Dawn Treader a Little Off Course

Perhaps you know from previous posts how excited I had been to see next Narnia movie, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I adored the last two movies. Both The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian, in my opinion, had been brought to the screen in amazing glory – even with the rewrites, additions and changes. For these tweaks only served to strengthen and smooth out the story C.S. Lewis had put down on the page. Very little had been sacrificed to allow the revisions… and what had been brought to the tale fit in as if it had always been there. In short, I thought the film managed to improve the original books while keeping them primarily intact.

I had to wait longer than I thought possible to see the new film (after filling with such joy when I saw the trailer back in June). For the reason of trying to coordinate a few friends who wanted to see it with me: Cassidy, Buttercup and Bart’s sister Lage. Sadly, Lage couldn’t make the time that worked out for the rest of us, but she knew that might happen and offered from the get-go to opt out if need be. So as it turned out, we saw it a week and day after its release.

I liked it. No, I didn’t love it. I liked it very much. It’s quite good. But no, I didn’t go over the moon as I had with the first two. Why? Oddly, the very thing which made me adore those is what killed the joy in Dawn Treader. Rewrites. This one proved quite heavy on the alterations. Sure, the others shifted scenes and incidents and added much – but all the while it never felt as if anything had been lost from the book. Here, it did in fact feel like parts of the story were noticeably missing. Why? Because they were. What I imagine must have been time/length constraints, many chunks of many scenes did not occur. And some parts vanished completely. And then we had the problem of scenario overlap. Lewis’s narrative takes us across the sea and the ship and characters stop at many islands along the way, looking for the lost Lords of Narnia (the friends/supporters of King Capsian’s father who had been exiled by the villainous Miraz when he stole the throne.) Well, in the movie about three or so of these islands had been combined into one (and again, other parts didn’t make it in at all.)

One of these removed sections can be found on The Lone Islands, the place of the slave traders. As I expected from the trailer, they punched up this scene with some action/fighting. But unlike the others, when the extra peppering of action had been sprinkled into the tale, it didn’t enhance but rather negate the original intention of the book. Yes, it’s true they had a bit of fighting to free themselves, but in the film it’s an all-out battle. I wouldn’t mind that – except the entire conversation between Bern, the ruler of the island, and Caspian is gone. In it, the young king shows his forceful nature. In a grand and tempered manner he berates the misuse of power and speaks of the importance of freedom for all peoples. [It’s really not as heavy handed as it sounds!] I’d been looking forward to hearing/seeing the harangue played out. Nope. The issue is resolved with that bigger battle only. I just didn’t think that right… it went against the character of Caspian and the message of the book.

Besides taking out entire chunks of the Magician Coriakin's island, they even rewrote the reason the Dufflepuds are invisible… so as to help bolster the major change implemented into this tale. In the movie, they must gather the seven swords of the seven lords and place them on Aslan’s Table near the edge of the world to prevent the “evil” green mist from the Dark Island from stealing all the light in Narnia. In the book, breaking the enchantment is only about the three sleeping Narnia Lords asleep at the table and although there is an island in/of darkness, the green mist and sword gathering does not exist. Apparently the quest to discover what happened to the lords didn’t seem enough for the filmmakers. So they restructured the story around this “evil mist” concept…throwing in a “save the villagers who where lost to it” along the way. I could have done without that addition, especially the stowaway little girl who wanted to see her mother again.

I won’t delineate all else that had been axed or rescripted, but suffice to say it had been way too much.

And yet… I liked the rewrite on its own. Truth be told, it really did work well (except for the rescue of the people and the little girl.) Keeping the dragon around, for instance, so as to fight the Sea Serpent… a wonderful thought. And nicely executed. Plus, the circumstances surrounding that revision caused a much more compelling and powerful redeeming of Eustace. Admittedly in Lewis’s book it could use a little more oomph to his character development. And since he goes on to be in Narnia and is one of its best heroes, this new story twist made that even more plausible. Here, the “overlap of scenes” made entire sense, then, and didn’t seem merely a time constraint.  Even Coriakin sending them on the sword-gathering quest had been a nice touch, giving him a little more reason to be there than just one of the adventures they had along the way.

