[electrobooks] Re: reading books in order
- From: "David Russell" <david.russell8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <electrobooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:17:33 +0100
Shell, I agree up to a point. Patricia Cornwell has to be read in order,
particularly the later books as they are more about the characters than the
plot.
Just to be argumentative though, if you read the latest book and then go
back to an early book in a series, there is something smug about knowing
that the two detectives who are fighting all the time will be married by
book ten. It is like seeing into the future.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: electrobooks-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:electrobooks-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Shell
Sent: 26 April 2009 21:06
To: electrobooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [electrobooks] Re: reading books in order
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
__________ 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:
