Anyone dislike series?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think there's a difference, too. But unfortunately, one reader's "winking reference" might often be another's "requirement." The problem lies in the fact that people use their own sense of "you don't really need to read X before Y" when conversing with others. It's understandable to do so, but ultimately not all that helpful (or transferable) to another reader. A more helpful statement would be something like, "I read Y without reading X. And while I didn't feel I was missing out on anything relevant by doing so, both books are part of a shared universe, so your mileage may vary."

I absolutely love Easter Eggs, inside jokes, winking references, and all the subtle things that can occur with even the most tenuous of connections between an author's various books (when read in such an order that those things reveal themselves in a chronologically "correct" manner). I would be saddened to find out that I missed out on any of those things by not knowing that the books were loosely connected (or part of a shared universe) in the first place, and starting with the wrong (wrong for me) book.

While the Easter egg s, etc. are interesting, I wouldn't feel compelled to start with the earliest possible book just for those. As long as I avoid spoilers for major events I am ok. I do hate when book synopses lead with those.

I have had a few spoilers while scrolling through books on a store or library trying to find the next book in a series. Things like "now married and expecting a child, Character X has started a new job working for _____. I wish they would have a "sort in series order" option. Sort by release date on Overdrive doesn't always work - I guess they go by release date of the ebook edition, which is not always in series order, especially for series that started long before ebooks became common.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I absolutely love Easter Eggs, inside jokes, winking references, and all the subtle things that can occur with even the most tenuous of connections between an author's various books (when read in such an order that those things reveal themselves in a chronologically "correct" manner). I would be saddened to find out that I missed out on any of those things by not knowing that the books were loosely connected (or part of a shared universe) in the first place, and starting with the wrong (wrong for me) book.

Whatever gets you through the night, it's all right.

As for me, I just can't imagine feeling anything negative when reading Misery, Annie makes a reference to the Overlook hotel. As the last few pages of this thread shows, YMMV.

Regardless, if someone were about to read Misery as their first SK book (as my co-worker is planning to do) it would never occur to me to tell them they really need to read The Shining first.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

As for Christopher Moore, I have several of his early books. I read Bloodsucking Fiends and I just didn't get much out of it. Maybe I'm just too dour.

You obviously did not work in a grocery store and practice turkey bowling.
Apache

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Apache

You obviously did not work in a grocery store and practice turkey bowling.
Apache

Yeah, it was okay. I do remember bits and pieces like that. I guess it's just that the book was lightly amusing. Like a Reader's Digest humor section. Beyond that it never captured me.

I do like some humorists. I love Jean Shepherd. I enjoy Garrison Keillor (who could also fairly be described as lightly amusing).

I'm clearly wrong, as Christopher Moore has many fans and his books have all been licensed for films. I can admit that on this one I just missed the boat.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Regardless, if someone were about to read Misery as their first SK book (as my co-worker is planning to do) it would never occur to me to tell them they really need to read The Shining first.

And no one has suggested you should (or that they should). But knowing (now) that there are people to whom those kinds of references/connections are more than just trivial, what harm in mentioning to your co-worker that there are such shared-universe connections/winks in many of King's works (since you seem to be aware of them) so they can decide for themselves how they might best proceed?

I'm not about telling anybody else how to read anything. I'm about giving others the knowledge they might need to read in a way that best suits them. And it costs me nothing to give them that opportunity.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And no one has suggested you should (or that they should). But knowing (now) that there are people to whom those kinds of references/connections are more than just trivial, what harm in mentioning to your co-worker that there are such shared-universe connections/winks in many of King's works (since you seem to be aware of them) so they can decide for themselves how they might best proceed?

The harm I guess is that it makes what is an easy, enjoyable and thrilling read seem dense, impenetrable and (given King's vast catalog) overwhelming.

Also, it is to me an unnecessary bit of information that has no impact on the enjoyment of the book being discussed.

(Incidentally, the coworker mentioned is going in for surgery and will be bed-ridden for six weeks. That's what made me think of Misery. She hasn't read any King and she's young enough she's never seen the movie. She has no clue what the book is about.

I told her just pick it up and read it. My recommendation is either inspired or cruel.)

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And no one has suggested you should (or that they should). But knowing (now) that there are people to whom those kinds of references/connections are more than just trivial, what harm in mentioning to your co-worker that there are such shared-universe connections/winks in many of King's works (since you seem to be aware of them) so they can decide for themselves how they might best proceed?

Feeling the way you feel, would we have all been better off if the first Star Wars movie was The Phantom Menace?

If you knew someone who had never seen any of the movies, would you honestly recommend they start there?

