Into the Wardrobe

The Harper Collins edition of the Narnia books which I own is in chronological order, which some readers have understandably disputed. But it is a much better edition than the Macmillan paperbacks printed in the published order during the 1970's with their cheap quality paper and cut down illustrations, which were an insult to Pauline Baynes. That was the first set of Narnia book that I owned, which I replaced with the Harper Collins edition a few years ago. It's more important to me to have a set of books printed on quality paper with the complete illustrations than to have them numbered in what is considered by some to be the correct order. At least I now have the complete seven books in a respectable hardcover set. It has all of the original pictures (although not in color), and the text is printed and on fine paper which won't turn yellow in less than ten years.

If it irritates people so much to have the "wrong" numbers on the spines of the books they could have volumes of their set sent off to a bindery and have the books rebound with "Volume One" printed on the outside cover along with the title of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, "Volume Two" with Prince Caspian, and so on... Libraries will sometimes have books rebound, but they usually wait for their copies
to wear out first. I think mine will last for a very long time, much longer than that other set of thirty years ago that I gave away.

Larry W.

Larry, I would agree with you completely if we were only talking about people who already know the story in its originally published order.

My concern is for new readers of CON -- I think it very important that they read the story in 2456317 order. When I gave a boxed set to my husband's niece in the early 80s, I was horrified to see the books in the new order, and I enclosed a note urging her to read them in 2456317 order. But I can't do that for everyone.

I'll gladly sign the petition.

Count me in! I'll sign a petition!

Here's my point, Esther...

Lewis may have said that chronalogical was best, but that is irrelevant. The fact is, he did NOT change the order. He was alive for 7 years afer finishing the Chronicles and he never asked that the order be changed.

This is not a question of "which order is best?" The question is "should the order have been changed?" Lewis apparently thought that chronalogical was better, but he apparently didn't think the order should be changed.

For example...
If someone asked me what order they should watch the Star Wars films in, I would not hesitate to say they should watch them in the order they were made (Episode 4 first). However, I would be very upset if George Lucas actually changed the order so that Episode 4 said Episode 1.

I know Lewis said chronological is best, but he didn't write them that way. The ones that are "prequels" are written as prequels--they reveal things in a way that's supposed to make you say, "Ohhhhhh! I get it now!" Same thing with Star Wars. The moment when we hear, "Anakin Skywalker, meet Obi Wan Kenobi" is supposed to be significant, just like Obi Wan's first line being "I have a bad feeling about this" makes us laugh a little. Those are things that are meaningless if Episode 1 is really the first episode you ever watch. I'm preaching to the choir, I know, because nobody is arguing with me, but it's one of the those soapboxes I have that I can't let pass.