Which order do you think the books should be read in?

[mspin]

I am a 5th grade teacher and I read ALL 7 books to my class. I read them IN THE ORDER OF PUBLICATION!!!
I can't imagine reading them any other way. The Magician's Nephew is magical and wonderous because we know what is going to happen. I get chills reading about the creation of the lampost. If you haven't read LWW, that scene would be meaningless.

The only reason STAR WARS Episode 1 & 2 are any good is because we know who Anakin is going to become. IT'S KINDA THE SAME THING HERE.

Any thoughts?

[Warrior-Poet51088]

I beg to differ. After reading Magician's Nephew, reading Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe would be that much more of an "Oh! Wow! This is awesome!" experience--you'd know where everybody had come from: that the witch is Jadis, and how horrible of a person she is. It's character build-up. Have you ever read The Iliad or The Odyssey? They both have extreme amounts of character definition in them; that's why people still read them today--the characters are so well-described!
The scene with the creation of the lamp-post would not be meanignless--it would show you how young the world is; that's why Aslan explains it all to them.
I can barely stand episode 1 & 2, diehard STAR WARS fan that I be--the plot is nonexistant. But that's another can o' worms.
Now that I'm done raving, welcome to the site! :D

[Y. Fish]

I think that either way you read 'em, MN and LWW are full of things to be surprised about. I read MN first by mistake, and then went in chronological order, and I still enjoyed the books every bit as much. Anybody want to dig up old Lewis and ask his opinion on all this? ;) just kidding

[Tumnus The Smooth]

I have to say that I think the original order is the best way to read them. TLWW in my opinion is the best introduction to Narnia, and I think starting with TMN takes away from some of the mystery of the later books.

But really it's just a matter of personal preference. However, when I start reading TCoN to my children, I'll start w/ TLWW and read them in the CORRECT order. ;)

[NiennaTinuviel]

Didn't lewis himself say that they should be read in chronological order?

[Specter]

lewis tended to agree that they should be read in Chronological order, but he didn't say it was necessary

[mspin]

He did say that reading them in chronological order was good in one of his letters to children.
And as much as I love C.S. - I still think that SO MUCH of the magic is lost when we read TMN before LWW.

For example - The first time we hear Aslan's name in LWW is when Mr. Beaver says, "They say Aslan is on the move! Perhaps has already landed." We then read about the effect that the name of Aslan has on each of the children (exciting to terrifying).

In MN the first time we hear Aslan's name is after he gives the animals speech, and they respond with, "Hail, Aslan! We think. We feel We love..." (I don't have the book in front of me:) There's really not much to it. They seem to already know his name - (This is okay because WE already know his name, too - IF we've already read LWW. If NOT we MUST simply think to ourselves, "Oh, I guess Aslan is the Lion's name." - No magic, no mystery, just his name.

One more thing...If we should read MN first, WHY aren't they making THAT movie right now instead of LWW???

This is fun!

[NiennaTinuviel]

I think most people read LWW before MN just because it's more popular...I mean, more people have heard of LWW i believe. At least, in my experience, i hear more ppl commenting on LWW than MN. I personally like reading LWW before MN because it makes MN that much better and wonderful and surprising and "oh NOW i get it" and it makes u want to read the other books again if you haven't already.

[mspin]

:D EXACTLY!!!!

[Hear-aslan-roar]

I have read all of the narnia books before, but I am wanting to get the full effect of them...Please help me..what order should I read them to get the full effect out of my reading experience.

[Hope96]

Personally, I prefer reading them in the chronological order. I know that the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was written first. But I think it helps the story line alot if you start from the beginning and read the Magician's Nephew first. But that's just my opinion! :)

[inkspot]

If you already read them, it doesn't matter.

If you were starting fresh, I would say read LWW first, because then you are introduced Aslan at the same time, and in the same way, as the Pevensie kids -- you hear his name, you hear he's a lion, but you have no ideas about him, and then there he is, rushing toward you ...

If you read MN first, you already know all about Aslan, and a lot of the happy mystery is gone from LWW.

[inked]

YOU should read them in the original published order and then read them in chronological order, if you like. And you should do this often! :) It is good for you!

I have rant about this on another forum that I will transpose here! :D

[she-elfwarrior19]

I love the original order, LWW, PC, DT, SC, HAHB, MN, LB. Im still getting use to the new version of the order

[Hope96]

I guess I'm in the minority on this one. I read the LWW first originally, several years ago. Then I picked up the MN a few years ago and started the whole series over again. I felt like it would've been better to read them in chronological order first.

Oh well, I guess that's just my choice. :)

[holyboy]

After reading back the books (i read them LWW, then MN, PC, VDT ect.) i felt that you have to read them in written order first to understand everything in the books, what with all the side references

[inked]

proper reading order, A RANT, by Inked

Well, I am going to go all over nerdy here about the recent publications of the CoN because I came across them numbered IN PROPER CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE PER NARNIAN TIME! The only proper sequence to read them in for the first time is publication order in my inestimable and not at all humble nor modest opinion! It's, it's blasphemy, that's what it is, to number them for unsuspecting gift giving adults to buy for children!!! Some poor soul will now encounter them as though they were historically accurate renditions of Narnia instead of the wonderfully kaleidescoped published sequence. Ahh, the lack of romance and adventure to encounter Aslan as in TMN rather than LWW!!!!

I hear there are persons who consider this chronological series read to be proper and the only correct way to read TCON BUT that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (did I mention I regard that view as erroneous?)! I adduce the very proper stage and television and BBC productions of the series as further evidence of my thesis! And the ERTV/Kraft foods animated movie, as well!
And the intended current productions!!!!!!!!! Everyone knows they should be produced as published! Egads! Has the world gone enumeration delusional?

*breathes*

Oh, the horror of it! Is it the baleful influence of the enumerated HP series casting a bewitchment of arithmancy over the whole publishing industry? DO those chaps/chappettes in the booking world think that works of fiction need be cast all in the modes of artificial history a la Tolkein? Will they next number all the extant Tolkeiniana in the same fashion from Silmarillion to HoME whatever we are at? (And a good long lifetime to 'em if they try that!)
Shall we have Charles Williams novels subjected to the iniquities of this ilk?

*breathes...again*

I dare say sequentially narrative Lord Peter Wimsey novels are published as such for they were produced as such! But this irritatingly anachronistical ephemeral fad of producing numbered TCON is simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! To enter Narnia unaccompanied by Mr. Tumnus on the first visit????
It is sacrilege! Do not succumb to this mania for enumeration!
Go to Narnia as published and read for nearly 6 decades, not some moddish pseudo-historicism route, I beg of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*breathes*
...and tomorrow I'll say how I REALLY FEEL about this atrocity of enumerated publication by historicists!!!!!

:p

[Hope96]

Okie Dokie Inked....you have made your point well! :rolleyes:

[legolas]

OK Well, It really doesn't matter if you The Magiceans Nephew at all! It was made to explain how narnia got started how the wardrobe got there and all, that's it really! You should start though with either the magiceans nephew or of LWW.

[inkspot]

You should start though with either the magiceans nephew or of LWW.
I don't know ... See Inked's Brilliant Post on previous page and always start with LWW! MN fills you in on the background, but LWW gives you the fresh, exciting, wonders of Narnia!

[jfitz]

I don't know ... See Inked's Brilliant Post on previous page and always start with LWW! MN fills you in on the background, but LWW gives you the fresh, exciting, wonders of Narnia!
I must say, I read the whole series (or at least most of it) when I was the 5th grade...about 15 years ago, and I remembered shockingly little of it. So little that I might as well not have read it at all, because I didn't even remember Aslan. When I found out about the new movie a couple months ago I went and purchased one of the new sets printed in chronological order, and I'm almost through the 3rd book so far. (The Horse and His Boy, in this printing.) I didn't know there was any controversy over the printing, so I just dove right in to the Magician's Nephew.

My point, though, is that I felt extremely excited about the creation of Narnia, and my introduction to Aslan in this book. I don't know if the LWW felt any less special to me, but I know I liked knowing more about the White Witch and Aslan as I was reading it. So, I would guess that anyone who is uptight about a particular reading order is probably just looking at it from a biased view - that's the way they read it the first time, so everyone should, etc. I doubt it matters at all.

Now, if someone starts telling people to watch Star Wars in chronological order, then I might have a problem with that! :)

[inked]

WHAT you don't watch STAR WARS in chronological order?!

Now you've got the idea. :D

[Fool of a Took]

Depends entirely on the context and the audience- I read TMN to my class this year, they loved it, but they were lukewarm when I read LWW. Interest was spurred by the upcoming movie. The children I teach are ages 8-12 so read into that what you will but TMN was far more engaging for them.

[Lady_Tirian]

I'm all about reading them in published order (the *cough*right*cough* order). It seems to stay closest to C.S. Lewis' intentions and the growing depth he gives to the Narnian world to read in that order. And I think LWW does so much better in giving Narnia that feel of magic and fantasy and everything than in TMN where it's the last of a series of other worlds and therefore somehow (to me) doesn't seem quite so fantastic and doesn't do Narnia justice.
Plus, I think it's a lot nicer to read TMN towards the end because then you can be amused at knowing more than Diggory and Polly know and you can fully appreciate the scene of Aslan in the circle of animals. You know what's going on, what it becomes and why and can really get into the spirit of enjoying seeing the creation. I don't think you can really appreciate that wonderful moment of creation without already being in love with Narnia from the other books.

Besides which,there's something to be said for reading the books in the order in which Lewis wrote them- follow as he develops his world further and enjoy the development. Forget the whole 'hindsight' thing of chronology.

[Tarkheena_Finduilas22]

To put it simmply, READ IT THE WAY HE WROTE EM! :D :) :rolleyes:

[Gymfan15]

I read them in Narnia chronological order. I'd already seen all the movies so it didn't spoil anything. Besides...the book I was reading was all of the Narnia books put together in Narnian time order, and I wasn't going to go from reading the middle of the book to reading the end, then the biginning..lol.

[Tarkheena_Finduilas22]

I'm personaly reading them in chronological order, but I want to read them in the right order. what is the right order? :o

[Gymfan15]

Chronological in Narnia:

The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Horse and His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle

Publishing Order:

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Horse and His Boy
The Magician's Nephew
The Last Battle

You pick which one is the 'right' order...lol. To me the right order is Chronological, but everyone has their opinion.

[Tarkheena_Finduilas22]

Thanx gymfan15

[Gymfan15]

No prob. :)

Last night I ordered ALL the Narnia books from Amazon. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

I got the book that has all the Narnia books in one. Its the only 'set' I've ever read and I like it.

Can't wait till it gets here! :)

[Tarkheena_Finduilas22]

Yea, cool Gymfan! I want that! (I always have to steal the Narnia books from my older sis)

[Sojourner]

I got that set when I turned 12...man I have had it for almost 6 years now. No wonder it is falling apart.

