I was talking with my co-worker, Jem, this past week as we were taking in a book order, and I mused aloud as I picked up The Magician’s Nephew by C.S. Lewis that I thought it ridiculous that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe had been ousted as the first book in the The Chronicles of Narnia series. I have always found the switcheroo in the order unsettling, so I went to the interwebs to see if I could find out why this happened, travesty that it is.

What I found, much to my surprise, is that this is a HUGE deal in the literary world. It basically comes down to a long standing argument between team Chronology and team Dates Published/Context. I didn’t know that so many people are talking about this! It was equally maddening and vindicating to discover this—maddening because how could anyone really think it is better to read The Magician’s Nephew first, and vindicating because all of a sudden I was on a team!

The argument that really touched home for me was just the simple fact that Lewis wrote The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe first. He intended for that book to be read when it was written, and only afterward did he decide to turn that one book into a series. Contextually it debases the way Narnia unfolds to the Pevensies (and ultimately the reader) when The Magician’s Nephew is read first, and in my opinion it eliminates the magic of discovering Narnia for the very first time with Lucy and the wardrobe. An example of said contextual debasement would be when Aslan is first mentioned in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobethe narrator says that "None of the children knew who Aslan was, any more than you do" — which is nonsensical if one has already read The Magician's Nephew.

Furthermore, very often the past can have impact in a story when it is visited in the form of a flashback or as a story told to give context to what is happening in the present. I think that is the purpose that The Magician’s Nephew serves in its original standing. The ironic thing about all of this is that it happens to be my favorite book in the series, but only after I had read the first five. This leads me to the unavoidable questions: in what order did you read the series? Do you have any opinions on what order is best? Please do tell! Inquiring minds would like to know.

-Malorie

I am working on a project over the course of this year. I have begun a journey toward slow demise by my own hand—a sworn oath to read at least 52 books in one year. Not only that, I am determined to take as many people down with me as I possibly can, because, let's face it, the average American reads 4 books (maybe) per year and not so long ago statistics showed that 1 in 4 people didn't read a book at all in a 365 day period. So, I think it fair to claim that, to the average American, a 52 book read-a-thon would seem like a slow and painful demise of an individual on a social and economic level.

I want to ask you something, and it may be a bit personal (because reading habits are up there with religion and politics in import, relevance, and potential offence), and I really want you to think about it truthfully: How many books did you read last year? How many books have you read thus far this year? How many of the books that you intend to read do you think you will actually read within the next six months?

Let's pause for a moment. I am not trying to give you a guilt trip. I am also not trying to attack you and say that you are any less of an awesome person for potentially forgetting to dedicate a small portion of time to the lost art of reading. I also know that there are quite a few of you out there that love to read and do a lot of it. My intention is to remind everyone that once upon a time it was considered one of the definitive marks of accomplishment to be well read. Our country was founded upon a great band of literary fiends, who also happened to be raving religious zealots (AKA Puritans) that bred the then future president John Adams, who in 1778 wrote:

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this Commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them ... (see the Massachusetts Bay Colony Constitution of 1780, or for some lighter and also wonderfully informative reading, The Wordy Shipmates by Sarah Vowell).

Literature is ingrained in our history. We have been steeped in proper learning right from the get go, and I feel that the love of reading, and also of writing, is a long-standing American tradition that has been put in a box and postmarked "Attic". The first amendment gives us freedom of speech and press which, 223 years later, remains a pressingly relevant and essential right. I cherish that right every time I pick up a book, smell the pages, finger the spine, and begin to read. It makes me feel more like a patriot than most things I do on a daily basis.

My proposition is this: utilize the next six months. It is not about how many books you read total, but I encourage you to push the seams of your personal reading envelope. And beyond your individual crusade, recruit others to embark on this adventure. Find your reasons why reading is powerful, and rediscover the connections that can be made with others over a simple plot point or recurring motif. This is my challenge and my hope. Go forth, and good luck.

-Malorie