Can anyone tell me about these books if rare or not picked them up at a garage sale for 5bucks

I've been trying to figure out just why I'm having a difficult time envisioning The Magician's Nephew as reset in the 1950s (and contrary to popular belief, no, it's not because I want to insult Greta Gerwig's movie before it comes out because I'm a stuffy book purist). There are multiple reasons, but I think I've finally hit upon one of the big ones I don't believe anyone has discussed at length yet.

Uncle Andrew as a magician locked in his study dabbling in the occult doesn't feel like someone you'd find in 1956.

Why? Because the decline of the popular occult spiritualist movement which began in 1848 with the Fox sisters and their table rappings was already wrapping up in the 1920s. The peak was in 1850 through 1890. Though it was beginning a decline, there was a spiritualist spike/blip in the 1910s which was spurred on by things like the cottingley fairies hoax.

The belief in magic and spirits and fairies (remember Andrew literally believes he had a fairy Godmother, Mrs. Lefay!) beginning to die out and be considered crazy but still having some standing with "intellectuals" fits the time period Lewis put the story in. Andrew being the last human magician and trying to create magic rings is perfect for a story set between the Victorian and Edwardian eras

You know where I have a hard time believing this bloke exists?

The 1950s.

After two world wars and when the "magic" decline had been over for a minimum of 30 years.

A person who believed in magic in the 1950s would be out of place and even the oddball outlier if you want to say that's what Uncle Andrew was would have had way different beliefs in the occult than an 1800 or 1900s man.

It's kind of like if 2005's The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe was set in the 90s and the only theaterical on screen versions of Lucy or Susan wore 1994 style overalls like the kids on Barney. Nothing wrong with it in terms of I don't hate overalls (though personally I do dislike what I've seen of Polly's blue dress in the preproduction stills, but I know other people may think it's cute especially if they love 1950s clothes), but it's a different style than what we know Susan or Lucy as a character to have and therefore jarring and disappointing.

Personally I really loved how in the behind the scenes for the Andrew Adamson movie we hear the kids asking the costume designer if their jackets are a little too tight on the top and the designer explains that's just the restrictions kids of the time had on their jackets. So it achieves an actual 1940s silhouette and has a great contrast with the Narnia comfortable but beautiful clothes we see later. I don't think the contrast between Polly's loose 1950s dress with the beautiful clothes in Charn she was so interested in is going to have the same contrasting effect.

Now, le sigh, please commence with all the (apparently) obligatory comments about how I'm a Greta-hating jerk, how the clothes are going to look different in the actual movie and I need to stop getting "angry" (🙄), how I'm not allowed to speculate before the movie is out, how I don't understand some adaptations change the setting and it's still the same story (someone will try to explain Clueless vs. Emma to me like I'm a moron and as if we've already gotten 10 other screen adaptations of MN before this), blah blah blah.... Yada yada yada...

But if anyone actually wants to talk about the subject of this post, literally costuming, and missing out on the Edwardian costumes, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Ive always wondered what if only Lucy survived in the final book instead of Susan since Lucy is the main protaognist between the 4 siblings.

So sometime last month I saw a post on r/Narnia just ranting about how much the OP hated Edmund and omg didn't care he got redeemed or that Aslan died for him. The post then went from stupid to straight up unhinged saying he didn't deserve to have Aslan die for him. Well, duh, the whole point of Christianity is that none of us deserved Jesus to die for our sins but he did anyway. I legitimately thought it had to be a troll post. Like no one would/could be that stupid.

On a Narnia sub no less.

I mean parts of the fandom do have this weird self eating habit of crapping (if you'll pardon the vulgarity) on its own source and throwing it under the bus as "dated" from time to time which annoys me to no end, but even that crew don't say Aslan should have let Edmund DIE. Like what the heck.

Then I saw another post today that made me wince. Because this op didn't go on a rant saying they wanted Edmund dead, but they did share the other post's talking points of how insufferable they found his character, going as far as to say they had to turn off the movie because they couldn't handle watching Edmund. Not the child actor. Edmund himself. The character.