[Inklet]

The main reason I would recommend a new reader should read the books in the published order is that throughout the books you'll find phrases like this one from LWW: "None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do..." ("Excuse me? Mr. Lewis? Wasn't he the lion in The Magician's Nephew?) There are slight difficulties of the opposite sort, too--assuming knowledge the reader doesn't have yet.

A more personal reason is that I think LB is much more powerful and poignant coming right on the heels of MN. In two books we move from innocence to loss to the final "eucatastrophe." They're a perfect pair.

I've read that Lewis agreed to re-edit the books so that they would work better in chronological order, but that he died shortly thereafter. After the first time through the published order, I think the chronological order is fine. (Although I hate putting down LWW in the middle of the last chapter, reading HHB, then finishing LWW. I run out of bookmarks.) :)

[pacifiquesea]

I actually just came across the reason the books were re-numbered - a child had written to him asking which order the books should be read, and Lewis answered the chronological was the best way. It wasn't just a whim on the publisher's part that they've been re-numbered.

[unleavened]

Hmmm. That's interesting. I like it both ways but for the first time around I liked reading them in written order. However, I can see that for a child, it might make more sense in chronilogical order.

[Zantar_Black]

I've read the Magician's Nephew, LWnW, and the Horse and His Boy, but I've heard from somewhere that reading them in publication order is better than in chronological. What's your guys' opinion on this?

[rosymole]

Oho, an oldie but a goodie!
It really depends on your prefered view of the Narnian world I suppose..you cvan either read the historical order, which you have done, or start with LWW, then PC, VDT (HHB can be slotted in somewhere!), and then you can, in my humble opinion of course, get more from reading the prequals, as you already have an affection fro the country..it's up to you really!

[inkspot]

Oh, Rosy is so nice ... "it's up to you, really."

It is not up to you. It is up to Inkspot. The best way to read the books is the publication order, which is, I believe:

LWW
VDT
PC
SC
HHB
MN
TLB

This way you meet Aslan for the first time just as the children did ... if you read MN first, then you already know all about him and the creation of Narnia long before the Pevensies know, and there is no nostalgia when you finally get to MN and sigh, "So that's how it all began ..."

CS Lewis, but the time he got old and dodgy, advocated the chronological order, but he didn't realize what he was talking about as he had written the books and never had the chance to read one for the first time.

Up to you indeed!

[Starkist]

Lewis was not "old and dodgy". Sheesh. All that happened was he wrote one sentence that has since been taken out of context.

[Aslan the Wise one]

you should read MN frist then LWW then the others like they are, How do i know this CSL step-son told me himself last week end when i asked him.

[Jewel of Narnia]

Wow! You met Douglas Gresham. Where was this at! Sorry, I'm getting of topic :o

I read the Narnia books in Chronological order because that's how the books in my set were numbered. I didn't even know there was another way to read them. :)

[Zantar_Black]

Yeah, well, I guess I'll finish reading them in chronological order, sice I've already read MN LWW and Horse, so the damge that can be done from that is irreversable anyway.

I have this same dillema with the Redwall books, except those I started in publishing order.

[Aslan the Wise one]

Go here to read the post i was there http://www.narniafans.com/?id=506

[Dernhelm]

Oh! Was that you? :eek:

[Aslan the Wise one]

Was that me or you???????????????

[waterhogboy]

Oh, Rosy is so nice ... "it's up to you, really."

It is not up to you. It is up to Inkspot. The best way to read the books is the publication order, which is, I believe:

LWW
VDT
PC
SC
HHB
MN
TLB

This way you meet Aslan for the first time just as the children did ... if you read MN first, then you already know all about him and the creation of Narnia long before the Pevensies know, and there is no nostalgia when you finally get to MN and sigh, "So that's how it all began ..."

CS Lewis, but the time he got old and dodgy, advocated the chronological order, but he didn't realize what he was talking about as he had written the books and never had the chance to read one for the first time.

Up to you indeed!

Oh my!! someone got up on the wrong side of bed today, didnt they!?

[inkspot]

Oh my!! someone got up on the wrong side of bed today, didnt they!?
Tee-hee. :o

[Pip]

I dunno, I guess you can read the books in either order if you want. But if you ask me, I think that you should read the books in the way they were published because that was the way that Lewis intended fort hem to be read, at least from what I've learned about the guy. I did a report on LWW for school (because I'm a total nerd, go me!) and from what I remember researching, LWW was originally intended to be a stand alone book. The series grew out of it. So in a way, I see it as the back bone to the series and since Lewis wrote the series from it, I think it's better to read them how he wrote them.

[she-elfwarrior19]

I read the books in Lewis's order, like LWW. PC VDT SC HHB MN LB
I am reading a book called "The companion to narnia, the companion to lewis's magical world of narnia" something like that and there was a question in the book of which order, and it sais that by the old order, thats the way i first read it anyways.

[inkspot]

Hurray for publication order.

Welcome, Pip! I didn't see you post before. :)

[Pip]

Thanks, I'm new.
I am very glad though that the movies are being done in the published order.

[Orangegoldandgreen]

I read them in the published order.
It's actually better to read them that way.
Because you read LWW, and you wonder "Why is the wardrobe so special?" and then you read TMN and everything just comes to you.
And reading TMN first, just ruins the whole thing.


but thats my opinion :rolleyes:

[Gondor Knight of Narnia]

I got the big 1-volume book w/ all 7 books in them, in chronological order. I think i prefer that because it explains how things in the books ahead came to be the way they were. I like it that way personally. :D

[inkspot]

You know what though? When in LWW the children first hear the name of Aslan, they get all these wonderful feelings, and CS Lewis says, "They did not know who Aslan was anymore than you do ..." but if you have already read MN, then you know all about Aslan, and some of the magic is already gone for you. If you read LWW first, you discover who Aslan is just as the Pevensie kids discover Him. It's rich.

[PlumSiren]

oh i could go on for days, but i'd recommend publication order (lww, pc, vdt, sc, hhb, mn, lb) to anyone & everyone

the way i see it, you start with lww. you have to. there's no 2 ways about it. from there you continue with the pevensies' adventures thru pc & vdt, then follow eustace into sc. then once you're sad that none of the pevensies will be returning to narnia, you can read about an adventure that happened while they reigned & expand your knowledge of the lands surrounding narnia. once you've read all that, you have the wonder & joy of discovering there's a book (mn) that explains how all this magic came to be, which is an awesome thing (a prequel done right, that is). and of course, sadly, it all comes to an end with lb.

sorry, that was a bit of rambling

[mtdman]

Publication Order, ONLY!

:D

[NEllas of Dorthonion]

publication order defiantly, if you read the chronologically it isn't the same.

[inkspot]

That's right, publicatin order! Hurray!

[scumhorror]

CS Lewis, by the time he got old and dodgy, advocated the chronological order, but he didn't realize what he was talking about as he had written the books and never had the chance to read one for the first time.


that was kinda funny

[melbren]

PUBLICATION ORDER is the only way. I feel sorry for people who read it chronologically - they missed out.

[mtdman]

PUBLICATION ORDER is the only way. I feel sorry for people who read it chronologically - they missed out.

Exactly!

:D

[Hannah_L]

I am yet to read the Narnia books (shame on me, i know :eek: ) But I have a set of them but am wondering what order they are to be read in? And will the films (if there are going to be any) be filmed in the same order?

Sorry lots of questions! :confused:

[Andrew the Magnificent]

The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
The Horse and His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle


Very, very worth reading. I actually think The Magician's Nephew is better if you read it after the rest - it makes more sense in the end.

[CSLewisFan]

"The internecine strife between Lewis aficionados about the order of the Narnia books shows no signs of abating. In principle, both devout Chronologists and sincere Publicationists both allow that people should read the books in whatever order they chose. Yet both groups, in their hearts, believe that their order is best. Fisticuffs can easily develop, and the first excommunications and crusades cannot be far away. In an attempt to resolve this very serious issue, I offer my own, definitive, take on the problem.
1: Chronology vs Publication

C.S Lewis's famous series of children's stories were published between 1950 and 1956, in the following order:

1. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)
2. Prince Caspian(1951)
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
4. The Silver Chair (1953)
5. The Horse and His Boy (1954)
6. The Magicians Nephew(1955)
7. The Last Battle (1956)

All current editions of the books, however, number them in a slightly different order:

1. The Magicians Nephew
2. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
3. The Horse and His Boy
4. Prince Caspian
5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6. The Silver Chair
7. The Last Battle

This order reflects the chronological sequence of events in the books themselves.

Lewis expressed a mild preference for this second, chronological order. In a letter written in 1957 to an American boy named Laurence, he wrote the following:

'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.

Quoted in "Letters to Children"

On this last point, scholars who have written about Narnia agree: the books were not published in the order that they were written. The writing order appears to have been

1: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
2: (Abandoned version of Magicians Nephew)
3: Prince Caspian
4: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
5: Horse and His Boy
6: Silver Chair
7: Magicians Nephew
8: Last Battle

The case for reading the books in chronological order is the self-evident one: it makes more sense, particularly for children, to read a series of stories in the order in which they happened.

The case for reading the books in published order includes the following:


Given that most people read and re-read the books many times, does this sort of nit-picking matter? Almost certainly not. However, I believe that argument is not, in fact an argument about which order to read the books in, but about which order to think of the books in. The reason that the discussion occasionally becomes heated is that the camps are not merely arguing for a particular sequence, but for a particular interpretation.


Let us imagine two innocent readers, sitting down to approach 'Narnia' for the first time.

One takes down from the shelf a big, leather bound edition, with illuminated capitals and line numbers. The big red book is entitled The Chronicles of Narnia. There is a contents page listing 'Vol. 1: The Magicians Nephew, Vol.: 2 The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' and so on. On hardback pages, the book would be shorter than Lord of the Rings or David Copperfield. Our reader would be quite clear that what he was embarking on was one long story, telling the story of an imaginary world from beginning to end.

Another virgin reader goes to a second hand bookshop and picks up a cheap paperback edition of Prince Caspian. There is an appalling, lurid fantasy picture on the cover, by someone who has obviously never read the book. The opening pages imply that it is a sequel of some kind, but he happily finds that it is quite self-contained. He goes back to the bookshop, and finds another book, a hardback, in a non-uniform edition. This is The Silver Chair. He comes away with the impression that Lewis wrote a number (he does not know how many, maybe thousands) of fairy stories, all nominally in a linked world and with a recurrent motif (Aslan) but otherwise, not very closely related. He gradually, and out of order, reads the whole lot—although he himself does not know that he is finished because he does not know what Lewis wrote.

It seems to me that these two people have had different reading experiences. They will be inclined to interpret the books in different ways.

Now, to my mind, every attempt to say 'you should read the books in this order, you should read them in that order' is an attempt to hierarchise the types of reading-experience, and thus to encourage a particular interpretation.

If you start out peering through the wardrobe into the snow, and are led across Narnia by the wonderfully anachronistic Mr Tumnus; if you first learn of Aslan from Mr and Mrs Beaver over high-tea and a warm fire, then you are likely to think of Narnia as 'that place that started out as a slightly whimsical fairy tale and gathered more and more religious significance as it went on'. If you first learn of Narnia during its creation, and first see Aslan when he is singing the world into being, you are more likely to think of it as a primarily theological, mythological narrative.

