How to show unsequenced series?

[calvin-c]

If books are part of a series but don't have a sequence can you list the series without a sequence number? I've found I can list them all as sequence 0 but that's esthetically displeasing even though it works technically. So far I haven't found a way to suppress the sequence number for books such as these. Thanks.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

If books are part of a series but don't have a sequence can you list the series without a sequence number? I've found I can list them all as sequence 0 but that's esthetically displeasing even though it works technically. So far I haven't found a way to suppress the sequence number for books such as these. Thanks.

No

The Zeros have it

BTW
I use:
0.01
0.02
...
to show order of publication for those that do not have a hard placement

[calvin-c]

OK, I was hoping to improve the appearance but if [0] is the best I can do I guess I'll have to put up with it. thanks.

[Gunnerp245]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

If books are part of a series but don't have a sequence can you list the series without a sequence number?...

I have used the authors initials as the series and the sequence number to indicated the publication order; just slightly different then *theducks*.

[fidvo]

I generally give them a series number anyway, sorted by their publication date because that's usually the order in which you want to read them.

If some of the books in the series have a series number but others don't, it's more complicated. In that case, I use the series number to order the books by publication date and my custom subseries column to indicate the official series order.

A good example are Steven Gould's "Jumper" books. There are three books that are part of the the "official" series, and two other related stories. In my library they would be ordered like this:

Jumper: Series = Jumper [1], Subseries = Jumper [1]
Reflex: Series = Jumper [2], Subseries = Jumper [2]
Griffin's Story: Series = Jumper [3], (no subseries)
Shade: Series = Jumper [4], (no subseries)
Impulse: Series = Jumper [5], Subseries = Jumper [3]

[SampleAndy]

Not exactly on topic, but close...

Is there a way to show that a book is a member of more than one series? An example is "Tarzan at the Earth's Core" which is 13th in the Tarzan series and 4th in the Pellucidar series.

[fidvo]

Originally Posted by SampleAndy

Not exactly on topic, but close...

Is there a way to show that a book is a member of more than one series? An example is "Tarzan at the Earth's Core" which is 13th in the Tarzan series and 4th in the Pellucidar series.

I generally consider it part of the Pellucidar series despite the main character because it's a necessary part of the Pellucidar chronology. If I recall correctly (it's been a while since I read it), you could remove it from the Tarzan series completely and not miss it.

But you're right; this is a great example of the weakness of the Series/Subseries system. Since it's the only time I've encountered this crossover situation, I haven't put too much thought into it.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by SampleAndy

Not exactly on topic, but close...

Is there a way to show that a book is a member of more than one series? An example is "Tarzan at the Earth's Core" which is 13th in the Tarzan series and 4th in the Pellucidar series.

Only by using Custom columns
You will need to populate these by hand. (The standard metadata sources also, only return 1 series)

[rlh3]

another question somewhat related to this question: is it possible to change the default series number from [1] to [0] when adding a book?
I have a large number of academic history books that are part of a series, but are not numbered. If I could get Calibre to default to the [0] rather than [1] it would simplify adding books to the library greatly.

Thanks

[kovidgoyal]

Preferences->Tweaks->Auto increment series

[rlh3]

Thanks.

I figured that it had to be there somewhere, I just could not find it.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by fidvo

I generally give them a series number anyway, sorted by their publication date because that's usually the order in which you want to read them.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument why I would want to read books in publication order. If the books are tied together closely enough to make the order in which I read them matter at all then I want to read them in the internal order which may or may not match the publication order. And if they aren't tied that closely together then it seems a matter of supreme indifference to me what order I do read them in. At least it seems that way until somebody gives me a convincing reason otherwise.

BTW I read for enjoyment, not as a critic. I really don't care about how the author 'develops' as a writer. Either I enjoy their work, or I don't.

(Not sure what just happened but my screen jumped & now the text looks larger. If this posts with oversized text, sorry.)

[fidvo]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

I've yet to hear a convincing argument why I would want to read books in publication order. If the books are tied together closely enough to make the order in which I read them matter at all then I want to read them in the internal order which may or may not match the publication order. And if they aren't tied that closely together then it seems a matter of supreme indifference to me what order I do read them in. At least it seems that way until somebody gives me a convincing reason otherwise.

BTW I read for enjoyment, not as a critic. I really don't care about how the author 'develops' as a writer. Either I enjoy their work, or I don't.

It's certainly a matter of opinion; there's really no right or wrong answer.

To me, the publication order is not about the author developing as a writer, it's about the series developing as, well, a series. Prequels build on previous books just like sequels do. If you read a prequel first, you may miss why certain details are significant.

A perfect example is Belgarath the Sorcerer, by David Eddings. It is a prequel to the Belgariad. If you were to read it before reading the Belgariad, you would spend the entire book asking yourself why you care and feeling like you're missing something (because you are).

The history that gets outlined in the book is not meant to introduce you to the world of the story; it's meant to give you the reasons behind some of the details that you already know, i.e. the "snapshot" of the world at the time of the Belgariad/Malloreon. Likewise, learning the history of the characters is more interesting if you are already familiar with the characters from the previous (future) stories. And let's not forget that the whole thing is wrapped in a frame story that makes no sense at all unless you've read the Belgariad and the Malloreon.

You could make the argument that if you read the Belgariad first you're missing the details of the history that could make the story richer, but part of the fun is learning about the world through Garion's eyes, seeing it revealed bit by bit. Knowing all about it ahead of time does not enhance the experience, it detracts from it.

That said, in many cases it doesn't matter. Some series work just fine read in internal chronological order. A good example is the Chronicles of Narnia. I still prefer the published order, but many people prefer to read The Magician's Nephew first.