series and sequence

[Mary]

Do you have strong opinion about reading stories in a series in a sequence?

In my own experience, it's best to read in the order published, even if the writer lists them by internal chronological order. Unless that's the order written, and sometimes even then.

It's best to start the Chronicles of Narnia with The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe. It's best to start the Enchanted Forest Chronicles with Talking to Dragons. And so on.

The only real exceptions are "series" that are really books that happen to be in the same universe. Terry Pratchett's Discworld. Andre Norton's Witch World. And even in those there are sequences that it is wise to read in order. I once saw a man complaining of the Death of Rats in a Death Discworld, and basically the answer to why it exists is Reaper Man. All of it.

The specific reason why I think it's the publishing order, not the internal chronological, is that the first published book often turns on mysteries in the world, which you and the character discover together; it's written for an audience as innocent as the characters. And then the prequels go to explain how that came to be. If you read them out of order, you find that the prequel is written to assuage a curiosity you don't feel, and the first published book is written toward a curiosity you don't have, since the prequel explained what will be revealed

[Sabrina]

I'm with you on publishing order being important, Mary. I can't stand reading a book out of order. And I also don't expect each new book to rehash what happened in the prior books.

[Baelor]

I read them in the order intended by the author, if such is known. If it is not known, order of publication in sets (e.g. all three original Foundation novels together, then on to the next set).

[Trike]

Mary wrote: "The specific reason why I think it's the publishing order, not the internal chronological, is that the first published book often turns on mysteries in the world, which you and the character discover together; it's written for an audience as innocent as the characters."

In general I agree with this. However, I have accidentally started with a later book in a series and when I went back to read the earlier ones, found they weren't as interesting. I started Kage Baker's Company books with Sky Coyote and liked it better than the first one. I did the same thing with Katherine Kurtz's Deryni Chronicles, starting with the first book of the second trilogy, Camber of Culdi, although in that instance I loved all the Deryni books. I suspect that starting with the first Deryni trilogy would be good, since the Camber books are prequels, but having read them so long ago I can't judge for sure.

[Tasha]

I not only will read series in chronological order but many times I'll read them in whatever order I can get my hands on the books so no real order at all. I can't always borrow the books in order unless I'm willing to wait a long time by ordering only one book at a time through inter-library loan. It drives some friends crazy but I feel good authors should write series that can be read out of order with the only down side being spoilers. If the author can't be read that way I'm likely to lose interest. I don't mind spoilers which helps.

[Mary]

Yeah, it can really be a problem when the writer really improved during the course of the series. One hardly knows what to recommend then.

[Micah]

I'm not a huge fan of series, especially if they involve the same characters and (almost) absolutely not at all if there's no finite number of books in the series.

That being said, I don't mind trilogies or even tetralogies if they're written well. I also don't mind stand alone novels set in the same universe, like the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks.

As for reading order, trilogies and tetralogies I always try to read however the author published them (typically chronologically). Stand alones set in the same universe, though, I tend to read whatever comes into my hands first.

Had that kind of bite me in the butt, though, with Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space series. They're not really talked about as being chronologically important, but I found that several of them really should be read in order. It's not vital, but some historical events are referred to that make them less enjoyable if you read them completely out of order like I did.

[Mary]

Yeah, the thing about reading them out of order is that it might not improve the reading experience -- but then again, it might. And you can't know until after.

[Mary]

Micah wrote: "I'm not a huge fan of series, especially if they involve the same characters and (almost) absolutely not at all if there's no finite number of books in the series."

There are interminable series where the characters never really change, a la Sherlock Holmes. I prefer those in which the effects of one book reverberate with the following ones, even though that means that reading in sequence is important -- and that the series must end. There's only so much character development a character can stand.

The happiest long series are those in which the author switches to other characters. The Hero and the Love Interest's child, for instance. Or the Sidekick gets promoted to Hero.