Another tweak I especially enjoyed is the doorway home. I think it’s much better than what Lewis wrote.  It ties it to the entrance much more logically and had been very fun to watch. And yet – it’s not entirely different from Lewis.

I looked up who the writers were for each film. For The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe it had been: Ann Peacock, Stephen McFeely, Christopher Markus, Andrew Adamson. Peacock dropped out for whatever reason and the other three penned Prince Caspian. But for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader it had been just McFeely and Markus from that group with newcomer Michael Petroni. I should note that Andrew Adamson had also directed the first two films, whereas Dawn Treader had been helmed by Michael Apted. Hmm. Had Adamson had been the one keeping the stories in check?

So, all in all, it’s okay. It’s a very good movie. I just wish it followed suit with the other two and kept closer to the book (while allowing rational additions and changes.) Assuming that they continue on with The Silver Chair, here’s hoping Adamson will return at least as a writer.

To PRE or Not to PRE?

A while back in the comments of this post, I started to ponder the idea of “prequel.” It’s a curious thing, a prequel. For in order to be a prequel for the audience, the “original” needs to have come first. That sounds like a no-brainer. But consider some examples.

As I’ve said before (and also re-posted links to Danny Pitt Stoller’s great articles as such) The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis are often [and I feel erroneously] read in chronological order. Technically, of course, The Magician’s Nephew is a prequel to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. But for many, it’s not seen/understood that way, though it is most definitely a prequel as far as Lewis is concerned — he didn’t know the events himself when he wrote LWW!

George Lucas’s epic saga of Star Wars is famous for having prequels. But let’s face the facts. It’s a bit different than with C.S. Lewis. Here, they are not really prequels. Lucas had written out the grand scheme of the story he wished to tell from the start. Granted, it received rewrites and drop-outs, but on the whole, he knew the spine of the story. Due to feasibility concerns he began his tale in the middle. (Also because Episode IV - A New Hope is the only part that can manage to stand alone [in case it had been a flop.])  I cannot confirm that it is true, but allegedly Hayden Christensen wants to one day show his kids the episodes “in order,” meaning beginning with Episode I - The Phantom Menace. (I think that would ruin the suspense of the saga, just for the record.) Either way, the “prequel trilogy” is only such because they came out secondary to the “original” set.  According to Lucas’s musing and composition, they’re not — at least not in the same sense as Lewis.

Those are but two examples of this "phenomenon."

When I’d been writing Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between I always thought of it as an interquel (a sequel to one story and a prequel to another). I had just assumed that people would already know the story of Peter Pan (a.k.a. Peter and Wendy.) Anon pointed out to me that someone, however, just might not know that story and read the adventures of Peter Pan from “the beginning,” starting with Barrie’s Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens (or The Little White Bird), moving on to my interquel and then on to the story most of us know. It didn’t really occur to me that someone wouldn't consider it an "adventure before." (To quote Slightly in Hogan’s version: Stupid of me.) But seriously, although unlikely, it’s bound to happen. Thus, in that sense, I did not write an interquel/prequel.

The status of “prequel” is relative.  Something to think about, eh?

TREADing Lightly?

Perhaps you remember how excited I'd been to see the trailer for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the next installment of The Chronicles of Narnia on film.  I still am excited.  But there had been quite a few things shown that I did not remember.  Understandable on two accounts:  1) My memory can sometimes go the way of Peter Pan's.  2) The movies are beset with fascinating and welcome changes to the story (without sacrificing it.)

What stood out in my mind (besides their apparent obsession with plaguing poor Edmund with visions/visits from Jadis, the White Witch) are the snow falling for Lucy in the room with the book of magic and the man turning around suddnely coming into visibility.  Oh - one other: the faun leaping in a battle as well as other animal-based characters (besides Reepicheep the mouse.)

In my recollection, Lucy didn't stand amid snow.  I did recall that characters were invisible... I just didn't bring to mind a scene in which a man turns around as shown.  And as far as I knew, no fauns show up in this book. 

