Anyone dislike series?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

In the US at least, you are incorrect. Chapter books are books for young readers.

The books you are referring to (like The Green Mile or the way Dickens was originally published) are referred to as serial novels.

I had never heard the term "chapter book" until I joined Mobileread. As best I can remember from my childhood several decades ago, we had "picture books" for young children and once you got past those into books that were mostly or all text, we just called them "books".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I had never heard the term "chapter book" until I joined Mobileread. As best I can remember from my childhood several decades ago, we had "picture books" for young children and once you got past those into books that were mostly or all text, we just called them "books".

Same here. It's an expression I've only heard on MR.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I agree there is no right or wrong way to read a series - in order or out of order, whatever you like.

In the case of mystery series such as the Harry Bosch series mentioned upthread, I could see that one person might want to read the series in order, seeing the character age and evolve over time However, another person might just enjoy reading about a policeman solving a mystery and as long as the mystery in each book stands alone, such a reader might not care about the character's personal life.

The problem is when someone says sure, you can read a book in the middle of the series because it's standalone. It's not and it means it can be a spoiler for the series. Yes it's OK to read a series however you want, but to say a book in a series is standalone is not correct and not everyone would question that.

[Deskisamess]

My understanding of the the term chapter book is that it is used to differentiate books from children’s picture books used before a child can read well enough to read on their own.

That is how it is used in the US, and a term you often hear used by Home Schooler’s and Home School co-op groups.

[Catlady]

Reading a series out of order is just WRONG!

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

My understanding of the the term chapter book is that it is used to differentiate books from children’s picture books used before a child can read well enough to read on their own.

That is how it is used in the US, and a term you often hear used by Home Schooler’s and Home School co-op groups.

I have relatives who did homeschooling and I never heard this term mentioned when they were discussing what the kids were reading. I guess they would have been about the age to start on such books around 15 years ago. Maybe it's more recent terminology?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Reading a series out of order is just WRONG!

WONDERFUL!

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The problem is when someone says sure, you can read a book in the middle of the series because it's standalone. It's not and it means it can be a spoiler for the series. Yes it's OK to read a series however you want, but to say a book in a series is standalone is not correct and not everyone would question that.

The point I was trying to make is maybe there are some readers (obviously you are not one of them) who care only if the mystery in the current book stands alone, and don't care whether they are skipping back and forth in the character's personal timeline/development. I don't recall in the Bosch series that there is much if any reference to previous cases. Admittedly it's been a while since I read the earlier books in the series so I may have forgotten something.

Of course this is not true for all series. The Kellerman Decker/Lazarus series, for example, has a criminal character who recurs in several books and if you read one of the later books first, you would be spoiled for the outcome of the first case he was involved in. I would definitely recommend reading this series in order.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

The point I was trying to make is maybe there are some readers (obviously you are not one of them) who care only if the mystery in the current book stands alone, and don't care whether they are skipping back and forth in the character's personal timeline/development. I don't recall in the Bosch series that there is much if any reference to previous cases. Admittedly it's been a while since I read the earlier books in the series so I may have forgotten something.

Of course this is not true for all series. The Kellerman Decker/Lazarus series, for example, has a criminal character who recurs in several books and if you read one of the later books first, you would be spoiled for the outcome of the first case he was involved in. I would definitely recommend reading this series in order.

The thing is, you don't know if you will be spoiled or not if you read out of order and once you are spoiled, you cannot be unspoiled. So when someone says a book in a series is standalone, I don't believe it because if I was to believe it and I did get spoiled, I would not be happy. So it's just easier to read in order. That way I don't get spoiled. I know what some thing is standalone I would think not and that's OK. Just don't try to convince me because I'll think you're wrong and I would be correct.

[DiapDealer]

Add me to the list of people who never heard the term "chapter book" outside of Mobileread.

