Category: Classics

The Annotated Emma, by Jane Austen

The Annotated Emma, by Jane Austen

Genre: Classic / Regency Romance

Reason for Reading: I’m rereading all of Austen’s novels. I’ve seen these Annotated versions and been tempted to try them out for a while, and this is the one I ended up picking up. 

Synopsis: Emma is young, rich, beautiful, and the most important gentleman’s daughter in her neighborhood. When her governess marries and moves away, Emma must find another friend to entertain herself. She chooses Harriet Smith, the love-child of nobody-knows-whom, and boarder at a local country school for girls. Emma, well-meaning but naively self-important, makes a mess by foisting potential suitors upon poor Harriet, while Emma’s old friend Mr. Knightly tries in vain to check Emma’s eager naivete. 

My thoughts: I’m a huge fan of Jane Austen. This is the third time I’ve read this novel, and I’ve seen all the movie renditions multiple times. I love watching Emma grow in wisdom throughout the story. And her romance is, in my opinion, the sweetest of those written by Austen. But I recognize that this is a difficult book for many people to get into because of Emma’s painful flaws and poor choices. Another reason that Emma is less appealing to some readers is because the narrator’s perspective is so unique. The POV focuses almost entirely on Emma’s perception of the world, to the point where it is easy to be mislead about what is really occurring since we are only seeing what Emma sees. Emma, especially at the beginning of the novel, tends to be very self-centered and aloof, and so is the narration of the novel. However, even though this POV makes the story harder to get into than the other Austen novels, this is Austen’s most appealing work for character study.  

The annotations of this book are lengthy and detailed. Many interesting images and comments are included so that we can visualize antique customs, fashions, and furniture that Austen’s readers would take for granted. That aspect of the annotations was fantastic. The annotations also included a lot of character analysis commentary, such as “Emma thinks such-and-such is happening, which shows you how much she lacks self-awareness at this stage.” These annotations included a lot of spoilers (the reader is warned which annotations include spoilers, but sometimes these warnings were dropped out of the ebook version – so caution should  be practiced if you’re reading the book for the first time and you have ebook format). These character analysis annotations were sometimes interesting, but mostly they told me things I’d already knew – either because I was familiar with the story or because I am sensitive to Austen’s nuances. Therefore, I think this annotated version is for you if 1)You are interested in having some historical perspective, 2)You are reading the book for the first time and don’t mind spoilers, 3)You’re re-reading the book, but don’t remember the details and nuances, and/or 4)You just love reading annotations. In other words, I am glad that I read this one book from The Annotated Austen series, because I enjoyed the historical perspective notes, but I probably will not pick up any of the others because I think I got the main idea now. 


. 

James and the Giant Peach, by Roald Dahl

James and the Giant Peach, by Roald Dahl

Reason for Reading: To keep up with my nephew’s book reports

Genre: Children’s Adventure / Fantasy

Review
After the tragic death of his parents, James has been living with his horrible neglectful, hateful aunts Sponge and Spiker. One day James is given a magical bag by a mysterious stranger – and in his excitement he trips on the root of a peach tree and dumps all the magic on the tree. Soon a peach larger than a house has grown out of the tree. James crawls into the peach and begins the adventure of a life-time. 

This is another classic kids story that I read as a child and haven’t picked up since. I’m glad I had a reason to pick it up again, because it was really funny and silly and it had a lot of nostalgia for me. Dahl has just the right amount of humor and whimsy in his books. 🙂



After reading the book, my nephew and I watched the 1996 stop-action movie. It was a cute movie that followed the basic story-line well enough. But it was a bit too sentimental and it lacked the dark humor of Roald Dahl’s story. Cute for an hour’s entertainment, but nothing I’m going to watch again and again.  

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, by Roald Dahl



Written by Roald Dahl and Narrated by Eric Idle

Reason for Reading: I’d watched the two movies with my nephew, who’d just read the book, and I decided that I wanted to know which one was more true to the book. 

Genre: Children’s Fantasy / Humor / Adventure

Review
When Willie Wonka announces that he’s hidden 5 golden tickets to his fantasticly famous, but very mysterious, chocolate factory, Charlie Bucket wishes more than anything that he could be one of the lucky 5 winners. But Charlie is very poor and can not afford to buy any of the chocolate bars that conceal the tickets. Luck knocks unexpectedly, though, and he’s up for the adventure of a life-time with 4 other kids – each of whom has at least one huge personality flaw. Violet Beauregarde is uber-competitive and has a nasty chewing-gum habit, Veruca Salt is spoiled rotten, Mike Teavee is a know-it-all who watches too much TV, and Augustus Gloop is grossly overweight and incredibly greedy. As the eccentric Willie Wonka takes the kids on a wild tour of his factory, each of the kids suffers dire consequences of their flaws. 

This is my FAVORITE Roald Dahl book. Hilarious and fun – and it has a classic movie that makes me even fonder of it. 🙂 I really enjoyed listening to Idle’s fantastic narration of the story – though I wish he’d sung the Oompa Loompa songs instead of just reading them. But no one’s perfect. 🙂 I think I enjoyed this book just as much as an adult as I had as a child. 

My nephew and I compared the two film adaptations. The first was the Gene Wilder version from 1971 and the second was the Johnny Depp version from 2005. I hadn’t seen the classic movie for many years, but I had watched the newer one when it came out. I remember being disappointed in the newer version, but this time around I rather enjoyed it. Yes. It was different than the classic movie, but they were both very interesting interpretations. They both took some artistic license – and each had some stronger points and weaker points. The 1971 version, of course, inserted all that stuff about Arthur Slugworth (not to be confused with Horace Slughorn) and the 2005 version inserted all that stuff about Wonka’s father. Other than that, there were only minor tweaks to the story in either one, and I was surprised to realize that they both were equally true to the book, in their own way.


So, who’s my favorite Willie Wonka? I don’t know! That’s really hard to decide. The character was acted QUITE well both by Wilder and by Depp, though in very different ways. Wilder’s was eccentric in a crazy-scary sort of way. Depp was eccentric in a wacky-vulnerable-creepy sort of way. These were very different interpretations  but I was surprised to realize that they were more similar to each other in some ways than they were to the book character (as read by Idle). Both of Depp and Wilder (especially Wilder) seemed almost to encourage the nasty little kids to misbehave. Willie Wonka of the book seemed mostly unconcerned with the consequences of misbehavior, but seemed to genuinely warn them not to misbehave. 
Charlie Bucket was cute in both movies, and the interpretations of the actors was fairly similar. I think Peter Gardner, of the 1971 version, sparkled just a tab bit more. Look at that cute expression when he finds the ticket. 🙂
Violet Beauregarde was modernized in the 2005 version. She was still the over-competitive gum-chewing brat written by Dahl, but she was the daughter of a win-or-die beauty queen and was totally kick-butt in a losing-isn’t-an-option-because-you’re-better-than-them sort of way. Basically, it’s making fun of a certain stereotype of over-competitive girls that didn’t exist when Dahl wrote the book. So, the Violet of the 1971 version was more true to the kid in the book, but  I could better relate to the stereotype portrayed in the 2005 version – and I think this modernization was spot-on with the message Dahl portrayed in his book.
Veruca Salt was cuter in the 2005 version, but she had SO much more attitude in the 1971 version. Look at that “I want it NOW!” face. Definitely a bad egg.

Mike Teavee was obnoxious in both versions. He was modernized a bit in the 2005 version – he was addicted to video games rather than TV – but their interpretations of the character were pretty similar and I don’t see any reason to think one did a better job than the other.
The first thing my nephew said when he saw Augustus Gloop in the 2005 version is “he’s even fatter in this one!” Indeed, the only character trait Augustus had in the 2005 version is that he was severely obese. To the point of it being a little too much, I feel. Augustus Gloop in the 1971 version is quite fat enough to get the point across, and he has a lot more personality. 

Which movie did you like better, and why?

The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle

The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle

Reason for Reading: Group read on LibraryThing’s Green Dragon 

Review
When a unicorn realizes that she may be the last remaining unicorn, she leaves her peaceful home on a quest to find out what happened to all her brothers and sisters. Along the way, she picks up bumbling magician seeking his talent and a dour cook looking for her lost innocence. The unicorn soon discovers that the world has changed since she last ventured out. Humans have lost their youthful innocence, and they are no longer able to see things as they truly are – humans have excelled in the art of deceiving themselves. 

When I originally picked up this book, I’d expected a cute young adult tale, but never expected such depth. The Last Unicorn is a multi-layered allegory: about lost innocence, self-fulfilling prophecies, and self-deception. But these cynical themes aren’t the main point. The main point is that only in fully understanding humans can the ethereal unicorns save themselves. Only by sacrificing a piece of their ineffable essence can they form a closer bond to humans. And this closer bond can lead humans to do wonderful things. 

Yes, it is a Christian allegory by my interpretation. But I think it’s amazing the way Beagle didn’t just throw in a Christ Figure and be done with it….The allegory of Beagle’s unicorn isn’t uniquely Christian – it defies religious boundaries. It is a story of love and innocence that mixes cynicism and hope. Quite extraordinary! 🙂

I was also a HUGE fan of the bumbling wizard Schmendrick who (in my opinion) was only fooling himself into believing he wasn’t a capable wizard. He’s like the Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man in Wizard of Oz – just the fact that he wanted so badly to be a wizard made him into one. He could laugh at all the people who deceived themselves, as he unconsciously deceived his own self. He reminded me of myself when I’m in a glum mood thinking I’m not capable of anything when, of course, I’m quite capable if I’d stop expecting so little of myself. 😉 This book was a good reminder to have faith in yourself and think about the consequences of your beliefs. 🙂

The Princess and the Goblin, by George MacDonald

The Princess and the Goblin, by George MacDonald

Reason for Reading: Group read with Simpler Pastimes

Review
This classic fairy-tale-style story is set in a land where the Goblins and Humans have had a “cold war” for many, many years. Long ago, the Goblins threatened that some day they will steal a princess…and their day finally comes when Princess Irene’s nurse accidentally keeps the Princess out after sunset. Luckily, they are rescued by a miner’s boy, Curdie – but now the Goblins know where the Princess lives and what she looks like. When the Goblins hatch a devious plot, Curdie and Irene become fast-friends as they act in turn as heroes. First and foremost, this is a fairy-tale. But it is also an allegory about faith. Princess Irene has a great-great-grandmother – a mysterious and heavenly woman that only she can see. Irene’s very-great grandmother gives the Princess a magical string and tells her to follow the string whenever she’s afraid – never doubting it or deviating from it, regardless of where it may take her. Irene must learn to have faith even when she thinks that the string has led her astray. And Curdie must learn to have faith in a very-great grandmother that he has never seen.  This is a sweet story, nice for reading aloud to young children. 

Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen


Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen

Review

This is the story of two very different sisters: Elinor is a sensible (yet secretly passionate) young woman who must continuously reign in the wild passions of her mother and sisters – especially Marianne whose head is filled with romantic notions of one-true-love and tragedy. When their father suddenly dies with their newly-acquired estate entailed away to their half-brother John, the sisters are left destitute. John and his wife Fanny descend upon the mourning family within a fortnight and make the sisters and mother feel like unwelcome guests in their beloved home. Elinor soon forms an attachment with Fanny’s brother Edward, but Fanny doesn’t approve of Elinor’s lack-of-fortune-or-name. So the family moves away to a cottage, leaving Edward behind. Poor Elinor must struggle with her own worries about Edward while at the same time monitoring the expensive of the house and trying to reign in the wild, all-consuming attachment of Marianne to the dashing young Willoughby. The romantic hopes of both girls spiral downwards as more and more obstacles appear.

I love this story because I’ve always admired Elinor for both her passion and her ability to handle all problems that come her way. I also admire Colonel Brandon for his devotion to Marianne despite her ecstatic preference for the younger, handsomer, and less reserved Willoughby. This time around, I also really appreciated Marianne’s character. Her youthful ideas about love were cute – and realistic for many girls of 16. 🙂 Her development throughout the story was extraordinary. I loved the way she slowly, cluelessly, began to understand the world around her. I don’t admire her, but I think she’s cute and very funny. And, frankly, a more interesting character than Elinor (due to her development-of-character).

To be honest, this book is just as much a favorite as Pride and Prejudice. Yes. That is right. I ADMIT that I like this book just as much (possibly a little more) than the beloved P&P.

Hamlet, Act III


Act III is the pivotal act in Hamlet. The Prince had been dragging his feet for months trying to force himself to avenge his father’s death. At one time, he’d be certain that the ghost was truly the restless spirit of his father seeking revenge; another time he’d fret that the ghost may be a demon sent to tempt the Prince into a fatal and condemning act. In scene i, he had his famous “get thee to a nunnery” fight with Ophelia. Frustrated with his own impotence, he extended the blame of his mother’s inconstancy to all women. Maddened at the thought of Ophelia’s future marriage to someone else; maddened at what he saw as her certain inconstancy in the future, he demanded that she commit herself to a convent. His interaction with Ophelia was observed by Polonius and Claudius, who decided that he was dangerously addled and must be sent away to England (presumably with hopes that the distraction would clear his mind). 

In scene ii Hamlet made pointed remarks during a play, hoping to draw out Claudius’ guilty response. Hamlet succeeded in drawing out Claudius, who angrily retorted at the content of the play and stomped out of the room. In the immediate rush of  fear at Hamlet’s knowledge, Claudius suddenly felt his own guilt. He regreted killing his brother – not because it was a treacherous act in itself, but because he had been found out and might suffer consequences. He knelt down and prayed that God help him; he asked forgiveness while simultaneously acknowledging that he’s not really sorry that he got the Crown and the Queen, but he was very sorry that Hamlet found out about the murder. The Prince discovered Claudius praying and at first set his mind upon killing the King here (when the royal back is turned). But then Hamlet worried: if he killed Claudius now, while praying, the King’s soul would be clean and he would be dispatched to heaven. Hamlet wanted Claudius to be damned, like the late King Hamlet. The prince decided to wait.

In the final scene, Hamlet was summoned to the Queen’s chambers, where she tried to talk sense into him. There, Hamlet swelled again into his accusatory rage at the inconstancy of women. Polonius, who had hidden himself behind the curtains upon Hamlet’s entry, thought to rescue the Queen from her raving son – but when he called out, the infuriated prince stabbed at the curtains and slayed Polonius. With this act, Hamlet’s path of revenge was cemented. He had killed once, he had no choice but to continue with his revenge quickly or fail entirely. Shakespeare punctuated this pivotal act with the ghost of dead King Hamlet – who only the prince can see. Prince Hamlet’s shock at the escalation of events and the sudden appearance of the ghost muddled his already maddened state, and he ranted wildly while the terrified Queen tried to calm him. The act ends with Hamlet lugging the body of Polonius off stage.

(TO SEE MORE ABOUT HAMLET GO TO MY MASTER POST)

Hamlet and Ophelia
Hamlet (1996)
Directed by Kenneth Branagh

Act III, Scene i: The King and Polonius decided to observe Hamlet as he interacted with Ophelia. They told Ophelia to linger where she was sure to meet Hamlet, and the two men hid. Before noticing Ophelia, Hamlet was deep in his own meditations. To be or not to be? Apparently, Hamlet was considering suicide. Did he know the King was watching? Or was his doubt genuine? There is no indication that he knew the King was near. Personally, I think Hamlet was genuinely considering suicide. He’d experienced some terrible blows in the last few months – his father died unexpectedly, his mother married her brother-in-law, and Hamlet was being haunted by the ghost of his father who was making shocking demands of the Prince. Hamlet was tortured by a feeling of failure that he hadn’t avenged his father, stress at the idea of killing the King, and doubt about the nature and intentions of the ghost. That’s enough to make any sane person consider suicide. The sudden appearance of Ophelia reminded him of yet another failure in his life. 

Like Claudius and Polonius, I observed Hamlet very closely in this scene because I wanted to consider the age-old question: was Hamlet mad or was he faking it? I saw no signs of actual insanity, despite Hamlet’s nonsensical word-play and his irrational anger at Ophelia. He seemed genuinely enraged at Ophelia’s perceived inconstancy, and he blamed her for future inconstancies which she had not yet committed; but sane lovers can also be irrational in this way. 

Another question I pondered during this scene was whether Hamlet meant to imply that Ophelia wasn’t a virgin (since Harold Jenkins, the editor of my edition, claims that there is no evidence that Ophelia and Hamlet had any pre-action action). And, frankly, I have to agree with Jenkins. There is a lot of double-meaning innuendo during this scene (and the next), but that doesn’t prove that they’d been together. Men are quite capable of innuendo in the company of maidens. That proves nothing in itself. So I leave that one open to interpretation.

The Play
Hamlet (2009) Royal Shakespeare Company
Directed by Gregory Doran

Act III, Scene ii: In this scene, the troupe of traveling actors put on a play which closely resembled the murder of King Hamlet. The Prince made continual jibes and probes at the King until Claudius angrily announced that he’d had enough and stomped out of the room – which was exactly the guilty reaction that Hamlet was hoping for. Now Hamlet could avenge his father’s death with confidence that Claudius is guilty.

This scene is scrutinized closely by critics. The play began with a dumbshow which silently portrayed the murder – but Claudius apparently didn’t respond to this dumbshow. The King only responded upon seeing the murder in the spoken play. Critics ask the question: did the King see the dumbshow? Why wasn’t he offended by it? Why did he wait until the second enactment of murder before retorting? Some directors believe that Claudius didn’t see the dumbshow. They have him turned away from it, chatting with a neighbor. Others believe that Claudius saw the dumbshow, and silently blanched, but wasn’t truly provoked until Hamlet’s comments during the second enactment. Harold Jenkins (forever the literalist) believes that neither of these two things happened, because otherwise it would have been mentioned in the stage directions. 🙂 A sophisticated connoisseur of Hamlet apparently watches Claudius during this scene in hopes of determining which interpretation the director has chosen.

Hamlet almost kills Claudius
Hamlet (2009) Royal Shakespeare Company
Directed by Gregory Doran

Act III, Scene iii: Shocked by the realization that Hamlet knew Claudius’ guilt, the King prayed for help from God. Hamlet discovered Claudius praying, and almost killed him there…but then decided that if he killed Claudius when his soul was cleansed by prayer, Claudius would achieve salvation. Hamlet wanted Claudius to be damned, so he waited a better opportunity for revenge.

The question I asked while reading this scene: Was Hamlet just procrastinating, or did he really not kill Claudius in prayer because he wanted to damn Claudius’ soul? Personally, I think he was procrastinating. He had resolved that he must kill Claudius, but he didn’t have the nerve to do it in cold blood. 

Hamlet in the Queen’s Closet
Hamlet (2009) Royal Shakespeare Company
Directed by Gregory Doran

Act III, Scene iv: Hamlet ranted at the Queen in her chambers. Polonius, hidden behind the curtains, moved to assist the Queen, and Hamlet stabbed him. Hamlet seemed rather surprised to discover that he’d killed Polonius. What did he expect? That the King was hidden behind the curtains? Personally, I think he wasn’t thinking. He had worked himself up into a frenzy talking to the guilty Queen, and was surprised by Polonius’ sudden call. He stabbed the curtain, not knowing what lay behind it, and only afterwards asked “Is it the King?” His confusion at finally having spilled blood – though the wrong person’s blood – was compounded by the sudden appearance of the ghost. This is the first scene where Hamlet truly appeared, to me, to have lost his wits. He was acting violently without thought of consequence or purpose. His speech was confused. He was utterly out of his depth. 

Call It Courage, by Armstrong Sperry

Call It Courage, by Armstrong Sperry

Reason for Reading: This book won the Newbery Medal in 1941. It’s been sitting on my shelf for years.

Review
Mafatu is afraid of the ocean because he almost drowned when he was a boy. But in his culture, fear is scorned and laughed at. Mafatu feels that he must redeem his good name and prove that he is not afraid anymore. He climbs in a boat and goes on a voyage, but he soon finds himself shipwrecked on an apparently-deserted island. There, he keeps himself alive by making all of his own tools, weapons, and a new canoe. He battles a tiger shark, an octopus, and a boar. He defies the cannibals when they return to their island. But will he be able to return home? This was a cute book, and I enjoyed the adventure – though it’s very short and all the adventure is packed in at a very unrealistic pace. Regardless, I really enjoyed the couple of hours I spent with it. I think a young reader might find this book fun. It’s appropriate for someone reading at maybe the 3rd grade level. 

The Last Battle, by C. S. Lewis

The Last Battle, by C. S. Lewis

Reason for reading: This is the seventh (and final) book in the Chronicles of Narnia, which I’ve been reading in order-of-publication. I plan on rereading them all in chronological order using Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis, by Michael Ward as a guide.

Review
The final book in The Chronicles of Narnia depicts the apocalypse of Narnia. When a shrewd monkey teams up with Calormen to trick the Narnians into thinking Aslan has returned – and they are his spokespeople – Narnia is cut to ruins. Forests are destroyed, Narnians begin to doubt Aslan, and cities fall to heathen invaders. I’m afraid to say this was my least favorite of the Narnia books (though I still liked it quite well!). Intellectually, I know Lewis had to have an apocalypse – whatever begins must also end – but it was still a bit dreary.  So although I understand why the apocalypse had to come, I still liked the other books so much better. Not only because they were much more cheerful, but also because they had more fun-filled adventure.

However, despite my misgivings about uplifting-yet-dreary endings, I want to address Philip Pullman’s opinions about the Narnia series (which I first mentioned in my blog post about The Amber Spyglass). WARNING: This commentary will have spoilers for the Narnia series! In his 1998 article in The Guardian, The Darkside of Narnia, Pullman stated his opinion about the Narnia series: “there is no doubt in my mind that it is one of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read.”   Pullman is an atheist, and he believes that the being-dead-in-Heaven-is-better-than-being-alive-on-Earth philosophy is “life-hating.” It is unsurprising, therefore, that he feels The Last Battle is “one of the most vile moments in the whole of children’s literature.” Happily, I disagree with his anger at this belief in Heaven. Even though I found The Last Battle to be a bit dreary, I appreciated the message of love and Heavenly gift that Lewis was portraying.

Pullman continues to say:

But that’s par for the course. Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-coloured people are better than dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it.  

I agree that Narnia conveys some rather sexist and ethnocentric views, but that’s what English literature of that period was like. Lewis (and the Narnia books) are a product of their time.


I don’t think any of those arguments is strong enough to merit my discussion alone. The reason I felt moved to discuss Pullman’s opinions are in this paragraph (which I unfortunately read before completing the series):

And in The Last Battle, notoriously, there’s the turning away of Susan from the Stable (which stands for salvation) because “She’s interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up.” In other words, Susan, like Cinderella, is undergoing a transition from one phase of her life to another. Lewis didn’t approve of that. He didn’t like women in general, or sexuality at all, at least at the stage in his life when he wrote the Narnia books. He was frightened and appalled at the notion of wanting to grow up. Susan, who did want to grow up, and who might have been the most interesting character in the whole cycle if she’d been allowed to, is a Cinderella in a story where the Ugly Sisters win.  

When I read this paragraph, I wondered what Lewis actually did do with Susan in the book. But when I read the book, I interpreted those events differently than Pullman: Susan wasn’t allowed into Heaven at that time. It was made clear that Susan was in one of the silly stages of life, but it was just a stage. She still had a chance to grow out of it. She hadn’t been rejected from Heaven permanently, and it wasn’t her time to die. Susan lived. And Susan had the ability to change (just as Pullman points out). Lewis wasn’t saying that grown-ups can’t go to Heaven. After all, the kids’ parents went to Heaven, didn’t they? Lewis was saying that Susan was in a phase where she idolized material things – and had thus turned away from her spiritual health.

Also, I’m not certain Susan really is the most interesting character. By Pullman’s definition (he-who-changes-is-most-interesting) I believe Eustace’s character developed much more than Susan’s character. Why is Pullman ignoring Eustace?

What do other people think about Susan’s character? Do you think Lewis meant for her to be denied Heaven permanently?

The Magician’s Nephew, by C. S. Lewis

The Magician’s Nephew, by C. S. Lewis

Reason for Reading: I’m finishing up the Narnia chronicles in order-of-publication. This is the penultimate book. 🙂 I chose to read this book NOW because of the Classics Children’s Literature Challenge.

Review
When Digory’s evil magician uncle tricks Polly into entering another world,   Digory must rescue her. Their adventure heightens when they discover an evil witch and then witness the creation of Narnia. This is the first time I’ve read this adorable classic. I’ve heard it was the book that Lewis meant to start the series with, but it was so difficult to write that he put it off until he had developed Narnia a bit more. It’s probably good that he did, because I enjoyed seeing references to the earlier books…like the story of how the light-post ended up in the middle of a forest in Narnia. 🙂 I look forward to re-reading this book later (this year?) when I read them in chronological order. 😀