Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
Well, yes -- for series' that have one long storyline, you should read in the right order. To do otherwise is just silly.
Outside that... eh, the whole thing is just silly. [...]
|
As far as I can tell, JSWolf represents one extreme (you
must read in publication order), and you represent the other ("outside that... eh, the whole thing is just silly.") I fall somewhere in between, but tending toward JSWolf - because I do think the optimal experience is gained by reading in publication order. (Obviously this is only optimal if the earlier books don't put you off wanting to read more when there is better ahead.)
But that opinion requires a small elaboration: I am one of those obsessive people that tend to read most authors' works in publication order, if I can, even when the books aren't in even a loose series. I may relax that on re-reads, skipping books I don't enjoy so much, but otherwise I like to follow each author's progress as a writer.
When books are in a loose series, it is not "silly" to read in publication order. Pedantic, maybe. Silly, no. There is a limit to the amount of back-filling it is practical to do in a book, so the writer gives enough so that you don't feel lost, but it is far from the full picture. Many of the Pratchett books make this clear, but one of the most obvious is
Monstrous Regiment, where missing the city watch books, and
The Truth, from your reading will leave you with a much shallower view of many characters. Is it crucial that you've read the previous? No, the characters in question aren't central to the story. But is it better? Yes, I definitely think it is.