So, I just finished re-reading it.  The answers?  Well, I can certainly see why they would make Lucy enchant some snow into the room.  The spells that Lewis does have her perfoming would be fiendishly difficult to bring to the screen.  (They involve seeing visions of scenarios that are best explained via text.)  And since the scene in the The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe of Lucy beholding the snowy Narnia in absolute delight is so good, it makes perfect sense for her to try and recapture that moment. And yes, the magician had also been invisible.  However, it seems they're making it a little more interesting by having him come into reappearance while "we" ( and presumably Lucy & someone else!) are watching.  I didn't think there were any battles in this book.  But it turns out there are in fact two places that one could insert a bit of such action, given their penchant for adding it.  And who is to say fauns and such are not welcome on the deck of the Dawn Treader?  Certainly King Caspian would allow it!

There are a few parts of the book that I also wonder greatly how to accomplish on screen.  And there are some marvelous parts I'd forgotten that I can't wait to see realized, assuming they are.

But you know what?  I so loved the first two movies of Narnia (tweaks and additions) that I trust them.
The last two times I thought they actually improved the book(s).
I still wish they could have had Jeremy Sumpter as Eustace Scrubb... but it's just as well, since he shot up rather tall before it went into production and thus became too big for Eustace.  Of course, I'd wanted Sumpter as Caspian, too, but other than not having blonde hair, Ben Barnes is wonderful.

Bring on the voyage!

a GUSHING surprise!

On Saturday night, after getting back from a dinner at Bart's aunt circa 9 o'clock, I texted Buttercup to see if she would be up for a movie that same night. Indeed she would, and it turns out I introduced her to my theater of choice which she had never been to and had wondered about. It's now her theater of choice. Anyway, what movie did we see? I'll save that for another post.

For what really gave me a thrill is a trailer we saw. Now, normally I know all about trailers coming out, but somehow - thankfully - this one slipped by me. I didn't even klnow the trailer had been made. So imagine my delight when The Voyage of the Dawn Treader came on the screen. I felt 8 years old. I immediately fell back into the screen's vision of Narnia. From the start, I found myself on board with the renditions of the book's elements as they came in scenes both familiar and unfamiliar, all packaged in a way that I have come to trust.

I adored the first two Narnia movies. I enjoy the screen vision of it and whole-heartedly agree with their additions and re-writes. They never stray from the world of C.S. Lewis and often bolster or improve the original novels. I'm looking forward to the same here, as evidenced by the trailer. There is one fly in the ointment, in that the series switched production companies and directors. But that sort of thing has turned out to great success in the past with other series. Not to mention the fact that as I understand it, original director Adrew Adamson stayed on as part of the creative team. He just needed a break from directing. So, as this one seems right in the same realm I have come love, I cannot be more excited.

It will be out for the Holiday season. And yes, it's jumped on the bandwagon and is in 3-D. But I remember reading it had been designed for 3-D, which is a wardrobe of another portal from after-the-fact 3-D conversion. Also, I must say it had acutally been a thrill to see it in 3-D. It looked great. Plus, it's the third film. I jokingly say, "Now I have something to live for!"

(Watching the video will explain the post title)

REVENGE of the SEQUEL: PART II

OK, yes. I am actually going to talk about sequels.
Certainly I do think they have merit, lest I wouldn’t have written Peter Pan’s NeverWorld. In this post I explain a little about the wherefore of having written it.

I’m not speaking out against them. But a conversation with Clara and Banky a while back comes to mind.

Banky had finished my novel Midnight Chaser and still thought about it many days after reading it. (Yea, me!) Now, the thing is, which I’ve said many times, even on this site, that I really want Midnight Chaser to stand alone in book form. I don't envision a sequel…and I wondered if there could be one. Readers told me it certainly can go on…lots of adventures could still happen for some of the characters. So, why not write those? Because there is no substantial and plausible conflict to drive the story. Sure, seeing what else the characters get into would be fun… but not as amusing as for readers to think about on their own. Me writing it would just be a series of anecdotes. And where I can see that being appealing, again, in this instance, anything I could come up with is going to pale in comparison with the reader’s imagination.

But that didn’t stop Banky. He’d come up with a new scenario every so often. Complete with support from the text. But I’d always say no. Not in a cold “shoot first” way. I’d mull them over with him. But again, the compelling factor that would drive me to write it just did not exist. Banky seemed to agree each time. Even he admitted he'd been reaching. It would just be forcing it out.

