Posted on 12/27/2005 11:28:47 AM PST by Bob J
I have to say I disagree. We enjoyed it very much.
From Screwtape Proposes a Toast:
And a child who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante is forced to listen to his coeval's attempts to spell out A cat sat on a mat.
No cheers, unfortunately.
IIRC there were different names for the Wolf between the British and American versions of the books... one was Fenris Ulf, one was Maugrim.
Fenris/Maugrim got killed by Peter ("Back! Let the Prince win his spurs." followed shortly by "Never forget to wipe your sword.")
So I guess the Minotaur (tho' not in the books as such) was the " #3 in Al-Qaeda" of Narnia.
Cheers!
Bingo!!
I think it may be a personal choice.
You are probably right. Thanks for the perspective.
I found this quote particularly funny:
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.
Thanks for the insight!
So either one is a good name for a wolf.
The Minotaur DOES appear in a Pauline Baynes illustration in the original book, but just as a bystander in the scene of Aslan's death.
Just read your review and it sucked.
I am ashamed to admit I am not up on the Norse myths, save for a picture and explanation of Bifrost which I received on a wedding invitation.
Even worse, I don't know the Elder Edda from my ass the Norse Edda.
Cheers!
I remember that photo! He was holding a torch or a staff or something...
And who can forget the list of wicked creatures associated with the bad guys?
"But such people! Ogres with monstrous teeth, and wolves, and bull-headed men; spirits of evil trees and poisonous plants; and other creatures whom I won't describe because if I did the grown-ups would probably not let you read this book -- Cruels and Hags and Incubuses, Wraiths, Horrors, Efreets, Sprites, Orknies, Wooses, and Ettins."
No cheers, unfortunately.
Fair enough.
Excellent assessment of the film. I liked it, but not much. I've seen far better films with much more depth. I hoped for more but, in fact, the underlying story for all of its Christian allegory is somewhat childish. Santa Claus!!? Puh-lease. Sure, the Chronicles are great works of literature for they must have been meant for children as they really don't appeal much to me. However, my children LOVE the books and the film and I strongly encourage them in this respect.
It actually was fun . . . I even got a "teach yourself Icelandic" book because that's closest to Old Norse.
St. Nicholas of Myra is not amused.
I really hate to get into the whole numbering controversy again but I just have to interject here. The fact that you have a picture of books published in the '80s with numbers on the spine that show "Magician's Nephew" as #1 is not "checkmate". ("Aha, here are the numbers! See! That proves it!")
The ones I read as a child in the '70s were numbered too. In the original order. Here's a picture of them:
The LW&W is book #1. The Magicians Nephew is #6.
However, neither my numbers nor yours prove anything definitive. Publishers can choose to put any number they want on the spine. The numbers on the spine in your '80s books or my '70s books are irrelevant to the question.
Nope, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying I didn't have a problem following them no matter which order they were in.
Did you have trouble understanding Star Wars because Revenge of the Sith wasn't made until 25 years later?
No, because the Sith goes further back into time when Luke Skywalker was a little boy chronologically and historically speaking. Just because it was made 25 years after the original Star Wars doesn't mean it's out of sequence. Anyone who has seen the original Star Wars made 25 years ago isn't going to be confused with Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith because like the original, it has all the central characters everyone is familiar with. Sith just basically takes the viewer further back into history, and one who has seen the original 25 years ago, can say, "Ah! So that's how Darth Vader ended up on the dark side", even though the viewer realized 25 years ago that at one point in chronological history Darth was on the good side.
"The Magician's Nephew" goes into alot about the creation of Narnia.
You said yourself, of the Star Wars series, that "Sith goes further back into time when Luke Skywalker was a little boy chronologically and historically speaking". Did you have trouble with seeing and understanding the 1977 "Star Wars" before seeing the prequel (Sith) that flashes back to how it came to be? Doesn't it even become more interesting to see the "back story" (Sith) later in the series, when you know what will come after? Wouldn't the back story be kind of boring if you saw it chronologically first and didn't already know who Luke Skywalker is? Would it mean anything to you?
There are arguments for both sides of this Narnia ordering question but strictly chronology is not a particularly strong one, if you ask me. Since Lewis wrote them with "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" as the 1st book and "Magician's Nephew" as the 6th, there are assumptions made in "Magician's Nephew" about what the reader already knows. Those things make no sense to the reader if he's reading "Magician's Nephew" first. For example, from a website noted earlier:
The narrator of "The Lion..." says 'None of the children knew who Aslan was, any more than you do.' But if 'you' are supposed to have read The Magician's Nephew, then you do know who Aslan was.
The charm of the opening of "The Lion..." is spoiled if you already know, from Magician's Nephew, that the wardrobe is magical; that the Professor has been to Narnia, and why there is a street lamp in Narnia. Similarly, the 'shock of recognition' in Magician's Nephew is spoiled if you don't know the significance of the wardrobe.
Those points coincide with my opinion, maybe because I first read them in the original order so I'm wedded to that. Like I said, others differ. But simply chronology does not seem to me a persuasive argument. There are many stories and series ("Star Wars" is but one example) that don't follow a strictly chronological order and many are more interesting for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.