Series order

[CRussel]

Published order the first time. If the series merits a re-read, then I'm likely to try for chronological order, since I don't need to worry about spoilers in either direction.

[issybird]

I ordinarily would read only published order, but then I made an exception for a special case. Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series set in the Napoleonic Wars (with a three-book prequel) were written out of chronological order and it's strongly recommended that readers take them in the order of events. I had to admit there was some justification in that to get the grand sweep of the Peninsular War in particular; I even asked here before starting them and was unanimously told that the chronology was the thing.

Unfortunately, I think in this case there was no good answer or, alternatively, each method had its drawbacks. I mentioned above getting much more out of historical aspect of the books when you could follow Wellington's army from Portugal through Spain. But it's undeniable that the back story changes and it also means a high level of mortality for the love interest (there's always a love interest) in the books set earlier but written later. I suppose a side benefit to the chronological order is that the first few published books weren't all that good and I might not have persevered had I started with them, but I was hooked by the time I got to them in the chronology.

[Apache]

The Sharpe Series was one in particular that I was thinking of when I made my last post. I have read the series at least four times over the years and, except for the first time, have always read the series in chronological order.

So far the Last Kingdom Series is written in chronological order. And I noticed that book eleven in the series (War of the Wolf) is due out October 2, 2018.
Apache

[DNSB]

When my daughter was much younger, she read The Chronicles of Narnia. The set she was given had the books in more or less publication order. When she re-read them, she read them in chronological order which, in her opinion, was a better order in which to read them.

Original publication			Internal chronological
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe 	The Magician's Nephew
Prince Caspian				The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader		The Horse and His Boy
The Silver Chair			Prince Caspian
The Horse and His Boy			The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Magician's Nephew			The Silver Chair
The Last Battle				The Last Battle

[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.

[pwalker8]

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.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

It might make more sense with respect to your personal preferences, but I can assure you that the books I tend to read--series or no--feature non-linear narratives quite regularly. It's a narrative technique that I seek out. Hence my confusion as to why others would desire to cancel out its effect altogether.

[DNSB]

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.

For me, chronological order simply fits my preferences especially when re-reading a series. Some jumping around inside a single book is acceptable when it drives the storyline though I do begin to wonder when 80% of a book consists of flashbacks and/or flashforwards. I also find I don't prefer some of the spoilers intrinsic in reading a book when I have already read a book set in the future of that book. I have unfond memories of one series where a fairly major character in the first book in the series timeline had their death mentioned in the first chapters of the first published but third chronologically in the series. I admit it was a heroic death in the second chronological, fourth in publication order book in the series leading a last stand covering the retreat of the remainder of the survivors but then I already knew that from when his companions drank a toast to his memory.

As for sacredness of publication chronology? To go back to C. S. Lewis and The Chronicles of Narnia, The Magician's Nephew was the last book written but the second to last to be published. Then there is The Horse and His Boy where again, the published and written order were not the same. So which order should I read them in? Written? Published? Or the suggested chronological? Simply admit there is nothing sacred about any order?

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Apologies for the lengthy rambling. Yes beer was involved.

In vino veritas Now I want to dig out Ramblin' Boy by Tom Paxton.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Simply admit there is nothing sacred about any order?

Yeah, that's not very likely.
Perhaps I'd go as far as to say that it's not sacred to some (or maybe even many), but surely it's obvious by now that it's fairly sacred to me, no? And sacred is in the eye of the revere-er after all.

Originally Posted by DNSB

So which order should I read them in? Written? Published? Or the suggested chronological?

In the rare cases where written order does not jive with publication order (and maybe even author suggested order), then we all muddle through as best we can.

Thanks for the reply, by the way.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It might make more sense with respect to your personal preferences, but I can assure you that the books I tend to read--series or no--feature non-linear narratives quite regularly. It's a narrative technique that I seek out. Hence my confusion as to why others would desire to cancel out its effect altogether.

Sigh, I was trying to explain why someone might want to read in chronological order, but have it your own way.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh, I was trying to explain why someone might want to read in chronological order, but have it your own way.

It's not about "having it my way."

You said:

It makes more sense if you consider a series to be a very long book.

I replied "not to me." So discuss (or don't), but please keep your sighs to yourself.

[hildea]

DiapDealer: You probably didn't intend it that way, but your "I can assure you" came across as pretty condescending, so I can understand the sigh.

For myself, I have no strong preferences about reading order. Some series I read as they are published, so publication order is the only option. For others, I'll usually look for recommendations, unless the starting point is obvious. For series which are more or less loosely connected stories in the same world -- like Liaden or Disworld -- I might start in the middle both cronologially and publishing-wise. For Bujold's Vorkosigan saga, I started at what must be the absolute worst place: "Memory", which is closely connected to stuff which happened in the previous book, and packs a lot more punch if you know the characters. (That wasn't my intention, I picked it up while travelling and had no idea that it was part of a series.) I still loved the book, and got the rest as soon as I could find them. (That's another example of publishing order being different from writing order, by the way. Bujold wrote Cordelia's story first, then the first book about Cordelia's son Miles, but sold Miles' book before Cordelia's books.)

When I reread, I can start anywhere, including in the middle of a book. Often, I'll read a favourite scene, and then get drawn in and start at the beginning of that book. There are many series where I've reread a few books many times, and others much more rarely. I don't think I've ever reread a long series (say, more that four books) from beginning to end continously, no matter where you place the beginning.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by hildea

DiapDealer: You probably didn't intend it that way, but your "I can assure you" came across as pretty condescending, so I can understand the sigh.

If so, I apologize. That was not my intention.

I'm a little surprised that anyone would view the phrase "I can assure you" as being condescending in nature, to be truthful, though. I've never encountered that interpretation before. For me, it's merely a way to assert that I'm about to say something I know to be true about myself. That someone would think that "you moron," or "you idiot" could be automatically implied as being appended to the statement never occurred to me. Which is the only way I can see the phrase "I can assure you" being considered inherently condescending in any way.

Thanks for your insight into chronology, though. "I can assure you" that it's appreciated.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If so, I apologize. That was not my intention.

I'm a little surprised that anyone would view the phrase "I can assure you" as being condescending in nature, to be truthful, though. I've never encountered that interpretation before. For me, it's merely a way to assert that I'm about to say something I know to be true about myself. That someone would think that "you moron," or "you idiot" could be automatically implied as being appended to the statement never occurred to me. Which is the only way I can see the phrase "I can assure you" being considered inherently condescending in any way.

Thanks for your insight into chronology, though. "I can assure you" that it's appreciated.

I didn't take it as condescending so much as argumentative. I've already explained why I decide what order I like to read series. I have no desire to defend why someone else might prefer a given order, even if you don't wish to read a series in that order.

[DiapDealer]

I'm not asking anyone to "defend" anything. I genuinely want to understand something that's currently still a bit incomprehensible to me. If your personal preference is publication order (as it seems) then you can't really shed much light on what I'm looking for any way.