making the 2nd or later book in a series free

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by DNSB

As an example, Lois McMaster Bujold's Falling Free was serialized in Analog magazine (Dec. 1987 to Feb. 1988) while it is part of her Vorkosigan Saga series since it shares the same fictional universe and the quaddies made appearances in other Vorkosigan Saga stories.

Also quite a good example of a book that does not need to be read with the rest of the series. Some people insist on starting with this one because it is the first in the chronology, but it is very tangential to the Vorkosigan saga and not very representative. And there is nothing in it that you need to know. Maybe better to regard its place in the wider series as an Easter Egg.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Yes, many SF & F series are really serials. A serial absolutely needs read / listened/watched in order.

Sometimes I can glide past this. Tonight, for whatever reason, I just can't do it. The sentence "A serial absolutely needs read / listened/watched in order" is missing the "to be". I only started seeing this in general use about 10 years ago...I'm not sure exactly why people think that it's ok to do this, but it's very jarring to me. If I notice it being used in a book that I'm reading it's one of the few things that will cause me to put a book to the side and leave it unfinished...especially if the story isn't keeping me occupied.

Quoth, I don't want you to think that I'm singling you out with this, it just happened to be your sentence that pushed me over the edge tonight.

Shari (full time reader, part time grammar nazi)

[shalym]

Now that I've done my strange little grammar rant, I guess I should weigh in on the subject of the thread.

I've read a lot of book series. For most of them, order means nothing. For some, it's somewhat important, but not essential. For a few, reading out of order can change your conception of the over-arching series completely. Jack L. Chalker's Well of Souls series was like that for me--I started in the middle, and thought it was ok. Then I found the first one a few years later and realized that the book I read had backstory. I then read the books in order and was much happier with all of them, including the first that I had read and thought was just "ok".

Shari

[Hellmark]

Personally strikes me as odd. I don't like starting out part way into a series. I accidentally did that with the Earthsea series, because I had got a copy of Tehanu. Been almost 30 years, and it still bums me out. If the freebie is the first book, I'll check it out, but if I have to pay for the first book, I'll skip the series entirely unless I had already planned on buying the first book before finding out about the sequel being free.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

But some or many prequels are meant to be and are best read later, not at all in internal story chronological order. See Narnia & Recluce serieses.

Narnia is a different story. The first book in chronological order was supposed to be the first book. But because it wasn't good enough, it was moved to another spot in the series.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Narnia is a different story. The first book in chronological order was supposed to be the first book. But because it wasn't good enough, it was moved to another spot in the series.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't written till much later and it has retcons. It's meant to be read as the penultimate. It even has references to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, which was the first, before he even decided to do a series. There are surviving comments by the "Inklings". Also clarifies some things so that "The Last Battle" has some consistency with the series.

See also Prince Caspian and the Silver Chair which predate it and where the White Witch is "still" a local witch from the North. The idea of the White witch being Queen Jadis from Charn is late.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Narnia is a different story. The first book in chronological order was supposed to be the first book. But because it wasn't good enough, it was moved to another spot in the series.

From what I've read, the first book (The Magician's Nephew) chronologically was written 4 years after the second book (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) (1954 vs 9150). Several of the other books in the series were published in a different order to the one in which they were written. From the notes I made the last time The Chronicles of Narnia were discussed, this is the order in which the books were written.

• The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe (written in 1949, published 1950)
  The LeFay Fragment (written in 1949 immediately after TLTWATW but not published until 1979) Several of the characters and scenes are familiar from his later books. More of an outline than a book.
  Prince Caspian (written in 1949, published 1951)
  The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (written in 1950, published 1952)
  The Horse And His Boy (written in 1950, but published as #5 in 1954)
  The Silver Chair (written in 1951, but published #4 in 1953)
  The Last Battle (written in 1953, but published last in 1956)
  The Magician’s Nephew (written in 1954, but published #6 in 1955)

I included The LeFay Fragment which was intended to be the prequel to TLTWATW but not published until found by his secretary, Walter Hooper and published in Past Watchful Dragons in 1979.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DNSB

From what I've read, the first book (The Magician's Nephew) chronologically was written 4 years after the second book (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) (1954 vs 9150). Several of the other books in the series were published in a different order to the one in which they were written. From the notes I made the last time The Chronicles of Narnia were discussed, this is the order in which the books were written.

• The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe (written in 1949, published 1950)
  The LeFay Fragment (written in 1949 immediately after TLTWATW but not published until 1979) Several of the characters and scenes are familiar from his later books. More of an outline than a book.
  Prince Caspian (written in 1949, published 1951)
  The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (written in 1950, published 1952)
  The Horse And His Boy (written in 1950, but published as #5 in 1954)
  The Silver Chair (written in 1951, but published #4 in 1953)
  The Last Battle (written in 1953, but published last in 1956)
  The Magician’s Nephew (written in 1954, but published #6 in 1955)

I included The LeFay Fragment which was intended to be the prequel to TLTWATW but not published until found by his secretary, Walter Hooper and published in Past Watchful Dragons in 1979.

C. S. Lewis felt that The Magician’s Nephew should be read first.

[Byrdie]

Encountered an interesting variation on this "second book free but not the first" in a series today. Books 1, 2 and 4 -- which is the finale -- of Miles & Kieran, an MM mystery/romance, are all free. But Book 3 is not, at the moment it costs $9.49 (plus tax) Canadian. One would think they'd have instead kept the series finale at full price because hey, gotta know how it all ends, right? Luckily it is Kindle Unlimited so I can borrow Book 3 after reading the first two, which must be done in order because of catch-the-serial-killer plotline. Who knows, maybe some day that one will also end up a freebie? Or at least go on sale. Not complaining, just remarking on the oddity. Would make more sense if the book was new, but it's not. Go figure!

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

C. S. Lewis felt that The Magician’s Nephew should be read first.

Except that it has spoilers and retcons for books written earlier. For example, the origin of the White Witch as Queen Jadis of Charn, speaker of the Deplorable Word while in the earlier Narnia books, she was a "native" of Narnia.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

C. S. Lewis felt that The Magician’s Nephew should be read first.

No, you are taking a reply letter to a young person out of context. He said he wasn't going to dictate to people what order they should read, and it could be be read in internal chronological order after the first read.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Except that it has spoilers and retcons for books written earlier. For example, the origin of the White Witch as Queen Jadis of Charn, speaker of the Deplorable Word while in the earlier Narnia books, she was a "native" of Narnia.

And the Professor's comments to the children in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe lose impact if you already know he is Digory. I think Digory and Polly are only by name in the Magician's Nephew and the Last Battle.

Recluse

Spoiler:

Similarly the Recluse books have an internal chronology, but it would spoil the first to know about the crash landed spacecraft and other things.

[DiapDealer]

I don't take any advice/opinions about the reading order of a series. Not publishers, not other readers, and not even authors. For me, no order other than published order exists.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

and not even authors.

Especially not even authors. Once an author has published a book, they need to let it go. They've had their say; done. I particularly am not interested in regrets or comments that purport to add to canon. Obviously, and unfortunately, they can do this sort of thing in subsequent publications and it does become part of canon, but I hold it against them if it's not organic. No retcons, thankyouverymuch.

But I think other readers' comments can be useful in terms of approach, especially to a long series, assuming you've identified them as sources whose tastes and opinions tend to align with your own.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

No, you are taking a reply letter to a young person out of context. He said he wasn't going to dictate to people what order they should read, and it could be be read in internal chronological order after the first read.

I never said Lewis was dictating the order. Just his opinion.