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

What order?

  • Written (LWW, PC, VoDT...)

    Votes: 87 46.0%
  • Chronological (MN, LWW, HHB...)

    Votes: 89 47.1%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 13 6.9%

  • Total voters
    189
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! :)
 
CSLewisFan said:
"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
 
Which order?

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

:)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top