What BOOK are you reading right now?

No no. Magicians was written 6th. It is chronologically the first and tells the story of what happened prior to the other stories, but most recommend it be read 6th as Lewis intended. It gives away secrets that are better left secret as you read the other books.

The recommended order, as Lewis wrote them:

1-The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
2-Prince Caspian
3-The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4-The Silver Chair
5-The Horse and His Boy
6-The Magician's Nephew
7-The Last Battle


http://www.alexlibris.com/rev_narnia.asp

"Some would call the seven Chronicles of Narnia, by the master story-teller, C. S. Lewis, the crown jewels of children's literature. Full of adventure, suspense, surprise, -- and much more -- they appeal to children of all ages -- from 8 to 108. I am 72. I feel compelled to set straight a misconception about the order for reading these marvelous adventures. Some recommend changing the order. They have even been so numbered by a publisher. I think this is a grave mistake. They should be read in the order in which they were written for this reason: *The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* was the first and is the foundation stone. It introduces and undergirds the series in a way that none of the others could possibly do -- and makes them all unforgettable. It was followed in order by *Prince Caspian*, *The Voyage of the Dawn Treader*, *The Silver Chair*, *The Horse and His Boy*, *The Magician's Nephew*, and *The Last Battle* -- which is the superb climax. *The Magician's Nephew*, the sixth, goes back to the dawn of time. To read this strange tale first, as some recommend -- with no reason given other than chronology -- might for some be to miss the rest of the adventures of Narnia altogether for lack of interest. And what a loss that would be! It would most surely be to miss the richness of all those poignant aha's as you discover, for example, the circumstances of how those extraordinary things you already know and love -- such as the wardrobe, or the lamppost standing alone in the middle of the wood -- came into being, as well as having prophetic insight as to the roles those things would one day play. When you read it next to last -- bringing to it the wealth of the other stories -- it, too, is a fascinating and unforgettablre adventure."

The Screwtape Letters was recommended to me by a priest back in the dim dear days when I was considering conversion to Roman Catholicism (that was sometime in the 1840s, near as I can recall). After reading the book, I never went through with the conversion. Don't know if there's any connection. I've read it. Don't particularly recommend it. Too didactic for my tastes.

The only thing I've ever read by Jerome K. Jerome was Three Men in a Boat (Not to Mention the Dog). Loved it. He's like a British Mark Twain when Twain is at his most puckish and ironic. Highly recommend Jerome to anyone who hasn't read him yet.

I enjoyed the Screwtape Letters... very amusing. Of course, Lewis wrote them with the idea of changing some people's minds about religion and the need for it, etc.

I went through a heavy C.S. Lewis phase, despite his being Church of England, many Catholics are quite interested in him. I thought it was fascinating that he was a member of a group of Oxford dons who got together every week to read their works. Another member of the this group was Tollkien, though he ended up at Cambridge. There was another writer, can't remember his name, who was sort-of the leader and seemed to be looked up to by these men, but who never achieved commercial literary success.

books
Just discovered this thread. I don't know what's the matter with me. Anyway, I'm clearly (from what I see so far) one of the fogeys here. My fictional literature has been over the recent years writers on late nineteeth and early twentieth century life. I read in a relative short time almost all the works of Edith Wharton, Ivan Turgenev, and Anthony Trollope. Much but not all of D.H. Lawrence and early Aldous Huxley are included. But for nasty fun, I like Philip Roth.

Tolkien, Lewis, etc. - "The Inklings"

http://www.jrrtolkien.org.uk/inklings.htm

"The group known as 'The Inklings' began to form itself in the early nineteen-thirties when the group called The Coalbiters (The Kolbiters - those who sit so close to the fire when telling stories that they 'bite the coal'), an informal reading club founded by Tolkien in Leeds, ceased to meet having fulfilled their aim of reading all the principle Icelandic sagas. Originally 'The Inklings' was the name of a literary society founded in 1931 by a University College undergraduate named Tangye Lean. CS Lewis and Tolkien both attended its meetings, at which unpublished compositions were read and criticized. After Lean left, the club lived on, or rather, it transferred to the circle of friends who gathered regularly for meetings with Lewis . . . When war broke out in 1939 another man was recruited to the group. This was Charles Williams who worked for the Oxford University press at their London office but had now been transferred to Oxford along with the rest of the staff. he was a novelist, poet, theologian and critic and was already respected for his writings and thoughts. Tolkien was to develop a complex attitude towards Williams. Tolkien recalled twenty years later: "We liked one another and enjoyed talking mostly in jest but we had nothing to say to one another at deeper or higher levels". This because although Williams enjoyed chapters from 'The Lord Of The Rings' that were now being read to the group, Tolkien did not like William's books or those which he read. He declared that he found them 'wholly alien, sometimes very distasteful and occasionally ridiculous'. "

Admirable research, Larry. Thank you.