The very project of calling it The Chronicles of Narnia is bringing something outside of the text to bear on our readings. 'Read this,' it seems to say 'as the history of an imaginary world, not as a collection of fairy tales with a linked background.'

I do not say that the version of Narnia implied by The Chronicles and the sequential numbering is wrong: I say only that it is not neutral; it presupposes a theory about what Narnia is.


Books—all books—are complicated things, muttering at us in different contradictory voices, refusing to stay the same when we go back to them. Tying them down too much robs of them of the magic."

-Austin

[DeplorableWord]

You should read the books the first way that CSLewisFan said... trust me on this one... it's WAY more fun :D ...- that's my personel opinion.

CSLewisFan is right though, too.

[stronger_WM]

You should read the books the first way that CSLewisFan said... trust me on this one... it's WAY more fun :D ...- that's my personel opinion.

CSLewisFan is right though, too.

Yeah I'm reading them in the published order, because I would rather find out how it began near the end. Plus I love LWW ^_^ so i was like, why not start it it? :cool:

[dazzascfc]

I think that the best order to read them in is chronologically, especially if you havent read them before, it would probably make more sense.

Once you have read them though just read them the way which suits you the best.

[Lenny]

I read TMN first as that is what was recommended in the books and then onto LWW. However, i have been told that it is more a surprise to read LWW first so you find out how everythign came about afterwards.

How did read LWW first and is it a surpirse to find out how it all came about afterwards?

i think i wish i had of read LWW first..

x

[cathyrh]

It doesn't really matter if you read it closly.. you will get it anyway. But MN is the "creation" and LWW is the continuation xP

[elfjad]

LWW is the most famous and the most familiar. If you read this and like it then I think it is good to start at the beginning and go through all the books in order (including a re-read of LWW). I can imagine that it would be really confusing to read them out of order, but LWW does stand out quite well.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

This issue keeps cropping up in this forum. A lot of us old "narniacs" come out strongly in favor of publishing order:
Lion
Caspian
Dawn Treader
Silver Chair
Horse
Nephew
Battle

Interestingly, I got a guide to Narnia as a Christmas present, and learned that the publication order is almost the writing order - except that Horse was written before Silver Chair, but Lewis held back on publishing it because he wanted to keep the "Caspian triad" (Caspian, Dawn Treader, Silver Chair) together. This makes a lot of sense, because I've always though Chair a more developed work than Horse, and that explains why.

[sailndwntrder]

i actually would read them in this order.. only if it is your first time
1.the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe (because it was first and is easiest to understand without the other books)
2.the horse and his boy (since it takes place within the four pevensie children's era)
3.prince caspian (keeping in mind it was published just after the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe)
4. voyage of the dawn treader
5. silver chair
6. magician's nephew (i would go back and finally read the first one here because it would make much more sense after reading the others)
7. the last battle (the more you know about the other books, the better this one will be)

after you know the stories its way easier to go back and read them chronologically.. every time i re-read them i read them in the chronological order now)

[Charn_Tim]

Yeah, I'm definitely with PotW on this one. The publishing order is the way to go. Interesting info about Horse too.

[EveningStar]

I think you should read them from front to back. Otherwise they make no sense at all, unless you have the Hebrew or Arabic translation in which case they make even less sense...to me.

Gang, it would be really awe inspiring if one phrase...Aslan's statement to Lucy...could appear in all the different translations all the different readers have. "When a willing victim who has committed no treachery gives his life in a traitor's stead, the table would crack and death itself starts working backwards."

Just a thought...

[Lillee]

"The internecine strife between Lewis aficionados about the order of the Narnia books shows no signs of abating. In principle, both devout Chronologists and sincere Publicationists both allow that people should read the books in whatever order they chose. Yet both groups, in their hearts, believe that their order is best. Fisticuffs can easily develop, and the first excommunications and crusades cannot be far away. In an attempt to resolve this very serious issue, I offer my own, definitive, take on the problem.
1: Chronology vs Publication

C.S Lewis's famous series of children's stories were published between 1950 and 1956, in the following order:

1. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)
2. Prince Caspian(1951)
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
4. The Silver Chair (1953)
5. The Horse and His Boy (1954)
6. The Magicians Nephew(1955)
7. The Last Battle (1956)

All current editions of the books, however, number them in a slightly different order:

1. The Magicians Nephew
2. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
3. The Horse and His Boy
4. Prince Caspian
5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6. The Silver Chair
7. The Last Battle

This order reflects the chronological sequence of events in the books themselves.

Lewis expressed a mild preference for this second, chronological order. In a letter written in 1957 to an American boy named Laurence, he wrote the following:

'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.

Quoted in "Letters to Children"

On this last point, scholars who have written about Narnia agree: the books were not published in the order that they were written. The writing order appears to have been

1: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
2: (Abandoned version of Magicians Nephew)
3: Prince Caspian
4: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
5: Horse and His Boy
6: Silver Chair
7: Magicians Nephew
8: Last Battle

The case for reading the books in chronological order is the self-evident one: it makes more sense, particularly for children, to read a series of stories in the order in which they happened.

The case for reading the books in published order includes the following:


Given that most people read and re-read the books many times, does this sort of nit-picking matter? Almost certainly not. However, I believe that argument is not, in fact an argument about which order to read the books in, but about which order to think of the books in. The reason that the discussion occasionally becomes heated is that the camps are not merely arguing for a particular sequence, but for a particular interpretation.


Let us imagine two innocent readers, sitting down to approach 'Narnia' for the first time.

One takes down from the shelf a big, leather bound edition, with illuminated capitals and line numbers. The big red book is entitled The Chronicles of Narnia. There is a contents page listing 'Vol. 1: The Magicians Nephew, Vol.: 2 The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' and so on. On hardback pages, the book would be shorter than Lord of the Rings or David Copperfield. Our reader would be quite clear that what he was embarking on was one long story, telling the story of an imaginary world from beginning to end.

Another virgin reader goes to a second hand bookshop and picks up a cheap paperback edition of Prince Caspian. There is an appalling, lurid fantasy picture on the cover, by someone who has obviously never read the book. The opening pages imply that it is a sequel of some kind, but he happily finds that it is quite self-contained. He goes back to the bookshop, and finds another book, a hardback, in a non-uniform edition. This is The Silver Chair. He comes away with the impression that Lewis wrote a number (he does not know how many, maybe thousands) of fairy stories, all nominally in a linked world and with a recurrent motif (Aslan) but otherwise, not very closely related. He gradually, and out of order, reads the whole lot—although he himself does not know that he is finished because he does not know what Lewis wrote.

It seems to me that these two people have had different reading experiences. They will be inclined to interpret the books in different ways.

Now, to my mind, every attempt to say 'you should read the books in this order, you should read them in that order' is an attempt to hierarchise the types of reading-experience, and thus to encourage a particular interpretation.

If you start out peering through the wardrobe into the snow, and are led across Narnia by the wonderfully anachronistic Mr Tumnus; if you first learn of Aslan from Mr and Mrs Beaver over high-tea and a warm fire, then you are likely to think of Narnia as 'that place that started out as a slightly whimsical fairy tale and gathered more and more religious significance as it went on'. If you first learn of Narnia during its creation, and first see Aslan when he is singing the world into being, you are more likely to think of it as a primarily theological, mythological narrative.

The very project of calling it The Chronicles of Narnia is bringing something outside of the text to bear on our readings. 'Read this,' it seems to say 'as the history of an imaginary world, not as a collection of fairy tales with a linked background.'

I do not say that the version of Narnia implied by The Chronicles and the sequential numbering is wrong: I say only that it is not neutral; it presupposes a theory about what Narnia is.


Books—all books—are complicated things, muttering at us in different contradictory voices, refusing to stay the same when we go back to them. Tying them down too much robs of them of the magic."

-Austin

WOW! It makes one think! very well written. but unfortunatley for me I bought the Chronicles of Narnia all together in one huge book, so I read them in the order they were published today. I almost wish i had read them in the order Mr.Lewis wrote them.
how did you read them? :cool:

[Lenny]

It doesn't really matter if you read it closly.. you will get it anyway. But MN is the "creation" and LWW is the continuation xP

No, i was just asking if anyone had read it afterwards and discovered it a surpise etc...just a general conversation. I wasn't asking what i should read first..

x

[elfjad]

Oh! Well in that case, I did read LWW about 5 years before any of the others so I couldn't remember details that well, which was kind of lucky otherwise I think I would have been a tad confused!

[onlymystory]

I read LWW first and then MN and I liked it better that way. It was fun to go back and find out what happened before. I don't think I would have enjoyed it the other way.

[SapphireOfSeptember]

do the rest of the books relate to the pevensie children?

[Kai Tetsuki]

and again PUBLICATION ORDER my sister bought the book to read to her son and started in the "new order" and he lost intrest very fast. He didnt want to hear how the world was created!
Once you know the characters and love them then the creation becomes interesting but really there are many books that cant be "reordered" The Lord Of The Rings really if i have started with "The Silmarillion" i would have NEVER read the LOTR books. C.S Lewis was a smart man so if he wrote/published them in this order that is how they should stay. i dont care what some" i know everything in the world and i know better then the author" person said the order should be when the put them back in publication order i will buy them in hard back.
sorry to rant but as you can tell its touchy and im very pissed they did it

[Lenny]

I read LWW first and then MN and I liked it better that way. It was fun to go back and find out what happened before. I don't think I would have enjoyed it the other way.
Thats what i thought it would be better..

ALthough i read MN first, i already knew the story so it was fun to go back and see how everything was to be in Narnia,but then i properly read LWW AFTER wards. I found it okay though.

x

[lionessofgod]

I have recently bought a book at Borders that has all 7 books in one, and it says that this is the order that Professor Lewis preferred the books to be read in:
Nephew
LLW
Horse
Caspian
Voyage
Chair
Battle

That's all I have to say, except that I kind of agree, b/c otherwise, you may become confused while reading.

[lionessofgod]

The way that I believe it should be read is that way ^

[Lenny]

Thats the way i have started reading them :)





p.s. do you have the disney princess alb, lioness of god? :)

x

[skandar_hh10]

I read LWW 1st then MN. I was wondering how Narnia really started, so then I read MN & it made alot more sence! I am rereading the series now. Those books are PRICELESS! :)

[Lenny]

hehe yes!! i take the one im reading everywhere with me!!

I took it to the city yesturday then went ot the cinema, came otu and it wasn;t in my bag!1 i was like "NOOOO!!! :mad: " and got really pakicky..but it was in my room the whole time haha..

x

[Fantasylover]

It's acyually,
Nephew
lion
horse
caspian
and i can't remeber the rest. lol

[Aslan'sgirl]

It's acyually,
Nephew
lion
horse
caspian
and i can't remeber the rest. lol

If you read them in that order, then it would be Treader, Chair, Battle. I read the LWW first and just got done reading MN again. It was a surprise for me to learn that Digory became the Professor and how the wardrobe is magical, but that's just me.

