soulsinging
the dude abides
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,499
Clearly you've never seen a Quentin Tarantino film or read the brilliant Catch-22. Chronological order is unnecessary. How many people here read the Silmarillion before LOTR or the Hobbit? Sometimes, the best place to begin a tale is the middle, adding some of the beginning later only when the context is necessaryNo, no, no, no, no. You Americans...( ) it must be Magician's first because it's the first book of the story. Where else can you put it? It makes no sense anywhere else. I think we have Horse as number 4 but I think it's pretty fluid. But I read Lion's first and was glad I did. In fact, as I type this I think Magician's could be either 1 or 7 and nothing in between.
Fight?
To Dusty... yes, I do see it the second way in sets here, with Magician's nephew being numbered first. In fact, that is the ONLY way it is sold here now, unless you can find an old set from the 80's. Seems to me like the international view is to preserve the original release order and have the tale unfold as Lewis and his publishers deemed best, whereas America had to put them in the "right" order to avoid being confused. Kind of like changing Harry Potter's stone from being a philosopher's to a sorcerer's because US kids would assume the former was boring... nobody goes broke betting on American stupidity.