Quote:
Originally Posted by 4691mls
The point I was trying to make is maybe there are some readers (obviously you are not one of them) who care only if the mystery in the current book stands alone, and don't care whether they are skipping back and forth in the character's personal timeline/development. I don't recall in the Bosch series that there is much if any reference to previous cases. Admittedly it's been a while since I read the earlier books in the series so I may have forgotten something.
Of course this is not true for all series. The Kellerman Decker/Lazarus series, for example, has a criminal character who recurs in several books and if you read one of the later books first, you would be spoiled for the outcome of the first case he was involved in. I would definitely recommend reading this series in order.
|
The thing is, you don't know if you will be spoiled or not if you read out of order and once you are spoiled, you cannot be unspoiled. So when someone says a book in a series is standalone, I don't believe it because if I was to believe it and I did get spoiled, I would not be happy. So it's just easier to read in order. That way I don't get spoiled. I know what some thing is standalone I would think not and that's OK. Just don't try to convince me because I'll think you're wrong and I would be correct.