[Aeradaan]

Hey everyone...I've been meaning to read the Narnia books for a while now...and was finally enticed to do so after seeing LWW for the second time (felt like a mix between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, though a little lighter than either--my type of story). I've already read the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but now I'm a bit confused as to what order to read the rest. The suggested order with the edition I've bought is:

1.) Magician's Nephew
2.) The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
3.) The Horse and His Boy
4.) Prince Caspian
5.) The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6.) The Silver Chair
7.) The Last Battle

According to the book, this was C.S. Lewis's preferred order of reading...but I've seen where many fans disagree with this order. So what, therefore, is the best order for a first time read through of these books?

[misslucypevensie]

Well it depends i of course read like that cause it is less confusing

[kirke]

since you have already seen the movie i would say read them in the order you posted... personally i think it is best for the first and 3rd book (or movie and book :)) to be LWW as it started it and if you read MN before knowing the story of the LWW you will lose most of the suprise

[Harvestar]

Thanks for that!
I think I will follow your opinions unless otherwise..
Yea, I have not read them yet. :(
I want to get the hard covers first.

[Aeradaan]

Thanks for your replies. :) I started Magician's Nephew, and I love it.

[Harvestar]

Thanks for your replies. :) I started Magician's Nephew, and I love it.

Yah! I too started (yesterday night).
I just finished 5 mins ago ~_o

[Aeradaan]

Heheh, did you like it? I finished it soon after posting that...I read LLW again, and now I'm on A Horse and His Boy (love it too--reminds me a good bit of Eragon and Eldest by Christopher Paolini--I suppose C. S. Lewis was another one of his "inspirational guides" alongside Tolkien :p).

[furcoats]

yes that's a good order to read them in...the magician nephew really tells how everything happened. good choice

[queen_aravis]

Well, yes, and I too read the books in that order, but I think the surprise that is being talked about here is how the wardrobe led to Narnia, which is explained in <i>Nephew</i>. Thus, if you read <i>Nephew</i> after LWW, you should probably be, somehow, surprised at how the wardrobe ended up leading to Narnia.

[she-elfwarrior19]

i read the original order
LWW
PC
VDT
SC
HHB
MN
LB
I not fond of the new chronilogical order.

[Giselle the Ethereal]

I recently just bought the Narnia books but I read it the way CSL preferred it to be read.

TMN was published years after LWW was first published. So, it's sort of like a prologue.

[she-elfwarrior19]

I read the first order. Thats my fave way to read them.

[Valkyrie]

Narnia is "lighter" than Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings?
What by this do you mean?
I think of the Narnia Chronicles as much darker and heavier than those.

[holyboy]

I think of the Narnia Chronicles as much darker and heavier than those.

I've always seen Narnia being lighter, because the ending is always happy. With LotR (and maybe HP with Book 7) the ending is sadder and darker.

[♣Teh Deviant♣]

*picks old thread out of purgatory*

Well, all of them do, but the books that have the Pevensie children IN them are

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (all 4 of the kids)
Prince Caspian(all 4)
Voyage of the Dawn Treader(Edmund and Lucy)
The Last Battle(4 of them)

ANd the others either dont have them in it or have them in it, but just briefly

[Señor Puntos]

I think you can read them in any order, it doesn't really matter. I read them in this order first time round:
1.LWW
2.MN
3.THAHB
4.TLB
5.PC
6.VotD
7.SC

I read then in the order I could get them, I didn't do it on purpose.

[inkspot]

read lww first
pc second
vdt 3rd
silver chair 4th
hhb 5th
mn 6th
tlb 7th

this will bring you good luck.
or at least you wil read them in the order they were published which is fortunate.

[ramsaur]

why does it matter what order you read them in? i started reading them and i'm reading them in order and its great so far.

[♣Teh Deviant♣]

It really doesnt actually matter, perce'.......but its a custom to read chronicles in certain orders. you end up with the same tale at the end, anyways, though.

[inkspot]

I like reading LWW first because you get introduced to Aslan right along with the Pevensies. Your first meeting is their first meeting with him, and the build-up to it -- when they first hear his name, the three Pevensies are strangely thrilled, while Edmund is strangely revolted. Why? Who is Aslan?!

But if you read MN first, you already know who Aslan is, and there is no great mystery or suspense about that.

[Narnia Man 2006]

I would read them in the order C.S Lewis would want you to read:


1. The Magician's Nephew

2. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

3. The Horse and his Boy

4. Prince Caspian

5. Voyage of the Dawn Trader

6. Silver Chair

7. The Last Battle

That was the order that I read all the Narnia books. If you read Magician's Nephew first, you'll get the entire story about the Lampost.

[inkspot]

That's true, you get the whole story first in that order ... but I liked reading LWW first and being enchanted by the Lion and wondering about the lamp-post ...

[ye old hermit]

i enjoyed reading them in order

as it told me right away who proffessor kirke was.... :)

i think Prince Caspian is the best one

what do you guys think????

[inkspot]

No, I think LWW is the best. PC is good, though, they are all good.

[Ithilien]

Well, I first read the series in chronological order and then recently reread them in order of publication. While reading them in chronological order can be really enlightening, reading them in order of publication can be a little more fulfilling. It was like being introduced into the world along with Lucy and growing with Narnia as C.S. Lewis grows into Narnia.

[inkspot]

Well, I first read the series in chronological order and then recently reread them in order of publication. While reading them in chronological order can be really enlightening, reading them in order of publication can be a little more fulfilling. It was like being introduced into the world along with Lucy and growing with Narnia as C.S. Lewis grows into Narnia.
YES! That's it exactly. :)

[MattRod]

I would like everyones opinion on the best order to read the books, the order they were released or the one where Magicians Nephew comes first.

I watched Chronicles of narnia: LWW for the first time last night, i had no idea what the story was going to be, it was brilliant. Ever since then ive been reading up on it and there's 2 orders to read the books whcih 1 do you recommend? :confused:

[MattRod]

thanks i think i might read them in the order they were released. :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Hello, MattRod. We've got another thread on this topic (several, actually), so I merged your thread with one of the others that takes up the same discussion. You can read back through what others have said on the topic.

My opinion is that publication order is best: Lion, Caspian, Dawn Treader, Silver Chair, Horse, Magician, and Last Battle. This is as Lewis wrote them (almost - Horse was actually penned before Silver Chair, but Lewis reversed the publication order to keep the Caspian books together), and I think if you read them that way, you can see the stories and characters developing accordingly.

By the way, I haven't seen you post before. Welcome to the forum!

[LifeMaiden]

When I first got the set of books as a kid, of course, I read the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe first. But now I just am finishing up The Magician's Nephew in a boxed set I purchased a few days ago, and it's got the number 1 on it as the book to read first.


I have to admit that while some might disagree with me I like knowing how Narnia came about and the background history of it before going into reading the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe again.

[Knight Aaron of Narnia]

I read them in teh original order!

[Carlos.]

The first book that was read to me was The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, (plus, I also saw the live-action BBC movie and the animated movie), and I think it is the best introduction to the series.

I think that reading The Magicians Nephew first kind of ruins the mystery of "what is a lamppost doing in Narnia?" "why does the professor know so much about Narnia?", "who is this Aslan everybody keeps talking about and whats so great about him?". It's like watching Star Wars in chronological order and already knowing Darth Vader is Luke's father before watching the Empire Strikes Back.

You appreciate the Magicians Nephew more if you're already familiar with Narnia and the characters in the first books.
besides, I don't think C.S.Lewis actually meant for you to read them in chronological order. He just thought it was an interesting approach to his books by the boys mother.

It's a good idea to read them in chronological order but not if you haven't read them before.

[Natasia_Vae]

I like reading the series in chronological order. The books are called "The Chronicles of Narnia" so Narnia is what the stories are all about not the children. If you start with "The Magician's Nephew" you understand Narnia better throughout the series. No matter what though, always read "The Last Battle" last! :)

[~The Narnia Addict~]

"The internecine strife between Lewis aficionados about the order of the Narnia books shows no signs of abating. In principle, both devout Chronologists and sincere Publicationists both allow that people should read the books in whatever order they chose. Yet both groups, in their hearts, believe that their order is best. Fisticuffs can easily develop, and the first excommunications and crusades cannot be far away. In an attempt to resolve this very serious issue, I offer my own, definitive, take on the problem.
1: Chronology vs Publication

C.S Lewis's famous series of children's stories were published between 1950 and 1956, in the following order:

1. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)
2. Prince Caspian(1951)
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
4. The Silver Chair (1953)
5. The Horse and His Boy (1954)
6. The Magicians Nephew(1955)
7. The Last Battle (1956)

All current editions of the books, however, number them in a slightly different order:

1. The Magicians Nephew
2. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
3. The Horse and His Boy
4. Prince Caspian
5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6. The Silver Chair
7. The Last Battle

This order reflects the chronological sequence of events in the books themselves.

Lewis expressed a mild preference for this second, chronological order. In a letter written in 1957 to an American boy named Laurence, he wrote the following:

'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.

Quoted in "Letters to Children"

On this last point, scholars who have written about Narnia agree: the books were not published in the order that they were written. The writing order appears to have been

1: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
2: (Abandoned version of Magicians Nephew)
3: Prince Caspian
4: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
5: Horse and His Boy
6: Silver Chair
7: Magicians Nephew
8: Last Battle

The case for reading the books in chronological order is the self-evident one: it makes more sense, particularly for children, to read a series of stories in the order in which they happened.

The case for reading the books in published order includes the following:


Given that most people read and re-read the books many times, does this sort of nit-picking matter? Almost certainly not. However, I believe that argument is not, in fact an argument about which order to read the books in, but about which order to think of the books in. The reason that the discussion occasionally becomes heated is that the camps are not merely arguing for a particular sequence, but for a particular interpretation.


Let us imagine two innocent readers, sitting down to approach 'Narnia' for the first time.

One takes down from the shelf a big, leather bound edition, with illuminated capitals and line numbers. The big red book is entitled The Chronicles of Narnia. There is a contents page listing 'Vol. 1: The Magicians Nephew, Vol.: 2 The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' and so on. On hardback pages, the book would be shorter than Lord of the Rings or David Copperfield. Our reader would be quite clear that what he was embarking on was one long story, telling the story of an imaginary world from beginning to end.

Another virgin reader goes to a second hand bookshop and picks up a cheap paperback edition of Prince Caspian. There is an appalling, lurid fantasy picture on the cover, by someone who has obviously never read the book. The opening pages imply that it is a sequel of some kind, but he happily finds that it is quite self-contained. He goes back to the bookshop, and finds another book, a hardback, in a non-uniform edition. This is The Silver Chair. He comes away with the impression that Lewis wrote a number (he does not know how many, maybe thousands) of fairy stories, all nominally in a linked world and with a recurrent motif (Aslan) but otherwise, not very closely related. He gradually, and out of order, reads the whole lot—although he himself does not know that he is finished because he does not know what Lewis wrote.

