Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
My only question is, "better why?"
What, specifically, appeals to people about a particular chronology (different than the original publication chronology I mean, of course). Is it merely an OCD-type sense-of-linear-order issue, or is there something else in play?
Does the chronology aspect only come into play with multiple books, or would those who seem to prefer a strict one-way linear chronology like it better if the chapters of individual books were ordered chronologically as well?
Inquiring minds want to know. And I find the topic truly fascinating. 
I run into people whose preferences run counter to my own all the time, but rarely do I encounter ones that I find so utterly foreign and incomprehensible to me. I truly can't seem to get my head around why some would derive a greater sense of satisfaction from books being rearranged into a linear chronology.
The only thing I've been able to figure out is that it must appeal to a general sense of "Hoyle" or something. A Robert's Rules of Order or parliamentarian/presbyterian gene that some have and some don't, or something.
Apologies for the lengthy rambling. Yes beer was involved.  |
It makes more sense if you consider a series to be a very long book. I've read books that skip around chronologically, but the vast majority tend to be linear.
Most series that I prefer publishing order involve books that can be read stand alone and only really have a common framework and characters, rather than use an on going plot line. For example, I first read the Hornblower series in chronological order rather than publishing order. On the other hand, the Bond books can be read in just about any order. Cook's Garrett, PI series doesn't really need to be read in a particular order, though there are some things that carry from book to book.