[Peregrine]

A member (Tom Bombadil) brought up an interesting point in another thread that got me thinking.

I'll see if I can split this into two questions.

One: are loosely linked books (i.e. silmarillion, hobbit, LOTR), improved by reading in order? Is it even necessary. Personally I read them in reverse order. LOTR first, then hobbit, then silmarillion. I don't think my enjoyment was marred greatly.

Secondly, and on a related thread, I must admit I have a guilty habbit - I tend to skip books in a series - i.e. I started reading WoT at book three. I completely skipped books five to seven in Kerr's Devery series and picked up again at eight. Don't ask me why, I just do. I sometimes have the weird impression this improves the series - or at least I don't miss anything vital by doing it.

Anyway I suppose this is strange question but what I am asking is - how necessary is it to read books in order/every book in a series to get the full impact of ther authors work?

Always interested in your ramblings

Peregrine

[Caly]

I personally don't think I could stand reading a series out of order. I have done it a few times by accident and it has really decreased the enjoyment for me since I miss so many hints and clues.

Now, as for something like LOTR and the Simwhatever, I don't think that has to be read in order. I haven't read them all, but from what I understand reading the Simwhatever would put most people off of Tolkein forever.

You know what really annoys me though? For the past few years the publishers have been putting The Magicians Nephew as book 1 in the Narnia series. I think that is just wrong! Yes, I get passionate about this issue, but I don't think TMN has the same magic that TLW&W has. Lewis meant that to be the first book and they shouldn't go switching that around. It is supposed to be read first. GRRRRR@evil publishers.

Caleyna

[Shadowen]

I don't like reading books out of order at all. I have The Dark Remains on my shelf for weeks now, because the library is taking a long time to get The Keep of Fire for me and although it's annoying, I'm not even tempted to open book 3. I'd be too afraid of spoilers - for example you read the book and it mentions that so and so was killed - what would be the point of reading the book you missed out then?

Oh and The Magician's Nephew thing really bugs me too! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Penumbra]

I don't know that books are written in order. If that kind of sequencing really worked, readers would go mad. Every novel is essentially stand alone. Granted, an author may wish to extend his characters, plot and dramatizations endlessly in book after book to satisfy his/her whim to "go with what works" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But I seriously doubt that any author has ever written a novel that depended upon another for reader satisfaction.

[KATS]

I think it depends on the author. I imagine that all books are better when read in order (or at least they are suppose to be). However some books will be greatly improved if you read them in order, and some will only be marginally improved. The story itself and the way the author tells the story will have a large impact on if the book is in fact a "stand alone" book.

[Bardos]

"But I seriously doubt that any author has ever written a novel that depended upon another for reader satisfaction"

Have you ever started so long a story, Penubra, that you can't finish in 4 books? I know I have. And it's not for reader satisfation; it's just were the story leads me. And I don't think you could read say book 3 and truly understand what is happening. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif

Although, some authors' books are readable stand alones. E.g., I've started reading Katherine Kerr's "A Time of Justice", and I full (90%) understand the plot, even I haven't read her other works.

Some other books are not readable stand-alones. E.g., the books in LotR trilogy. You're not going to undestand much by skipping the 1st book, for example.

[Keziah]

I think books in a series are always better read in order, except for prequels which in my opinion are better read after. I think this is probably because i like to try and figure out myself whats happened in the past(in the context of the story) and a prequal just hands it all to you on a platter.

I must admit though that i am guilty of skipping books in a series, i get all my books from the library or my sister, if i get a realy good book from the library and then the second one isn't there but the third is i can't wait and so read the third one first. If i get the book from my sister well its just pottluck wether its the first or the fourth in a series. The reading out of order will sometimes confuse me sometimes not.

[Alucard]

Personally, I hate reading books out of order. If I can't get the first, then I will just wait until I can.

But another habit, is that I usually don't like reading books in a series one after the other. I like to read at least one book in between the next book in a set, because sometimes an authors style or characters can get stale if I read to much of them back to back. So interjecting another book here or there can really help keep things fresh...

[Valada]

Personally, I absolutely have to read the books in any given series in strict order. Sure, some have called me anal retentive, or even a control freak, but I am what I am, right?

As for the following:
I don't know that books are written in order. If that kind of sequencing really worked, readers would go mad. Every novel is essentially stand alone. Granted, an author may wish to extend his characters, plot and dramatizations endlessly in book after book to satisfy his/her whim to "go with what works" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But I seriously doubt that any author has ever written a novel that depended upon another for reader satisfaction.

With all respect, I'd have to disagree. I would say that many fantasy books, since they're written as part of a series, are meant to be read as such. That isn't to say that we can't read them individually and still enjoy them, but we would definitely be missing a lot. In many series, the history is integral to the plot, and therefore, enjoyment may be possible without it, but full enjoyment isn't.

[Lani]

As most people here, I prefer reading novels in order. I think the books should be read in the order the author writes them because otherwise even though the plot could be easily understood and u might not even miss anything vital, but small hints, character understanding, references to the previous book would be lost for you. Even though I guess it is not a very major loss, but those little things is what makes the characters alive for me and what i value in the books.