Penric numbering dilemma
I see that both "Masquerade in Lodi" and "Penric's Mission" are presently being numbered on Amazon as "Penric and Desdemona Book 4".
This brings me back to the same puzzle I had with "Penric's Fox", when dropping in what people will insist on seeing as a prequel. At the time, we renumbered all the then-extant titles, which some people complained about. I figured if I wrote any more, I'd just continue with publication order, making "Masquerade" into #9. Even though it is, indeed, now #4 in internal chronology.
Anybody want to express an opinion on this, before I make a choice? Because one or the other can be #4, but definitely not both.
Ta, Lois.
...Noting that Arthur Conan Doyle didn't seem to have this problem with his 54 Sherlock Holmes tales, though granted he had Watson writing in retrospective.
***
Later: This seems a good place to recap, since I just updated some of my Author Notes on Amazon:
The internal chronological order of the Penric tales is presently:
“Penric’s Demon”
"Penric and the Shaman"
"Penric's Fox"
"Masquerade in Lodi"
"Penric's Mission"
"Mira's Last Dance"
"The Prisoner of Limnos"
"The Orphans of Raspay"
"The Physicians of Vilnoc"
The six first-published of these have been collected in two Baen Books paper editions, Penric's Progress, containing Demon, Shaman, and Fox, and Penric's Travels, containing Mission, Mira, and Limnos.
...Pretty sure we're going to go with publication order for those vendor pages that insist upon numbers, from here onward. People will just have to sort out internal-chronological for themselves, as they always have.
This brings me back to the same puzzle I had with "Penric's Fox", when dropping in what people will insist on seeing as a prequel. At the time, we renumbered all the then-extant titles, which some people complained about. I figured if I wrote any more, I'd just continue with publication order, making "Masquerade" into #9. Even though it is, indeed, now #4 in internal chronology.
Anybody want to express an opinion on this, before I make a choice? Because one or the other can be #4, but definitely not both.
Ta, Lois.
...Noting that Arthur Conan Doyle didn't seem to have this problem with his 54 Sherlock Holmes tales, though granted he had Watson writing in retrospective.
***
Later: This seems a good place to recap, since I just updated some of my Author Notes on Amazon:
The internal chronological order of the Penric tales is presently:
“Penric’s Demon”
"Penric and the Shaman"
"Penric's Fox"
"Masquerade in Lodi"
"Penric's Mission"
"Mira's Last Dance"
"The Prisoner of Limnos"
"The Orphans of Raspay"
"The Physicians of Vilnoc"
The six first-published of these have been collected in two Baen Books paper editions, Penric's Progress, containing Demon, Shaman, and Fox, and Penric's Travels, containing Mission, Mira, and Limnos.
...Pretty sure we're going to go with publication order for those vendor pages that insist upon numbers, from here onward. People will just have to sort out internal-chronological for themselves, as they always have.
date
newest »
newest »
It seems like numbering them in publication order would cause fewer problems in the future if you do write more prequels, but I buy the audiobooks and hardcovers so this problem doesn't affect me as much.
This one will go into my book system as '3.5', but I too would vote for numbering by publication order to lessen future confusion.
I handle this sort of thing in calibre: I use the publication/acquisition date for publication order, of course.The series list is easy to manage with a plugin entitled "Manage Series". I'm writing this change to my message after I loaded all nine books (including the new one) into it, arranged the titles in internal chronological order, and then revised the series numbers to the new correct order and 1, 2, 3,...7, 8, 9.
If the story then occurs between two prior publications, just mention that and the rest will take care of itself.
I agree with the decimal point group. I would tend to have Masquerade as 3.5Of course, to a regular follower it is not a problem.
By the way, I love it! Finished first read through just a few minutes ago. Will start first re-read fairly soon. I have read all of your books multiple times. Perhaps Gentleman Jole the fewest re-reads, as it is newish and longish (short tales are a bit easier to re-read than long), but I have at least 2 or 3 reads and at least one listen on that one. All the rest, except perhaps for Spirit Ring, have 5 or more.
I recommend numbering in internal chronological order.Those who are currently discombobulated may complain, yet more people will be reading the series in the future.
Andrew wrote: "I recommend numbering in internal chronological order."
The trouble with that is that then you need to adjust it each time a new book is written based on if it's set later or earlier. Far easier to number on publication order officially and then readers can do their own.
