Series order

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

The biggest reason for me is sometimes the authors don't flesh out the world completely and leave portions to the reader's imagination but when they write prequels that flesh out those parts and it ruins the continuity/flow of the story for me.

Ah ... see, now that's something I can understand/relate to. I too, prefer more world-hinting from authors, rather than brick-by-brick building. I like doing the heavy-lifting in that regard. While I've never really experienced a prequel (from an author whose world-hinting I enjoy) where they fleshed out too much for my tastes, I have encountered the-one-sequel-too-many syndrome quite often.

That's precisely why I prefer series' that only run to 3 or 4 books at the most (the one-story-spanning-multiple-volumes type of series, anyway). Beyond that, they typically start contradicting, or flat-out ruining (with sequel or prequel), the gaps that I had already filled in with my own imagination (or chose to leave empty). Believe it or not, I often don't want every question definitively answered.

Thanks for this. The "detail too far" effect makes a lot of sense to me.

[Tarana]

I'm not questioning someone's choice after they have read the series. In that case, you may certainly choose whatever order you prefer, since you've already read the series. I believed we were speaking of first time readers of the series.

If a bunch of readers tell me that Sharpe Series is best read in chronological, then I will make note of that - they've read the series. They know if there are spoilers (I hope). In addition, I remember reading a while back that some detective novels were published out of order - an issue with the publisher, not the author's choice.

In some cases, such as the Pern novels, there is a core series. After that, you can read any of the other books in whatever order you want because they are side stories (not specifically relevant to the main series). Same with the Sookie Stackhouse or Dresden series although most of the side stories are novellas, not entire books.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The Black Company may jump around, but I fail to see how published order and chronological order differ. According to https://www.alltimelines.com/black-company/ :


The only discrepancy from this order is in the omnibus edition as ebook Annals of the Black Company where the spin off The Silver Spike comes after The Books of the South and not before.

I fail to see how this example is a good example relevant to the discussion whether to read published vs suggested vs chronological order.

I was unclear, both the Black Company and the Dread Empire are examples where the author jumps around chronologically within the individual books. For example, The White Rose jumps back and forth between three different times. In the Dread Empire, Cook jumps around a lot chronologically.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Bad advice, in my opinion. You talk (or argue, or feedback) while the conversation is fresh and everyone is present and engaged. I don't know about you, but I don't have weeks to invest in individual stop and go conversations. Especially with relative strangers.


You're quite free to point out where I've suggested anyone else has to experience it "my way." I'm not looking to "win," here. So why are you fighting?

As you have so aptly demonstrated, people who prefer to argue rarely process what the other person is actually saying, thus it is better listen and try to understand what point the other person is making. It's called active listening. If you tried it, then perhaps the reason why others might not want to read the same way you do wouldn't still be incomprehensible.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you tried it, then perhaps the reason why others might not want to read the same way you do wouldn't still be incomprehensible.

I'm already learning why from others in this thread--without your peace-keeping technique that I'm not interested at all in employing. Please leave me alone if you don't want to talk about the topic at hand.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I very rarely give out whole book "mulligans" in a multi-book series--whether early, middle or late.

Please elaborate. I understand the words mostly, but together they mean nothing to me. I believe it is me missing the whole point of regular use of "mulligan" and then your use of it requiring quotation marks. I assume you are trying to use it jokingly?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DNSB

For me, one of the joys in life is re-reading a book.

And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Everybody enjoys things differently.

Wilde could certainly pontificate, couldn't he?

“If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading it at all.”
― Oscar Wilde

There's nothing wrong with re-reading. But then there's nothing wrong with not re-reading either. Statements like Wilde's are just pompous and condescending to me. And I find it hard to get past his pedophilia and give him any respect at all.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Please elaborate. I understand the words mostly, but together they mean nothing to me. I believe it is me missing the whole point of regular use of "mulligan" and then your use of it requiring quotation marks. I assume you are trying to use it jokingly?

Yes. I'm using it jokingly. A golf term applied to reading. The notion that someone deserves a pass, or a do-over on a particularly bad shot.

if you release a book in series that does absolutely nothing for me, the books I have enjoyed in the series will not make up for it. Nor will the promise of "it gets better" prompt me to continue if it happens to be the first book.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I agree with that. Generally I would still prefer the published order. I once started to read the Hornblower books in chronological order (not knowing the published order was different) and the first book left me pretty cold. The series is still languishing in my TBR pile. It would perhaps have been different if I had read in publication order. I mean I just didn't care about Hornblower when I read about his beginning. He didn't seem a particularly attractive or interesting character. OTOH, if I had read about his youth when I already knew and appreciated him, I would possibly have felt differently.

