• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Would you EVER start a fantasy series in the middle?

Kookamoor

Kookamoor

New Member
A question for you all:

Would you EVER start reading a fantasy series with a book other than the first one. By this I mean would you pick up and read Book 2, 3, etc before you've read Book 1?

I quite simply can't understand why a person would do such a thing! If you know that there's plot that comes before a particular book, why would you knowingly start in the middle? It's like renting a VHS movie that hasn't been rewound, and just starting the movie in the middle.

And I should clarify - I am not referring to prequels (eg: Belgarath the Sorceror). I'm quite happy that they be can read afterwards - in fact, I would never read them before I read the series!
 
Defintely not!

I get quite indignant when I see someone reading Return of the King or some equivalent novel only to admit not having read the previous novels. I feel as though it's a disgrace to the effort the author exhibited in writing the series. Sometimes I think it's just a quick immersion to the story so that the reader can say "Yes, I've read Lord of the Rings".

Although it may be a little different, I know my father skips pages of what he says "...is just description and boring dialogue" so that he can read whole novels like Terry Goodkind's Wizards First Rule in about 3-4 hours. That's something else that I get quite annoyed with and in my opinion is almost, but not quite, just as bad as skipping books.
 
I take it that one step further where if an author keeps the same character for their books I even need to read those in the correct order. Drove my hubby nuts when he lovingly bought me a Patricia Cornwell book & I had to by the previous ones before reading it.
 
I think it depends on how what defiens a series IMHO. There are some examples of novels in a series that can be read as stand alone with no problems. A lot of authors jsut use teh same setting, and eve characters but it doesn't reqquire reading in sequence.

A lot of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels can be read out of sequence. Lois Mcmaster Bujold's Chalion novels, Curse of Chalion, Paladin of Souls, and her forthcoming The Hallowed Hunt are another example. The prodigous China Mieville's Bas Lag novels Perdido Street Station, The Scar, and Iron Council. Even if oen wanted to suffer throguh them, some Terry Brook's work like Elfstone's of Shannara, and Wishsong of Shannara require no other references. There are many more of course.

AS a ruel of thumb however, I always recommend reading in the order the author releases his book regarding nvoels with simialr settings. It just makes sense.
 
I try not to read from the middle of any continuing series. Sometimes even if they can be read out of order, I still insistently find the preceding books before embarking on a new read. I can't stand knowing that I could have missed nuances of a particular book simply because I hadn't read the ones preceding it.

One exception is Discworld, where I started with The Light Fantastic and jumped immediately to Mort.

ds
 
I have unfortunately done this on several occasions...
Never meaning to of course and when I do realize, it drives me demented.
I’m also constantly plagued with missing middle books (mainly book 2), so I can't read the ones I’ve got 'till I find them (which naturally I never can:( )
 
I would never intentionally read from the middle of a series. When I was much younger and just getting into reading a lot of spec. fiction I accidentally started a series from the middle. I wasn't completely lost but I remember after I realized it was book two and then read the first book a good many of things in the second book made a bit more sense.
 
Sar said:
I take it that one step further where if an author keeps the same character for their books I even need to read those in the correct order.
Click to expand...

direstraits said:
I can't stand knowing that I could have missed nuances of a particular book simply because I hadn't read the ones preceding it.
Click to expand...

These two quotes sum it up for me. I feel like I'm missing out on something if I don't start at the *very* beginning.
 
I do pretty much the same as Kookamoor. Sometimes after waiting a very long time for the next book in a series I have to start the whole series over before I can read the new book.
 
The last school I was at had a really bad library. I read Christopher Pike's Last Vampire series 5, 4 then 3. Still waiting to read 1 and 2! :eek:

Since then I've tried not to. :)
 
Wouldn't do it on purpose, but again, there are examples of "series" where the storyline isn't quite so strict. There are "standalone" books of the King's Blades series by Dave Duncan that can be read without having read the previous books. The first three books would be better enjoyed read in order, but the other books could be read "out of order." And each of those books is well-contained; no cliffhanging ... Still, if I were recommedning the series, the best book is the first one; generally, this is true of all series.
 
pseudomuffin said:
Sometimes after waiting a very long time for the next book in a series I have to start the whole series over before I can read the new book.
Click to expand...

Yes!! Me too!! I try to keep from reading brand new fantasy genres for this reason, because the waiting kills me, and my TBR list gets very long while I re-read the first 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 books of the series. I've re-read Terry Goodkind's 'Wizards First Rule' and the next few books I don't know how many times to catch up with the plot again so that I can fully enjoy and appreciate the latest one.

(shh... you people over on the 'Terry Goodkind sucks' thread be quiet!! :D )
 
demetrio said:
yes..If the middle books aren't written well enough to stand on their own, the series will not be worth it.
Click to expand...

That's not it at all. A series is written as... a series. If one reads it in other than the order it is written in, one cannot expect to appreciate it in the same way.

If you pick up Book 2 of any series and decide you don't like it because it doesn't 'stand on it's own' (I interpret this to mean you don't understand what's going on, characters don't seem well formed, the story seems flawed, etc) then you can hardly judge the series on your own decision/laziness/foolishness to skip the first book!

How can you judge a series if you haven't read the SERIES??
 
If you pick up Book 2 of any series and decide you don't like it because it doesn't 'stand on it's own' (I interpret this to mean you don't understand what's going on, characters don't seem well formed, the story seems flawed, etc) then you can hardly judge the series on your own decision/laziness/foolishness to skip the first book!
Click to expand...

