Fantasy Book Club discussion

Just curious - are a lot of people willing to start reading a book that's in the middle of a series?

I've read the first two of the Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin, and am reading book 3 now (A Storm of Swords). There are so many open threads to start the book, and I was thinking that I'd be too frustrated to follow all them if I started the series with this book.

The more series I read, the more I'm resolved with my rule on not starting at the middle of a series. Not sure if I'm in the minority here?

I would never want to start a series in the middle.. I can't see what the point in that would be!

I used to do that with Star Wars books when I was a teenager, mostly because my local library rarely carried a complete series and my trips to the bookstore were erratic. It's possible with some series, but reading epic fantasy out of order is a definite no for me.

I would say it really depends. With most series I perfer to start at the beginning and to read in order. But there are series that aren't cleary marked as to which order they go in (Take the Darkyn series by Lynn Viehl) so I just start with what ever one I can get my hands on first. It took me a while to piece together the order of the Darkyn series (Which really makes one appreciate Goodreads a little more for the numbers included next to the book's title and series name) so I didn't mind reading those out of order. But still, I agree. Reading books out of order tends to be rather pointless. If the author's intention was for them to be read whenever, why even bother bundling them together as a series?

The ONLY time I would do this is when the timeline order of books is different from the publication order.

The greatest example of this I know if are the 14 book Flinx and Pip series by Alan Dean Foster which was written over 26 years.

Otherwise, never!

I would say it depends on the type of series. A series like Discworld, for instance, can sort of be picked up at any point, because the books are each stand=alone, generally.

But if it's a series that is continuous, then, no, I would never pick it up in the middle. And I've seen a few negative reviews for books 3 or so of a series, and the reason they were giving low stars and negative ratings was because the person couldn't figure out what was going on. I mean, they knew it was the middle of a series, but some people seem to feel that you should always be able to pick up wherever in a series and be able to know exactly what's going on, and I just find that type of thinking absurd, personally.

So, yeah - I always start from the beginning of a series, unless it's something like Discworld.

Thanks for the feedback - yeah, unless a book was meant to be stand-alone, picking up in the middle of a series would not be worth the effort.

The biggest temptation I would have to jump into the middle of the series is when I see one of the GoodReads fantasy groups pick a book-of-the month that's in the middle of a series. I don't see it happen a lot though, but if it does, I'll simply have to pass on it then.

Never. I can't imagine the mindset that would lead someone to do so. I understand that some series are structured so that you could start in the middle, but still, what reason would you have for not starting at the beginning? Unless it's out of print or something.

No no no. That's a big no from me. I'm a stickler for starting at the beginning. Never would I start from the middle. That would be really confusing. It's like jumping into the middle of a movie and hoping you know what's going on. I'm also like that even with series that don't require to read the books in order. I still like to start from the beginning and read in order, usually. Discworld was kind of an exception.

There were a couple of times in the past I read a middle book in a series by accident. It kinda ruined my enjoyment of the book. Now I make doubly sure I'm picking up the first book in a series.

In fairness, when I picked up my first Discworld book I didn't know it was a series. The little store I was at only had the one book, and it looked interesting. I only learned after the fact it was part of a larger universe. Otherwise I probably would've started from the beginning.

That said, I'm sort of glad I didn't, because I find the earliest books to also be the weakest, and I'm not sure I would've stuck with it if I hadn't already fallen in love with the series via 'Wyrd Sisters'.

Some authors are really good at catching a reader up on a series (which can be annoying if you've read the ones before as its very repetitive). But I think you still loose some connection to the characters.

I started the Discworld in the middle no problems at all. Discworld is almost made of many little series, though I wouldn't recommend starting in the middle of an arc

What about reading series out of order, like The Shannara series, The Thomas Covenant Chronicles, or the Raymend E. Feist series where there are multiple series in the same world sometimes using the same characters?

I'm in the middle of the Tawny Man Trilogy by Robin Hobb. It's a sequel to the Assassin's Apprentice Trilogy. However, I skipped past the Liveship Trilogy that took place in between. I've noticed a few references to the middle series, but I think that Robin Hobb wrote the trilogies to work independently of one another. I respect that immensely, as I discovered the books long after they were originally published, and I haven't found all of the middle trilogy at the used book stores yet! (I am a hardcover snob - no apologies!)

Are there any other series like this; with smaller standalone groupings that could be read out of order?

I skipped Liveship the first time through the series as well, but once I read it I regretted it. It adds so much to the story, and is an awesome series in and of itself.

Oh - don't tell me that!! I am really enjoying Golden Fool and don't want to put it down. I know that you're right, though...

Good thing the library book sale is this weekend. Wish me luck in my search!

Chris wrote: "What about reading series out of order, like The Shannara series, The Thomas Covenant Chronicles, or the Raymend E. Feist series where there are multiple series in the same world sometimes using th..."

I'm not sure about Feist, as the only ones I read were in the first Riftwar sequence. Some of the later series cover events in the same time frame, so would be ok. Not sure about those that happen years later.

But with Brooks and Donaldson, it would be a mess. Some of the Brooks could be skipped around on, but you'd have to do it right. The Thomas Covenant/Donaldson books would lose something major if read out of order.

