# Scholars disagreeing with authors about their works(?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** books-writing-myths\ **Created:** [October 3, 2022, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656 "2022-10-03T21:41:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/41 "2022-10-04T14:00:14Z")
> [@bump](#): > > If Lewis says that the proper order is chronological, then that’s that. But in that very same passage, Lewis also says “Perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them.” It doesn’t sound to me like he really has a very strong opinion one way or the other. So I take him at his word, and read them in the order they were published. I certainly do not take Lewis being polite to a little kid as any sort of definitive statement on which order he wanted his books to be read in, full stop, end of story. Edited to add: If you want to get into issues of “canon,” then no, Lewis’s private letter is _not_ canon. The canon is the books themselves, not other stuff that Lewis said about the books later. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/42 "2022-10-04T14:00:16Z")
> [@bump](#): > > If Lewis says that the proper order is chronological, then that’s that. People are free to read them in other orders if they so desire, but I don’t get how they can go say that he’s wrong and they’re right. Authors are authoritative about how their works are written, including the order that they’re written. Readers are authoritative about how works are read, including the order that they’re read. An author simply has no authority about how, when, what readers read. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/43 "2022-10-04T14:07:38Z")
They can say the author is wrong the exact same way we can say that you or anyone else is wrong. They aren’t saying that the author’s view is invalid, just that they find it less persuasive. In fact, it’s so much less persuasive that a lot of people think that Lewis, when saying “chronological order”, meant the real world chronological order. I can’t remember who, but that is the theory of one person who knew Lewis well. (Though obviously not his stepson, who is the one who cemented the current official ordering.) As for why? Read the books. If you read _Magician’s Nephew_, it very clearly references things that were mentioned in _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_, but not the other way around. Stuff presented as new in _Wardrobe_ are explained in _Nephew_. For example, there’s no mystery of why there’s a lamppost in the ground if you read _Nephew_ first. You don’t have the big reveal that Jadis is in fact the _White Queen_ (who is never named in the Wardrobe.) Hell, the end of _Nephew_ explains how the wardrobe works, completely destroying the surprise of when Lucy winds up in Narnia for the first time. _Magicians Nephew_ was just so obviously written as a prequel that it’s hard to argue that in-universe chronological order makes sense. And that’s without the wrinkle that _A Horse and His Boy_ occurs entirely during a time skip in _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_, starring completely different characters. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/44 "2022-10-04T14:08:18Z")
I would say that the authority to say how to read something (e.g. what order to read a series) belongs to those who are already thoroughly familiar with it, which includes but is not limited to the author. ---
**Author:** ![Bonum\_Legatum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bonum_legatum/32/6183_2.png) [@Bonum\_Legatum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bonum_Legatum)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/45 "2022-10-04T14:10:23Z")
As Asimov had Shakespeare say, (paraphrase): “What meanings can be racked out of words!” So scholars should approach with humility. For the rest of us, enjoy this: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/dDt65opQvVA/hqdefault.jpg "The Best Of Benny Hill Pierre De Terre French Film Director") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDt65opQvVA) ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/46 "2022-10-04T14:19:21Z")
> [@bump](#): > > How in the world does that work? That seems like the most pretentious sort of second-guessing to me- For me, “Scholars” and “Experts” are words that always arouse suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/47 "2022-10-04T14:27:27Z")
> [@bump](#): > > C.S. Lewis In addition to what’s been said upthread, asking only the author of a book series about chronological order doesn’t take into account the thoughts of the editor, who may have a better grasp of flow than the author. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/48 "2022-10-04T17:37:39Z")
> [@bump](#): > > If Lewis says that the proper order is chronological, then that’s that. So you’re taking a single sentence out of context and pronouncing that to be the definitive judgement on a large subject? There isn’t much about writing that one can say is absolutely, unquestionably wrong, but that hits the bullseye. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/49 "2022-10-04T21:28:39Z")
Here’s a [link](https://books.google.com/books?id=SWBqlnbIIqkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22it%27s+been+a+good+life&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi42fSQvJfwAhVHbs0KHYv-D_8Q6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=nightfall&f=false) (click on page 117) ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/50 "2022-10-05T00:53:10Z")
Thanks very much for finding that. My recollection was quite different in many respects, but not too far off. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/51 "2022-10-05T01:11:24Z")
No problem. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/52 "2022-10-05T01:34:58Z")