It seems to me that these two people have had different reading experiences. They will be inclined to interpret the books in different ways.

Now, to my mind, every attempt to say 'you should read the books in this order, you should read them in that order' is an attempt to hierarchise the types of reading-experience, and thus to encourage a particular interpretation.

If you start out peering through the wardrobe into the snow, and are led across Narnia by the wonderfully anachronistic Mr Tumnus; if you first learn of Aslan from Mr and Mrs Beaver over high-tea and a warm fire, then you are likely to think of Narnia as 'that place that started out as a slightly whimsical fairy tale and gathered more and more religious significance as it went on'. If you first learn of Narnia during its creation, and first see Aslan when he is singing the world into being, you are more likely to think of it as a primarily theological, mythological narrative.

The very project of calling it The Chronicles of Narnia is bringing something outside of the text to bear on our readings. 'Read this,' it seems to say 'as the history of an imaginary world, not as a collection of fairy tales with a linked background.'

I do not say that the version of Narnia implied by The Chronicles and the sequential numbering is wrong: I say only that it is not neutral; it presupposes a theory about what Narnia is.


Books—all books—are complicated things, muttering at us in different contradictory voices, refusing to stay the same when we go back to them. Tying them down too much robs of them of the magic."

-Austin

STOP MAKING ME SCROLL SO FAR DOWN :mad: ! lol nice thingamajigga or thingamabobba or watchamacallit

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Well, I like the way they're doing them now, in the order they were written. But a few people want them to be in chronological order, that is, they wanted The Magician's Nephew first. Vote and post, please!

[tottyfruitty]

there is already a thread like this
i want it to be in the order that c.s lewis wrote the books

[Aslan's Beloved Daughter]

I wanted it to be in Chrono. because it would make so much more sense. I mean, at least you would know who Aslan is, why he's so superior, and where the wardrobe came from, why/how it leads to Narnia, and who the Professor is. It would make so much more sense to the people who haven't read the books and it would keep them up-to-date. You know what i mean???

[holyboy]

I'm Stickying this topic, because this question seems to pop up all the time.

Also, I am adding an other option for those who believe it should be in a new order.

[always winter]

i believe the way lewis wrote them. i only just read the book after i saw the movie on opening night. a friend lent me her 7 in 1 set. it was in chronological order. since i knew LWW, it was so intersting reading how all of that came to be! i sat all through magician's nephew going "oooohh so thats how it happen" etc

i think reading them in the order lewis wrote them created more of a compelling series. if you read them when they first came out in stores it must have been incredible to finally find out how that magical world was created after youve already known about for quite a bit.

[LifeMaiden]

I read the Magician's Nephew first, because that was how it was numbered in the book set I got of the Chronicles. It gave me the background information on how Narnia was formed, and more info about the White Witch. And yet, I voted for the order in which the books were written, because it would also be just as interesting to wait for the Magician's Nephew coming last and saying to yourself, SO THAT'S HOW IT ALL BEGAN. A long time ago when I first got the Chronicles as a kid, the order of the books began with LWW and ended with MN anyways.

[office]

oops i put chronilogical i meant to put the order the they were written.

[Lioness_Aslan]

I wanted to read them chronogicaly but I found LWW first so I read that one first.

[Solya]

Reading them chronologically is more enriching to the later stories, but reading them in the way they were written causes you to really discover Narnia together with Lucy (like in the movie). I can't choose between the two. :( I've read the books in both orders and loved both orders quite equally.

[PeterC]

I was stupid enough to read The Horse And His Boy right after i read Prince Caspian, which really messes up my Narnia experience.

[glamel]

much better to read the series in order. the way the are written in order.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

i read them in the chronological order it just makes more sense to me that way.

[stronger_WM]

I say written because that way we will be able to see the first actors again and again. Plus, it leaves the beginning for the end..sort of like how Star Wars was produced.

:)

[Tsukiko]

the written!! 100%

[arwenelizabeth]

I voted for the written order. That's the way Dad read them to us when we were kids, so I'm emotionally attached to that order. But I also think it makes sense to read them in the order that Lewis conceived them; that way you're sort of following his thought process.

[*Hobbit*]

:) jack[c.s lewis] wanted them to be in that order,so thats what i vote for

[Narborg]

I think doing TLTWATW 1st is a good thing. Its the most famous, tso it gives the wides appeal. Also, I dont think they have the tecnolony yet to do TMN, and it propably want be as good a movie as some of the others as there not as much tesne action in it.

[the freak sisters]

I think the movies should go the way C.S frist wrote them but i would rather read them the other way. It makes more sense then.

[ramandu's_daughter]

I like them in the order they were written... I like things out of order.:)

[inkspot]

iMerge with older threads on the subject.

As I stated somewhere previously, I much prefer the order in which they were written/published. That way, you get the thrill of meeting Aslan just as the Pevensie children did. You feel their joy when they first hear his name, and yet you don't know who he is, or how he can help ... whereas if you already read TMN, you know all about him, so it is not such a mystery.

[OnceUponaTime]

I was born the year they changed the order, I'm pretty sure(correct me if I'm wrong-1995?) So my mom bought the series for me in chronological, and that's how she read them to me, and that's how I think of them. On MN and LWW, really, it's ok if you read MN first, cause you still aren't sure if Aslan or Jadis or even Narnia is the same place, because of the different ways the children got through. Maybe no one else's brain works like mine though. lol.

[Sir Godfrey]

I have read all of the narnia books before, but I am wanting to get the full effect of them...Please help me..what order should I read them to get the full effect out of my reading experience.

Read them as fallows:

The Chronicles of Narnia:

The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Horse and His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of Dawn Treader
The Silver chair
the Last Battle

[ABright5]

I say read it in the publishing order the first time round.

Then read it in chronological order.


after that, just one at random, and read them that way.

[Savanna_2010]

I have read all of the narnia books before, but I am wanting to get the full effect of them...Please help me..what order should I read them to get the full effect out of my reading experience.
I think you should read the in chronilogical order.

[tirian_son_of_erlian]

:) I just registered with narniafans.com and have read all 15 pages on this topic. Why read the books in chronological order? Because they were only recently published that way? To keep precise, calculated track of everything that is going on? My, oh my, what do they teach them in schools these days?

Rather, read them in the order they were originally published-the order they were written in by the great genius C.S. Lewis himself. Savor every delicious moment and experience the wonder, awe and mystery. Let the dots connect.

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

I like to read them in chronological order AND the way it was written.

[Don Patch]

The first time I read it the chronological order, now I'm just reading them over again in which ever order I want. :p
I'm glad the movies will be in the written order. :D :D :D

[Twilight]

I think that now, as they have started with LWW, and are doing Prince Caspian, they will have to do the books where the original Pevensies are in first before the actors and actresses get too old to portray their characters. For this reason, I think that it will go:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (already confirmed)
Prince Caspian (already confirmed)
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Lucy and Edmund are in it, therefore they can't be too old!)
The Silver Chair
The Horse and His Boy
The Magician's Nephew
The Last Battle

The last four I put in that order because that's the order in which they were published.

[Edmund Pevensie]

So far they are making them in the order that are written and I want it that way because so far I was reading the books in that order (The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Prince Caspian. The Voyage of Dawn Treader (I started reading but stopped but I am planning on starting to read it again)

[Hermit of Archenland]

I first read them in more or less the published order except I started with PC (I was given the book for Christmas) After that I got LWW VODT and all the other books. I would say it's better to read them in published order the first time, but after that it doesn't really matter. I just read which ever I fancy at the time. They're all terrific stories anyway

[Copperfox]

Filming order may be affected by the ages of actors. But some scenes could be shot in advance for later use. For instance, "The Horse and His Boy" is not likely to be filmed until Georgie Hensley is about 28 years old; but I would like it if they could film a scene with her and Jim Broadbent NOW, to use then. I've posted the idea before: Lucy is seen talking to the Professor not long after the return of the four from Narnia, telling him about the adult life she and her siblings lived there. This would fade into the action of HHB, while helping the audience to place HHB in the time-stream.

[Alexandra Pevensie]

yeah...that would be good...i read the books twice in the written order (LWW, PC, etc.), so i hope they keep the movies in that order...i really like the idea of filming parts of THAHB...that sounds good to me!

[micoorda]

i prefer the Chronological order beacuse it is easy to understood than the orihinal order.
1.magician's nephew
2.the lion, the witch and the wardrobe
3.the horse and his boy
4.prince caspian
5.voyage of the dawn treader
6.the silver chair
7.the last battle

[micoorda]

i prefer the Chronological order beacuse it is easy to understood than the original order.
1.magician's nephew
2.the lion, the witch and the wardrobe
3.the horse and his boy
4.prince caspian
5.voyage of the dawn treader
6.the silver chair
7.the last battle

[supermeulen]

This is official news I read up on in another site:

The order of the films are as follows:

1. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
2. Prince Caspian
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4. The Silver Chair
5. The Magician's Nephew
6. The Horse and His Boy
7. The Last Battle

Whoever voted on 'Other' might just win

[micoorda]

i prefer the written one beacuse it is more understandable :rolleyes:

[Lossëndil]

I think we should read it in the way of publication.
Have you ever written a story? It's sort of like exploring. Along the way you find out more about your characters, the place they live etc.
So you would naturally get a view of Narnia closer to that of Lewis' if you read it the way he wrote it. It's sort of like exploring Narnia with him.

[holyboy]

iMove to book section. I don't know how it was in Hunt for the White Stag for so long :)

[Lady Chloe]

I think they should be read in order of Narnian Age; The Magician's Nephew and the last being the Last Battle, because it helps you understand things better....

[MrBob]

If I had to choose just between chronological vs. published, I would say published every time.

However, I only have certain suggestions to those who want to read the septulogy. Read LWW first and TLB last. Read the "Caspian Trilogy" (PC, VotDT, TSC) as a group. The other two (H&HB, MN) can float anywhere.

MrBob

[Sir Godfrey]

I vote reading them in chronological order. It's just more logical and less confusing for the reader.

[Stylteralmaldo]

I used to be a "Chronilogical" adherent. However, now that my eldest daughter is taking an interest in the Narnia books I'm changing my tune a bit. It seems MN shouldn't be the first book read. HAHB shouldn't come right after LWW. It flows better by the way they were released IMHO.

[CSLewisFan]

I've read them in the chronological order, the publication order and the order in which they were written.
Very interesting how the story shifts with each new view.
This was all before I was eight year old.
::Yes, I was a huge Chronicles of Narnia nerd as a child ;)::

-Austin

[Sir Godfrey]

I'm going to read them in written order next, but I reccomend for you're first time that you read them in Chronlogical order.

[Mrs Gil-Galad Took]

I started with The magician's nephew and ended with the Last battle.

