[electrobooks] Re: reading books in order
- From: "David Russell" <david.russell8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <electrobooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:34:31 +0100
Sandra,
I agree that it is preferable if you can do it, but a good author should be
able to refer to earlier facts without making it essential that you know the
whole story. I often notice Peter Robinson refers to previous events, but
it is not essential to have read the previous book. Surely with any book
you should be able to ick it up and read it without worrying what came
before.
I think it is presuming rather a lot for an author to think that all readers
have read all of his books in order.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: electrobooks-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:electrobooks-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of whizza
Sent: 26 April 2009 18:26
To: electrobooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [electrobooks] Re: reading books in order
The problem with that, David, is that some authors introduce characters in
the first book in a series and develop them further in subsequent novels.
Also, some authors refer to something that happened in a previous novel in
the series, one that perhaps you haven't read, so it gives away some of the
plot of that particular book. I agree that with some series, perhaps Jack
Reacher is a reasonable example, you can get away with it but for some you
just can't! I've just read three books by Alex Barentsen unknowingly in the
wrong order and he did refer to previous incidents I knew nothing about. So
maybe it just depends on the author as to whether you need to read a series
chronologically or in any order you like.
Cheers,
Sandra.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4035 (20090425) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Other related posts:
