C.S. Lewis

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like to think that The Great Divorce profoundly influenced me.
 
GKC said:
I’ll take one each Lewis and Chesterton. We should be so lucky.

I appreciate your appreciation. I will start with the first book, which seems to be readily available, unless Picky has a better idea. And I’ll say what I see, for what it’s worth. Got a book to order next week. Will add this.

I had stumbled over Ransome, somehow, a few years ago. And forgot to follow up to see if, like others I have stumbled on, he was worth checking out.

I hope the 3200 posts were among the useful. A lot of mine are “Yep”, “Motley” and “Decree of nullity”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would certainly start with Swallows and Amazons itself, since the books are in sequence and the children get older, and other children join the story. Exceptions are Peter Duck and Missee Lee, which are sort of Tertiary Creations, in that they are Ransome telling the stories that the children themselves have created, and therefore are skippable (should you be so heartless). So S&A, then Swallowdale, then Peter Duck if you wish, then my favourite Winter Holiday.
 
Peter_J said:
Oh, so it’s just Catholic authors, is it? :mad:

Just kidding. I’m actually not too surprised when a non-Catholic doesn’t like Pierced By A Sword. (If anything, I’m surprised when a non-Catholic *does *like it.)

Alright. I think it mostly comes down to my needing to reread Narnia books to see if I agree with you.
Click to expand...
Picky_Picky said:
Ah - then can we not use Pierced as a shibboleth? Could we not force these Catholic Evangelical Lutherans and Anglo-Catholics to read it and pronounce? Might settle things. 😉
Click to expand...
Ah …

P.S. Another example I could have used is the movie Facing the Giants. Of course, that won’t be much good to you unless you’ve seen it; but several of my relatives have recommended it – some of them Catholic, some Evangelical, and some mainline/liberal protestant – although I found it to be extremely preachy.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Yes, I would certainly start with Swallows and Amazons itself, since the books are in sequence and the children get older, and other children join the story. Exceptions are Peter Duck and Missee Lee, which are sort of Tertiary Creations, in that they are Ransome telling the stories that the children themselves have created, and therefore are skippable (should you be so heartless). So S&A, then Swallowdale, then Peter Duck if you wish, then my favourite Winter Holiday.
Click to expand...
I asked re: the order, because (as I may have mentioned), I was forced to do my initial reading of LORD OF THE RINGS, back in 1965, retro, in reverse order. It did not make for easy comprehension. I thought that to begin at the beginning was best, but wanted to be sure.

I have done the unlikely: read the first 2 chapters from the Barnes/Noble site. It is most promising. I would have certainly enjoyed this, at age 10 or so. Hence I will certainly enjoy this now. Though, as you know, I hesitate to predict.
 
GKC said:
I asked re: the order, because (as I may have mentioned), I was forced to do my initial reading of LORD OF THE RINGS, back in 1965, retro, in reverse order. It did not make for easy comprehension. I thought that to begin at the beginning was best, but wanted to be sure.

I have done the unlikely: read the first 2 chapters from the Barnes/Noble site. It is most promising. I would have certainly enjoyed this, at age 10 or so. Hence I will certainly enjoy this now. Though, as you know, I hesitate to predict.
Click to expand...
That’s encouraging.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I like to think that The Great Divorce profoundly influenced me.
Click to expand...
It certainly did me. The processes of purgation and sanctification were foreign to young me until that book got me pondering them. It led this Lutheran to read outside of just Lutheranism, which ended up strengthening my Christian Faith in more ways than I could possibly number.
 
GKC said:
It was hard times back in 1965. The volumes were on clay tablets, in cuneiform.

But men were men and it was the start of a major bibliographic hobby for me. One of multitudes.
Click to expand...
Hopefully not reading all subsequent series finds in reverse order. 😃

I have discovered various books which I like, only to find out they are a part of a series, but I have a quirk that makes me absolutely refuse to read them out of order even if there is some I can’t get my hands on. Perhaps I’m being too rigid…
 
Kliska said:
Hopefully not reading all subsequent series finds in reverse order. 😃

I have discovered various books which I like, only to find out they are a part of a series, but I have a quirk that makes me absolutely refuse to read them out of order even if there is some I can’t get my hands on. Perhaps I’m being too rigid…
Click to expand...
It was before I knew of the Ace books being essentially pirated, and I could only find Vol III, then Volume II, of the Ace edition. I couldn’t wait. When the Ballentine emu and pink grapefruit paperback edition was available, I bought Vol I. Finally, many years later, I found a used Ace Vol I to complete that collection. My formal reading copy became the Houghton Miffllin hardback set, 2nd ed. American, 2 1st printings, 1 second…
 
steido01 said:
It certainly did me. The processes of purgation and sanctification were foreign to young me until that book got me pondering them. It led this Lutheran to read outside of just Lutheranism, which ended up strengthening my Christian Faith in more ways than I could possibly number.
Click to expand...
And thus, we on CAF benefit a little from that strengthening, because you (and other Lewis readers) post here.
 
