Whole or Part

[Reading_fanatic]

I was just wondering if for some reason you couldn't find a particular book in a series would you just read the next one or would you stop completely until you get that book?
EG: When I read the Memory, Sorrow, Thorn Books by Tad Williams I actually started reading at the stone of farewell and didn't read the Dragonbone chair until after the others.

What would you do??

[GOLLUM]

I never read a series out of order. I'll simply track down the ones I need before starting. I like things to be ordered and logical, just my way...

[dwndrgn]

I'll wait. I can always re-read the first ones if needed.

[Snowdog]

The same. I'll wait. I've occasionally read out of order, but generally through ignorance.

[Connavar]

I would never read out of order. It destroy the point of reading a series.


Which is why i dont like to read a series specially ones that are already realesed if i dont have atleast two books.

There is nothing i dislike more than finishing a book you like and you cant get hold of the next book.

[Overread]

Yep - I go with the masses here; and lessons learned means that when I can I get at least 2 or more of a series (I think I have about 5 unread pratchetts) so that when I get into the flow of a story I don't have to stop reading

[j. d. worthington]

I'm going to be slightly different here....

It depends on how the series was written. If (as with Howard's Hyborian Age tales, or Moorcock's Elric, etc.) they were not written in series-chronological order, then I can enjoy reading them in either fashion -- as they were written or within the chronology of the series. This is, in part, because I enjoy seeing how a writer develops his/her ideas and grows as a writer, as well as enjoying the series as a separate entity. It's an entirely different matter if the series was actually conceived/written in order as a whole to begin with, of course.

It is also a different matter with those where the writer has gone back and revised the earlier works to make them more consistent (both in tone, quality, and incident) with later pieces in the series -- unless I have both versions, in which case, again, I can enjoy it both ways.

Why have both versions? Well, because some of the best writers are writers of the idée fixe, and in many ways rewrite the same tale or deal with the same themes over and over, though with such growth, change, and extensive development that the connections are at times almost unrecognizable. And sometimes it's quite fascinating to compare the versions and see how the writer's emphasis changes from one version to the next, often completely altering the feel and implications of the tale itself (and no few times the actual incidents, for that matter -- "The Jade Man's Eyes" by Moorcock being an excellent example, where all these are greatly changed).

So... with me, it all depends on the series, or the writer....

[pyan]

If it's a serial, with a strong continuing plotline through the books, I'll try to get them all first, or at least make sure they're all easily available.

With a series, the same characters in different adventures, I'm not so careful - there's often not the same interdependence in the various books.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'm going to be slightly different here....

It depends on how the series was written. If (as with Howard's Hyborian Age tales, or Moorcock's Elric, etc.) they were not written in series-chronological order, then I can enjoy reading them in either fashion -- as they were written or within the chronology of the series. This is, in part, because I enjoy seeing how a writer develops his/her ideas and grows as a writer, as well as enjoying the series as a separate entity. It's an entirely different matter if the series was actually conceived/written in order as a whole to begin with, of course.

It is also a different matter with those where the writer has gone back and revised the earlier works to make them more consistent (both in tone, quality, and incident) with later pieces in the series -- unless I have both versions, in which case, again, I can enjoy it both ways.

Why have both versions? Well, because some of the best writers are writers of the idée fixe, and in many ways rewrite the same tale or deal with the same themes over and over, though with such growth, change, and extensive development that the connections are at times almost unrecognizable. And sometimes it's quite fascinating to compare the versions and see how the writer's emphasis changes from one version to the next, often completely altering the feel and implications of the tale itself (and no few times the actual incidents, for that matter -- "The Jade Man's Eyes" by Moorcock being an excellent example, where all these are greatly changed).

So... with me, it all depends on the series, or the writer....

Well 99% series are very unlike REH Conan and MM Elric series.

They can be read in almost any order you want while most other series book 2 starts where book 1 ends .

I have read several times fantasy and SF series i enjoyed but was very annoyed with myself for nothing having bought 2-3 books of the series.


So for me too it depends on the series and the writer but there are very REH's Conan types series around where you can read a series in which order you want.

[Who's Wee Dug]

With the Dragonbone Chair it set up the history/background for the rest of the books, me I wait.

[hodor]

Originally Posted by Reading_fanatic

I was just wondering if for some reason you couldn't find a particular book in a series would you just read the next one or would you stop completely until you get that book?
EG: When I read the Memory, Sorrow, Thorn Books by Tad Williams I actually started reading at the stone of farewell and didn't read the Dragonbone chair until after the others.

What would you do??

OK I made a mistake, unintentional by far! I would normally always read a series in order, however, just recently, I ordered Reaper's Gale without reader The Bonehunters (which comes before gale)>>> I am mad at myself for that, however Erikson's books could be read out of order in certain cases based on his style... dont ask why I just found that to be the case.

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'm going to be slightly different here....

Like that's new....

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by GOLLUM

Like that's new....

What can I say? I'm a contrarian....

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

What can I say? I'm a contrarian....

And damn proud of it I'm sure....

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Connavar of Rigante

Well 99% series are very unlike REH Conan and MM Elric series.

They can be read in almost any order you want while most other series book 2 starts where book 1 ends .

Well, yes... and no. (And I think I just answered your statement, Mr. G.)

Actually, until fairly recently (say, the 1970s, when Tolkien became the dominating figure in fantasy -- for good or ill) it was largely the other way 'round; in part because so much of the fantasy was written as short stories or serials for the magazines and, as one would get an enthusiastic response, the writer would feel safe (or pressured, depending) enough to write more; so they were often out-of-order because, like what Howard said about Conan telling his stories to REH, they were tales spun as associated thoughts occurred to the writer. They seldom sat down and planned out a character's or a world's history beforehand -- it simply wasn't feasible for a working writer... at least, not then.

Only with the advent of LotR's gradual rise in popularity did such a concept as sitting down to "world-build" before writing a story come to be the norm. Before that, it was largely (though not exclusively)the product of writers who were driven by an inner vision to write what they wrote, regardless of whether it would sell or not. (The other exceptions were where a writer began with a story which gave the origin of a character/world, one which could stand on its own, and then built from that once the reader response allowed him/her to go from there.) Of course, even those who wrote for the magazines, when the series became long enough to collect into books, would go back and remove anachronisms and do editing and touching-up to make the different tales internally consistent with each other; thus (sometimes) giving the appearance of having been written in series-chronological order.