valancy: "Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a plastic rocket" (lookslikerain7179274)
[personal profile] valancy
When reading a long series of books which are numbered in an order that isn't chronoligical, how do you (personally) read them?

Example that is not about books: Star Wars movies came out 4, 5 6 then 1, 2, 3. Would you start at Episode 1, then go 2-6 in numerical order? Or do you start with Episode 4 then watch 5 & 6, and then 1-3?

I just found out one of my favorite authors wrote me least favorite books of hers when she was going through a really hard time in her life. She'd written a good trilogy for which the public (& her bank account) demanded more, so the rest of the books are written all out of order. I mean, ifbthe numbers here are in order by where they fit in the story arc, chronologically they'd be read as 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 4, 6. You wouldn't start with 6, but it was written 20 years after 5, & then you go back 2 years after 5 was written for 7.

So I'm curious to know what order you'd read them in & why. I read them all in numerical order long before I knew that wasn't chronological order, & I'm thinking of going back for them in chronological order. But if I were going to recommend them to someone, what order's best for a newbie? I'm not sure. Your thoughts?
Tags:

6/2/12 06:52 (UTC)
jadedmusings: (Default)
[personal profile] jadedmusings
Honestly, it depends on the series and the strength of the writer not to spoil things. I had this issue with Steven Brust's Taltos novels. Up until the last three or four books, they are out of order chronologically speaking, but I went ahead and read them in the published order, which is what Brust suggests in the introduction of one novel because it's a question he gets asked a lot. I thought it would annoy me to jump forward and then back in time with each book, but for that series it works and Brust is great about making you a little curious about how or why something is due to past events without taking away from the story or leaving you going, "Damnit, I need to know now!" And then a book or two later, you learn how it came to be and it's usually pretty good.

I'm planning to re-read that series again, and I think I'm going to stick with the published order, though he too has a bad book in there that was written during a bad point in his life (his marriage ended badly).

6/2/12 17:52 (UTC)
[identity profile] lpsmith.livejournal.com
I always go for published order, though occasionally if 'published' differs from 'written', I'll try to go for written. I tend to enjoy the process of discovery more than the process of recognition, and written order most closely matches the author's process of discovery about their own world.

7/2/12 03:49 (UTC)
gwydion: (Default)
[personal profile] gwydion
With a few exceptions, I go for chronological. The exceptions are where the early in chronology books/movies are significantly weaker than the ones later in sequence. Star Wars would be one of those exceptions. I prefer Sharpe chronological, for example.

Profile

valancy: "Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a plastic rocket" (Default)
valancy

December 2016

S M T W T F S
    123
4567 8910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Page generated Wednesday, 8 July 2026 01:07

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags