Page 1 / 2
Next
I was thinking about the old Narnia Order Debate, and it occurred to me that the terms we use for the two orders are not accurate.
"Publication Order" (LWW, PC, VDT, SC, HHB, MN, LB)
That name implies that this order is the only order in publication. We all know that's not true. Both orders have been published. Actually, as far as I am aware, sadly, there are no editions in print that have this order. Therefore, it would be more accurate to call it "Original order." However, HarperCollins actually argues that there is a third order: The order Lewis actually WROTE the books in (which is slightly different from the order he PUBLISHED them in)*. This is an absurd argument. Tolkien wrote chapter 2 of LotR first, but no ones argues that a legitimate order begins with that chapter. But in the interest of covering all bases, I think this order should be called "Original Publication Order." In other words, the order the series was originally published in.
"Chronological Order" (MN, LWW, HHB, PC, VDT, SC, LB)
The dictionary defines "chronological" as "of, relating to, or arranged in or according to the order of time." This is not the case with this order. If you want to read the series in chronological order, you must do this...
1. Read MN
2. Start reading LWW, and then stop about halfway through the final chapter.
3. Read HHB
4. Finish LWW.
5. Read PC, VDT, SC, and finally LB.
LWW ends with the Pevensies falling out of the wardrobe. HHB takes place before that. Therefore, this is NOT "chronological order." We need a new term.
This is a tough one. But after giving it much thought, I think "HarperCollins' Order" works the best. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best I could come up with. By that, I mean that it is the order they support. I do not mean they came up with that order, because they didn't. That order was in print elsewhere before Harper acquired the rights in 1994. I mean it's their order in the same way that a book or DVD is mine. I didn't make it, but I bought it, and now it's mine.
In summary, "Publication Order" and "Chronological Order" are inaccurate terms. Instead, we should use these terms...
"Original Publication Order" vs. "HarperCollins' Order."
*With this argument, it seems to be Harper's intention to say "Original Publication Order isn't even the order he wrote them in, so lay off." But actually, this argument is a good one to use in favor of the Orginal Published Order. It does seem a little unusual that Lewis did not publish the books in the order he wrote them. For example, he finished HHB, but held off on publishing it. He decided to write SC and publish that first. This indicates that there was some design behind the Original Published Order. He didn't just publish them in the order he wrote them. He chose to publish them in another other, according to some design or plan he had.
...And well I'm at it, I think I'll go back to that SC/HHB example. Near the end of SC Chapter 3, Lewis writes: "And when all the serious eating and drinking was over, a blind poet came forward and struck up the grand old tale of Prince Cor and Aravis and the horse Bree, which is called The Horse and his Boy and tells of an adventure that happened in Narnia and Calormen and the lands between, in the Golden Age when Peter was High King in Cair Paravel. (I haven't time to tell it now, though it is well worth hearing.)" If you already read HHB, that is confusing: "What do you mean? I already read that story!" Yet another reason why the Original Published Order makes far more sense than HarperCollins' order.
YouTube.com/gpuddle | Twitter.com/glumpuddle
Topic starter
Posted : November 20, 2009 8:09 am
I never really considered that... Very true, though!
Posted : November 20, 2009 12:22 pm
Great point, glumPuddle. I concur with your analysis. I especially like the footnote. I haven't seen anyone publish the books in strictly chronological order, but I have this vague memory of my dad stopping towards the end of LWW to read HHB when he was reading the books out loud. The first time I heard them though I'm sure they were read in publication order.
NW sister to Movie Aristotle & daughter of the King
Posted : November 21, 2009 3:46 am
Very interesting and very true. I've always thought it kind of weird about how LWW ends after HHB takes place.
Posted : November 21, 2009 9:16 am
a vey good observation, glumpuddle! I never thought of it like that!
HHB comes bfore LWW.....why didn't I think of that? 
NW sister - wild rose ~ NW big sis - ramagut
Born in the water
Take quick to the trees
I want all that You are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADBC57vKfQ
Posted : December 24, 2009 6:45 am
Or we could call it Original Publication Order vs. C.S. Lewis's Stated Preferred Order. 
You have a good point, but I think publication vs. chronological order is more neutral than original publication order vs. HarperCollins' order, and I think the current terms are accurate enough. I don't think the LWW/HHB issue is enough to say that order isn't chronological.
Posted : December 26, 2009 1:10 pm
Good points, gP. I do like what you call Original Publication Order best, though.
"Let the music cast its spell,
give the atmosphere a chance.
Simply follow where I lead;
let me teach you how to dance."
Posted : December 27, 2009 8:24 am
I've always read them in the previously titled "Chronological Order" before, it's the way I like best. 
Posted : January 6, 2010 10:08 am
I don't think C.S. Lewis preferred chronological order. Didn't he just write that it would be fine to read them in that order to a child who wrote him a letter? That doesn't mean it was the preferred way to read them.
I agree that Lewis purposefully published them in the order they are in the original published order. I definitely know people who have been unable to get through the Magician's Nephew and then didn't read the books. The Magician's Nephew is far more interesting in light of the other stories. Jadis. The tree and the lamppost. The apple core.
There are no clouds in the sky. There is only the open sun and the Lord watches.
Posted : January 9, 2010 1:52 pm
I totally agree that original published order is the best way to read them. The revelations in MN are definitely more interesting if you've read the other books. There's a great bit on the reading order in the Wikipedia entry for CON. Pretty convincing argument that the published order is the order Lewis intended (pretty much calling out Harper as having twisted words to justify their order). Original is the order I'm reading them to my daughter in. It also looks like that's the order the movies are going to progress in.
Posted : January 11, 2010 9:02 am
My family has always read them in the current chronological order. Once I did convince my mom to read the HHB in between the LWW coronation and leaving Narnia scenes and no one seemed to like that as much.
The reference in SC to HHB didn't bother me when I first read the series in "chronological" order.
Narnia Comics: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5560
Posted : January 12, 2010 2:18 pm
I know that for me i am talking about the first time a person reads the Chronicles of Narnia. I just think that it is very important to get the first impression of Narnia from the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I really think all the other stories build on that base.
Of course once you have already read the books then read them in whatever order you want. I really just think initial impression should be publication order as it was intended.
There are no clouds in the sky. There is only the open sun and the Lord watches.
Posted : January 12, 2010 4:15 pm
I like reading MN first. It's like reading The Hobbit before LOTR. Gives you a bit of background. Helps you understand more of the story.
Posted : January 14, 2010 7:18 am
That may true, but personally i never got through the Hobbit because it was so boring. Maybe if i had started with the Fellowship of the Rings i would have made it through those books at a younger age.
I think the strangest thing is that MN is not about Narnia. Narnia isn't introduced until the last third to quarter of the book when it is finally created. It is clear to me that the book was written as if the reader already knew of Narnia.
There are no clouds in the sky. There is only the open sun and the Lord watches.
Posted : January 14, 2010 7:34 am
really? I find The Hobbit a much easier read than The Fellowship of the Ring.
Idk, I like to read it first. It is, after all, my favorite book in the series...
Posted : January 14, 2010 11:52 am
Page 1 / 2
Next
Forum Statistics
31
Forums
4,936
Topics
353.5 K
Posts
33
Online
2,223
Members
Latest Post: Aslan’s introduction: how should it be done Our newest member: Nightmare Recent Posts Unread Posts
