Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

26 views
Serieses! > Change both books to primary

Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Emy (last edited Apr 24, 2018 05:21AM) (new)

Emy (emypt) | 5038 comments Edited. There is a somewhat confusing note left on the page, but without further explanation, a full number book (i.e. NOT #0) should be Primary.


message 2: by Cassandra (last edited Apr 24, 2018 06:28AM) (new)

Cassandra (cassanj) | 4919 comments Emy wrote: "Edited. There is a somewhat confusing note left on the page, but without further explanation, a full number book (i.e. NOT #0) should be Primary."

I think the confusing note is from a previous series numbering that's been changed. The Rules of Magic is actually a prequel, and had originally been numbered 0, which as a prequel wouldn't receive a primary work designation within the series. I'm not sure why it's now numbered 1 in the series.


message 3: by Emy (new)

Emy (emypt) | 5038 comments Hard to tell what happened - unfortunately the Series logs are pretty vague and it doesn't show us what happened when, only who edited something.

Is it better to have as 0 and 1 (with a BIG note in the general Notes field), or leave as 1 and 2? I'm torn because usually when there's a 0, there are more books in the series so that it's obvious it's a prequel novel. Here, because there are (currently?) only the two works, it LOOKS like an error.


message 4: by Cassandra (last edited Apr 24, 2018 07:00AM) (new)

Cassandra (cassanj) | 4919 comments Emy wrote: "Hard to tell what happened - unfortunately the Series logs are pretty vague and it doesn't show us what happened when, only who edited something.

Is it better to have as 0 and 1 (with a BIG note i..."


I'm not sure either. The change log for the actual book shows the "0" designation being changed/removed; it's pretty obviously a prequel, and it was published after Practical Magic. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to designate it as number 1 when it's not, but that's just me.


message 5: by Scott (new)

Scott | 24909 comments IMO Practical Magic should be no. 1. It was published over twenty years before the second book!


message 6: by Arenda (new)

Arenda | 22166 comments Why not remove the numbering, and explain the newest book being kind of a prequel to the other in the series description.


message 7: by Cassandra (new)

Cassandra (cassanj) | 4919 comments Arenda wrote: "Why not remove the numbering, and explain the newest book being kind of a prequel to the other in the series description."

That solution makes sense to me.


message 8: by Scott (new)

Scott | 24909 comments Actually I think Star Wars did have "Episode IV" in the titles.


message 9: by Philip (new)

Philip (burnnerman) | 5913 comments Corinne wrote: "For consideration... If we compare to the Star Wars movies, the older versions are called 4, 5, 6 and the newer ones 1, 2, 3. I assume when the came out they were 1, 2, 3 but they were renumbered."

Actually no, the original movies came out as 4,5,6 right from the beginning.


back to top