NarniaWeb Community Forums

I picked chronological order, because that's what do if I want to read (or listen to) the whole series. I generally pick a book just because I want to read it again, but that might spur me to go back and begin the series over.

Just wondering, has anyone ever started LWW, stopped near the end, read HHB, and then gone back and finished LWW? I haven't, but I might. That would truly be chronological order.

Wow that's a great idea. I might just try that

I can't remember the exact order I initially read the Chronicles in because it was so long ago. However, I definitely read LWW first. I had no idea there were more stories until I found The Magician's Nephew in my basement and read that. I think I read VDT next, then maybe SC?

I know for sure that I couldn't read PC right away because we didn't have that one. I ended up finding it at a friends' house while snooping through their bookshelves, then rejoicing wholeheartedly because I could finally read it. I'm not sure when I read it but I think I may have read it wayyy after I read the other ones.

I'm not sure where LB fits into that mess. I'd like to say I read it last out of all of them since it is the last book, but I can't remember if I did or not. I do know that whenever I did read it, I cried. It was such a beautiful ending. ♥

That said, I have NO idea what my preferred reading order is since mine was so out of whack. I see why some people would read them chronologically but I haven't been too picky about it. I tend to side more with the publication order, just because that's the way it was done for so long. I even sided with publication order initially because I thought that's the order I had read them in... but alas, apparently it is not so. I actually didn't realize till I sat down to write this post just now that I read them so out of order!

If I remember something different than what I've already said, I'll come back and post here, but I think we can safely assume that the order I read the Chronicles in was definitely not the norm.

EDIT: I will say that I agree with what 7chronicles said in the opening post, here:

These academics believe that the mysterious wardrobe, as a narrative device, is a much better introduction to Narnia than The Magician's Nephew — where the word "Narnia" appears in the first paragraph as something already familiar to the reader.

I do think that's a great thought, and it sums up what I've felt on the subject. I tend to side with writing them in the order Lewis wrote them because that feels more organic to me. It's the way Lewis wrote them, and the way they were initially read when they first came out. On the subject of when to read MN, I think it's more magical seeing Narnia made if you've already "been there", so to speak. At least it was for me.

At any rate, I'm a bit torn on this, so I may definitely change my mind at some point. These are just my initial thoughts on the subject at this very moment.

Part 2 of my series on this issue:



There should be no doubt that publication order works best for the first time reader. After that... just read whatever book you feel like reading, haha.

The great thing about the books is that, although it obviously makes more sense if you read the books in order, you can skip some of the books and still understand the plot line. I read SC before VDT and I could still follow it.

You can follow the plots well enough, sure. (Though bits like "none of the children knew who Aslan was anymore than you do" will only make sense if you're reading LWW as book 1).

That's not really the issue. Lewis' intentions with each book shine through better if the books are read in publication order. For example, Lewis spends a lot of time building up a sense of mystery and anticipation for Aslan. If you have already read MN (or any other book for that matter), all that is spoiled, and a huge part of what drives LWW is virtually ruined.

Another example: Lewis clearly wrote MN assuming the reader had already read LWW. He includes so many bits assuming the reader will understand the significance. MN is not ruined if read first, but Lewis' intentions clearly shine through better if it is read sixth rather than first.

My opinion is the same as most, publication order for first reading, chronological or whatever for second reading.

For me I prefer the Publication Order I like chronological order to but for some reason I like Publication Order better maybe it because is close to the order I first read the books in

LWW
PC
VDT
HHB
SC
MN
LB

besides I think the books flow better in publication order for me and LWW make more sense as the first book. but in the end if you enjoy the series it really matter what order you read them in.

glumPuddle wrote:Another example: Lewis clearly wrote MN assuming the reader had already read LWW. He includes so many bits assuming the reader will understand the significance. MN is not ruined if read first, but Lewis' intentions clearly shine through better if it is read sixth rather than first.

If I remember correctly (and I'm old, so I may not), Lewis was planning on writing The Last Battle to end the series when someone said that he really should write how Narnia came to be before he killed it off. Which supports what you are saying - he assumed the reader had already read the other books.

For those who point to the letter that he wrote to the child who was asking if "chronilogical" was preferred - he was writing to a child, and was not about to tell them "No, you can only read them in the order they came out." That could have possible discouraged the kid from wanting to read at all. You don't tell someone who is reading the Bible "No, your way doesn't make sense." The important thing is that they read it.

I have always read them in chronological order. Also listened to them in chronological order. Maybe because my original Narnia set had them numbered starting with MN. But I like that order and do not enjoy deviating from it, to be honest. Unless I am re-reading a particular book (usually HHB) for a given reason. I did download VDT and SC on e-book recently to test my Nook Color- since those were the most easily available ones (they worked- and were in full color). But I do enjoy the chronological order best.

I can't believe I haven't commented on this. But I agree with the points glumPuddle makes.
Read LWW first, then perhaps read thethree Pevensie ones first, then go back to MN and HHB, then go on to SC and LB.
After that, read any book/s in any order you like

This is probably the only issue I disagree with Doug Gresham on; he clearly likes the chronological order and has authorised it. I prefer non-numbered books, but a list in the front (or on the back cover) could explain both the chronological order and give the suggestion of LWW first.

coracle wrote:This is probably the only issue I disagree with Doug Gresham on; he clearly likes the chronological order and has authorised it. I prefer non-numbered books, but a list in the front (or on the back cover) could explain both the chronological order and give the suggestion of LWW first.

Actually - Doug Gresham is trying to get the movies made in publication order.

parableproductions wrote:Actually - Doug Gresham is trying to get the movies made in publication order.

Actually, Doug is the one who got Harper Collins to change the book's numbering system from publication to chronological.

I would recommend Publication order for first time readers, which is how did it.
But after the first reading I've always read them in chronological order.

Part 3 is up! This one is about C.S. Lewis' wishes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY-wyQsHFkc

To me Publishing order is the ideal for first time reading. After that you can read it whatever order you want. Personally I just pick hicever book I want to read, although I still prefer publishing order over chronological order, not that it mater much now. But for first time readers, publishing order all the way.