to purchase a set based upon the new numbered chronology. I want to purchase a set that still has the original order - or I would be happy with a set that is hardcover and without the numbers so that I can put them back in the original order at least.

If anyone knows where I can get a great hardcover set of books, please contact me.

Thanks,
Aurvidt

[Parthian King]

Well, even though Aurvidt is not necessarily interested in bringing up the issue of the originally published order of the Chronicles v. the presently marketed order, I would very much like to do so. What's the scoop on this? When and by whom was the decision made to change the order? I have some thoughts on this, but I'd rather get some feedback before launching into it...

[Aurvidt]

I am not opposed to discussing the order of the books. In fact, it is a subject about which I have strong feelings. So much so, that I am adamantly opposed to purchasing a book set that have them numbered based on the chronology of Narnia and not on the published order of the books.

However, since this topic has been the subject of several other threads, allow me to point you to them, rather than simply re-introduce the debate once more.

In what order should you read the chronicles? (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97)
weird order ... (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=918)
Correct Order? (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=795)

Please - post feedback to these and make your opinions known.

But would someone please let me know where and how I can get a copy of the entire set - hardcopy - without the numbers or at least in the published order.

Thanks,
Aurvidt

[Nenya]

Is the weird order the published order? I put my vote on that one. I read it the same way. I was surprised to not find books in that sequence anymore, they are all sadly numbered.

I am also looking for the same. If you find it please announce it here... please? And when I find it I too will tell you.

[Parthian King]

Well, I have a few things to say about this. I could go at it with a great deal of preparation, but since this is ostensibly for fun I'll shoot from the hip and see where it goes:

What we have is the significant possibility of a contradiction within Lewis' corpus. The clash comes between what he apparently wrote to an American boy about the order in which the works would best be read. This was a personal letter written as a response to a personal letter, and what is more, it was written to a child. In it, Lewis agreed with the boy that reading the books in chronological rather than published order was better. I am not at all questioning that Lewis did indeed write these words. What I am doing is asking that they be put in perspective for what they are (i.e., casual correspondence and amiable agreement with a child), and placed in the balance over against the (much weightier) evidence of the series itself. For though Lewis may never have written explicitly (as he does in the aforementioned letter) that it is better to read them in the order they were published, we certainly should take into account that he wrote the books as they are. In the realm of biblical scholarship, or any literary criticism for that matter, this is called comparing internal and external evidence. The letter written to the boy is external evidence concerning Lewis' meaning and intent. The works themselves contain internal evidence. Since these works are not canon, there is no problem concluding that there may be outright contradiction or at least significant contrast between the two.

Now, let me just mention a couple of items that have come to my attention. In the Magician's Nephew, Digory's actions are revealed as lying at the very center of Narnia's birth. He is intimately aware of the "ins and outs" (forgive the pun) of cosmic travel, knows about Narnia, the Witch, and Aslan. He not only knows about the origin of the Wardrobe, he IS the origin of the Wardrobe. Yet in LWW it says he is ignorant about the house he lives in, since it is so old, and this statement is made in direct relation to Lucy's experience in the Wardrobe. How can this be? We may understand his reticence to mention explicitly his knowledge about Narnia (when speaking with the children) to prudence. Besides, he does act rather knowing, and even understands the "once a king always a king" principle. But the remark about the Wardrobe is narrative observation, not anything Digory aka Professor Kirke says or doesn't say. More importantly, as someone has already mentioned, an "ah-HA" moment (better known as narrative tension) is lost. Now, this is not just a matter of preference. It is concrete literary device. The mystery of the Wardrobe is critical to the unfolding of the story in LWW; the story is not the same without the apparently ordinary piece of furniture turning out to be anything but ordinary. Similarly, Lewis revisits the matter of the Wardrobe (and its genesis) well into series to elicit precisely the "ah-HA" response that is so satisfying. If these books are read out of order, both effects are lost.

I have more to say, but this is getting long. The point is, it is rather simplistic to say that chronology alone, or even as a trump card, must be the determining factor in deciding how to read the books (or make/see the movies). That is a rather ham-handed approach to literature, which often narrates thematically, provides flashbacks, and deliberately hides important data for later in order to achieve certain goals the writer has in mind (a fine biblical example is Jeremiah, which is very difficult to understand chronologically, but makes a world of sense thematically). Beyond this, I would mention again that what Lewis said in a single letter should not outweigh what he "said" in seven books he published over as many years.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The thing that strikes me about reading them in order is seeing Lewis' skill as a writer of fiction mature as the series progresses. Stylistically, Lion is elementary and a bit simplistic (for Lewis, that is - which still puts it leagues ahead of the rest of us.) Something like The Hobbit, which is far from the best style Tolkien ever wrote. You can see Lewis warming to the genre in Prince Caspian (little bit more character development, more intricate plot, more thought to ancillary and supporting issues), and even moreso with Dawn Treader. Silver Chair is very nearly an adult novel, and Horse dares to tackle other countries and cultures within the Narnian universe. Having grown up with them in publication order, I think it would be startling to read Nephew first, then pick up Lion.

Parthian King makes some excellent points from the perspective of the evaluation of literature as such. An offhand comment to a child in a letter, without context, does not weigh very heavily. An important factor which he brings out is the complexity of working with an intertwined series of books. Reading them in publication order permits the author to bring forth things that illuminate other factors. This can be seen in other series as well, such as C.S. Forester's Horiatio Hornblower books. The first one written picks up well into the officer's career, and then Forester back-and-forward fills that history. You can read them in chronological order, but it's more satisfying to read them in published order.

[mtdman]

Heads up to Aurvidt. There's a set of hardcovers on ebay right now. Kinda expensive, though.

http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-Vintage-Chronicles-of-Narnia-C-S-Lewis-HBDJ-1-7_W0QQitemZ8356982935QQcategoryZ377QQssPageNameZWD VWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem