How do *you* read series?

[BeccaPrice]

Pratchett is *wonderful* (except, of course, the Wizard series).

Having just read Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, I had to go back and read more of Ivan, so I read Cetaganda, and somehow just kept going on in the series - Bujold sucks me in that way.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I'll need to have a look at Terry Pratchett's 500 books long Discworld series. One of my friends keeps pestering me to "just read it"

Terry Pratchett says that the proper way to read Discworld for the first time is in published order.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

re: Pratchett, you don't have to - probably don't want to - read them all in publication order. This map gives the sub-series. for example, I love the City Watch stories, but could live without Rincewynd (or however it's spelled) and the other wizards. On the other hand, Granny Weatherwax FTW.

Please don't bring up that really awful map. It should be deleted in such a way that it can never be recreated.

I've read enough of the Discworld series to know that the series is best read (for the first time) in published order. Terry does not recap. So you do have moments where you will get lost because you don't know what happened before. Just because a book may feature the City Watch doesn't mean that details were not given in a book about Rincewind. It's all interconnected and it works best without that map that will spoil the series for anyone who has not yet read Discworld.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

*knetter*

That was my mind boggling and my brain having a short circuit in Dutch.

Wait. I'll have to digest this. I heard Pratchett did some weird stuff, but I've never seen one of these graphs.

Do yourself a huge favor and ditch the map. It will only make things confusing. Read in published order.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Pratchett is *wonderful* (except, of course, the Wizard series).

I have to disagree. The Wizards are good too.

[jgaiser]

I knew we were in trouble when the Pratchett map was mentioned.

Despite Jon's objections, the story arcs are perfectly readable all by themselves. My suggestion is to give them a try. You might find you like them that way.

[Lemurion]

Oddly enough, my late father did not necessarily read books from beginning to end (and yes, I'm referring to fiction).

He would often read a random section near the middle, then skip anywhere from twenty to fifty pages and read another section. Sometimes he would do this four or five times. Then, and only then would he go to the beginning of the book.

[xendula]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Oddly enough, my late father did not necessarily read books from beginning to end (and yes, I'm referring to fiction).

He would often read a random section near the middle, then skip anywhere from twenty to fifty pages and read another section. Sometimes he would do this four or five times. Then, and only then would he go to the beginning of the book.

That must be the most peculiar way to read a novel that I have ever heard of!!!

[BaenSidhe]

I read each book in a series back to back up until I get bored or something puts me off the series. Then I drop the series.

As for reading it front to back, I sometimes go front to back, skipping sections. If something in a later section references something interesting that had previously happened, I'll skip back (not necessarily to the point where I originally started skipping) and read forward again. I can't remember what book, but there was one where I skipped forward, went back a bit and read forward, then skipped back farther, three or four times.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I knew we were in trouble when the Pratchett map was mentioned.

Despite Jon's objections, the story arcs are perfectly readable all by themselves. My suggestion is to give them a try. You might find you like them that way.

I have to disagree. I've read some where if you had not read what came before, you don't understand some things. And you spoil others for going back.

Don't listen to anyone who says out of order is OK. It's not.

[JSWolf]

I am currently reading the Word & Void series. But I am reading a different book inbetween each book.

[GA Russell]

I read them in order of publication, maybe one book a year.

[Rumpelteazer]

I used to read series back to back, most often with short breaks between books because I had to wait for the English edition to arrive. Sometimes I would tire from a series and either stop reading at all, reread a favorite or read one or more stand alone books. With paper books I didn't necessarily read them in order, due to availability. With ebooks I first check if a series is fully available for me before starting a new series.

Since getting an ereader I found I can't read series back to back anymore and I now read several series at the same time interspersed with stand alone books. Depending how much I like a series I will finish a series quickly or not. Last year it took me six months to finish the Mary Russell series, but I've been working on the Cat Who series for two years now.

Rereading I don't do in order unless it's a series I read a long time ago.

[MJ12]

I chose "read until fed up", but for some series I don't get fed up and read it all in one go.

For example, LotR (which Tolkien actually considered one book anyway, not a trilogy) I always read all together, and A Song of Ice and Fire.

Some series I would have preferred to read back to back, but couldn't because they weren't available at the library and I had to wait. Or if there's a series I like that isn't finished being published, I will read each book as soon as it comes out instead of waiting til they're all published and reading them all at once.

[WordCountess]

I read series from start to finish. Not sure why, I suppose it's sort of an OCD thing. If I start something I have to finish it as soon as I can. I treat everything that way- from laundry to book writing, lol.