Re: The Power of Story

[reimerd]

Thanks for this reflection, Jon, in its three aspects (your garden, the Narnia series, and entering stories). You may well know of Lewis‘s own reflections on this:

Perhaps because I grew up reading (and hearing) Narnia in publication order, I don’t think chronological is the best experience.

I share your sense entirely (having been read, and reading myself, the series by about 1963!). But here's an extract from a letter by Lewis from Vol. 3 of the Collected Letters, pp. 847–8:

---

To Laurence Krieg
April 21st 57

Dear Laurence

I think I agree with your order for reading the books more than with your mother’s.⁴³ 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 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 keep notes of that sort of thing and never remember dates.

_{⁴³ Mrs Krieg believed the Narnian books should be read in the order in which they were published, while Lewis agreed with Laurence that they be read chronologically according to Narnian time. In the summer of 1963 Lewis had Walter Hooper write down the order in which he preferred the stories to be read: The Magician’s Nephew; The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; The Horse and His Boy; Prince Caspian; The Voyage of the ‘Dawn Treader’; The Silver Chair; and The Last Battle. Regarding the order in which the stories were written, see CG, ‘The Writing of the Narnias’, pp. 401–5.}

_{+ CG = Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Companion and Guide (1996).}

---

I wonder if Michael Ward’s superb (imo!) Planet Narnia (OUP, 2008) reflects on composition and reading order at all? I don’t now recall. Anyway! Hooper's editorial footnote implies some authority for Lewis’s 1963 preference, but I think I would stick with Lewis in 1957, “perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone reads them,” ... so long as they are read! :) And with the further proviso that, as you argue, the best entry point has got to be LWW!

---

(Please use this issue for comments on The Power of Story.)

[jericson]

I started reading Collected Letters at volume 1, so I have a ways to go before I get to that letter! I must have read that quoted before since it sounds vaguely familiar. My daughter certainly doesn't care what order I read in as long as I read.

Thanks for the Planet Narnia recommendation. I'll add it to my reading list!

[jericson]

@reimerd : I checked out The Narnia Code from my public library. It's utterly fascinating. I'm trying to predict which planet will be associated with which book, which is a fun exercise that also proves how little I know of medieval cosmology! I gather it's a shorter book for a wider audience, but makes the same argument as Planet Narnia.

He does list the books in publication order and recommends LWW should be read first in a note before the first chapter. His reasoning is similar to mine: Aslan is best introduced in Lewis' first book. He says TMN should be treated as a flashback or a prequel.

[reimerd]

@reimerd : I checked out The Narnia Code from my public library. It's utterly fascinating. I'm trying to predict which planet will be associated with which book...

I think I did something similar! I've actually got The Narnia Code on my shelf. I first read Planet Narnia from my (university's) library. One certainly doesn't need to read both, but if you ever run across the "papa" book, it's well worth a read, and very readable.

Thanks for the update — enjoy!