They can be read without Liveship... But I skipped it because I heard that, and then when I went back to read Liveship I regretted it. Not everyone will feel the same way. I mean it's a separate series.. But very related. It fits well in between Farseer and Tawny man.

But it was ok, I read all nine books a second time earlier this year, with Liveship in between, and it was like new again. If you love it half as much as I do, you'll find there is definite reread potential!

With Brooks and Feist, I guess you could skip around... But they are better and make more sense in order. To me at least that is..

Laurel wrote: "... Are there any other series like this; with smaller standalone groupings that could be read out of order? "

I believe the Wars of Light and Shadow series by Janny Wurts may fit this bill. The books are organized into arcs, and the full series are all the arcs put together. I don't know if the arcs can be read out of order though (at least not until I finish reading the series).

Alvin wrote: "Laurel wrote: "... Are there any other series like this; with smaller standalone groupings that could be read out of order? "

I believe the Wars of Light and Shadow series by Janny Wurts may fit t..."

Alvin, thanks for your extremely kind mention - but actually, (to steer this reader honestly) not. The arc format to the Wars of Light and Shadow denotes shifts in the overall story due to unveilings that change the thrust, and epiphanies that deepen or radically shift the reader's understanding of prior events. To read out of order would distort the concepts, and while some readers have (rarely) muscled through and accomplished it, the risk of dissatisfaction is far higher.

I have read very widely, and series that can truly be read out of order - I can't think of one that would not suffer at least some facet of loss.

I stumbled into Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series in the middle, and it didn't seem to detract much from my enjoyment.

In fact, I believe that you can either read them in order of publication, or by Darkover timeline.

But I only read a few of the books in the series, and I am actually not super familiar with it.

Thanks for the clarification Janny! Ever since reading Curse of the Mistwraith, I had The Ships of Merior on my list to continue the series. There was a reference to it being the start of Arc II, so now I know what that means.

If a series is well constructed it should (IMHO) be read in order. I would think the author exposes things in a defined way and if you jump ahead you are going to get spoilers etc. That being said....Very long series like WoT is somewhat overwelming to me and I will probably not start them (or at least not until I've exhausted everything else I want to read which is getting longer with each day on GoodReads.

I used to do that alot, start a series in the middle etc, when I was a teenager with Eddings and Feist books, I also read the Malloreon, Elenium, Tamuli and Belgariad in that order, so by the time i got to reading the Belgariad I found it no where near as good as the other series, it wasn't until I re-read them all from start to finish a few years back that I began liking the Belgariad.

I also found I read many of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders books in the order she wrote them, but if you actually read them all in "historical order" ie Dragonsdawn down it makes the series alot better, at least for me. The whole series makes more sense then reading them in the order she actually wrote them.
I find sometimes I do still read a series from book 2 etc, but I do attempt to read series from the start. Sometimes I just find book 2 or book 3 and there will be a real long wait on book 1 . . so I go with what I get sometimes.

I can never bring myself to start a series in the middle. There are a number of reasons for this but in the end it really comes down to the problem that if i pick up a book in the middle of a series and love it I am going to wish i had started at the beginning, and if i hate it I'm not going to know if it is because i started in the middle of the series.

Janny wrote: "...I have read very widely, and series that can truly be read out of order - I can't think of one that would not suffer at least some facet of loss."

I agree, Janny, though it is not always obvious what the order is for some series. I'll mention Flinx and Pip again, because I first read the books as they were published and then again in the order the events happened. (I call that the Timeline order. Is there a technical term that is better?) I found the timeline order to be better for me.

Andre Norton's Witchworld books, the Darkover novels, Diskworld books and the giant Star Trek and Star Wars universes all give different experiences when read in event vs publication order.

I have several times, and usually end up getting all the books in the series to catch up. I found a copy of a Tom Clancy novel showcasing the origin of Mr. Clark at a garage sale, along with the book prior to Executive Orders, although I've forgotten the name, I think it was Debt of Honor. Both books had many mentions of events in previous books, so I went and got the whole series just to catch up. Most were good, although Clancy is a very variable writer. His ability to weave technical detail into a story is tremendous, but his character development is spotty and his plots sometimes depend on implausible or OOC events at just the right moment. Executive Orders was vastly inferior to the book it followed. I picked up the entire Vorkosigan series the same way, after reading A Civil Campaign.

Marc Vun Kannon
http://authorguy.wordpress.com

In the last few days since joining GoodReads I'm getting a lot of recommendations and adding books etc. It is difficult sometimes to determine what the start is.

I'm going to shift this discussion just a bit. When you are considering a series where the order of the books published does not follow sequentially with the storyline timeline - which do you prefer - reading them in chronological order or in published order?

I've started in the middle a few times - by accident - by not realizing a book is part of a series - I very much prefer starting at the front and working through -- as to Adam's question - I actually prefer "chronological order".

I really want to read series from the begining but the huge ones like WoT or Song of Ice and Fire just seem so daunting...Too many books to get through!! I think I'll have to wait until I have a very long period of "down time" to try to stat them.

I try to read a series in the order of publication. I mean, if a the third book in a series takes place before the first, there must be a good reason, right?