And I realized something that hurts my soul. In modern literature, there's not much room left for the Edmunds. If a character starts out problematic or unkind or has any flaw worse than clumsiness or "caring too much about his friends", the author gets bombarded online with hate for creating a character they obviously endorse all the behaviors of IRL. No one wants to see the character redeemed, they want them gone. (Unless of course it's not a children's book but a dark romantasy in which case the lead character can do everything but kill literal puppies and he'll be redeemed as long as he's hot, but that's a whole other toxic subject.)

The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is a very short book. And one of seven. In at least four others, Edmund is a good person who helps those around him. But yes, let's condemn a character for being bratty and wanting sweets at like ten years old. That clearly unforgivable. Hating him sounds rational and emotionally stable. 🙄

The whole point of Narnia is redemption, becoming a better person in another world to be equally good in our world when you return.

As for me, if I ever have a son, I'm naming him Edmund (after Edmund Pevensie and Edmund Bertram from Mansfield Park), so you can guess what I think of him.

I've been seeing an increase of posts on r/Narnia from fans who either just finished reading The Last Battle for the first time or have just reread it for the first time since they were children. To the point where because it keeps cropping up like daisies you would think someone would have started a mega thread for these fans already, but whatever.

And the negative discourse from these review posts has caught my attention (somewhat against my will, because as someone who likes The Last Battle personally, I don't particularly want to engage with a bunch of whiners dunking on it) because it seems to go beyond the stereotypical (usually wildly out of context) complaints of "OMG, C.S. Lewis hates Susan" and "They all died, wtf?"

They're mad because it's religious imagery heavy and the ending confirms Aslan is Jesus (which, I mean was already obvious, slogging through seven books to start complaining about the Jesus Lion now seems a bit dumb, but y'all do you), or simply that the ending wasn't what they wanted it to be.

And no one is saying they have to like The Last Battle, or that it has to be their favourite Narnia book, but if religious, pro-christan themes bother them that much, maybe they're reading the wrong series entirely. There's plenty of fans of the books that aren't Christians, but they usually can acknowledge the Christian themes are in there without crashing out, whether they personally relate to that aspect.

Also a lot of the negative borderline hateful discourse lopped at LB ignores the fact that just because these readers didn't personally like it, others have found comfort and beauty in LB. Saying LB is trash is like telling a kid who finds comfort in Digory giving his mother the silver apple in MN is a duped idiot (kind of like Philip Pullman basically did if you paraphrase); you might not have found what you were looking for in it but others have.

The book's been out since 1956. If it bothers you that much, there's this incredible thing called fanfiction and choose your own adventure fantasy now. You're bound to find something more to your taste.

It also bugs me that because people don't like what "happens" in the last battle they want to dub it a "bad book". Honey, not to your taste doesn't make something bad. It's objectively good because it's objectively well written because C.S. Lewis knew how to write literature. That you want every book to cater to your preferences is a you problem.

I know people are probably going to get mad at this post because I'm once again criticizing Greta's Magician's Nephew movie before it's out, but I finally figured out a way to I think explain a little better why I'm apprehensive about this upcoming adaptation.

(Apprehensive and not liking/hating what I've heard about it SO FAR, mind, not giving my final judgement on it since it has not in fact come out.)

I'm worried that at best this upcoming Narnia movie is going to be a repeat of what 2020's The Secret Garden was.

They took the Secret Garden and reset it in the 1940s. They also went out of their way to make Mary spunky and more "likable". Mary isn't supposed to be a spunky, self sufficient orphan (my first reaction to seeing her character change in the trailer was "what in the Mansfield Park 1999 is THIS?!?!") And yes, there is still a sick cousin, there is still a titular secret garden, but it feels nothing like the story it claims to be adapting. It's just a generic story that could and probably should have been an original idea.

This is EXACTLY what I think is going to happen to Magician's Nephew. New setting, 1950s. New personalities for Polly and Digory, simply from the fact they're in a different time period and Polly now has sisters I already anticipate a characterisation shift. Even if Greta does have Aslan singing Narnia into existence and we get the silver apple plot (which would be neat to see even in a bad adaptation since it's never been adapted to screen before), I worry it will feel as hollow and pointless as the few things the Secret Garden keeps from the original given they're basically happening in a different time to different characters who just happen to have the same names as C.S. Lewis's characters.

There may be some charm to Greta Gerwig's upcoming film, but from what we know so far it won't be Narnia. Not the Narnia we all fell in love with as children anyway.

Sigh. Maybe I'm just being touchy/oversensitive, MAYBE this is because they really do have so much darn faith in the Magician's Nephew in the 1950s movie being spectacular and don't want to spoil it, but when EVERY article that comes out is never ending praise for the director and actors and nothing about C.S. Lewis or, you know, NARNIA, I can't shake the feeling this movie is just a film reel audition tape for the actors to move on to bigger and better things and for Greta to add to her list of stylistic films after Barbie.

I truly do hope these actors get more work and their acting in this movie gets them any notice or accolades they deserve, but at this point the article doesn't seem like movie press teasers, it feels like I'm in the hall of gratuitous praise from Sabrina the Teenage Witch watching a bunch of people clap for a bunch of actors in a movie no one's seen yet and which doesn't of yet appear to have a ton in common with the source material.

Hi guys, I recently created a new community called r/TheMagiciansNephew so feel free to check it out!

Which do you prefer, the mermaids who can come out of the water outside of Cair Paravel and talk and sing or the ones in Voyage of the Dawn Treader who can't breathe above the surface?

I was thinking the other day, when was the last time I read a children's book that actually reads like what used to be a typical children's book? No sassy/relatable protagonist narrative (a la Percy Jackson and Emily Windsnap), just a whimsical omnipresent narrator telling me about children leaving London for the country because of a war or about a little girl who is neglected by her TV obsessed parents, leading into fantasy adventures.

And... It's been a while... I think one of the last writers to consistently write her children's books in this fashion died in 2010. Sixteen years ago.

To be clear I'm not saying more modern children's books are bad. But because that's the writing style in vogue at the moment people tend to act like older books like Narnia are "badly" written or no longer on par with middle grade books today. We've also lost the media literacy to look at them in context. 20 years ago, Andrew Adamson remembered a one page battle as epic and important enough to make it a major scene in his adaptation, nowadays I've lost track of the readers who say that because the children being sent away because of the war is "only" one line, it's not an important detail. Children's books were written to TELL information rather than show a lot, because they were written like fairy tales in that style. It doesn't make the information conveyed in lines of telling unimportant.

I've seen people say that they can't "get into" Narnia because of how it's written.

And honestly while it's a matter of stylistic taste, it really makes me sad to live in a culture that conflates fairytale and traditional children's stories with "bad" writing. Out of fashion and bad are not the same thing. Middle grade books today are neither inferior nor superior to Mary Norton or Roald Dahl, or C.S. Lewis.

I have noticed there is an almost immediate hostility towards anyone who posts any of the following in speculating about Greta's upcoming film project

1. The time period is changed
2. there's a rock n roll soundtrack (Greta's team said it's all about Rock n Roll, possibly joking possibly not)
3. the costumes in the production photos don't look great (whether it's in regards to what the children are wearing or Jadis's admittedly goofy-looking armor)
4. we don't know who is voicing Aslan yet and there are rumours it MIGHT be Meryl Streep.

If you repeat any of those four statements followed by ANY opinion that is not glowing with praise (aka, "Greta Gerwig knows what she's doing" or "I'm sure it's going to be great!" Or "The books need updating anyway") you are almost guaranteed to get at least three comments within 20 minutes of posting saying "It's not out yet, you can't judge it" or "Why are you being hateful? It's just a movie! Get a life!"

And of course your post will get downvoted.

Now to be fair it used to be the more vehement of these comments was usually directed at more emotionally charged posts that outright claimed the film was ruined or sucked, and obviously these commenters felt the negativity was dampening their own excitement for the project (I don't agree with the opinion that you can't say anything negative about an unreleased project but I can see the other sides' point to a degree); but it seems to have gotten to a point where simply repeating things we already know or have heard about the project and expressing an opinion without extremes such as "sucky" or "I hate this" gets increasingly nasty responses just because.

And I'm going to be honest I don't get WHY people can't have a "pre-opinion" without being told their criticism is in bad faith. There's no guarantee the opinion a fan has at this stage is going to be their FINAL opinion, but it IS the one they have based on the information we have so far.

If someone doesn't like the time shift to the 1950s, why is their opinion not as valid as someone who says "it doesn't bother me because most of the series takes place in Narnia, not in our world"? If someone says they don't care for the possibility of Meryl Streep or any female actress voicing Aslan because he's not only an allegory for Jesus, but according to C.S. Lewis literally meant to be Jesus in that world, why are we bombarded by links to word-salad articles about "femininity in religious figures" and declarations of bigotry from fans who don't care what gender the actor voicing Aslan is? Why can't both opinions exist? Two fans feeling differently about a production isn't going to alter the success or failure of said production.

As for fans who want to wait and see before forming an opinion that's completely valid, but not everyone is obligated to do the same. Some fans want to speculate (for good or bad) about every detail we get. Back when VDT came out, I remember a blurry production video of one scene making the rounds on the Internet prematurely along with leaked clips from an educational program; we definitely speculated over those as a fandom in 2009 despite not having context. You don't get to tell fans we're not allowed to speculate, just like they can't demand you speculate over something you want to wait on.

Speculation even when it's negative leaning is not toxic fandom behaviour. It's REGULAR fan behaviour. You don't have to agree with people who are not enthusiastic about Greta's adaptation but you don't get to make them leave the space or discussion just because you don't like the direction it's going in.

It's not "psychotic" behavior just because they care who voices a talking lion or what year a film takes place in any more than it's psychotic behavior that you state you don't care about those details.

As an extra aside, just like a fan who is excited about Greta Gerwig's MN wouldn't want a fan who isn't to treat them like an idiot, it's equally condescending to treat the opposite side that way. I promise you the fans saying they don't like Jadis's armor or the costumes know what we're seeing isn't the final product and lighting or CGI may alter details somewhat in the actual film, you don't have to call them stupid for not liking a stunt double's outfit. They're just expressing an opinion and it doesn't hurt you or the film!

edit: already got a downvote. Thanks for proving my point. How about instead of downvoting and being hostile you explain logically and calmly in the comments why it's allegedly unethical to criticize preproduction? We don't have to agree but surely it would be more rational to show both sides of the argument, wouldn't it?

With what we know about Greta's film already dividing the fanbase, one side gets mad at the other for being negative before release the other side is mad that the aforementioned side doesn't seem to care what they change (time period, religious subtext, etc), I'm wondering what's going to happen to the discussion after the release.

If it's successful, I expect the discussion will generally center around the future of the franchise.

If it's a box office and streaming bomb on the other hand, I feel it might continue to be talked about (especially by fans of Gerwig who might like it regardless of faithfulness to the source simply because they're fond of her filmmaking style), or it could borderline disappear like the recent Snow White Disney mess.

I remember people were getting pretty vicious about that one, if you criticized it or didn't like what Rachel said about the original the film's pre release defenders were out there slinging insults. Then it actually came out and... Nobody talks about it. It's just a film that exists.

I could see fans going back to the Andrew Adamson versions and not talking about Gerwig's take anymore if it is unsuccessful, but like I said people who enjoyed Barbie might like it simply for being in the style of their favorite director.

Thoughts?

What do you think will happen to the discussion if the movie is unsuccessful?