[shadow9d9]

For example, I wanted to read A Sundial in a Grave:1610 by Mary Gentle because I am more in the mood for a single book than a series(Secret History:Ash). However, since author's generally get better with time, is it advisable to read Secret history Ash first?

I generally read books in the order written by the author.

[Thialfi]

it might not be such a good idea. Considering that you donīt want to read a series, it shouldnīt matter which book was written first. Check out the reviews instead, and get the book with the best reviews.

[JohnH]

It depends. I try to read by publication date. And, no matter if the author is writing a prequel, I always read assocational books in order of publication (it goes without saying that I always read serial entries in their proper order). For instance, even though Robert JOrdan wrote "New Spring" as a supposed entry for new readers to the world of The Wheel of Time, I think its proper reading order is in between the two WoT books that were published right before and right after. Same with George R. R. Martin. Because ongoing series are not voids no matter the author. And even though "prequels", there are bits and pieces that the already immersed reader will pick up on. And appreciate.

Also, Katherine Kurtz is another author whose Dryni work, though it jumps around, expands with each new effort. To the point that the original work seems incredibly simplistic when compared to the most recent efforts. Oddly, the earlier work reads better in many ways for me. The point being though that, overall, I think you have the right idea. If it is possible.

However, I have many exceptions. Many. Juliet McKenna for one. I read her first book when it came out and found it rather lackluster. Mediocre. Not horrible, but not rushing out to read the next one. Having only read the first one of the five book series, I found myself unwittingly buying and reading the first book of her second series when it came out. The premise sounded more intriguing than the first effort had. So I read it. Enjoyed it. And realized that it was a sequal series to the first. So I ended up going back and reading the second to fifth book in the first series. And found that I was enjoying more than I had the first of that series. Considerably. And I think at least a small part of that was based on McKenna having successfully re-sold me on the world as a whole and her style and tone in specific.

James Clemens is another author whose first book, Wit'ch something, I really disliked. But I received a copy of his new series and I really, really like it. It is fast-paced and fun and a bit gruesome without being gratuitously so. I packs nice action with enough intrigue and plot that I find myself looking forward to the third book immensely. This series was not recognizably tied in any way to that of the first series. But I still plan on revisiting the first series because whatever Clemens' growth between that first book and the first book of the second series, it is profound enough that I am curious to witness it and have enough optimism that it might kick in during that series and not somehow have occured via some odd epiphany between the two.

Gentle's Sundial in a Grave is a standalone. So I would say if it really intrigues you, go ahead and read it. Then if it is good enough to make you want to explore her other work, then maybe you can do so at the leisure of starting with her earliest works and progressing forward. With the recent release of Ilario, you have a couple of years I imagine before she has anything new coming out. So you have time.

Again, skirting the obvious jumping into the middle of a series, overall I prefer, if I have the time, to start with the first book. But I'm not overally anal enough about it. Mainly because the publishing world doesn't always work in a way that allows that. I have discovered authors that have their career jumpstarted with a new book that pleases me enough to then have to go back and find old backstock that sadly can be out of print and hard to find.

And even though a prequel, I think Ilario definitely needs read after Ash.

[U-Borat]

The Ash-o-meter is ticking!

With Mary Gentle, Ash, a Secret History is also a single book if you're in Uk/Aus.
And it's significantly better than anything else by Mary Gentle IMO, though I haven't read Ilario yet.

[Hobbit]

Gentle's Sundial in a Grave is a standalone. So I would say if it really intrigues you, go ahead and read it. Then if it is good enough to make you want to explore her other work, then maybe you can do so at the leisure of starting with her earliest works and progressing forward. With the recent release of Ilario, you have a couple of years I imagine before she has anything new coming out. So you have time.

Can't disagree with that. Though you don't have to read ASH before 1610, and you're after a single volume, then IMO, and as John said, it might be worth going for that.

I still rate ASH though, (and have a reputation for being rather enthusiastic about it, hence the ASH - o -meter!). It is still one of the best books I have ever read, though it's not perfect and not for everyone.

If you like 1610, then ASH is a definite followup. Ilario is different, and a lot subtler (as I've said in my review (http://www.sffworld.com/brevoff/326.html).)

Hobbit

[shadow9d9]

The Ash-o-meter is ticking!

With Mary Gentle, Ash, a Secret History is also a single book if you're in Uk/Aus.
And it's significantly better than anything else by Mary Gentle IMO, though I haven't read Ilario yet.

Do you feel it is significantly better than sundial? I was hoping for a new author to follow(as opposed to a one hit wonder).

[Hobbit]

It's difficult to answer that one. There's a lot in 1610 I liked. In many ways it was a polished, well written, sexy, violent novel. Though I still prefer ASH.

Hobbit

[shadow9d9]

I read the translated forward... is it supposed to really be a translation or is the forward just more fiction used to try to make it seem more real?(of Sundial)

[Raule]

The forward of 1610 is fictional.

Although 1610 and Ash both deal with some similar, overlapping themes, they are very different novels. I would categorize Ash as a Science Fiction novel, and 1610 as historical adventure/fantasy. 1610 is, as others have pointed out, a standalone, and I don't think it matters whether you read 1610 or Ash first.

It's interesting to read others POV on whether to read the works of authors in order of publication. I think for some it makes a difference and others it doesn't (we can probably all cite examples of authors who get better with time and others who just haven't lived up to their first offering). You just can never know until you do a bit a research on the reviews and then read and decide for yourself. Like so many things in life, it's a roll of the dice and purely subjective. I liked both books, but for different reasons, but 1610 was more satisfying and thrilling for me.

[shadow9d9]

Thanks for the responses.