Nobody, I like Philip Roth too--some but not all of him. I very much admired SABBATH'S THEATER several years ago, have you read that one? I didn't like his last few novels very much though, despite all the praise they have been getting and all the awards. SABBATH was not well received and didn't win any awards, but I thought it was Roth's best book since THE COUNTERLIFE.

Right now I am just getting into THE WAR AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Mario Vargas Llosa, on the recommendation of people on this forum. It is massive and complex so I don't have a sense of it yet.

My sense of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien is that they both are trying to teach something. They're selling a certain way of looking at the world (as are most authors, I think). But like Raoul Dahl (someone help me with the spelling, man! am I bad speller), they are both projecting a world in which right and wrong are easy to find. In the works of Lewis and Tolkien, both authors present a world in which it's not easy to live up to right, but still the illusion is that if you could live up to right, all would be well. They are assuming and I think trying to sell a sense of control that doesn't exist. Raoul D.'s works suggest that some people are bad and some are good. And the bad ones will get punished. Greed is especially bad in his books. But all three authors are superego dominated and highly judgemental, from my reading.

Phillip Roth on the other hand makes no such claims. Even though he is consumed with guilt most of the time. His world is one in which we're all full of it and no one can expect to control the world around them. I much prefer this point of view because it seems to be true to me. In any case, I find Roth's books to be very entertaining. And I agree with you Larry R, that they're not all as entertaining as others. I especially love Portnoy's Complaint, of course (do you know anyone who doesn't?) But I also enjoyed The Counterlife.

Oh and also, Larry R, I've never liked any book I've ever read by Mario Vargas Losa for the same reasons I have said I don't enjoy the works of Lewis, Tolkein or Dahl. They're very preachy and condescending and masochistic, I think.

Lola, I believe you are thinking of Roald Dahl.

Yeah, that's him. Thanks, Mac.

Spelling tip, Lola. Think Ronald w/o the 'n'. (That's how I remember how to spell Roald Dahl. First time I saw his name in print, I thought it was typo and his name really was Ronald. )

That's an intereting fact and a good tip, thanks, MA. I wonder why Dahl wanted to change his name.

I don't think he did, that was his real name.

Just finished Last Orders by Graham Swift - about to read Revolutionary Road by Richard Yates.

Roald has been the name of an Norwegian ruler and is originally a quite common Norwegian name (e.g. Roald Amundsen).

I didn't mean that his real name had been Ronald, just that I thought it was and that Roald was a typo. But, as Walter says, Roald is not an uncommon Nordic name. It's still a handy pneumonic device for me, though.

I have just started THE WAR OF THE END OF THE WORLD by Mario Vargas Llosa. It is a hard book to get one's bearings in since it has many characters and jumps arround geographically. Also, I wish I were reading something lighter now that the US is at war for real. But I will persevere, since I have liked other novels by Vargas Llosa and he calls this one his masterpiece.

Larry,

I have tried to read the War of the End of the World more than once and I've never made it past page 63. If you make it past that point and it gets better, will you let me know? I may try again. Actually, I'm not a fan of Llosa (even though his picture on the jacket shows him to be a very handsome man.) I also read Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter (because it was assigned) and it was equally as tedious and for my sense of humor, not very funny. I realize this has to do with my own preferences because all those admirers must see something they think is excellent. He's prolific enough, but I don't like books that go on and on with so many details it gets tedious. And I don't care much for the subject matter of this book either. It's my own personal bias. From the jacket again we are told it's a story about an "apocalyptic prophet" and an "inquiry into ideological fanaticism and 'utopian' violence." This is not my favorite subject matter. So I'm biased against this book. I'm not only disinterested in apocalyptic prophets, they annoy me to no end. The book jacket declares this book to be on par with Tolstoy, but I strongly disagree with this appraisal. I hope my dislike of the book and of this author doesn't offend anyone. I welcome anyone who feels differently about him to sing his praises.

And I agree with you Larry, it would be a very difficult book to be reading right now.

I really enjoyed Vargas' War of the End of the World. It's a terrific book. I read it when it first came out when it seemed fresh and new and gripping. I don't know who translated it into English -- that could make a big difference to one's enjoyment of the writing. His books aren't uniformly good (whose are!), but there are some really good reads in there. Cortazar is another terrific writer.

currently rereading "Heart of Darkness" for the ?th time.