The Chronicles of Narnia: in which order to read them?

[pne]

Apparently, many fans of Narnia are divided over the order in which the books making up the series should "properly" be read, with staunch proponents of reading the books in the order they are published (which is almost, but not quite, the order in which they were written) and of reading the books in Narnian chronological order (i.e. in the order in which the events described by the books take place).

Two arguments for the "proper order" are here (strongly in favour of publication order) and here (tries to present both sides, though I'd say with a slight "publicationist" bias). Both pages also give the books in both publication and chronological order.

What's your take on the issue?

Have a poll.

[Poll #647511]

Comments

[pthalo]

there was a film version which i saw that was played on television in 1993, but i was too young at the time to have payed attention to when it was produced. (i.e. if it was an older film being shown or a recent one)

[pne.livejournal.com]

I'll guess it was the from the four 1988-1990 miniseries, which seem to have been the most successful adaptations. (The four miniseries, representing a book each, were later turned into three feature-length films [combining the middle two miniseries into one film], and it's also possible you saw one of those.)

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Besides seeing one of the tv adaptations of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I also played in a D&D game which was based on Voyager of the Dawn Treader. (My brother who created the scenario has read all of the books.) We also had an encyclopaedia of Narnia from which I gleaned information about other books.

[subbes]

I own all of them (and one extra copy of TL,TW&TW). The BBC miniseries came out just as I was at the right age for the books. I got a box set and I read them in that order.

Actually now I want to reread them... Hmmm.

"in order"

[pne.livejournal.com]

I got a box set and I read them in that order.

Do you remember what order that was? I've seen boxed sets with both orders.

(Apparently, the first ones all used publication order, and sets numbered in chronological order came later, so I'm guessing publication order for you?)

Re: "in order"

[subbes]

It started with the Magician etc, so it was chronological.

[pne.livejournal.com]

Actually now I want to reread them... Hmmm.

So do I!

I think I read them all at school, but that was ages ago.

I still have the copy of TL,TW&TW that my grandmother gave me ages ago (and re-read it before watching the film), but I've been wanting to get a boxed set and re-read the series for a while now.

[marikochan.livejournal.com]

I don't (obviously, as I've only read one book) have any strong opinions about Narnia, but I'd say in general I'm in favor of publication order rather than chronological for series.

[tungol.livejournal.com]

I voted for publication order but I could have gone with a different order. I like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to be first, and for things to be roughly chronological after that. I don't really care where The Magician's Nephew and The Horse and his Boy fit in after the first book.

I've seen some sort of video of Prince Caspian and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I'm not sure what adaptation it was.

[pne.livejournal.com]

I've seen some sort of video of Prince Caspian and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I'm not sure what adaptation it was.

If it was on one video, then I'll guess it was based on the BBC series-of-miniseries; according to Wikipedia, "The four miniseries were later edited into three feature-length films (combining "Prince Caspian" and "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader") and released on DVD."

[subbes]

I actually went on a school trip to see Dawn Treader performed by a theatrical group. It was at the Barbican, perhaps... somewhere in the Midlands (maybe not the Barbican -- I remember going there once, but I think I went with my parents, before I got my glasses so the performance of some classical music stuff was all just a blur). that was an actual theatre rather than a Town Hall.

I was in primary school so I couldn't have been younger than 6 or older than 11. I remember I pretended to get travel sick so I could sit at the front of the bus and not arrive at the theatre with bleeding wounds, a broken arm, or other such injuries (my school life was Not A Happy One).

[lexabear.livejournal.com]

When I've been telling people to read Narnia, I tell them to read publication order first, and then a couple years later if they want to reread to do it chronologically. I suggest publication first, because TLTW&TW is the "meat" of the series, I feel, as well as being the most famous, and the best introduction to how Narnia works. Books like HAHB or MN need the backdrop of knowing TLTWTW-Narnia to really get the most out of them, and so I really don't suggest that people read those first, even though they "happen" first. I always think of "present" Narnia as LWW, and books like Dawn Treader as "future" Narnia and HHB as "past" Narnia.

Of course, my point of view only works if you accept my first proposition, that TLTWTW is the foundation of the series.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I started one of the books once, but I didn't like the writing style, so I stopped. I found it very dull. I also was told they're meant to be Christian allegory, so I figured they'd make me annoyed or angry, and so it's better if I don't read them. There's nothing wrong with Christian allegories that are clearly marked as Christian allegories - they are there for those who want them and those who don't should stay away from them, thus I do.

[sovereigna.livejournal.com]

Funny enough, the first set I was given was in publication order, but after reading them I reordered the books in the box to close to chronological order (I think I may have mixed up The Dawn Treader and Prince Caspian or the Dawn Treader and the Silver Chair, can't remember which and I don't remember whether I had seen another series in chronological order or not). Lewis never meant it to be a series so he didn't write them in order. But who's to say he wouldn't have if he had planned it to be a series? I did always think Lewis approved of the chronological version and your second article suggests Lewis did indeed have a *mild* preference for the chronological version, so that's the one I support.

I actually like that the best known book of the series isn't the first book in the series. They're all individual stories, but having The Lion first is like saying that's the most important and all the rest are just other stories, read them if you want, but you've already read the important one so the rest don't really matter.. and to me they're not like that. They're all equally as important, The Lion is just happens to be the best known of them all.

But it comes down to personal preference...

[camomiletea.livejournal.com]

I read them in chronological order, and I read them all together in two volumes. I loved them all, but I don't separate them. In my mind they are just one book, so I can't really tell which is my favorite of the books...

[zompist.livejournal.com]

I like publication order, just as I think Star Wars should be seen in the order the films came out, and for the same reason: the prequels add spoilers. It's more fun to find out who Professor Kirk is in a later book, rather than to have always known.

(The Horse and His Boy doesn't have any spoilers, so I'm not particular about when it's read.)

[pne.livejournal.com]

Good point.