[Olórin the Wise]

I don't like the chronological order. I just hate having to leave LWW in the middle of the last chapter, reading HHB, and then picking up LWW again. :D

Seriously, though, I have my own descending scale: You MUST read LWW first. That kicks off the whole series. I highly recommend that you read PC second, and VoDT third. It's kinda nice to read SC next. HHB and MN you can read in the middle sometime. Finally, you MUST read LB last.*

_______________
*Note: Please realize that these 'must' and 'highly recommended' things are only suggestions. I'm not trying to force anybody here. :) ;)

[HugsForReepicheep]

Hum... I honestly think they can be read in almost any order. I myself have read them for the first time in a really non-sense order, starting from The Silver Chair, because I didn't know there was a series with an order to follow. But I agree that the best one to start with would be The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, because it has a 'welcome' feel. Still, one could start with any order, because when reading the books again (it has to happen!) all will fall into place and make sense.

Stated that, I have to add that there's not a better book to end Narnia than The Last Battle, and it requires some knowledge of all previous books to be fully comprehended - and has the *best* ending. :D

[she-elfwarrior19]

I voted for order of Publication.
I personally love that order of reading the books, Thats the order that i first read the books in and i absolutely love this order. I'm not as fond of the chronilogical order as much just because i'm not as fond of MN but it does make sense in a sense that since it is the first times in Narnia then it should be first, but the publication is the order love best and read my fave books in.

[glenstorm125]

Amen!!!!! Reading them in the order that C.S. Lewis created them keeps the magic more wonderous every time I read them.

[LadyAnneOfNarnia]

Here here! I've only read them in the order that they were written; that's the best way! I think I'll try Chronilogically over break, just to see what it's like....:)

[NarnianofGryffindor]

My preference is to read it in chronological order. That's how I first read it.

[SweetWaters]

Did I not post in this thread yet? Well, okay. I think it's more interesting to read them in the publication order first because you can kind of see how they develop as a series. But for myself I first read them completely in the wrong order. I remember reading LWW first; that was okay, but after that I read VoDT next. (I think that's because my sister was obsessed with PC at the time and probably was hogging it all to herself.) I remember thinking at the beginning, "Who on earth is this Caspian dude?" LOL. I was probably seven at the time.

[NarniaForever]

I agree with this statment:

"I have to say that I think the original order is the best way to read them. TLWW in my opinion is the best introduction to Narnia, and I think starting with TMN takes away from some of the mystery of the later books."

But also I would like to add that I enjoyed reading the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe first and then going back and reading them chronilogically. I dont know why.... I'm just glad that I did. Just like the example of star wars. It's great to watch 4-6 first and then 1-3. First off, you get the suspense of wondering who Darth Vader is then you learn that Darth Vader is Luke's father then you learn that Darth Vader is Anakin. It's really just however you prefer. But back to the subject. I think you should read them in the order that they were written.

God Bless!

[Atikin]

You just HAVE to read LWW first and then MN - it adds so much more wonder. CS L wasn't THINKING when he wrote that line in his letter, or he didn't realise the powerful impact of going back and finding out how it all happened. I guess it was the first time i had read two books in conjunction that were so cleverly linked and i can still remember the 'wow' factor that created, it was just so powerful. Reading them the other way, well you kinda know it all before you begin, which I suppose is cool too but doesn't hit you like a bolt of lightning.

[Atikin]

Sorry to post 2 in a row but I just went back and read this whole thread and can I just say...
Inked- LOVED your rant, it cracked me totally
Gymfan - i had NO IDEA Mag Nep was to be read 2nd last, thanks for enlightening me, i can see how powerful and yes nostalgic (who said that?) it would be to read that way and i can see the whole, 'we're nearly at the end, so let me tell you how it REALLY began' would work so well.
Pip - now that you've pointed it out its obvious that LWW was written as a stand alone novel that the others grew from, and I believe this is the "Organic Argument" for reading in published order! when something 'justs grows up' to misquote Tom Sawyer there is magic in the natural way it evolves.
Oh, Orangethingy - that pic of Tumnus and Lucy is the most gorgeous thing i have ever seen, i've printed it for my workstation (oh yeah, work, that's right, i'm meant to be doing it....)
Finally, i embarrassed to ask but presume CS Lewis is deceased???? (and no doubt has taken his place as God's right hand man...)

[SweetWaters]

Yah he died in 1963. (Too bad for all of us who were born afterward!!:()

[MrBob]

More specifically, Atikin, Lewis died on the same day as President Kennedy, Nov. 22, 1963.

MrBob

[64telmar]

I definitely prefer the publication order because that is how I read them.

[inkspot]

More specifically, Atikin, Lewis died on the same day as President Kennedy, Nov. 22, 1963.

MrBob
Alduous Huxley also died on that same day, an author and thinker as well.

[BarbarianKing]

Ok boys and girls. I read all 19 pages of posts and I, being the weird pseudoshrink that I think I am, came to this conclusion: there are two kinds of people here.

Those who like to read the books in the numbered order (chronological) are people who do not want to be hit with a nasty surprise. They like to know all the facts from the beginning and do not want to be in the middle of some page and be hit with a bomb they would not know that to do with. They are people who want to be told everything and make up their minds as to whether something is right as the read along. It’s like: tell me everything from the beginning, now. Why all the mystery? What are you hiding? Please do not do that. If you don’t tell me everything from the beginning, it doesn’t make sense. They are very practical.

If this is you, read the books in this order, the chronological (numbered) order:
The Magician’s Nephew
LWW
A Horse and His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle

The other kind of people are those who like the feeling of “discovery”, the sense of adventure, of mystery. They do not mind not knowing all the facts because they like to be kept on the edge of their seats and they find it enjoyable to know the “why” of something at the least expected moment. They like to be surprised, prefer to be mystified, and enjoy the feeling of the “magic” moments. They are a bunch of daydreamers if you ask me

If you are this kind of person, you may consider reading the books in this (publication) order:
LWW
Prince Caspian
Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
A Horse and His Boy
The Magicians Nephew
The Last Battle

But wait! Before you make a decision consider this: Would Narnia be what it is today if CS Lewis had written and published TMN first? Would people had fallen in love with Narnia the same way with TMN as they did with LWW? Would YOU have fallen in love with Narnia? (I know some of you did, but admit that you already knew, if vaguely, something about Narnia from LWW; and some of you did not have a choice in what order it was first read to you).

And the last question: If Andrew Adamson had decided to introduce Narnia to the present generation by filming The Magician’s Nephew would the movie had been the huge hit that LWW was?

Please answer those questions for yourself. When you have decided what type of person you are, and answered the questions, then chose the reading order.

Now, I did not make this up. Some of you said it. Those who advocate for chronology said it makes sense, while those who advocate publication mentioned the "magic" and the "discovery" a lot. Didn't you?

As for me, I daydream even in my daydreams! And I hope and pray that someday I get to meet the real, the beautiful, the loving, dear Aslan and His Father, the Great Emperor-over-the-Sea.

[Sir Godfrey]

I think the first time or if you can you should read thme chronologically. They just are more fluid and more vivid read in chronological order. Hower I am not agaisnt reading them in Written order or any other order for that matter. If you enjoy reading them in a certian order than by all means read them in that order.

[waterhogboy]

Aye! What does it mean if you do publishing the first time through and then chronological thereafter...

I spose that just makes me crazy.:(

[glum_of_the_marsh]

I agree with all those who say that the publication order is the most logical.

LWW seems to be the best introduction -- it's the most famous and you are following the author's own thought-process in starting here.

If you follow the others in order, when you get to MN you are reading the back-story: and very good it is too!

My main problem is The Horse and His Boy -- I really don't know where this would fit.

:)

GM

[inkspot]

OK, glum, if you had chosen the other side (chronological! **grimaces**) I would have had to rescind my welcome from the other thread, but since you are on the correct (publication! :) ) side, then, welcome again. Glad to have you here.

I actually like Barbarian's analysis above. It is the wonder, the magic, of learning about Aslan in LWW at the same time as the Pevensies learn about him -- that's what makes it so cool.

And yes, WHB, you are just crazy ...

[jonnylaw37]

I personally read the books in chronologicol order first, because I didn't know better. I bought an all-in-one edition so I just read them in that order. Fortunately, I had heard LWW on the radio, so I knew the basic story. In my opinion, if you have not seen the movie or heard the story of LWW, you should read LWW first. If you have heard the story of LWW, it would be ok to read MN first. Either way you read them, you get a different experience. When you read MN first, then when you get to LWW you think, "I know how that got there!". When you read LWW first, then when you get to MN you say, "OH! So that's how that got there!". Either way is ok, but I think that the publication order is best. Thats what I voted for too ;).

[inkspot]

Exactly. I like the surprise of learning about Aslan in LWW, and then the cool recognition -- "So that's where the lamp post came from" -- later in TMN. Publication order is best.

[Charn_Tim]

I've probably already chimed in on this thread, but I couldn't agree more that publication order is by far the best, for the reasons others have already given.

Does anyone know why the other order is used? Was it because Walter Hooper found some note of Lewis' that supposedly claimed chronological order is preferable?

[waterhogboy]

And yes, WHB, you are just crazy ...

Ooo - that burns.

I think, as I don't really have a preference I'm going to stick up for chronological order so it has some support!!! And also because Inky was horrible to me :(

:D hehe

[Dernhelm]

Chronological! C. S. Lewis said it himself.

“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.” (Dorsett & Mead 1996)

[Charn_Tim]

But in that quote you gave, Lewis is ambivalent himself. He says "perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them" which to me signifies that he does not claim to have a strong opinion. So many of us feel very strongly that the publication order is by far the best, since in the later books (like HHB and MN) he alludes to previously written books, which makes these allusions far more special and magical if you read them in publication order. If you hadn't read the series in publication order, these allusions would fall on deaf ears.

With respect to the quote given, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Lewis probably didn't realize how powerful of an effect these allusions have on the reader and/or wasn't fully considering this aspect of his series when he casually wrote this letter; since after all that's where this quote appears: in a casually written letter!

[Inkling]

I think I'll come down on both sides, just to be contrary ;). I started out reading the books in publication order, and the advantage tot that is, as Inkspot says, the "surprise" of recognition in The Magician's Nephew. On the other hand, chronological order has its own charm, namely, following Narnian history, so to speak, from beginning to end, as events would have played out.

As long as someone doesn't start with The Last Battle *shudders*

[inkspot]

And, regarding the Lewis quote, he can't go back now and say what order he intended for them to be read in -- anymore than JKR can go back now and offer revelations about characters in the HP books which are not made in the stories themselves. All that exists of the books once published are the books, and the author cannot then claim that there is more, unless she brings out another book which establishes her claims ...

[BarbarianKing]

I don't think Lewis knew the implications of what he said. Remember that he didn't even know when he wrote the books in relationship with when they were published which means he probably didn't remember that the Penvensies are not supposed to know "who Aslan was any more than you do".
If he had remembered that part, he wouldn't have said what he said.

[Dernhelm]

But in that quote you gave, Lewis is ambivalent himself. He says "perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them" which to me signifies that he does not claim to have a strong opinion. So many of us feel very strongly that the publication order is by far the best, since in the later books (like HHB and MN) he alludes to previously written books, which makes these allusions far more special and magical if you read them in publication order. If you hadn't read the series in publication order, these allusions would fall on deaf ears.
I would say that he is not saying there is any one 'correct' way to read them – just that he prefers the chronological. As for the allusions to other books, I have enjoyed them while reading chronologically, as a vestige of the original order. But certainly there is no one right way to read them... I used to eat my toast buttered side down.

