Poll
Do you need to read the first in the series before reading the second?
Yes
(write-in)
Not necessarily
(write-in)
Nope
(write-in)
Most of the time
(write-in)
Yes! You know why —
(write-in)
It really depends on if it's a proper series or interconnected stand-alones in a series.
(write-in)
Poll added by: Black
This Poll is About
Books:
Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mandy
(new)
Jun 22, 2025 04:29PM
Books in a series should stand alone, as well. Sure, you get more out of them if you read the whole series, but for out of print books, you've got to take what you can find.
reply
|
flag
Mandy wrote: "Books in a series should stand alone, as well. Sure, you get more out of them if you read the whole series, but for out of print books, you've got to take what you can find."I agree!
Some of the best series I have read was discovered accidentally from discarded old books and then I have gone back to read the previous books. James Rollins Sigma series, Reacher series, and many others.
Yes! Except for…those more static characters in a very long series like Sherlock Holmes, HHGTTG, or Stephanie Plum in the Bounty Hunter series.
Most of the time because oftentimes you will get confused due to the fact that the author expects you to have already read the first book and will usually not give that much clarity on the characters and then you won't have the full memo on the plot and world building (gets confusing when reading fantasy). Although I read Bright by Jessica Jung without knowing that Shine (the first book of the series) existed and it didn't ruin my reading experience at all :)
But the Serpent & Dove series, for example, should definitely be read in order, because an adventure goes on for two books.
