Read order? Recommendations etc appreciated.
TIA
Oldest to newest?
By publication date or story timeline?
I've read dead tree series where the series has an over all story line and clear time line, but books in the series were written and published out of order from the story time line.
Another example(s) would be the late Steve Miller/(still with us)Sharon Lee's groupings of stories, better known as the Liaden series ...
As have I, some of Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemore come to mind. Sure each set in the over-all universe can be read separately, yet if you get them by time line some of the earliest (time-line wise) were published long after the first ones were published.
I've seen it where they started a series with a time line that had some gaps, then later went back and filled in the gaps.
Personally if I'm binge reading a series, I'd rather read it by story timeline than publication date if the two don't match.
Exactly! Oh it is Heralds of Valdemar. And I recommend reading them by time-line. Thus I ask for recommend reading order.
Personally if I'm binge reading a series, I'd rather read it by story timeline than publication date if the two don't match.
I've just reread a number of Gina Marie Wylie's stories that were originally published here. (They've since been removed for commercial publication elsewhere.) These related stories overlap in time, and their parallel serial publication here avoided too many spoilers. To read the stories chronologically would need an omnibus edition where the chapters were arranged in the order they appeared here, regardless of which book they appeared!
Two or three overlapping books in a long series wouldn't be a big problem. But a series that did a lot of that I would probably just avoid all together.
You probably want to avoid Wes Boyd's Spearfish Lake tales, then - at one point in the story timeline, there are five books running concurrently.
Overlaps, looping etc doesn't bother me - way back when, I used to select books to read from the local library or my parent's bookshelves by ignoring the cover, skimming the blurb, and opening the book somewhere round the middle to start reading it - if it grabbed me, I'd read to the end, then go back to the beginning to read the stuff I'd skipped by starting mid-way. Good books got read through to the end again, meh ones just to the mid-start-point.
It's almost always better to read (or watch media) in publication order than chronological order on a first read.
Publication order is typically the same as writing order and most writers adapt their characters over time. Reading in chronological order sounds smart until you realise that "earlier" books will give away details of "later" books because most of the audience has already read them. What the author intends as a fun Easter Egg or callback become either a major spoiler or a seemingly out-of-place scene for the chronological reader.
Chronological reads/ watches are for fans when they do a reread looking for details, but aren't generally good for your first experience.
About the only broad exception to this is for older TV series when networks would occasionally play episodes out of order or when a crossover event occurs across two unconnected shows. This happened a few times with Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel after BVS moved from WB to UPN. Since the shows were on different networks, crossover episodes had to be very careful about what they referenced and how.
It's almost always better to read (or watch media) in publication order than chronological order on a first read.
I can't agree. Personally I find it very annoying when I am reading a series with an overall story line and time land and suddenly realize that the events of book 5 all occurred before book 3. Annoying enough for me to potentially abandon a series.
I can understand that, but is the problem the fact that it takes place earlier or the fact that it is a surprise? If said fifth book in a series was clearly labelled as a prequel would it still bother you as much?
Similarly, if you found an author early in their career and started reading, then a prequel book came out, would you skip it because you only want to read things in chronological order or would you read it as it came out?
To me, the issue with what you describe is the surprise itself, which sounds unnecessary. It's similar to a dream sequence. the author is tricking the reader by presenting information in a way that hides its place in the story. Being a prequel, flashback, or dream isn't necessarily an issue if it fits the story, but not revealing it is such until much later makes it harder for the reader to understand where the book fits in their understanding of the overall story.
I can understand that, but is the problem the fact that it takes place earlier or the fact that it is a surprise? If said fifth book in a series was clearly labelled as a prequel would it still bother you as much?
If it was clearly labeled as a prequel and I bought books 1-5 all at once, I would simply read #5 first.
Which of his series? Trader's Tales is 6 books and starts at Quarter Share. You can get more info at his site as to how the different series mesh together. Audio version is available at that archival place.
Definitely start at quarter share and go by publication date and you won't go wrong. Fantastic series, not a dud among them!