And, regarding the Lewis quote, he can't go back now and say what order he intended for them to be read in -- anymore than JKR can go back now and offer revelations about characters in the HP books which are not made in the stories themselves. All that exists of the books once published are the books, and the author cannot then claim that there is more, unless she brings out another book which establishes her claims...

You can disregard even published information from the authors, if you think the book is worth it – simply by blacking out offensive parts. Fiction is great that way. There just isn't a plain true and false to go by. There's 'what the author said', 'what the author said in the original', 'what the author said in the first draft' (lots of that, in Tolkin's writing), and back when books were copied by hand, you could have changed something yourself, and that would just be another version. Not the original, but just as valid. And if Tolkien had somewhere written that Eowyn loved to wear pink...I think I'd disregard that. ;)

[inkspot]

Oh, well, everyone knows Eowyn did love to wear pink.
:)

[BarbarianKing]

Oh, well, everyone knows Eowyn did love to wear pink.
:)

OOOH! I would love to see HER in pink... is it me or it's getting warm in here? Anyway, back to the topic people!!!
Stop taking Lewis' quote as a law that you have to read the books in chronological order. We all know that he really didn't prefer one way or another.

[Dernhelm]

Oh, Inky! You are cruel. ;) Pink. *shudders*

Well, I've said my bit. :)

[Into the Wardrobe]

I think to start out with people should read them in published order. Then if they want to read them in chronological it's fine, but so many of the fun suprises are spoiled if it's done in chronological order to start with in my opinion. I love the published order personally, but that's me.

[Trumpkin_08]

I think to start out with people should read them in published order. Then if they want to read them in chronological it's fine, but so many of the fun suprises are spoiled if it's done in chronological order to start with in my opinion. I love the published order personally, but that's me.

Man i ment to pick Chronological order... anyways but yah i think they should read them in chronological order cause you learn how Narnia came around and what happend after that and so on.

[Different_Name]

I chose Other.

Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe should be read first followed by the other books in chronological order (Magician's nephew, horse/boy)

[liljentuva]

My first introduction to Narnia were the BBC series so I was already familiar with LWW, PC, VDT and SC once I started reading the books. I've always read them in chronological order, I tend to do that with all books I read and movies I see. I like the order of things in that way.

I can't say what the best reading order is for someone who has never read the books before or seen the films. When I introduce them to my future children though, I think I'll go for the chronological order!

[Different_Name]

I've always read them in chronological order, I tend to do that with all books I read and movies I see. I like the order of things in that way.

I hope you don't do that with Star Wars...

[Lila]

I reading them in Chronological order. :) I think that's a good way to read them....

[NotATameLion]

I always read them in the order they were written, and I don't think I'll ever read them in chronological order. I think it would completely ruin all of the surprises. :o One of the best parts of reading the books for the first time is watching all the pieces fall into place. :D

[Into the Wardrobe]

I always read them in the order they were written, and I don't think I'll ever read them in chronological order. I think it would completely ruin all of the surprises. :o One of the best parts of reading the books for the first time is watching all the pieces fall into place. :D
I'm the same way. I like the suprises and the way things fit together when reading them in the published order. Sure, the chronological sounds more logical...but it's not nearly as memorable and amazing.

[Lucy Fan]

For me personally, I decided to start the series by reading them in the order of the history of Narnia--starting with The Magician's Nephew. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I think CS Lewis said he preferred his reader's to read them in the order of the history of Narnia, but it's OK to read them in the order they were written in. I think each way of reading it will give you a different perspective in the series. It's all how you prefer it. :)

[Sven-El]

Personally, from my own first hand experience on a first time trip through the world of Narnia, publication order is better. When I first hard them when I was nine it seemed so much more magical to not know how the lampost got there or who Aslanw as or how the witch came to Narnia. It made Magician's nephew mroe surpising for me. I'd lie in bed as mom would read it to me and go" so that's how that happened!"

Chronological certainly works better when you go back to Narnia, but not for the firsttime. Several friends of mine admitted to being exposed to Narnia by chronological order and it wasnt' able to captivate them. They liked TMN and LWW, but when they got to HHB they were lost and gave up.

Thanks to me they are willing to give it another chance and read publication order. They now love it.

It was similar to my expereince with Tolkien. My very first intro to Middle Earth was when I tried to read "The Shapping of Middle Earth" before The Hobbit or LOTR. BIIIIIIG Mistake. ( I was in seventh grade at the time.) Then some years later ( Junior year of High School when the first LOTR film came out) I read Hobbit, LOTR, then Silmarillion and Histories and love it.

Now, the only way I will expierience any franchise or series is in publication order. (Except for Star Trek. I still haven't been able to make myself watch Star Trek: The Motion Picture before Wrath of Kahn. haven't even seen ST:MP. )

Publication order is how I plan to introduce my future kids to Narnia and Middle-Earth.

[QA48]

Several friends of mine admitted to being exposed to Narnia by chronological order and it wasnt' able to captivate them. They liked TMN and LWW, but when they got to HHB they were lost and gave up.


I don't know why so many people dislike that book. To me it's like a Narnia history book. You get a glimpse of the Pevensies during Narnia's golden age. And of course, how can you not love reading about an adult Edmund slapping Shasta I always found that scene funny. But I digress...

In my opinion, I think the HHB should be read after the Silver Chair.

[Sven-El]

I don't know why so many people dislike that book. To me it's like a Narnia history book. You get a glimpse of the Pevensies during Narnia's golden age. And of course, how can you not love reading about an adult Edmund slapping Shasta I always found that scene funny. But I digress...

In my opinion, I think the HHB should be read after the Silver Chair.

I think for a lot of them it's the fact that it is set durring the time of LWW, and the Pevensies dont' show up till half way through the book and it's only in a minor role.
But I do agree it is fun to see them back durring narnia's Golden Age and it also gives great hints at Susan's eventual fate. ( plus when they get to the film of it, for all intents and purposes it sounds like Skander, Anna and Georgie will be playing those roels.... Who can't love that!)

I whole heartedly agree on your opinion. That was how I first experienced it. Actually, I found I was more interested in hearing that story because of SC as it is meantioned that Eustace and Jill hear the story and the narrator says , "It would make a good story to hear and perhaps I will tell it to you some time." so when you get to HHB your reaction is, " He's going to tell, he's going to tell, he's going to tell." ( thank you Monty Python and the Holy Grail.)

[Edmundisamazing]

I actually read the books in chronological order. It worked very well for me. I knew the history behind everything, and to tell you truth, HHB is one of my personnal favorites. A boy runs for freedom from the evil Calormans. ;)

[BarbarianKing]

I already posted what I had to say about this topic in the following link:

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9371&page=19

Actually, it's just page 19 if you want to go there.

[Elentari]

I first read the series, during middle school, in written order. When I was in HS my friend had the Complete Chronicles (the one with Aslan's face on the cover). Oh how I wanted that book! :D Finally, when I was in college, my dad bought me the movie edition (White Witch cover). It was at Christmas time and I read it in chronological order, cover to cover, in 3 days. (I had to spend SOME time with relatives!) Ever since I either read it chrono or just whatever particular story suits my fancy at the time. Written order is nice, but I think the chrono gives it more of a "history of Narnia" feel that adds to the adventure.

[Animus Wyrmis]

I picked other. :D My preferred reading order is this:

Magician's Nephew
LWW, up through the coronation
HHB
Finish LWW
PC
VotDT
SC
TLB
VotDT again


This is because I love reading things in chronological order, and because I started with MN way back when. It's also because I really like to have HHB before PC, so I can see what they mean when they're talking about losing Narnia. And also, VotDT is my favorite book of all.

If I were filming the books, I would film most of LWW, then PC, then VotDT, then SC. The I would take a break, scout out some places for HHB. Maybe start that if I had too. Then, when my actors had grown a bit, I would film TLB, ending with the scenes in which the Pevensies show up. Then I would film/finish filming HHB, ending with the Pevensies, to make them old enough. Then I would go back to LWW and do the final Narnian scene.

MN would depend on whether or not I was going to have the same actors play Polly and Digory in TLB and MN. I was never really clear on their ages in the books, so I think you could have child!them, and prime of life!them, and old!them played by six actors. Or you could have older children!them and adult!them, played by the same actors. In the first case, I would film MN after SC. In the second, I would film it at the start, and give my kids time to grow up. (I have no idea how I would release them, given this order.)

[MrBob]

"The I would take a break, scout out some places for HHB. Maybe start that if I had too. Then, when my actors had grown a bit, I would film TLB, ending with the scenes in which the Pevensies show up. Then I would film/finish filming HHB, ending with the Pevensies, to make them old enough. Then I would go back to LWW and do the final Narnian scene."

Well, if you wanted to use the same actors for H&HB, just older than they were in TLB, you'd have to complete TLB first before filming H&HB. The actors who play Aravis and Shasta won't stay young forever.

" (I have no idea how I would release them, given this order.) "

If I could do this series, I would make it a TV miniseries. Here would be the order of episodes (assume 1 hour episodes--maybe a few 1.5-2 hour specials):

1) Beginnning of LWW
2) Ending of LWW up to coronation scene, then very beginninjg of H&HB
3) Beginning of H&HB
4) End of H&HB/End of LWW/children tell Professor about Narnia, he then begins his story
5) Beginning of MN
6) End of MN/finishes with telling of what happened to tree
7) Beginning of PC
8) End of PC
9) Beginning of VotDT
10) End of VotDT
11) Beginning of TSC
12) End of TSC
13) Beginning of TLB
14) End of TLB

Adult Pevensies/Digory/Polly would be played by different actors than the children.

MrBob

[Animus Wyrmis]

Well, if you wanted to use the same actors for H&HB, just older than they were in TLB, you'd have to complete TLB first before filming H&HB. The actors who play Aravis and Shasta won't stay young forever.


Wait, what? Aravis and Shasta's actors can show up for TLB after HHB (or have different actors; they're what, twelve when we see them in canon? And might die old--I'm unsure they need to be recognizable; we definitely didn't see them in the prime of their lives).

I do like the idea of a miniseries, though! Especially with HHB flowing in with LWW.

[dayhawk68]

well I think you start with MN and end with LB, but I start with HHB and end with LWW, but thats just moi.

[Petraverd]

Considering I read them in neither chronological nor published order when I first read them all those years ago, (boy I feel old saying that,) I don't exactly have the clearest picture of things in this respect. :P Though I /do/ believe LWW MUST be read first for a first timer. MN is so much more effective as a flashback of sorts, in my opinion.

[Inkling]

Heh! If /you/ feel old, then I feel positively ancient ;). I have to agree: LWW is the place to begin...and I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't read all of the Chronicles until the summer after my freshman year of college.

[Petraverd]

I'm too young to be old!!

*cough* Returning to topic now.

