I’ve not read that. What I’ve read is that he preferred them in chronological order, and was upset that the publisher re-ordered them.
I just checked and my memory is faulty. Lewis only told a young correspondent that they could be read in chrono order. Seems it was his stepson who insisted they be numbered that way when HC republished them.
I don’t know if it makes any difference, but when Aslan talks about this rule (he does so in Prince Caspian as well IIRC) it seems to apply to “tactical” issues of a specific sequence of events rather than “strategic” issues of the actors’ ultimate fate. Maybe alternate chronologies cannot be known, but the ultimate wages of sin can be since they’re predictable from our human vantagepoint and always turn out the same, more or less.
Also, I don’t think I’d force anyone to read The Simarilion before they’d been introduced to The Hobbit. That would just be cruel.
Yip, but because that was his only preference on record, the books all got reordered in official publications. I’ve only seen one that kept them in the original order. Luckily, that was the one I read first.
As for Skald’s question: I admit I was surprised, but I didn’t see it as a cheat. And this was before I knew it was a Jesus allegory (as I had been taught that magic=evil). But I was glad, as, to my child’s mind, if there had not been a reward, I would have thought he made the wrong decision. Losing your soul to save your mom would be a good thing.
Now, since I’ve reread it as an adult, I realize it pretty much had to happen that way. The entire concept is that, if you do what God says, even though it seems wrong to you, you will find that he has a greater purpose. God rewards those who diligently seek Him. This is definitely a part of Lewis’s theology.
Not true. The only preference he put on record was that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe be first. How did he put that on record? By writing it first, of course. If he had wanted The Magician’s Nephew to be read first, he would have written it first.
That’s absurd. The order in which you write a series of books does not in any way tell you the order the author would prefer the books to be read. Heck, even a modern example that everyone knows: Lucas prefers you to see the Star Wars trilogies in chronological order.
The simple fact is that Lewis was asked in what order he preferred, and forever said it didn’t matter. But one time he finally gave an answer to his stepson:
My biggest pet peeve is making the first part more important than the last.
I first read the Narnia books completely innocent of any interpretation but my own, and the resolution was rather…unsettling. It didn’t set well. Even then I knew that life doesn’t work like that. I’d been to church and all, but never linked any of the Narnia works to any Christian philosophies, or it might have made more sense to me. I loved the series, but the ending there seemed almost sad, like…yeah. Like wish fulfillment. If it was that obvious to a rather innocent 10 year old, I can’t imagine that it wasn’t intentional on the author’s part.
And I have no problem with that.
I am now craving turkish delight, however.
Damn you!
So Aslan’s statements were inconsistent? He is not a tame lion.
As far as the contradiction about the rules of being told what would have happened, I want to strike a balance, if possible, between artistic unity and the kind of fanboy wanking that we see in Sherlock Holmes fans, where all the mistakes are deliberate and are meant to hold deep meanings.
I think it is just a discontinuity. Lewis forgot what Aslan said to Lucy in an “earlier” book. On the other hand, the Aslan rule can be interpreted as “no one is ever told what would have happened had they not committed such-and-such a sin”. That is the alternate future that Lucy is not told about. Lucy spied on her friend via magic, and that was wrong. Therefore she is denied the knowledge of what would have happened if she had not spied.
Digory, however, does the right thing. He brings back the apple for Alsan and the protection of Narnia, and not for himself. Therefore he is not denied the knowledge of what would have happened if he had sinned.
Like I say, maybe I am just rationalizing.
Regards,
Shodan
The order thing – a friend of a friend is at HarperCollins and without getting too specific is in a definitely position to know what’s going on with these books. She agrees with the chronological thing because, as was said above, that Lewis had it on paper that that order was fine.
I hate it, but trust me, there’s nothing any of us can do, if she can’t.
I used the ‘Wood Between the Worlds’ as the portal method between the various worlds my D&D group used to adventure in.
And the resolution didn’t bother me.
It is only a fairy tale after all.
That’s just proof that Lucas is now thoroughly senile. Even when he added the “Episode IV” to the opening crawl, did you see him telling anyone “Oh, don’t go see this movie yet, wait a few decades until I’ve gotten around to making the prequels first”?
Strolls in, looks around for cheesecake
If there isn’t any cheesecake, can I at least get a doughnut? I’m hungry.
No allusions to any wars, just to the power of the Apples being less in our world.
Okay, I Googled it. Which I could have done last night, but I was busy making pies.
As a child, I really didn’t get the ending, but not because of Aslan’s inconsistency. I just didn’t understand why the fruit would have different effects depending on whether you stole it or not. How would it know? Same for climbing the wall, and why did Jadis even bother doing that? Unless the gate wouldn’t open for her? But I kind of remember that she was just so perverse she’d rather climb the wall.
I later found out this was a theme for Lewis: you have to follow the rules just because they are rules, OK? I never liked that.
My problem with Mabel’s survival is not in-story; it’s artistic. I think Lewis erred as a writer in giving in to the wish-fulfillment ending; it doesn’t feel right. It would be as if Frodo emerged from the Ring War healthy and happy.
Reading it as a child, the ending was a nice, happy ending that did not bother me. As an adult, I find I prefer books in which virtue is its own reward and comes with real costs to ones in which virtue is rewarded by an outside entity.
Probably one of the reasons that I never cared to go back to Narnia after reading LOTR with its very different outcome for Frodo. For all the fantasy elements, an ending in which the protagonist is exhausted by/killed in the completion of a quest feels more real than one who goes back to their life, rewarded and changed in only positive ways. Has to do with my own feelings about the nature of sacrifice, I guess.
One of the more fervent LotR fans will be along shortly to argue that Sam, not Frodo, is the protagonist of that book.
He picks his hives for honey? Ewwww, don’t tell me he gets corn flakes from his scabs, too.
And I voted Where are the poll options?
Oh wait, there they are. Never mind.
I’m not sure that’s a valid criticism, because it doesn’t bother me that the Apples act differently depending on how they are obtained.
Despite what Clarke & Heinlein opined, magic is neither science nor engineering. The latter two work, at their base, because they are manipulating impersonal forces which are the same for everyone. But in much fiction (and pretty much all fairy tales) magic is the invocation of power from a conscious source; it often affects the mind of the person using it, and its effects are influenced by that person’s mind.