That’s when Clara spoke up.
“Why are you TRYING to find a sequel to it?”
“Banky is, not me,” I said with a smile.
She then threw my protestations at me, pointing out that I’d go around asking people if they found a sequel in it. As if I wanted to find it…thou protest too much? Well, as I assured her, I can assure you, that adage doesn’t apply here. I really would like it to be self-contained. I’d ask people if they could continue it because I put effort into making it airtight other than the proverbial “leave them wanting more."

Clara, gladdened that I actually wanted a singular book, then expressed her displeasure at the sequel boom. If a book or movie is successful, BAM! there’s a sequel. Sure, it’s lucrative. But that’s a double edged sword. Is it always a good idea to create a sequel just to squeeze out more cash? No, of course not.

Now don’t get Clara wrong, she does see that in some cases a sequel is necessary. Or deserved. Or worthy. Or just happens. I pointed out The Chronicles of Narnia. C.S. Lewis didn’t know at first that there would be more. Whereas J.K. Rowling knew the arc of seven books in advance. Some stories expand.

But doesn’t it, just sometimes, seem like enough is enough? She's concerned that we're doing it "because we can." Art for profit, rather than profit from Art. Okay, as I type all this out, it no longer seems as profound as I once pretended it might be. Downright cliché. But if you could have heard the disdain and longing in Clara’s voice, maybe, just maybe, you’d be ponderous right now.

To cap this up, where did my intense wish that Midnight Chaser remain one book stem from? Being both the perpetrator and the victim of sequel crimes. I’ve wound up with a few series that I've set to finishing. And like Lewis, I had no idea there would be more to each book at the time. Yet like Clara, I felt overrun. But believe me, if the subsequent stories weren’t worth writing, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Sequels. A blessing AND a curse.

"Quel"ling the Desire for Narratives

After brunching at one of the many great eateries in Andersonville, sometimes Bart and I go exploring. Quite a few shops are must visits. One of those is Women and Children First Bookstore. While browsing, I came across a word I’d not seen before. Perhaps I should have known about it, as it deals with books. But for whatever reason, I encountered it for the first time on The Bone Magician by F.E. Higgins. The word is: Paraquel.

Familiar with that one? Fortunately, the book cover explained it as a story taking place during another story of the series. Interesting. I have to say that the actual word didn’t quite sound right to me… but then I didn’t have a better suggestion. Plus, it’s probably just due to not having had time to get used to the term.

I wondered, of course, how common such a term is amid the storytelling world. So I did the quick solution: To the internet! Google yields some pages, but not very much. Typing it into Amazon in a book search, only 5 entries show. I feel a bit better about not knowing it. It’s probably a newer term.

One of the sites that mentions paraquel led me to find some interesting words/concepts on Wikipedia. Though paraquel does not appear, quite a bit is categorized under sequel. Paraquel is but one of a bunch of “quels” that exist. You can check out the full article yourself if you’d like, but allow me to condense it for you.

Sequel – But of course. The narrative of events following an established narrative. Certainly you’re familiar with these.

Prequel – Another well-known term. The narrative of events that occurred before an established narrative, often those that led up to those circumstances that comprise a story.

Here’s where we get a little funky. What happens when a story is a prequel to one tale but simultaneously a sequel to another? Interquel. What? Here’s an example, using a subject I talk a lot about. Sir J.M. Barrie wrote a book called The Little White Bird, where the character of Peter Pan first appeared. Later the chapters concerning him got republished as Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens. It provides Pan’s origin story. Barrie then decided to expand on his idea and wrote the play, Peter Pan or the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up. He then penned the novel version, Peter and Wendy, published in 1911. However, there’s an enormous gap between how Peter went from being an infant on Bird Island in Kensington Gardens to being a little boy fighting pirates on the Neverland isle. Therefore, a story that bridges this gap would be an interquel. (For the record, this "problematic" gap of Barrie’s has always been of great concern to me – and I’ve been working on an interquel to explain it. I just had never called it an interquel.)

Midquel – This odd term is what Wikipedia lists to describe something close to a paraquel. A great example occurs in The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. The Horse and His Boy is the only one which takes place entirely in Narnia. It occurs during the reign of the Pevensie children as Kings and Queens of the magical land. But at that point in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy had grown up into adults. The Horse and His Boy is one of the adventures they intersected and took part in during that span of time. Though I’ve never seen these movies, Wikipedia states that Saw IV takes place during the events of Saw III. Other examples can be found, too.

Parallel – Okay, this does not follow the suffix rule. But it’s what Wikipedia seems to call a paraquel. It cites Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Shadow as a parallel. For it runs through the events of the first novel, Ender’s Game, but from a different character’s perspective. Also listed is BURN•E, a short film on the WALL•E home videos. It’s a lot of fun, starting with WALL•E’s ascent into space as seen in the Pixar film, but quickly focusing on another droid whose humorous plight intersects the rest of the movie at various points, with BURN•E’s woes being shaped by the events of the actual movie all the way up through the end. One of my favorite “paras” is Tom Stoppard’s play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead which centers on those two characters. We follow their philosophical bumbling on the “other side” of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Instead of R & G entering a scene to interact with the main characters, the principles enter their scene instead, exiting to leave us with only R & G for yet another scene not otherwise in the Bard's play.

Sidequel - The last one worth mentioning. A sidequel takes place within a pre-established fictional world but using unrelated plots or characters. However, it could also refer to a side story for a particular character, sometimes referred to as a gaiden (a Japanese word meaning side story.) Think The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask, which transports Link from Hyrule to the realm of Termina.

I hope you found this as intriguing as I did. I have to say I rather like the idea of a paraquel. It allows for quite interesting stories. Perhaps instead of flooding us with over-worked extensions, Hollywood could do more like they did with Saw (assuming the paraquel of those films worked well.)

And perhaps one day I’ll get back to my interquel, Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between.

UPDATE:  I did complete the interquel.  Click the title in the Subjects below for more about it.

Look What P0Pped UP!

If you thought “Pop-Up Books” are for children, think again. A man named Robert Sabuda does the miraculous with folding and moving papers.
Just take a look. I mean, honestly. Talk about an art form!



As you can see, he makes pop-ups out of classic literature as well as other themes. Not only are they popping out at you…they do things! Such as the tornado that transports Dorothy. It spins as you open it up. You can see inside the houses. And wait until you experience the simple but ingenious way to make Alice fall down the rabbit hole. And that T-Rex? Yes, it will chomp. It's not limited to the main art, either. Every page has at least one smaller flap to open revealing complex pop-ups, too.

I highly recommend ANY of his books. They’ll astound you. How does one even begin to solve the folding and such to produce these giant 3-D images? You’ll find yourself trying to figure it out, only to be mesmerized and bamboozled. And what I've posted here is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Immerse yourself in genius.

Well, folks, he’s now tackled J.M. Barrie’s eternal boy. Yes, Peter Pan is a Robert Sabuda Pop-Up. It’s just recently been released and needless to say, I’m excited to play with it. But alas, I do not have the time to obtain it just yet. For I will be assisting Laughter with the Vitalist Theatre show again tonight. The next two evenings are booked for Bart and me. But rest assured that I will track it down and fly with Peter Pan in an entirely new way. You can be sure I’ll post my thoughts when I do. Just imagine the crocodile! Good grief! :)

Thank you, Mr. Sabuda. BRAVO!

"Chronicle-ology" by Danny Pitt Stoller

I've found a wonderful article in the blog Everything Shines by Danny Pitt Stoller. He presents the case for why The Chronicles of Narnia should be read in the published order rather than the chronological order. I also made this case here. But I merely mentioned it, he goes in-depth. His points are terrific. Thanks so much, Danny. There are four parts to his entry, the first of which starts here, with links to the next one on each.
Long live Aslan!

Long Live Prince Caspian

Well, bravo to Adamson and all the folks who brought Prince Caspian to the screen. They did it again. They borught it all in full force and then some. From the moment the movie began, and I do mean the moment, I knew it would be wonderful. To include the event they chose as the opening is nothing short of genius. From there they continued to dole out the "walking and talking" information with inventive bridges without losing a drop of Lewis' adventure. As with LWW, the additions were not only welcome, but shining examples what could have been. Aslan tells us we can never know what could have been...but in this one case he is wrong. Andrew Adamson, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely knew exactly what could have been, even what should have been. And they delivered it. Bravo. In case you couldn't tell, I loved it. Bring on the Voyage of the Dawn Treader!

We also had an unexpected treat. Dragonfly brought a mystery guest to dinner, Jasbo, a friend of ours from Knox. He also joined us for the movie. All in all, a great evening.

Sound the Horn, Caspian!

Tonight Cassidy and Dragonfly will join Bart and I for a scrumptious Pan-Asian feast, after which we will be attending The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. As can be guessed, I am very excited. Not only am I a Narnia fan, I am a fan of Andrew Adamson & his crew. Quite pleased with their adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I am curious to see what they do with the plight of Caspian. Long ago I read their assessment of the novel and how they planned to tackle it. At first skepticism loomed as I read of their desire to include more action and other such touch ups. So I re-read the novel...and agreed. The book is primarily walking and talking. Coupled with their incredible job at punching up LWW without losing any of Lewis' story, I realized I should trust Adamson again. I cannot be the first to note this, but how fitting that Adam-son is so passionate and skilled at bringing the vision of Narnia to life. If you've read the books or saw LWW, you'll understand.
I'll be sure and let you know how I liked it.
Long live the Lion!

Obsession Isn't All Bad...

On April 10 I posted that I had just finished watching the movie Paprika. I have to admit that I am obsessed with it. I bought not only the movie, but the soundtrack. The majority of my musical diet has been a selection of songs from it. And most of those are variants of the same song. I find that I am always hearing either the “Parade” song or one of those which is a variant of “Meditational Field” in my head. I know how corny this sounds, but they make me happy to be alive, appreciative of the world around me. I’m one of those who likes to analyze films and books and such. So after a while I figured out why I enjoyed it so much. For me it carries within it the same message as The Chronicles of Narnia. It’s as if the songs in Paprika are playing the chords that I had said Narnia struck within me.

My friend Le Trix is also a Narnia fan. After discussing it with her, it seems she did not get the same message/philosophy as me. Neither of us is wrong, we just each got something different out of it. Which means it’s likely that my perception of what’s going in Paprika is not necessarily intended either. But so long as it makes sense to me and brings me comfort, that’s all that matters. Or so think I.

So, since it’s entirely possible that neither work is saying what I believe it to be, I will one day write a novel that presents these ideas in my own format. For I have been thinking about how to easily explain what I grok from those two very different tales. I’ve come up with a metaphor that does so, albeit in simplified form. Thus, I would want to expound upon it in a novel. But I’m not about to put it down in writing before that. ;)

*Note: Paprika is not for everyone. It's certainly not a kid's movie. It does contain nudity, but not gratuitously (believe me I wouldn't like it so much if it were) and it also has many disturbing images. So before you rush out to rent it, make sure you can handle the oddities of anime.

A Chronicle of a Regret

A literary regret of mine is not having read C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia as a child. I remember picking it up. I started with The Voyage of the Dawn Treader at the school library. Maybe because I knew it did not come first in the series, perhaps the language proved too thick for me at the time or I just didn’t click with it. I’m not sure. But it’s moot anyway, as I have read them many times since. I’m not going to gush about how much I enjoy them. But I will say that part of my regret is not having come across the philosophy of life, if you will, contained within The Last Battle. One that can only be fully grokked by experiencing the whole series. If I had been presented with these ideas as a child, I think I would be much better adjusted than I am now. I’m not suggesting that I’m maladjusted. I just know that its wisdom struck a chord with me and it would have been nice to have been hearing that music all this time. Before anyone attaches the Christian influence associated with the books let me say yes, allusions to spiritual icons and themes exist in the chronicles. Notice I did not specify. The philosophies I speak of are actually much more influenced by Eastern faiths. No matter what, the fact is it’s a grand adventure with much to say.

I must say that I am put off by the reordering of the books into a straight timeline. I prefer the published order. Here’s why: It’s my understanding that when Lewis wrote The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe he did not realize more stories would arise. He discovered as he wrote. My feeling is that reading them “in order” decreases the enjoyment of that discovery process. For me it’s more fun to let stories unfold the way they did for the author. But, you probably could have guessed.