Do they now have to watch the prequel trilogy and Rogue One prior to watching the good one? Indeed, should they hold off on episodes 4-onward until we see the Han Solo and Boba Fett movies that are in the works?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

The harm I guess is that it makes what is an easy, enjoyable and thrilling read seem dense, impenetrable and (given King's vast catalog) overwhelming.

To you. But we're not talking about you reading it. We're talking about what info you would offer others who were thinking about reading it.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Also, it is to me an unnecessary bit of information that has no impact on the enjoyment of the book being discussed.

Not beat a dead horse or anything, but again, we're not talking about you being the reader. We're talking about you helping other readers when making recommendations about connected works. When it comes to recommending things, I'm afraid you're no expert on what is necessary/unnecessary or what the "impact on enjoyment" is for anybody but yourself. Same goes for me.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Feeling the way you feel, would we have all been better off if the first Star Wars movie was The Phantom Menace?

If you knew someone who had never seen any of the movies, would you honestly recommend they start there?

Do they now have to watch the prequel trilogy and Rogue One prior to watching the good one? Indeed, should they hold off on episodes 4-onward until we see the Han Solo and Boba Fett movies that are in the works?

Well, I wouldn't recommend starting with Return of the Jedi.....but to your point I wouldn't advise starting with Episode I. I think you'd miss some of the mystery and wonder of Luke's experience.

I always recommend reading (or viewing) a series in publication order. For example, Katherine Kurtz's Deryni series jumps back and forth over a 200+ year time period. The second trilogy takes place 200 years before the first one, and she more or less alternates time periods with each trilogy. To anyone reading them for the first time, I recommend the publication order....but now that I know the story I tend to reread them in chronological order.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Feeling the way you feel, would we have all been better off if the first Star Wars movie was The Phantom Menace?

If you knew someone who had never seen any of the movies, would you honestly recommend they start there?

God no! Where did you get that idea? There is no order but published/released order for me. Prequels wouldn't change the order I would recommend things be read (or watched in) one little bit. But in the case of your Star Wars scenario, I wouldn't hesitate to let a newcomer know that several schools of thought exist about what the "best" order to watch them in is (even if I don't agree with them). Then they can decide how best to proceed for themselves.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not beat a dead horse or anything, but again, we're not talking about you being the reader. We're talking about you helping other readers when making recommendations about connected works. When it comes to recommending things, I'm afraid you're no expert on what is necessary/unnecessary or what the "impact on enjoyment" is for anybody but yourself. Same goes for me.

No, but we are talking about me being the talker/suggester. I'm just telling you what I would (and have) done. And honestly a nice chat on a message board isn't going to change who I am as a person.

Tell you what though, if she storms in next year and tells me now that she has read Misery she can't read The Shining and I'm a big jerk, I'll reconsider my perspective

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

God no! Where did you get that idea? There is no order but published/released order for me. Prequels wouldn't change the order I would recommend things be read (or watched in) one little bit. But in the case of your Star Wars scenario, I wouldn't hesitate to let a newcomer know that several schools of thought exist about what the "best" order to watch them in is (even if I don't agree with them). Then they can decide how best to proceed for themselves.

Yes, but in the first Star Wars movie (the good one) we learn that Ben Kenobi is actually General Obi-Wan Kenobi, hero of the Clone Wars. We also learn that the last vestiges of the Galactic Republic have been swept away and the Empire won. Geeze Lucas! Spoilers! Why bother watching Attack of the Clones now?

BTW: Best way to watch the Star Wars movies (to me)? Watch the first one and then fall asleep.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

The harm I guess is that it makes what is an easy, enjoyable and thrilling read seem dense, impenetrable and (given King's vast catalog) overwhelming.

Also, it is to me an unnecessary bit of information that has no impact on the enjoyment of the book being discussed.

(Incidentally, the coworker mentioned is going in for surgery and will be bed-ridden for six weeks. That's what made me think of Misery. She hasn't read any King and she's young enough she's never seen the movie. She has no clue what the book is about.

I told her just pick it up and read it. My recommendation is either inspired or cruel.)

My vote is cruel.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

My vote is cruel.

I'll take that

[DiapDealer]

I believe I'm done here. I'm obviously not going to change your mind (and maybe nobody else's, either), but if this discussion makes even just one other person think twice before they answer another readers question of, "do I need to read author X's books in any particular order?", then my goal has been accomplished.

For the record, if I've read the books and I'm aware of any connections between them whatsoever, my initial answer to that question is going to be, "I don't know. What sort of things are important to you when you read?"