1636 which to read first

[bfisher]

Is there any preferred reading order for 1636 Commander Cantrell and 1636 Seas of Fortune?

[crich70]

I don't know as I've never read either but Wikipedia lists them in the following order.

1636: Seas of Fortune
1636: Commander Cantrell in the West Indies

[bfisher]

That's the publication order, but the 1632 books are multithreaded, and publication order doesn't always follow internal chronology. Eric Flint used to maintain a list of suggested reading order, but he hasn't updated that since 2012.

[BaenSidhe]

I don't think it matters too much, but I believe Cantrell references people and events from Seas of Fortune. I recommend reading it in publication order.

[bfisher]

Originally Posted by BaenSidhe

I don't think it matters too much, but I believe Cantrell references people and events from Seas of Fortune. I recommend reading it in publication order.

Thanks.

[twowheels]

I've always preferred to read books in publication order. Are there any series where this would be a truly bad idea?

[bfisher]

It's never a bad idea if you enjoy the books.

Publication order doesn't always reflect inner chronology. For example, the first Horatio Hornblower book was mid-career for Hornblower, and the books covering his earlier career were published much later. I came to the party very late, and read the books by the internal chronology.

Likewise, publication order in the Liaden books doesn't match inner chronology. Reading order for those is a matter of choice (lots of debate about that ), but it's probably a good idea to at least follow the order for the particular thread you start with.

My understanding is that 1636 seas of Fortune and 1636 Commander Cantrell, are in separate threads, but there might be something in the later publication that implies knowledge of the earlier publication.

Eric Flint has published a suggested reading order for the 1632 universe, but there doesn't seem to be a recent version:

http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/1...reading-order/

[twowheels]

I guess my view was that the author made certain assumptions as they wrote the books. Maybe they were working on them all simultaneously, but it seems that even prequels often give spoilers to things the reader "already knows so it's OK", and also make assumptions about what the reader "already knows, so I don't have to say it again".

[BenG]

And sometimes later books including prequels are not as good as the first books. I read in publication order to learn why the books were popular enough to earn sequels.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by bfisher

That's the publication order, but the 1632 books are multithreaded, and publication order doesn't always follow internal chronology. Eric Flint used to maintain a list of suggested reading order, but he hasn't updated that since 2012.

Since any books after the 1st in a series usually reference those that came before I'd think publication order would make some sense.

[Geralt]

General rule of thumb is, when in doubt read in publication order. Looking for internal chronology can be..well, taxing effort. Why bother, unless it's a re-read?

[ShellShock]

Just to be different, I have read the following series in internal chonology: Sharpe, Hornblower, Aubrey-Maturin, and Flashman. I think Sharpe especially benefited from this. It was quite amusing too to see in the later books that the various authors realised that they were fast running out of historical time in which to cram more and more story. Patrick O'Brian struggled a lot with this. The first published Aubrey-Maturin books covered several years, but towards the end of the series he was eeking the time out so much like a chronological miser, that one year I think had 18 months in it. Still my favourite series.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Geralt

General rule of thumb is, when in doubt read in publication order. Looking for internal chronology can be..well, taxing effort. Why bother, unless it's a re-read?

If that were your only reason then by rights you should just read whichever, whenever.

I usually find the series makes more sense when events are structured the way they really happpened.

YMMV -- except no, wait. You specifically have no reason whatesoever (that seems to be the point) and therefore you are irrelevant.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If that were your only reason then by rights you should just read whichever, whenever.

I usually find the series makes more sense when events are structured the way they really happpened.

YMMV -- except no, wait. You specifically have no reason whatesoever (that seems to be the point) and therefore you are irrelevant.

Go bait somebody else eschwartz, I'm not biting.
No wait, if you wanna argue with someone go find your wife or something.

[Xanthe]

Catherine Asaro's Skolian Empire Saga is another one that was written out of sequence, so reading in publication order might not be the best way to approach that series. The second book published "Catch the Lightning" should be the last book read.