Absent a time machine, publication order is the only sane way to do the numbering. The chronological order can go in the reading order guide, or in an author's note, or something.(If you do happen to have a time machine, can I borrow it?)
If I were just coming to an established series, I would prefer to read them in internal order. Each event as it unfolds. But knowing publication order is also interesting and helpful, and obviously the order things get read if I am reading along as a series is developed. I think a timeline of the series in each book, like with the Vorkosigan series, works well. I can open up any book at get a good idea of what the internal read order should be (knowing that I had best check the most recently published book for the most up-to-date timeline.) I have used the Vorkosigan timeline countless times over the years, sometimes as a handy guide to choose which story to re-read, occasionally to realize I am missing a book.
I would be fine with numbering by publication order as long as it was clear it was not internal order. I think an accessible timeline could accomplish that.
Would Amazon allow you to include an internal chronology timeline on the info page of each Penric book? That way no matter which a reader found they could easily be directed to their personal choice starting point, as well as empowered to know exactly how many more are available. When shopping books on Amazon that is often confusing. There might be sequels listed in the "other's bought" section but there is often no quick reference to get to know how many exist in a given series and how to get them all. It gave me a lot of trouble when buying "Legend of Korra" anime books for my daughter.
As for decimals, I would be ok with it, but I wouldn't expect it. If I had # 3 I would look for and buy #4, but would never think to search for #3.5. This of course is where a timeline on each information page would help tremendously.
Overall I would say go with the easy #9 but include timelines.
Ed wrote: "I handle this sort of thing in calibre: I use the publication/acquisition date for publication order, of course, and the series list for internal chronology, since it's easy to add an entry as "4.5..."That's fine for your internal storage. The problem is that if one wants to employ Amazon's (and perhaps other vendors, not sure) connections so that series titles cross-link on the vendor pages, the template into which one must enter the data requires numbering, or it won't play with you. (It also has embedded on the template the term "novel" -- one can't change it to "novella" or other more nuanced terminology.)
Not sure about whether decimal numbering is allowed by the bots -- I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, but calling the work "3.5" or some such seems to imply it's some lesser part, perhaps a side story, which in this case of the assorted roughly co-equal Pen & Des novellas, they're not.
The numbering problem could be evaded by just presenting the works ala carte, not numbered at all, but then one would lose the series cross-connections. Which browsing new readers kinda want. (I know I do, as a new purchaser. When my eye has been caught by some multi-part thing, almost my first question is, "Which book do I start with? And where can I find it?")
There is no perfect solution to this that will please everyone, btw. I already know that.
We did the renumbering trick last time with "Penric's Fox". I think we'll try it in publishing order this round, and see how it goes. On any lists that are labeled internal-chronological, I'll have it that way.
I did slather the internal-ordering information all over the place, but not everyone stops to read the fine print. Or any print.
Ta, L.
Sandy wrote: "If I were just coming to an established series, I would prefer to read them in internal order. Each event as it unfolds. But knowing publication order is also interesting and helpful, and obviously..."I include the Bujold reading-order guide, covering all my books, at the back of every. single. ebook. I . sell. It's listed in the table of contents 'n everything. Does no one ever find it...?
(And if not why not?)
The trouble with that, of course, is that's it's after the fact of at least the first purchase.
It's also on a lot of my Amazon pages, down in the matter one has to click on to read. I don't think anyone sees that, either. If the information isn't on the top line of the vendor page, people just zip on. Because that's the way browsing is done.
L.
A problem with no perfect solution, and therefore guaranteed to leave some annoyed. But at least "Masquerade in Lodi" has been put in the category of 'Fantasy' (in the metadata and when one displays one's book collection as a list). "Penric's Mission" is categorized as 'Epic', and "Penric's Demon" and "Physicians of Vilnoc" as 'Historical'!
Ha. That's what I get for trying to write up a quick response while my 4 year old gets impatient. My apologies. I didn't look up how things are currently done with your books, just thought over what my preferences would be, and my recent experiences with series books for my oldest child. I erroneously assumed pages for your books would be like the ones I had recently seen for the Korra books. I admit I haven't purchased one of your books from Amazon in a long time. I tend to get hard copies through Hugo's or Subterranean Press, and digitals on my phone via a different book app. Reading your response I went and checked on Amazon and sure enough you already have the helpful lists. (if only others would do this!). And they were quite easy to notice. As for the back of the ebook lists, I have seen those. Although I would say these lists are not the same as the timeline with synopses someone brought up earlier and I had thought to agree with that those are superbly handy. In fact they don't currently mention that they are ordered in any particular manner. Of course, there is perhaps not always room for detailed timelines with synopses, particularly in print books. The simplified titles lists are still very handy to let someone know what to look for. Knowing the right question is often the hardest part afterall. I will wipe the egg from my face and withdraw with as much dignity as any cat who has just inelegantly fallen from the kitchen counter in front of the family would gather.
Lois wrote: "I include the Bujold reading-order guide, covering all my books, at the back of every. single. ebook. I . sell. It's listed in the table of contents 'n everything. Does no one ever find it...?"I have to admit that before I knew to look for it, I did not find it. Sure, I know to look now. Now I check every part of every book for hidden goodies. But the only reading order I ever truly found as intended (that is, didn't know it was there, wasn't looking for it, saw it anyway, and saw it before reading it, while still in the store, so I bought 2 more books in the series at the same time) was printed at the beginning (back of the title page?), as a "More Books By This Author" sort of thing. Except that it was cleverly formatted in columns with headings like,
Blah World Series, In Order:
･Title
･Title
･Title
･Title
Adventures of Blah Trilogy:
1.Title
2.Title
3.Title
-Two columns? Three? I remember I was impressed. So many series, different worlds & genres. Like, it would have been overwhelming if it hadn't had such a good layout. I'm sorry I don't recall what book it was.
(I loaned it and a bunch of other most-favorites to a now FORMER friend who apparently had no idea I expected to get them back. If only I'd made a list!)
That was long ago, before Amazon. A strong modern reason to put the reading order near the title page is then it would be part of the Preview pages, when looking online. I would LOVE to have that become common!
That last idea is a very smart one ... I would really appreciate that feature.
Penny wrote: "That last idea is a very smart one ... I would really appreciate that feature."@ 15, 16 -- It sounds like a good idea, but if everyone else uses the e-table of contents the way I do, they just navigate right to page 1 of the text, skipping all of what used to be called "front matter".
Nevertheless, putting the books-by at the front might catch the look-inside browsers; I'll pass the idea along. The link to it is in the table of contents, but it falls last.
Ta, L.
If I was a new reader to the series I would want to read them in internal chronological order. Moreover, I think I would assume that's what the numbers meant and would find it a bit confusing to discover that book nine happens before book five. To me personally, publication order isn't really of much interest.
Heh. I'm glad to have the books in whatever order they come!On the chalion.fandom.com site's front page, I track them in chronological order rather than publisher order because it's easier for a new reader to deal with them in that sequence, but I've found it fascinating to see how the universe changes when I read the books in published order....
We've all read _Fox_ and now _Masquerade_ "out of order" and the stories have suffered no ill effects, so I think numbering -- and reading -- in publication order is perfectly fine. Re-reading in internal chronological order can then add extra delight.
Juli wrote: "We've all read *Fox* and now *Masquerade* "out of order" and the stories have suffered no ill effects, so I think numbering -- and reading -- in publication order is perfectly fine. Re-reading in i..."A nice counterpoint.
JD Robb has x.5 books, though those are always novellas and the novels have whole numbers.
Noting (since I'm reading this on Goodreads), that Goodreads allows for creating multiple series with the same books:Penric and Desdemona Publication order
Penric and Desdemona Chronological order
(I know this doesn't help for what should be on the book cover or vendor listings.)
My personal preference is for publication order. For me The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe will always be book 1 of the Narnia series.
I'm with the person who mentioned decimals. 3.5 works just fine for me. I do like chronological order.
Hello, Lois! Thank you :), it was a great pleasure to have the Lodi book over the weekend. If you are counting votes, I'm for #9, i.e. for the order of publication. The frontnote is perfectly sufficient to relieve any distress to the reader. And yes, all Penric books can be read independetly.
P.S. Ok, maybe I could live with the 3.5 numbering too. Confusing.
How about: each new book has a list of all the titles in proper chronological order, with the new book's title in bold. (Bernard Cornwell & Richard Sharpe weren't bothered by publishing stories randomly in time either.)
Donald wrote: "How about: each new book has a list of all the titles in proper chronological order, with the new book's title in bold. (Bernard Cornwell & Richard Sharpe weren't bothered by publishing stories ran..."We've decided to solve, or at least treat, the issue in my ebooks by moving the "books by Lois" page to the front matter, which do list the stories in internal-chronological order. Since a prospective purchaser will only see this once they've seen and decided to open the ebook, if then, I will continue to try to make up the information gaps by putting any new stories within a series-listing in my vendor page ad copy. If people don't even read that, I can't help them...
"Masquerade" is going to be #9 for now, but I'll revisit the problem if I ever write another prequel.
Ta, L.
Publication order, so it's the same forever. We can use a GoodReads list or wiki page to keep track of the chronological order.
Why does everyone think that there can be only *ONE* number. Each book (or new book) can have a P# (sequential publication order) and a C#.## that sorts into correct chronological order;eg: Masquerade in Lodi becomes "P9; C3.5"
The best of BOTH at the same time!!!
Also, the Vorkosigan style series summary is super helpful!!
I don't know if this will help or not, but when they are printed by Subterranean Press, if on the title page it gives the series name and a number, they can be cataloged by series and on the shelf in series number order. In that case, it would be helpful if this were #4. If the title page does not have the series name and a number, then they are shelved in alphabetical title order with all of your other works, which is less helpful. As a reader, I appreciate having the series listed in chronological order near the front of the book.
I have seen authors number an interpolation as 3.5 - which I thought was interesting. (And it was clear to me, but I'm not sure how others feel about it.)
Jill wrote: "I don't know if this will help or not, but when they are printed by Subterranean Press, if on the title page it gives the series name and a number, they can be cataloged by series and on the shelf ..."Heh. SubPress editions are single, limited printings. Anything not done already cannot be added.
I'll keep pumping out my rolling updates of internal chronologies, and hope they'll get around.
Ta, L.
I've been very much out of the loop this summer, but was delighted to find on Twitter (CC Finlay) that there was a new Penric! And even more delighted after reading it! (Review coming today on Eight Ladies Writing Blog). I'm a lousy reviewer because these books just push all the right buttons for me, and I'm high with bookjoy. The internal chronologies are so very helpful, but maybe not so much for the new reader who is only looking at that page. On the vendor page, maybe it's enough to say: "Standalone; falls between XXXX and YYYYY in the series. (link to full reading list)."
I see there's no easy link to the series' lists on your Amazon author page. Ideally, you'd list them there, but maybe there's a limit to what you can do? They do have your blog updates.
In the ebooks, you can put a link to the back. So, you wouldn't have to list three pages of titles before the reader can get to your book. Just list something like "Chronological order for Penric and Desdemona series", "Chronological order for Vorkosigan series" etc.
This works with e-footnotes, I've noticed. People get notice of the extra material, and either go straight to it, or save it for later (or ignore it at their own loss).
I'm so happy you are going back and filling in extra bits of Penric and Desdemona's past. I really enjoy the books!
One good thing about putting the list of books at the front is that it can be seen by people who are doing a "Look Inside", sample or whatever the other book stores call it. If it's at the back, it's not in the sample, and it doesn't help unless you've bought the book. Maybe if it seems too long, a compromise could be a shorter version with just the current series (Penric, or maybe the whole Five Gods list) at the front, and reference to the whole Bujold books list at the back?
My main concern is, when do we get #10 in publication order ? Whatever the position in internal chronology, don't we all agree we are eager to read it ?
Voralfred wrote: "My main concern is, when do we get #10 in publication order ? Whatever the position in internal chronology, don't we all agree we are eager to read it ?"But you just got one two months ago, she whines...
Anyway, backbrain has not reported for duty, so don't hold your breaths. (I've reached level 187 in Bubble Pop, however.)
Ta, L.
We are insatiable (and I'm past 7000 on Candy Crush)
Because it will at least be consistent. Renumbering ultimately will be constraining to you, and a nightmare of frustration for future new readers to discover that "Number X in the series" USED to mean title A, but now means title C, unless you're buying it used, in which case "Number X" might refer to title A or to title B.
I loved what you did with the Miles books, putting a timeline that let me know the internal chronology AND how old Miles is in that particular story. Extremely helpful in letting me keep things clear in my head, refreshing my memory which title is which story, and never a care about series numbers.