Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Serieses!
>
Hainish Cycle Not a Series?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Dori
(new)
Sep 04, 2010 02:09PM
Maybe it's something that should be noted in the description of the series...
reply
|
flag
I've been doing those like this: http://www.goodreads.com/series/49849...Its noted in the description and I didn't number them, because the read order isn't particularly important.
In that case, should this be treated as an unordered series? Why put in numbers if they serve no purpose?
Seems very reasonable to take out the numbers. How about putting a link to the author's comments in the description?
I'd write the two chronologies down in the description (both with a link to where the chronology comes from), and make it an unnumbererd list.I haven't read all of them, but I'm reading them out of any order what so ever, and it doesn't really matter. It is definitely a cycle in that they should be linked together through the series function, but I wouldn't number them at all. (As long as the description is explaining some of this)
I'm a reader who doesn't like series because I don't want to be tied down / obligated. I say, "Good Catch," to BunWat on these, and to all librarians, please do avoid letting there be numbers on stand-alone books. Thank you all very much.
While we're on the subject, I submit that Heinlein's Future History should be identified/described in a similar way, since there's some sequence but there's no real need to read them in order.
Mod
I agree with both these suggestions.
Shoshanapnw wrote: "While we're on the subject, I submit that Heinlein's Future History should be identified/described in a similar way, since there's some sequence but there's no real need to read them in order."Very true and I agree, but I read them in order once and it did add to the experience.
Mod
In that case, I'd quote and then link.