Personally, I prefer reading them chronologically now that I've read them all, but published order, I think, is better for first-timers. But really... I don't make much of a big deal about it, so long as people read them. :P (And keep reading them, too, you get more out of them the more you read them.)

[Powl']

I read LWW first, then I reand MN, HHB, PC, SC, VotDT and I'll read LB when I have time, but I think the Pevensies' story should be read in the right order, but the others don't matter, I mean MN and HHB aren't the same thing at all !! so you can understand them in the order you want , plus everytime Lewis mentions something already happened, by a "this happened in the previous book, when Lucy opened the Wardrobe" ... etc

[Olórin the Wise]

The way I see it is: you have to read LWW first. It's SO MUCH better that way. Then, you really should read PC afterwards, and VoDT is the logical choice to come next. SC, HHB, and MN can be mixed up a little, and then you would probably want to read LB last.

[Tommy24]

I have already read the book in the order starting with MN. Should I still give the other one a shot?

[MRW]

If you've already done your first read-through of the series, it doesn't matter as much. I like people to start with LWW when they've never read them, because that's how the original audience experienced it, but once you already know what's happening, it's more of a preference thing.

It's worth giving the publication order a shot, though, just because I think reading them that way helps recapture the original enchantment better than chronological order.

[Truman]

Chronological. It's the best way to tell any story instead of jumping around, reading a prequel, getting back to the story, then reading another prequel... it's too confusing, and Lewis actually prefered the chronological order anyway according to a letter he wrote.

Some people say, "You won't understand a lot in TMN if you read it first." Well, I read that one first and understood it perfectly fine. :rolleyes: Plus, TLB is more climactic, since you feel you really did see the story of Narnia as it happened, instead of "looking back." That's my take on it. Chronological order! :D

[Aravis_yanes]

Believe me the best way to read it is the Chronical way, I say this because of expirience because I read them in desorder and didn't like it so much so I recomend CHRONICAL WAY!!! :cool:

[MRW]

I just wish he'd had time to go back and revise them for inconsistencies the way he wanted to. It might have taken care of this debate, because statements like (in LWW) "And none of the children had heard of Aslan any more than you have," or (in MN) "That wardrobe was part of other adventures, which you've already heard about" wouldn't exist.

While I do mostly prefer publication order the only thing I'm adamant about is always, ALWAYS reading LWW before MN. Partly because of the quotes above, and partly because if I read the wardrobe's backstory BEFORE Lucy finds it, the magic feels less special. I mean, the wardrobe is THE way into Narnia. It wasn't until PC that Aslan revealed there were other ways in. And, since the Pevensies are the High Kings and Queens, I like to start with them.

[Wunderkind]

I always read them in chronological order,not sure which is better though. Reading them in publication order will turn things into a bit of a mystery as you won't know exactly how or when Narnia was created and so on,while,if starting with MN,you'll know all of that from the start. I'd have liked it to be a bit of a mystery so if I were to read the books for the first time now,I'd definately read LWW first. That just might be one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made in my life,reading MN first. Lol. :D

[Truman]

I dunno... To me, after I read TMN and went into LWW I felt like I knew why the wardrobe had any significance at all. I'm sure, if I had just read the books in publishing order with LWW first I would've been more mystified, true. But I would've also been asking all sorts of questions to myself, like, why a wardrobe? I'd be wondering who Jadis was, even after explained to.

I read a negative review of the movie by a guy on Amazon, who said he could not understand most of what was going on, why animals could talk, where the white witch came from, etc. He had not read the books, describing the movie to just assume all the cliche elements of all fantasy tales. He said, "I'm sure it's explained in the book..." But when I come to think of it, the book really doesn't explain anything at all. You'd have to read TMN to know what's happening. I bet that's why the movie wasn't exactly "loved" by the majority of viewers who hadn't read the books. That's my opinion, anyway.

[MRW]

But, see, not knowing was the point. The Pevensies didn't know either. They just had to trust in Aslan to know they were doing the right thing. Which is the whole point of the series anyway, isn't it?

I read a negative review of the movie by a guy on Amazon, who said he could not understand most of what was going on, why animals could talk, where the white witch came from, etc. He had not read the books, describing the movie to just assume all the cliche elements of all fantasy tales.
Since Lewis originally started it to just be a cliche fairytale, that neither surprises nor bothers me. Lewis just loved talking animals. If I remember correctly, it wasn't until later in the series that he decided to distinguish between those that talked and those that didn't.

Plus, when Lewis wrote LWW, he didn't know that Jadis came from Charn, or how Narnia had been created. They just were. So when I read them, I just accept them too, and wait for him to tell me the rest when he figures it out.

The Narnia world was an evolving one. He didn't plot everything out ahead of time like Tolkien or Rowling, so the various inconsistiences bother me less when I read the books in the order that Lewis published them.

[pokemainiac]

I personnally read them in chronological order, propably cause at the time I didn't know they were written in a different order. Even so, it wouldn't have made a difference.

[kilendil]

I read them in publication order, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I do think that it keeps more of the mystery (if you read MN first and Lucy finds the lamppost, you don't think "What's a lamppost doing in the middle of the woods?" you think "hey, that's the lamppost that grew in MN." Okay, I must admit, both ways sound good:o)

Still, I remember reading SC and reading that one line about HHB and then looking forward to reading HHB because it was mentioned in SC. If I had read HHB first, I would never have noticed this foreshadowing--if that's the right word.

Also, I think it would be highly confusing to read LWW, skip back in time to HHB, then back to PC, regardless of if you read MN first. After all, LWW and PC are similar in style, and HHB is much different. Of course, I read LWW and PC back to back, so I have no experience in discovering the Narnia adventures in this way. Any insight on this?

[Animus Wyrmis]

Also, I think it would be highly confusing to read LWW, skip back in time to HHB, then back to PC, regardless of if you read MN first. After all, LWW and PC are similar in style, and HHB is much different. Of course, I read LWW and PC back to back, so I have no experience in discovering the Narnia adventures in this way. Any insight on this?

That was how I read them, and I didn't find it at all jarring--in fact I rather liked it, because when Susan is talking about what they've lost at the start of PC I knew what she meant! I knew some of what the Golden Age had been, so I could begin to understand the strangeness of them coming back in PC. I didn't find the style issues to be strange at all.

[cor]

initially i read prince caspian first because my mum bought me that book (back when you could buy them separately and not all as one). it was later that i read them in chronological order,, and then later still when i decided to read them in published order. i enjoyed them everytime in every way. even starting with pc, because when the pevensies talk about how long its been and what used to happen there it had more mystery to me.. and when caspian is being told about old narnia.. that was also MY first introduction to hearing about it...

[Unforgotten_Memories]

I too read the books in the way they were written. I couldn't imagine reading them in any other order.

[inkspot]

I too read the books in the way they were written. I couldn't imagine reading them in any other order.
That's the spirit, UM! Publicaiton order has a certain magic of discovery; we're discovering Narnia for the first time right along with the Pevensies -- and we're introduced to Aslan in that same mystical way -- we hear the name, and our hearts are warmed, even though we don't know who he is ... It's lovely. :)

[fishbulb4F18]

I just finished reading the Chronicles for the first time. Sadly, I was unaware of the 'controversy' regarding the reading order. Since the box set I bought was already numbered (with MN being number one) I just dove on in and read them. In retrospect, I would love to be able to read them fresh again and this time read them in order of publication.

[NarnianBandGeek]

I read them in chronological order because that's how they were presented to me. But I think I'd like publication order better because there is that magic of confusion to the odd things that are explained (like Lantern Waste).

However, I like reading HHB between LWW and PC because it confuses me anywhere else. That's why I'm kind of upset that they're doing the movies in publication order, because it just makes sense to me to put a book set in the Golden Age after the book the Golden Age starts in.

[dawnpatrol]

I would recommend any first time reader to read the books in the published order. A quote from LWW:

"They say Aslan is on the move—perhaps has already landed."

And now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had some enormous meaning.

That passage would've all been for naught had you already read The Magicians Nephew.

[dawnpatrol]

I just finished reading the Chronicles for the first time. Sadly, I was unaware of the 'controversy' regarding the reading order. Since the box set I bought was already numbered (with MN being number one) I just dove on in and read them. In retrospect, I would love to be able to read them fresh again and this time read them in order of publication.

I saw a news headline a few days ago that said scientists have developed a pill that can erase bad memories. And no this wasn't on a tabloid paper. Instead of erasing bad memories (there's an ex-wife joke in there somewhere) what about selected memories period?

Imagine seeing your favorite movie for the first time over and over again? Or rediscovering Narnia?

[Coriakin]

I would recommend any first time reader to read the books in the published order. A quote from LWW:

"They say Aslan is on the move—perhaps has already landed."

And now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had some enormous meaning.

That passage would've all been for naught had you already read The Magicians Nephew.


huh. Good point. Somehow, i like reading them in chronological order better, though I have read it both ways. For a first time reading, it might be better to re LWW first. MN is very heavy/thick. I know several people who got discouraged and gave up reading the series because they began to read MN and couldn't get through it (something I don't truly understand.)

When i read them though, as I said I read them in chronological order. I feel as though they flow better and I can get more into the truths that motivate Lewis' work. To see Narnia born, and die, is best when there is a plot line in the middle, IMO

[Liz]

I read VofDT first; borrowed it from a friend, who loves the series and especially VofDT. For me that was a good introduction to the Narnia books, which I didn't know as a child.
After that I read LWW, have read all of them several times by now.
If I should choose between beginning with MN or LWW, I would definetily choose LWW. It's a better introduction to Narnia, in my view, and my favourite book of the series.
When I first read MN, I thought it was a bit strange. I have reread it not long ago, and liked it better this time.
But still - LWW first!!

[Jenn1]

Personally I think I would read them the way they published first. That's how I read them first. LWW, PC, etc. I think you get alot of surprises that way, plus Lewis didn't plan for LWW to have sequels at first anyway.

Then once you've read them, if you love/like them enough to reread them, read them the way C.S. Lewis want them read, MN, LWW, etc. I would normally read them that way. I'm not saying a first time reader should read it that way. They could if they want to.

[Nessa]

I was introduced to the series with LWW, and I think (though it was a long time ago mind) that when my mother read them to me she read TMN last of all, so it was kinda like a "Oh so that's how it all started" kind of thing.

I've never really liked TMN though.

[BarbarianKing]

In post # 182 I gave advice on what order to read the books in according to what type or person you are. Go to the following link (it's actually page 19 of this thread if you just want to go back).

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9371&page=19

[dawna]

I like to read them Chronological order.

[Aslan's Child_1996]

Well, I think that if you read LWW first, when you finally get to TMN it wouldn't be as exciting because you already know who the lion is and what is going to happen. I think that it kind of ruins the story. But when I first heard of narnia, I didn't even know that there was a book that came before LWW so I did read it first. I love narnia so much that the story was still exciting. It has been exciting the last three times that I've read it!

[dawna]

I like to read them Chronologicaly. :D

[dawna]

oops I answerd this question somw time ago . :eek:

Sorry