I had a similar reaction to the first Hornblower book in the chronology, Mr. Midshipman Hornblower, and I haven't gone back yet, although I intend to. On the other hand, I thought the first published Sharpe book (and even more so the second) were pretty tedious, but reading in chronological order I was able to go on after that, as I was already hooked.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It (based on real events) honestly wouldn't have any effect on my personal published order policy. With no indepth knowledge of the real historical events, I wouldn't be able to trust fact from fiction anyway (not that THAT is a deterrent to me reading such material in the first place), so the "real" chronology wouldn't be issue for me. HAVING indepth knowledge of the real historical events would mean I already know the actual chronology. So events presented in a non-linear fashion for narrative effect wouldn't bother me there either.

I agree with this in theory; in regard to the Sharpe books which I know I keep bringing up, my knowledge of the Peninsular Wars was pretty sketchy going in and there was an advantage to taking the books in historical order in terms of understanding the grand sweep, and not jumping all around Iberia.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Maybe, just maybe, that book wasn't all that good then if it depends on other books in the series to be enjoyable. IMHO, each and every book in a series should meet minimum requirements including being so enjoyable and grabbing as to want to continue on.

Again, I agree with this in theory; I think the crux is the "minimum requirements." Most series are uneven and they virtually all go downhill eventually. I have found in the past (less so now) that I have a tendency to keep reading for at least a couple of books past having any real interest in a series any more.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's precisely why I prefer series' that only run to 3 or 4 books at the most (the one-story-spanning-multiple-volumes type of series, anyway). Beyond that, they typically start contradicting, or flat-out ruining (with sequel or prequel), the gaps that I had already filled in with my own imagination (or chose to leave empty). Believe it or not, I often don't want every question definitively answered.

I agree that three or four books should be the natural limit of any series. In addition to the discontinuities which become legion, the authors tend IMO to start spinning wheels in a long middle; the story doesn't advance and worse they can keep expanding their universe and lose control of it to the extent that it can never be wrapped up satisfactorily.

With series, they can get better at first but eventually they all go downhill which seems a pity. I'm experiencing that now (wait for it, I'm not going to cite Sharpe) with the Aubrey/Maturin books by Patrick O'Brian (well, it's still the Napoleonic Wars). I'll stick with them to the end, but it's undeniable that the last several are not of the quality of the early books.

[Jack Torrance]

If I'm reading an author as the books are printed, then whatever order they come out in. I read the Jack Ryan books as they came out but a few years ago I restarted the entire series on audiobook an listened to them in chronological order back to back. If I recall correctly at the time it was 275 hours long.

If I come across a series that I haven't read/listened to then Ill figure out the chronological order and start there. IE the Henning Mankell Wallander books.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

Wilde could certainly pontificate, couldn't he?

There's nothing wrong with re-reading. But then there's nothing wrong with not re-reading either. Statements like Wilde's are just pompous and condescending to me. And I find it hard to get past his pedophilia and give him any respect at all.

Paedophilia? Given that the age of consent in Great Britain was 12 when Oscar Wilde was born in 1854, raised to 13 in 1875 and to 16 in 1885. In the summer of 1894 when he was still having his affair with Lord Alfred Douglas, they were involved with several teenage boys. One of those boys, Alphonse Conway, whom he was later accused of having relations with was 16, coincidentally the age of consent. This makes it hard to accuse Oscar Wilde of paedophilia by the standards of his time or our time.

For the USA, by current standards in 31 American states, he would not have been guilty of paedophilia since the age of consent in those 31 states is 16. At the time in the late 1800's, most of the USA had the age of consent at 10 or 12 except for Delaware where it was 7 (dropped from 10 in 1871).

For Canada, the age of consent was raised from 14 to 16 in 2006 together with a fine collection of near-age (aka Romeo and Juliet) exemptions to keep down the ridiculous cases such as when a 13 year old girl's father insisted on charging her 13 year old boyfriend with statutory rape and his parents retaliated by having her charged under the same law (~4% of statutory rape cases in Canada involve a female offender in 2012).

[Ripplinger]

I always read the books in the order the author wrote them. When it comes to prequels written later, sometimes they just don't make sense at times without knowing the other stories first, or they can be not near as interesting since it's all new unfamiliar territory, yet was written at a time when the author had expectations of you knowing the locales and characters.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I always read the books in the order the author wrote them. When it comes to prequels written later, sometimes they just don't make sense at times without knowing the other stories first, or they can be not near as interesting since it's all new unfamiliar territory...

There's also the honest truth that later written books often just aren't as good as the early books, regardless of where the books take place in the series internal chronology.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

There's also the honest truth that later written books often just aren't as good as the early books, regardless of where the books take place in the series internal chronology.

Not sure if the later books just aren't as good or if we get jaded. At one time while travelling via Greyhound, I picked up a book to read. It turned out to be the 4th book in a series and I enjoyed it. When I got home, I picked up the 3 earlier books and they didn't seem up to the same quality. When I finished those three, I re-read the 4th book and realized that the characters and setting were no longer new to me so I paid more attention to the details of and the flaws in the story.