[Kythe42]

For me it really depends on the series. In most cases though I really do prefer to read books in chronological order if different from publication order. Reading things in the order they take place is just less confusing for me. I guess that's why in general I don't like prequels and try to read them first if possible. I also can't stand it when they do flashback type things in tv shows, or start the show at the end for dramatic effect then show you what led up to it.

For The Chronicles of Narnia I prefer to start with The Magician's Nephew because that took place first. I've read the series in both publication and chronological order so I really know that I prefer chronological. I don't have anything against anyone that prefers publication order though, I just read in whichever way works best for me.

With Discworld I prefer to read in publication order just because it would be too confusing to me to separate all the different story arcs and read them individually. I think that as a whole the Discworld universe is written in chronological order anyway.

I guess the exceptions to my preference for chronological order would be mostly to do with book series that take place in a given universe(usually something from tv or games) that are written by various authors and the next book that comes out could take place at any random time in the universe's chronology so it would be rather pointless to even attempt a chronological reading. In these cases I would be more likely to stick to publication order and maybe only deviate if certain books are direct sequels of others.

So far the only exception I've ever come across that didn't fit into the above scenario is the Myst trilogy. For whatever reason I'm content to read that in publication order rather than reading the prequels first. Maybe this is because the first book gives the background story to the first game in the series and then the prequels just delve further into the history.

[Gordon]

I try & read chronologically, esp. if thru a series the protagonist's growth is described as profound or the complexity surrounding them increases with each book. Another reason could be there are great (cult classic) supporting characters introduced like 'Thomas Raith' in 'Dresden Files, 'Ahn-Ka' in EE Knights 'Vampire Earth', or 'Caines ogrillo blackknife blood brother' (forgot spelling of name) that 'Caine Chronicles' by Matthew Stover introduces by book 2 that u want to know how they became such a large part of the series & reading the coinciding books their intro makes it more fulfilling.

Some books that if read out of order just adds difficultly because the plot is already complex as it is & u are only making it harder to understand. ex. 'Malazan, Book of the Fallen' jumping into that series with book 2 or 4 would be very confusing because 1 & 3, 2 & 4 books are split into 2 completely diff. Story lines & characters that eventually get woven together beautifully after the initial few books but u prob wouldn't know what to think if u started with book 2 or 3 then jumped back to 1, unless explained for u ahead of time.

Most detective, mystery, or military (Ludlum) books IMO u could jump in just about anywhere & not be lost because content is pretty easily figured out, although there are exceptions, perhaps Clancy? But even then u miss a few underlying points, nothing like some fantasy books (I'm more into fantasy, can't think of any SF except series that have left me totally hanging still.. Hate that, I think Weber has done that to me with 3 of his series, not including HH) But most well written fantasy will be enjoyable no matter where u start although u might miss underlying jokes, events, or references... 'Malazan' just happened to pop in my mind as prob not best to be read out of order due to complexity, obv with all series u prob won't get 'optimal' author intent if u are reading them out of order according to publication unless it's a prequel... u can read 'Red Seas Under Red Skies' By Lunch before 'Lies of Locke' but it's not nearly as fun...

[Margaret]

Roger Zelazny's Amber books are an example of a series that really needs to be read in order. It's really two long story arcs (the first five are Corwin's story and the second five are Merlin's) and they're confusing enough without mixing them up. (Besides the fact that you spoil half the fun of Nine Princes in Amber if you don't read it first.)

[Kyra]

I have to read series in order, even if they're written so that you don't have to. I'm just kind of compulsive about that. As for order written vs. chronological order, I would probably become so paralyzed with indecision that I'd never read it at all. Although if the author made it clear what order they're intended to be read in, I would go with that.

I did find in reading books 2,3, and 4 of the Malazan series (that's all I've read so far; the next three books are on my tbr pile) even though the storylines in 2 and 4 aren't really connected to 1 and 3, it adds a lot of dimension knowing what's going on in other parts of the world at the same time.