Actually, I can, I do, and you should. If one needs to know everything that has happened previously in order to comprehend or even enjoy the present story, then the author has failed. If the characters fail to be fully fleshed out in a particular book, the author has failed. If the story is flawed, the author has failed. None of these parts should be neglected solely because it is a "Series", that is no excuse. Any good author should be able to spin a story that stands on its own. If the author is writing so interdependently; then publish it as one huge book, not as a series. Any good, solid series can be read singly. One of the best examples is Tad Williams Otherland. Each book is solid in its own right, and one does not need to read the others to enjoy any single entry. Now...as for pop 'fantasy', which is where most 'series' are...Hickman and Weiss's Dragonlance is another good example where each book is a story in its own.

Now that is not to say there isn't an extra experience to be had when read together. Each book in Card's Ender series adds to the overall experience...but none really need to be read sequentially. Although, he is probably a bad example - because, as good as Enders Game is, some of the others are lacking. Series should complement, not be dependent on each other.

Jeffery Deaver's Lincoln Rhyme Thriller series can be read any which way. Sure there is an overall tale to be told, sure there are tidbits of this and that here and there, but I'm sure Jeff would be the first to tell you that each book needs to stand on its own.

Now, there could be a book or two from a particular series that isnt of the same quality as the others and no, that doesn't detract from the other books. But it sure does detract from the series. Authors know that when writing books as a series that each one serves as an advertisement for the collective unit. An author who slacks and produces subpar work just because it is in the series and will sell, does not deserve to be read.
 
demetrio said:
If the author is writing so interdependently; then publish it as one huge book, not as a series. Any good, solid series can be read singly.

...

An author who slacks and produces subpar work just because it is in the series and will sell, does not deserve to be read.
Click to expand...

I knew somewhere out there someone would vehemently disagree with me!!

I couldn't disagree more. I think there's a lot to be said for series writing. As much as it grates on me to have to wait for the next book, there's also a sense of anticipation when you want to find out 'what happens next'.

What does it matter if the story comes in separate dust jackets? A series is just that - it's sequential! In my opinion you're failing the author if you're judging his work without the full story.

Bear in mind that another reason for books to come out in a series is that for a very long tale there is publishing pressure to break a book up. Publishing one very long book is a big risk if it's a flop, and there are marketting reasons also. So often times authors have no choice but to publish in parts.
 
Although I agree there are instances that a series with some cliffhangers is appealing however lately for the most part I have become disenchanted with many of them.

Many of them are forced upon us by the publishers not the authors, a couple of recent examples, that authors wanted multi-book sequences to be a one book format but was over ruled:

Gene Wolfe's 'Wizard/Knight Duology

John C. Wright's 'The War of Dreaming' series

Charles Stross' 'Merchant Princes'

It merely is a marketing tool on many occasions and the practice goes back to eve Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings which Tolkien wanted in one edition. The Uk did this with George. R.R. Martin's A Storm fo Swords.

I think it's kind of absurd, and is really just to turn a few more bucks on a story. A company could easily just give us one 1000 page novel instead of 2 or 3 sequences in a series. Why don't they? Becasue they could charge 29.99 for one novel, or charge 19.99 for 3 smaller ones each, doubling there money. Then they have the nerve to alter come out with a omnibus edition a year later. For this reason I respect works by Mieville, who are able to write complete stories in novel, in similar settings. I respect works like Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell which Clarke could have seperated into two novels for more money, and make no msitake about it, it's all about money, and has nothing to do with crafty literary devices for the sake of a better story.

In many ways it's a marketing ploy, and a way for lesser authros to continue to string out stories they are not capable of concluding either due to lack of talent, or fear that will never ever get another chance to write something different. There are of course certainly exceptions, and several sequential series that are gratifying indeed, but they perhaps number a half dozen or so IMHO.

The concept of the series being popular to modern fantasy publishing probably can be blamed on Terry Brook's success in the Shannara series (a lot of things can be blamed on that god-awful series admittedly).
 
This has turned into an interesting discussion.

Ainulindale is right in most cases about the marketing ploy and the whole look about single-turned-multi book series'. Even Ainulindale's comment about Brooks is bang on! but that's another topic altogether. Can anyone say Eddings too?

I don't agree much with demetrio's thought about being able to read any book in a series as a stand-alone if the series is any good. Since you (demetrio) mentioned a Tad Williams book as your example, I'll mention another to go against your reasoning and that is the final part of the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series. To Green Angel Tower was so large when Tad gave it to Daw publishing that they broke in into two halves or parts. Reading To Green Angel Tower Part 2 before reading any of the other novels would be idiotic - you would have no absolute clue what was going on. Sure you might enjoy parts of the novel which have battles and such, but there is no way you could appreciate the morphology the main characters undergo by changing from who they were to who they have all become and that's what makes the story.

That said, I still agree with your thoughts that some series are quite good to read regardless of which book you read. C.S Lewis' Narnia series could be put in this category to some degree. Dragonlance is a different case though, since all dragonlance novels take place in the same world/setting and there are separate series' within the whole dragonlance realm. That would be similar to saying that all novels written about Earth are within one series and could be read interchangeably.

All in all, I think that a good series is not defined by the ability to read haphazardly any of the novels in it. An author's personal style defines the ability to do this and as far as I am concerned in most cases the best novel to start with is the first.
 
Jazzman said:
I still agree with your thoughts that some series are quite good to read regardless of which book you read. C.S Lewis' Narnia series could be put in this category to some degree.
Click to expand...

This discussion took a bit of a different turn to what I intended. My main intent was to ask if anyone else had the same obsession as I of going back to the *very* first book, no matter whether the books can stand alone or not. But it's still turned out to be a very interesting discussion!

In the vein of books Jazzman refers to - Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising series could also be read individually. But I don't think one would get as much out of them.

One of the problems I had with getting into Terry Pratchett and Dragonlance was that there seemed to be no order to most of the books. This frustrated me no end! I was always afraid I was missing out on something.

PS: Alf is cool!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top