I have no trouble with people reading a series in whatever order they want, but I just can't do it. I've tried it. But the whole time I tried skipping around in a series that someone assured me was comprised of "stand alone" installments, I could just sense there were tidbits and nuances that I was missing out on by skipping previous installments. And when I came to my senses, backed up to the beginning and started fresh, it turned out I was right. I WAS missing out on things, and I HAD spoiled some things in earlier installments by reading newer ones first.

So I've come to understand that those who say, "the books in this series can be read as stand alones," are really saying: 1) they don't care about missing out on subtle, over-arching tidbits that are slowly explored/revealed over the published order of an entire series. And/Or 2) that they don't notice (or don't care about) the minor spoilers that WILL happen over the course of any series read out of publication order.

So enjoy reading your series' any way you like, but stop calling non-standalone books standalones, when what you mean to say is, "I don't care about reading a series in order." There's quite a difference between the two for those who care about the little things.

[FizzyWater]

I also prefer to read in order, when I know a book is part of a series. And, for the most part, I prefer to read in publication order, even if the author skips around a timeline. I believe there are characterizations of a person that become assumed over time, and later-published books often use those built-in assumptions.

It's not always true, and I try to see what an author has to say. I found one who started as being pubbed by an independent press, and when she moved to one of the big publishers, they restarted her numbering and released the books all out of order. So I have renumbered my copies to follow her original publication dates.

[GlennD]

I'm with JSWolf - if I'm reading a series or even loosely connected books, I want to read them in order. And the market tends to support me - early books in a series are usually the cheapest.

I'm curious though - does the speed that you read affect your opinion of series? I love to read series and will often reread an entire series when a new book is about to be released, so I can read it with the other books fresh in my mind. I've got friends who see that as too much of a time investment. As an extreme example, some friends will take a month or so to read something like a Wheel of Time book. A complete reread of the series was simply too much effort each time a new one was released. I'll read one of them in 3-4 days, so it doesn't feel like such a major effort.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by GlennD

I'm curious though - does the speed that you read affect your opinion of series? I love to read series and will often reread an entire series when a new book is about to be released, so I can read it with the other books fresh in my mind. I've got friends who see that as too much of a time investment.

I see it as way too much of an investment, too. Rather than read the first book of a five book series five times, the second book four times, the third book three times, the second book two times, and the final book once; I'll just wait 'til all five are published and read five books one time straight through. Using the time I would have spent on ten re-reads to read ten new books.

And that's with just the handful of series I let myself get sucked into. If you get involved in a ton of series, how long until the vast amount of time you spend reading would be dedicated to "refresher-course" re-reads? At some point, you wouldn't have the time to actually read the newest books you're brushing up for, would you? Five five-book series' with a new book coming out every year would have you re-reading fifty books just to get ready for five new books in year five. And that's assuming you don't get pulled into any new series' along the way!

EDIT: I admit my math could be a little off--or a lot--it made my head hurt a little. But you get the idea. It's a ton of re-re-re-re-re-reading any way you slice it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing is, you don't know if you will be spoiled or not if you read out of order and once you are spoiled, you cannot be unspoiled. So when someone says a book in a series is standalone, I don't believe it because if I was to believe it and I did get spoiled, I would not be happy. So it's just easier to read in order. That way I don't get spoiled. I know what some thing is standalone I would think not and that's OK. Just don't try to convince me because I'll think you're wrong and I would be correct.

And here I thought you were already spoiled rotten by someone.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

My understanding of the the term chapter book is that it is used to differentiate books from children’s picture books used before a child can read well enough to read on their own.

That is how it is used in the US, and a term you often hear used by Home Schooler’s and Home School co-op groups.

The term is also widely used in the UK, New Zealand and Australia as far as my experience is concerned. That, in the manner you have described, as a book for young readers transitioning between picture books and (normally) fiction. I cannot comment on Canada, it being another English speaking country spun out of the English tradition, as I have never been to it (just over it many times, which doesn't count unless we crashed ).