[Kevin]

I would always recommend if reading The Legend Drizzt series, reading the fourth book, The Crystal Shard which is the first published rather the first book, Homeland, while everyone else including R.A. Salvatore would recommend reading Homeland first. The reason for me is I more of a fan reading publication order in a series rather than chronological because it show the evolution of the writer and character, plus without the first book published, there would not be a series.

[Gordon]

Kyra wrote: "even though the storylines in 2 and 4 aren't really connected to 1 and 3, it adds a lot of dimension knowing what's going on in other parts of the world at the same time..."

I totally agree Kyra, Erikson is one of the few fantasy writers that did that so well with a concept most authors wouldn't even attempt.

GRRM kind of did it with 'AFFC' & 'ADWD' because they were suppose to be one book but he split it into 2 books (badly IMO) & there is a recommended way of reading the 2 books together at the same time that's suppose to mesh the timelines together very well, obv. because instead of 2 diff. story lines like Malazan the GRRM books were both happening at the same time, what u do with that? LOL :/

[Kyra]

Gordon wrote: "I totally agree Kyra, Erikson is one of the few fantasy writers that did that so well with a concept most authors wouldn't even attempt.

GRRM kind of did it with 'AFFC' & 'ADWD' because they were suppose to be one book but he split it into 2 books (badly IMO) & there is a recommended way of reading the 2 books together at the same time that's suppose to mesh the timelines together very well, obv. because instead of 2 diff. story lines like Malazan the GRRM books were both happening at the same time, what u do with that? LOL :/ "

The Malazan books just blow me away with the depth of their characters and worldbuilding, and with the intricate ways the different storylines play off of each other.

I have to admit I gave up on Song of Ice and Fire in the middle of book 3. Just way too dark for me. Malazan is dark too, but there's a different quality to the darkness that makes it more palatable to me. Plus there are genuinely funny bits, while I don't remember laughing out loud at anything in the GRRM books I read. But, more to the point, I have kind of kept up with what's going on with that series, and I can understand why a lot of readers seemed to be so unhappy with how those two books were handled. Yeah, I can see it might be more satisfactory to switch between the two to get the whole story.

[Ken]

I like to read books in an order that makes the most storytelling sense.

Often that means chronologically by plot event, but not necessarily. Usually coincides with order of publication or order of the series as defined by the author.

I have a couple series where I disagree with the over-arching order and have developed my own and will recommend others read it that way instead.

GRRM's series I enjoyed for the entertainment value. Not so deep, but well-written and darkly realistic in all the right ways. I couldn't get into most other epic fantasy series because they followed the same tired-old lockstep formula. Convoluted character names, epic magic users, front-loaded lore. And far, far too long. Which GRRM is in danger of inheriting soon if he doesn't finish his series.

One of the cases where I change the order is with the Solar Cycle by Wolfe.

My version is to save Urth of the New Sun for last. To be read after the tetrology Long Sun and trilogy Short Sun.

[Mary]

The trick is figuring out what makes the most storytelling sense before reading them. . . .

[Tasha]

Mary wrote: "The trick is figuring out what makes the most storytelling sense before reading them. . . ."

That is the trick isn't it?

[Brenda]

If you read them in publication order, then by and large you are reading them in the order the author conceived of and wrote them. (It is surpassingly rare for a publisher to survey all 7 volumes of a series in manuscript and say, 'Y'know, I think we should begin with volume 3, don't you? What do the kiddies need to know anyway about the foundation of Narnia?')
This allows the reader two things. Firstly, of course, you may admire the writer's skill. She has cleverly taken into account all the happenings of vols. 1-3 and calculated backwards, to write the flashback vol. 4. Has she put a foot wrong anywhere? Inquiring minds want to know! If it is done right the flashback will deepen and inform the previous volumes. Is she good enough to pull this off?
Secondly, you now get an insight into her twisty little writer mind. What, now after destroying the realm and setting up pages and pages of wailing and gnashing of teeth, she's going to step back and tell us about the hero's childhood, really? Why would she do that? Could she be setting up even MORE wailing and gnashing?! or does she have something even more devious in view?