I'm afraid I agree with Sandra on this one David. Some authors can be read in any order and it doesn't matter, for example I recently read The Hard way by Lee Child and it could have been enjoyed as a stand alone. However, I do think i enjoyed it more knowing Jack Reacher's past. However, some series would be ruined for me if I read them out of sequence, for example the running story of John Cardinal's home life in Giles Blunts novels, I would feel i had missed so much if I started at book 4 say, as it's a building story and if I read book 4 first, then I would know a big spoiler for what was going to happen in the first books. Besides all that, I just love to read in order and would always rather wait for the first in the sequence and start at the beginning it's part of the whole anticipation of the follow on that I enjoy when getting into a series. I don't really feel that whether the books are deeply entrenched in a follow on storyline or are more stand alone reflects on an author's ability, it's just a different style of writing. However, I do get very anoyed when authors spend ages trying to bring readers up to date in later books. I remember one patricia Cornwell where she spent almost the first half of one book going over old stuff and I found it really anoying. I do have lots of friends who don't mind what order they read a series in though, but I just don't want to do it, i'm not quite as bothered if it's a series I don't know anything about, but if i've already started and read the first book or two, then I get really agitated if a later book comes up much later on in the series for a book group etc.
Shell.----- Original Message ----- From: "David Russell" <david.russell8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <electrobooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:34 PM Subject: [electrobooks] Re: reading books in order
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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2081 - Release Date: 4/26/2009 9:44 AM
-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1901 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message
