Series order

[theducks]

The only time this even becomes a question, is long into a series pub history before starting it.

I read many of the Pern (and many others) books in the pages of Analog (as a serial). (I was a subscriber from 1964-2004. My tastes shifted in different directions than the current editors. It was not a bad product, just no longer my cuppa )
Back then, there were not as many ways to discover new voices. Magazines and trad pub, were mostly it.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

Like Dresden Series by Butcher most of the series is in chronological order apart from the short stories but the author has stated where most of the short stories fall in the time line so if I start reading it again I will read the short stories accordingly. And even use epub split in calibre to separate out each short story from the anthologies and place them according to the timeline

I do the same. And especially with the Dresden Files it makes sense as there is really no time travel possible. Well at least so far it is too complicated magic for Harry to truly travel in time (backwards or forwards). The flashbacks don't happen as true flashbacks either, but have to be told to Harry in conversation. Writing style is first person present tense most of the time (except a few short stories) from Harry's POV. In this case, how does other than chronological make sense? Also Jim Butcher makes extensive use of referring to little details from past books, even sometimes referring back to short stories that have not been written or published.

I see the later published short stories as bonus content that should have been there in the correct spot all along. Except that the publisher is needlessly picky about the proper length of a book.

As far as other series I like to read are concerned, which happen to be mainly epic fantasy, most of them have been published already in chronological order.

[haertig]

I figure, the author thought up the books in publishing order (maybe not in all cases though), so I should read them in publishing order.

I envy you folks that have time to reread a series and can switch between publishing and chronological order. I can count on one hand (and have fingers left over!) the number of individual books that I have reread, let alone entire series. There's so much stuff that I want to read, and I don't have enough time left on Earth to complete that ... so no rereading for me unfortunately.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

I figure, the author thought up the books in publishing order (maybe not in all cases though), so I should read them in publishing order.

I envy you folks that have time to reread a series and can switch between publishing and chronological order. I can count on one hand (and have fingers left over!) the number of individual books that I have reread, let alone entire series. There's so much stuff that I want to read, and I don't have enough time left on Earth to complete that ... so no rereading for me unfortunately.

For me, one of the joys in life is re-reading a book. There have been relatively few books that I have owned and not re-read at least once. When I pick up a new book in a series, I will often binge read the entire series before reading the new book.

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

“I can’t imagine a man really enjoying a book and reading it only once.”
–C.S. Lewis

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by 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.

One of the best pieces of advise that I read some years ago is that when getting feedback, don't try to argue about the feedback, but rather say thank you and think about it over night, and only then come back with either questions for clarification or state why you disagree.

Some people think linearly. Just because you don't and have read books that are not linear doesn't invalidate that point however much you may assure me that you personally read non linear books. Just because you experience something a certain way doesn't mean that everyone else has to experience it that way as well.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I do the same. And especially with the Dresden Files it makes sense as there is really no time travel possible. Well at least so far it is too complicated magic for Harry to truly travel in time (backwards or forwards). The flashbacks don't happen as true flashbacks either, but have to be told to Harry in conversation. Writing style is first person present tense most of the time (except a few short stories) from Harry's POV. In this case, how does other than chronological make sense? Also Jim Butcher makes extensive use of referring to little details from past books, even sometimes referring back to short stories that have not been written or published.

I see the later published short stories as bonus content that should have been there in the correct spot all along. Except that the publisher is needlessly picky about the proper length of a book.

As far as other series I like to read are concerned, which happen to be mainly epic fantasy, most of them have been published already in chronological order.

A good example of some series that tend to jump around chronologically is a couple of Glenn Cook's series, The Black Company and The Dread Empire.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

One of the best pieces of advise that I read some years ago is that when getting feedback, don't try to argue about the feedback, but rather say thank you and think about it over night, and only then come back with either questions for clarification or state why you disagree.

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.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some people think linearly. Just because you don't and have read books that are not linear doesn't invalidate that point however much you may assure me that you personally read non linear books. Just because you experience something a certain way doesn't mean that everyone else has to experience it that way as well.

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?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

A good example of some series that tend to jump around chronologically is a couple of Glenn Cook's series, The Black Company and The Dread Empire.

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/ :

WHERE TO START READING THE BLACK COMPANY SERIES?
This is one instance where the answer to this question is simple. Start at the beginning. The chronological and release date order for these books coincide.

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.

[issybird]

I'm curious whether those who say only and always published order would be willing to make an exception for books based on real events, as with the Sharpe and Hornblower books. My own position is that in that case, each method has its defects.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'm curious whether those who say only and always published order would be willing to make an exception for books based on real events, as with the Sharpe and Hornblower books. My own position is that in that case, each method has its defects.

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.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'm curious whether those who say only and always published order would be willing to make an exception for books based on real events, as with the Sharpe and Hornblower books. My own position is that in that case, each method has its defects.

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.

The only time I can think of where such a thing would bother me is if the author were trying to alter the chronology of real historical events (with no disclaimer that it was being done) I'm intimately familiar with (or if they just didn't know the real chronology of the events they were using as a backdrop). But in such a case, reading order would be the least of my concerns. I probably wouldn't be able to continue reading such a series at all.

Truth be told: if a series has enough books in it that reading order becomes a polarizing issue among fans, it's probably not something I'm going to enjoy anyway. If enough people feel the urge to reorder a series of books, it tells me that the attempt to use a non-linear narrative technique probably wasn't handled all that well. It's not my job to "fix" an author's narrative by rearranging the chronology. Be it with paragraphs, chapters, or entire books.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

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.

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.

Two series, in particular, spring to mind that I started out of order. Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles I started with the second book not knowing at the time that it was part of a series, let alone not the start. Later I started at the beginning and reading with interest to continue on. Up until losing interest somewhere in New Vampire Chronicles when more and more religion creeped in, ruining the charm of the beginning (to me). Harry Potter was introduced to me by a gift of the forth book. I only managed to read a few chapters until realizing that reading out of order wasn't going to work well for me, but liking enough of it to go and order the first three.

The difference being that the former series appears to be only lightly connected, while the latter is more of a continuous big story that was thought out and planned ahead of time.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Truth be told: if a series has enough books in it that reading order becomes a polarizing issue among fans, it's probably not something I'm going to enjoy anyway.

Exactly how I feel. Especially when diehard fans try to justify a mediocre start of a series by saying "but it will get better." Tastes are different, not everybody is going to like the same books. I almost expect a series to get better the longer it goes on, certainly would not like it to go down in enjoyability. Once it reaches a certain low threshold I will stop and give up.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Exactly how I feel. Especially when diehard fans try to justify a mediocre start of a series by saying "but it will get better."

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

[Dopedangel]

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.

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.