> [@bump](#): > > It’s more about the scholarly presumption to essentially countermand the author about their own works and how valid that is. I mean, to me if an author says something about their own work, that seems pretty definitive. If Lewis says that the proper order is chronological, then that’s that. People are free to read them in other orders if they so desire, but I don’t get how they can go say that he’s wrong and they’re right. Going off the wikipedia entry, though I don’t think they’re doing that. This is the part that inspired your OP, yes? _In the 2005 HarperCollins adult editions of the books, the publisher cites this letter to assert Lewis’s preference for the numbering they adopted by including this notice on the copyright page:_ _Although The Magician’s Nephew was written several years after C. S. Lewis first began The Chronicles of Narnia, he wanted it to be read as the first book in the series. HarperCollins is happy to present these books in the order in which Professor Lewis preferred._ _Paul Ford cites several scholars who have weighed in against this view,[[23]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFord2005xxiii%E2%80%93xxiv-23) and continues, “most scholars disagree with this decision and find it the least faithful to Lewis’s deepest intentions”. Scholars and readers who appreciate the original order believe that Lewis was simply being gracious to his youthful correspondent and that he could have changed the books’ order in his lifetime had he so desired._ My read on that is not that they’re disagreeing with Lewis himself, but that they’re disagreeing with Harper-Collins that a letter he wrote to a ten year old fan amounts to anything more than being polite to a young boy. If he’d written it in the foreword to a new edition of the book, or in an essay published in a literary magazine, or even a letter written to a peer, that would be authoritative, but this is the equivalent of using Robert Downey, Jr. dressing up as Iron Man for a Make-a-Wish video as a starting point to deconstructing _Avengers: Endgame_. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/53 "2022-10-05T01:44:34Z")
I’ve had a reviewer tell me that I should make myself more aware of my own work. Being a double blind review process, of course, they could know possibly know that I’m the lead author of the work they’re telling me to learn more about. When I read it my immediate thought was “Of course, I know him. He’s me.” 🙂 I should also say after thinking of the Obi Wan line my next thought was “Wow. Somebody knows my work.” LOL ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/54 "2022-10-05T01:46:24Z")
> [@bump](#): > > But when there’s a pretty clear statement from the author himself, why isn’t that the final word? That isn’t a clear statement from Lewis. It’s just him saying that it was O.K. for Krieg to read them in that order. It wasn’t until long after Lewis’s death that the publisher decided to change the order. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/55 "2022-10-05T02:04:15Z")
Yeah. The people who are supposedly criticizing Lewis are saying that the way he wrote the books and the way Krieg and everyone else from that era initially read them is fine, while Harper Collins is “supporting” Lewis by saying implicitly that he wrote the books wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/56 "2022-10-05T02:19:31Z")
> [@SunUp](#): > > Of course, the definitive treatment of authorial authority comes to us from Mr. R. Dangerfield That’s the first thing that came to mind! ~Max ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/57 "2022-10-05T02:23:33Z")
> [@bump](#): > > It’s more about the scholarly presumption to essentially countermand the author about their own works and how valid that is. I mean, to me if an author says something about their own work, that seems pretty definitive. If Lewis says that the proper order is chronological, then that’s that. People are free to read them in other orders if they so desire, but I don’t get how they can go say that he’s wrong and they’re right. What does “proper” mean here? If it means “most satisfying”, it seems reasonable that otherw might have a better insight than the author, who has never read the books in the sense of discovering the story. If “proper” means “appropriate” or “correct”, I am not sure that really even exists. ---
**Author:** ![gkster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gkster/32/14107_2.png) [@gkster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gkster)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/58 "2022-10-05T04:12:57Z")
> [@bump](#): > > It kind of reminds me of a teacher (or was it a college professor?) who told me once in class that it was perfectly possible for a book or other written work to have symbolism and meanings that the author didn’t intend or even know are there. I remember the phrase “intentional fallacy” from a college literature class. The phrase means that it’s a fallacy to believe that the author’s intentions should limit the interpretation of the work, and unintended meanings are not uncommon. Many examples of the “intentional fallacy” can be found by looking at Shakespeare. For example, he had no intention of referencing Freudian psychology in his work, but that doesn’t mean that we should be limited by his intention and not make any connections with Freud in reading his work I also heard the story of Robert Frost being asked about his poem “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” and the last lines: “But I have promises to keep / And miles to go before I sleep / And miles to go before I sleep.” Many readers believe that the last line is a reference to death, but when asked about this reading, Frost said that he never thought about death when writing the poem. But if we were to follow the “intentional fallacy” and let ourselves be limited by Frost’s intention, that would be an artificial limit on the possible meanings of the poem. That said, I strongly prefer reading the Chronicles of Narnia in publication order. I agree with @BigT; it doesn’t make sense to me to read _The Magician’s Nephew_ first, especially considering its references to _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/59 "2022-10-05T05:29:25Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > As I understand it, Tolkein didn’t intend for the Battle of Five Armies to be a reflection of WWI. WW1, the one that went on for 4 years vs a battler that occurred over 1 day? A single battle vs a long war? WW1, where pretty much every side was “the bad guys”, vs Middle Earth? > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > A bunch of armies getting together, to fight it out, for effectively no obvious rationale like in WWI is a rare event. And that’s pretty much the case of the Battle of Five Armies. The rational was to get ahold of the greatest treasure in all Middle Earth. And for a while there were no clear sides- until the orcs arrived, the mutual enemy. A battle not about territory, but 100% about loot. There really is no comparison. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > Flannery O’Connor had little use for academic interpretations of her work, and was quite scornful of those who tried to read meaning into them. I concur. Mark Twain was right: _NOTICE_ _PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot._ ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2022, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656/60 "2022-10-05T14:38:30Z")
Maybe it’s the STEM education I got, but that seems absolutely absurd. Like ridicule-worthy absurd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scholars-disagreeing-with-authors-about-their-works/972656.md?page=4)