[CLOSED] Correct numbering for "Thoughtless" series

[Dan]

In the thoughtless series, either "Untamed" should be 3.5 instead of 4. Or all of the rest of the numbers deserve their own integer numbers.

Option 1 (makes the most sense to me):
Thoughtless #1
Thoughtful #1.5
Effortless #2
Painful #2.5
Reckless #3
Untamed #3.5

Option 2:
Thoughtless #1
Thoughtful #2
Effortless #3
Painful #4
Reckless #5
Untamed #6

2, 4, 6 are in-between full length novels that tell the story from a different perspective.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Decimals are reserved for shorts and novellas.

[Dan]

In which case 1.5 and 2.5 should be changed, no?

The current numbering is
Thoughtless #1
Thoughtful #1.5
Effortless #2
Painful #2.5
Reckless #3
Untamed #4

Which is in consistent since 1.5 and 2.5 are also full length novels

[Nay]

rivka wrote: "Decimals are reserved for shorts and novellas."

rivka--I happened across this and thought I should chime in as I was the last librarian to make any edits on the series page. I think quite a few GR librarians are confused about how to number full-length "non-primary works" that fall between other full-length books in a series. I was until I came across one of your posts last week.

First, to make things a little more clear, Thoughtful (presently #1.5) and Painful (presently #2.5) are alternate POV. Untamed (presently #4) is a full-length novel that is simply about another character in the group of friends, and as far as I know, it is a primary work that is presently numbered correctly. Granted, it's not about the two main characters that books 1-3 are about, but he is in those books a lot as a secondary character, and Untamed is a continuation of his part of the story as told in books 1-3, and the MCs from 1-3 are in it as well. The author never said it was an "extra"--it was always the newest book in the series. I know that doesn't always make a difference regarding GR policy, so it's definitely possible that I'm unclear about whether it would be considered a primary part of the series.

Back to the alternate POV editions--Thoughtful (presently 1.5) and Painful (presently 2.5) are full-length alternate POVs of books 1 and 2 respectively. From what I've seen, those should not be primary works, so in my edit to the series page, I unchecked the primary works boxes and left a librarian note as to why. At the time, they were already 1.5 and 2.5, and since I was unsure about the correct way to number them, I left the numbering alone.

However, now, after doing more research last week about another series with a similar situation, I believe that instead of being numbered 1.5 and 2.5, they should be unnumbered (and left as non-primary)--is that correct?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Unnumbered and left as non-primary would be acceptable, but I'm not clear why they are not simply numbered (and primary). I am not familiar with this particular series, but I have read other series where different books are from different POVs. I wouldn't renumber them because of it, but would still with whole numbers in publication order. Again, I am not familiar with the specific series, and will defer to judgment of those who have.

[Nay]

rivka wrote: "Unnumbered and left as non-primary would be acceptable, but I'm not clear why they are not simply numbered (and primary). I am not familiar with this particular series, but I have read other series..."

I've read the series, and I agree with whole numbers in publication order. I think I got the idea that retellings with an alternate POV would be non-primary because I've seen so many stuck in a series after the book they're retelling with a decimal, even if they're full-length.

The author has them numbered in publication order, and Twilight is numbered in publication order, even though bk 5 is retelling of bk 1, so to me, it makes sense to do that with this series as well.

In that case, it would be:
1 Thoughtless
2 Effortless
3 Reckless
4 Thoughtful (full-length alternate POV retelling of bk 1)
5 Untamed
6 Painful (full-length alternate POV retelling of bk 2)

I'll wait a couple of days to see if there's a comment to the contrary and if not, I'll revise the numbering/primary status in the series and update the title fields.

[Dan]

This sounds like the most reasonable course to me as well. A counterpoint is the Fifty Shades series which has the other point of view as decimals but also as a separate series. To me this doesn't feel like a separate series and the author also doesn't consider it a separate series either FWIW.

[Nay]

Dan wrote: "This sounds like the most reasonable course to me as well. A counterpoint is the Fifty Shades series which has the other point of view as decimals but also as a separate series. To me this doesn't ..."

I corrected the numbering earlier today and left notes. I still need to correct some of the title fields, but the ones on the primary editions are correct.

I just looked at Fifty Shades and the numbering of the extras is incorrect there as well. They shouldn't have decimals. I'm going to remove the numbering but leave everything else as-is. They already have the primary works boxes unchecked.

[Dan]

Thanks!