Kliska said:
Hopefully not reading all subsequent series finds in reverse order. 😃

I have discovered various books which I like, only to find out they are a part of a series, but I have a quirk that makes me absolutely refuse to read them out of order even if there is some I can’t get my hands on. Perhaps I’m being too rigid…
Click to expand...
Speaking of which…
I read the Chronicles in the order they were published. This includes later-added backstories, such as The Magician’s Nephew coming in, I think, 6th; the Genesis (and more) of Narnia.

I have noticed some editions - full sets - of the Chronicles putting them in the chronological order, approximate, of events as they happened in Narnia. What’s your take on that? Which order is the true, Chronological Chronicles?

My preference is the order Lewis wrote them. After all, the Aeneid doesn’t begin at the beginning, it starts “in Medias Res”, that is, the reader is thrown into the action. Then he or she learns the backstory, after the author Virgil has prepared them properly to understand.

Of course, in modern publishing authors don’t have control over publishing sequence, so we don’t know exactly if the order published is the order written. Now I have to reread the Chronicles, I could use a wonder refill.
 
commenter said:
Speaking of which…
I read the Chronicles in the order they were published. This includes later-added backstories, such as The Magician’s Nephew coming in, I think, 6th; the Genesis (and more) of Narnia.

I have noticed some editions - full sets - of the Chronicles putting them in the chronological order, approximate, of events as they happened in Narnia. What’s your take on that? Which order is the true, Chronological Chronicles?

My preference is the order Lewis wrote them. After all, the Aeneid doesn’t begin at the beginning, it starts “in Medias Res”, that is, the reader is thrown into the action. Then he or she learns the backstory, after the author Virgil has prepared them properly to understand.

Of course, in modern publishing authors don’t have control over publishing sequence, so we don’t know exactly if the order published is the order written. Now I have to reread the Chronicles, I could use a wonder refill.
Click to expand...
Question comes up, from time to time. In a letter written 23 Apr, 1957, to a young enquirer who asked him what order they should be read in, Lewis, while not sure it made any difference, said he inclined to reading them chronologically, by Narnian time, not the order of publication. (C.S.LEWIS: LETTERS TO CHILDREN, ed. Dorsett & Mead, 1985, pp.68-69. See also Hooper, PAST WATCHFUL DRAGONS, 1971, p.32)

I read VOYAGE OF THE "DAWN TREADER "FIRST. It was the first that came to hand.
 
commenter said:
Speaking of which…
I read the Chronicles in the order they were published. This includes later-added backstories, such as The Magician’s Nephew coming in, I think, 6th; the Genesis (and more) of Narnia.

I have noticed some editions - full sets - of the Chronicles putting them in the chronological order, approximate, of events as they happened in Narnia. What’s your take on that? Which order is the true, Chronological Chronicles?

My preference is the order Lewis wrote them. After all, the Aeneid doesn’t begin at the beginning, it starts “in Medias Res”, that is, the reader is thrown into the action. Then he or she learns the backstory, after the author Virgil has prepared them properly to understand.

Of course, in modern publishing authors don’t have control over publishing sequence, so we don’t know exactly if the order published is the order written. Now I have to reread the Chronicles, I could use a wonder refill.
Click to expand...
Yes, I recall when they first started selling sets in that order. I remember some readers very strongly objected – to the point that they thought that somebody (secularists or Protestants or Norwegians, I don’t remember) was trying to change Lewis’ Christian message.
 
GKC said:
Question comes up, from time to time. In a letter written 23 Apr, 1957, to a young enquirer who asked him what order they should be read in, Lewis, while not sure it made any difference, said he inclined to reading them chronologically, by Narnian time, not the order of publication. (C.S.LEWIS: LETTERS TO CHILDREN, ed. Dorsett & Mead, 1985, pp.68-69. See also Hooper, PAST WATCHFUL DRAGONS, 1971, p.32)
Click to expand...
Good point.

“I think I agree with your order for reading the books [chronologically according to events] more than with your mother’s [in order of publication]. . . . [But] perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone reads them” (C. S. Lewis: Letters to Children, New York: Macmillan, 1985, p. 68).
 
Peter_J said:
Yes, I recall when they first started selling sets in that order. I remember some readers very strongly objected – to the point that they thought that somebody (secularists or Protestants or Norwegians, I don’t remember) was trying to change Lewis’ Christian message.
Click to expand...
My suspicion would be the Global Warming Crowd, but my evidence is sketchy).
 
Peter_J said:
Good point.

“I think I agree with your order for reading the books [chronologically according to events] more than with your mother’s [in order of publication]. . . . [But] perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone reads them” (C. S. Lewis: Letters to Children, New York: Macmillan, 1985, p. 68).
Click to expand...
Ipsissima verba
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top