The other day I
was talking to a woman who is reading C.S. Lewis’ Narnia series with her
daughter. If I remember the conversation correctly, they started with The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe because that is the one everyone talks
about, but the woman wasn’t sure she was doing it right since those events aren’t
the first in the Narnia chronology.
So she planned to read
the rest in chronological order. She and her daughter had already started
reading The Magician’s Nephew, but I hope I talked her out of continuing
that way.
Among Narnia fans,
the big debate is whether the books should be read in chronological order or by
publication date.
Chronological order
puts them this way:
1.
The 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
If
you read them by original publication date, however, they go like this:
·
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
(1950)
·
Prince Caspian
(1951)
·
The Voyage of the Dawn
Treader (1952)
·
The Silver Chair (1953)
·
The Horse and His Boy (1954)
·
The Magician’s Nephew (1955)
·
The Last Battle (1956)
Chronologically, that’s
2-4-5-6-3-1-7.
So
why does it matter which way you read them? First, certain events create a sense
of wonder if—but only if—you have read a previously published book that comes
later in Narnia’s timeline. At the end of The Magician’s Nephew, for
example, we learn how the lamp-post in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came
to be there and where the magic wardrobe came from, but those particulars mean
nothing at the time unless you have already read The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe.
Then
there is the matter of character continuity. There is a character from our
world who appears in both The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and The
Magician’s Nephew, but you don’t make the connection until the very end of The
Magician’s Nephew and probably wouldn’t make it even then if that was the
first book you read.
If
you read them in publication order, however, the four children who entered
Narnia in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe reappear in Prince
Caspian. The youngest two show up again in The Voyage of the Dawn
Treader, and this time a cousin tags along unwillingly. That cousin and a
friend are the protagonists in The Silver Chair. The Horse and His Boy doesn’t
have the same character thread, but by then you are so interested in Narnia
that it doesn’t matter. (The original four children do show up in The Horse
and His Boy, but they are secondary characters there.) As I mentioned above,
we have already met the protagonist from The Magician’s Nephew in The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Then all of the characters from our world
except one show up in The Last Battle.
C.S.
Lewis didn’t object to reading the series in chorological order, and even
endorsed it, as you can see in this quote replying to a boy who was having the
argument with his mother. (The boy thought he should read them chronologically
but his mother disagreed.)
I think I agree with your order for reading the books
more than with your mother’s. The series was not planned beforehand as she
thinks. When I wrote [The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe], I did not
know I was going to write any more. Then I wrote [Prince Caspian] as a sequel
and still didn’t think there would be any more, and when I had done [The
Voyage of the Dawn Treader] I felt quite sure it would be the last. But I
found I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in which order
anyone reads them. I’m not even sure that all the others were written in the
same order in which they were published. I never kept notes of that sort of
thing and never remember dates.1
I don’t normally
question an author’s take on his or her own works, but I believe C.S. Lewis is
wrong. The reader’s wonder and the continuity from one story to the next are
stronger if the books are read in publication order.
That’s my opinion,
anyway.
__________
1 C.S.
Lewis Letters to Children, Lyle W. Dorsett and Marjorie Lamp Mead, Editors,
pgs. 68-69.
No comments:
Post a Comment