Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB
I've read quite a few series where the author has given a suggested reading order which is chronological. Nothing like realizing that book 1 in a series was a 300 page spoiler for the next 6 books.
|
That's one of the reasons I stick to published order. Even if the author recommends an alternate order, I don't want to have to do a ton of research to find out if it's truly viable from a "reveal" standpoint. That, and the fact that the whole idea of "prequel" is rendered completely meaningless when slotted in chronologically. Too often (as you discovered), a prequel read first is nothing but a massive spoiler for the rest.
A reread, I can understand experimenting with (though it's still not something I tend to do), but if I've not read them, it's published order or nothing. I doesn't matter one bit to me if the series is completely published before I start it or not.
I'm a huge fan of stories that jump back and forth between different timelines (if done well). Whether that story happens between two covers or twenty doesn't change that. There's a delicious tension and release aspect to them that cannot be duplicated in a narrative with a completely linear timeline. I guess the urge to "chronological-ize" a story (or series of stories) is something I must have been born without. In my opinion, there is simply no benefit to doing it. It's all risk for zero reward. *shrug*
EDIT: I'm not judging, by the way (for those who enjoy the practice). It's just something I don't
get. And am unlikely to
ever get it. The desire to rearrange how a story was originally told/written is just complete foreign to me. It's akin to reading the last page before going back and starting the book. *shrug*