making the 2nd or later book in a series free

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by theducks

Talk about painting with a Garden Sprayer

I will say that SOME books are better with knowing the back story, but only serialized books tend to not hold their own.

More than once, I have come into a Series 'in the middle' and later went and back filled (yep, there were spoilers in what I read, but it was still enjoyable. Just as a re-read of a series book is )

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

If people argue about series order then it's a sign they can be read out of order or even standalone.

Narnia and JamesIII/Wolves (Joan Aiken) have a an original publication order. Both have an Author's order (Lewis held back at least one book to make publication order be that). Aiken's series was written & published madly out of order (1962 to 2005). In both cases you can read any of the books first, though some are better. Aiken's order matches internal chronology and Lewis's is original publish order. The publishers have renumbered in internal order, but the Magician's Nephew does have some spoilers so should be penultimate and not first. However it still "works". Neither series are serials.

See also Recluse series by L.E. Modesitt, which is all over the place. It's not a serial, but the Spellsong Cycle is closer to a serial and need read in order though each is a complete story. Wheel of Time is obviously a serial and many of the books "hang".

Most detective or mystery series can be read out of order even if a bit "nicer" to read in order. Mary Burchell unusually has some romances that are a series and need read in order. Romances are rarely a series.

Some Zane Grey Westerns are sequels, but can be read out of order.

[DrNefario]

It's always bugged me that the "official" order for Poirot has The Murder of Roger Ackroyd before The Big Four, even though the end of The Big Four ("I'm going to retire to the country and grow marrows") marries up perfectly with the start of Roger Ackroyd (Poirot is attempting to grow marrows in the country).

This happened because The Big Four was serialized before Roger Ackroyd and then collected and published as a book afterwards.

To be honest, though, I'd probably recommend skipping The Big Four altogether. And that tiny bit of continuity doesn't really add anything to either book.

There are plenty of series I've discovered with a random out-of-order book. I will usually revert to a "proper" order once I've decided to read the whole lot, but even then it could be chronological or it could be publication order, if they're different. And then more books, might come out later at different points in the timeline (eg. Sharpe).

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

There are plenty of series I've discovered with a random out-of-order book. I will usually revert to a "proper" order once I've decided to read the whole lot, but even then it could be chronological or it could be publication order, if they're different. And then more books, might come out later at different points in the timeline (eg. Sharpe).

There's no perfect solution to the Sharpe conundrum. Read them in publication order and you miss the sweep of the history of the Peninsular War; also the first published book, as with so many series, isn't all that good and best postponed until you're hooked. But read them in chronological order and too much that happens in the earlier books is conditioned by what has already happened and of course some of it is flatly contradictory.

Going back to Christie, a lot of golden age series are marked by dud first books. Much better to start Sayers with Clouds of Witness and Allingham with Mystery Mile.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by issybird

…

Going back to Christie, a lot of golden age series are marked by dud first books. Much better to start Sayers with Clouds of Witness and Allingham with Mystery Mile.

Yes. Though many books, but not all, by Sayers & Allingham can be read out-of order. There are a few Campion stories that make sense to read in order because of recurring characters and changing relationships. Same with Ngaio Marsh. Most of Hammond Innes, Nevil Shute, Alistair Maclean, Georges Simeon and Helen MacInnes can be read in any order, but John le Carré and Len Deighton not only have series but recurring developing characters and passage of historical events. IMO mostly the order isn't important with Simon Templar/The Saint and James Bond.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've read enough detective/cop/lawyer/secret agent where they do talk of previous cases in previous books. So that would be a spoiler for sure.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Even if the mystery/crime might be standalone, the background stuff is not and that to me makes it not standalone.

Read Raymond Chandler. All of his novels feature Philip Marlowe, but there is no continuity between the books. Marlowe is a bit of a cypher. We never see him doing anything other than working on the case at hand. There are no side characters other than Bernie Ohls, a police detective he is friendly with. And he only shows occasionally with no continuity from story to story.

[JBaby]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I've almost never read a series out of order. Maybe once or twice in my life, and that includes my paper book days. I don't care if the individual books are standalones or not. I'd rather not read at all than read out of order, and I thought so even back when books weren't as instantly available as they are now. I remember abandoning paper books when I realized they were not the first book in the series, and it happened more than once that I never managed to acquire the first book; I still refused to read the second/third/fourth book without reading the first.

But I realize most people aren't that anal about series order.

I most definitely am! When I buy book bundles and find out there’s a prequel that’s not included I will go and buy prequel. I will not read any books out of order.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JBaby

I most definitely am! When I buy book bundles and find out there’s a prequel that’s not included I will go and buy prequel. I will not read any books out of order.

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.

[Sirtel]

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.

I usually don't bother with prequels to the main series at all, except for a few cases. I did read the Narnia series in the published order, not according to the internal chronology.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Murder mysteries and thrillers, with a separate story in each book, yes (although personally I never read even those out of order); in fantasy and (to a lesser extent) science fiction, where most series have a continuous story, not so much.

And that's the difference that @theducks talked about: series vs. serial

Most series are not highly serialized for important plot points.

I would also argue that many recent science fiction and fantasy "series" are in reality a story that could have been told well in one long-ish book, but expanded to 5 to make more money.

[JBaby]

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.

That’s why you look up the reading order first. When a consensus can’t be reached I read in publication order. But the vast majority of the books I read the prequels should be read before book one.

Originally Posted by nabsltd

And that's the difference that @theducks talked about: series vs. serial



Most series are not highly serialized for important plot points.



I would also argue that many recent science fiction and fantasy "series" are in reality a story that could have been told well in one long-ish book, but expanded to 5 to make more money.

This is especially true for indie books in KU imo.

[nabsltd]

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.

And then there's Patriot Games, which completely and entirely the first book in the series (not a prequel) and yet was published after The Hunt for Red October.

Clancy needed to explain why Jack Ryan ended up where he was in Red October and couldn't come up with anything. So, he paused writing the book and wrote a detailed outline (that essentially only lacked dialog) of what eventually became Patriot Games.

This resulted in Ryan being treated with great respect by the crew of the HMS Invincible with no detailed explanation as to why that should be. Simply put, it was because Red October was a sequel, and you needed to read the other book first to know the details.

Clancy did it again in Without Remorse. After you read it, you realize why John Clark treated Jack Ryan the way he did in previously published books in the series. Clancy had the backstory (with Clark and Ryan's father meeting when Ryan was young) written and planned out long before Without Remorse was published, and it shows.

Despite all this, you can read the prequels in either publication or "world cronology" order and they work fine.

For an example where a prequel really has to be consumed in publication order, the movie Captain Marvel is the perfect example. Without knowing character details about Fury and Coulson that are revealed in later chronological works, the movie falls flat.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

And that's the difference that @theducks talked about: series vs. serial

Yeah, but no one calls them serials. You don't say "that Game of Thrones serial", for example. People only say serials when the individual episodes are very short, like a short story length.

Series is what most of them are called, whether the individual books are stand-alone or continuous.

[DNSB]

For me, a serial is a single book broken up in multiple chunks (I have very fond memories of reading quite a few books in Analog and other SF&F magazines published that way) whereas a series is a collection of related books.

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.

[theducks]

I was also thinkin of all the Serials I read in Analog.
Pern, Dune .... Each started with a synopsis of what went before.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by theducks

I was also thinkin of all the Serials I read in Analog.
Pern, Dune .... Each started with a synopsis of what went before.

Well, with a month in between, it was easier to forget.