3 ms·

Not every story is written that way. Also, it's not necessary that everything make sense; sometimes there are higher priorities. Sometimes, it's just not worth

Not every story is written that way. Also, it's not necessary that everything make sense; sometimes there are higher priorities. Sometimes, it's just not worth the time to read it all.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
>> later books always assume that you've read the earlier ones, even if editors do their best to try to avoid this, but earlier books never assume you've read the later ones. > Not every story is written that way. This is... clearly untrue?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I don't know about you, but there's much more to the world than what I know.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Sure, but even so I’m reasonably sure we can rely on the linear nature of time. Whether or not the publication of prequels was premeditated, it still rings true that the cultural artefact is always publication order.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      But you are not at all required to follow some prior linear order in the linear order of your own time. If I want to smelt steel, I don't need to learn to smelt bronze first. What rings true is the eternal best advice: think for yourself.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I don't really buy that. An author may have planned out the entire story, but later decides to write and release later parts of the story first, and earlier parts later, as prequels, but not include an assumption in the prequels that the reader has already read the earlier-published works. I don't know how common this is, but I don't think I'd be willing to assume this has never happened.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > An author may have planned out the entire story, but later decides to write and release later parts of the story first, and earlier parts later, as prequels, but not include an assumption in the prequels that the reader has already read the earlier-published works. Still untrue. The author is going to include whatever information they possess in whatever work they create. If the prequels are written later, they will rely on information from the earlier works, whether the author wanted them to do that or not.
      - davkan 3y ago
        I wouldn’t be surprised if I learned that a majority of books in series have been written with the idea in mind that some readers are coming in fresh. That does not mean that a book is free from having followed the prior works. An author cannot change the frame of reference they were operating within when they authored a work. That’s the reason the “cultural artifact” is the publication order. If we set aside books in a series that were written and edited to completion concurrently and published staggered, then i don’t see how an author could possibly publish a book while managing to entirely circumvent the reality that they have knowledge of the previous books they have written and do not have full knowledge of the ones they have not, no matter how hard they may try.
    - partomniscient 3y ago
      >I’m reasonably sure we can rely on the linear nature of time. I'm not even sure about that, perhaps we can rely on our linear _experience_ of time, but we can't determine which is the correct version of two billiard balls colliding if we're shown the forwards and the backwards versions. Assuming time is linear is convenient, but I don't think its provable or outright definite.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Is it? I mean, are you willing to assert that literally every single multi-work story was written with successive works assuming the reader has read previous works? Sure, I'd expect that to be the most common case, by far, but asserting that's the only case would seem to be impossible, unless you've read (or at least are familiar with) literally every multi-work story ever written in all of time. I don't think anyone can claim that.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    Of course. That is the only possibility. What the author intended to do is not in question; the question is what actually happened.
andrewflnr 3y ago
It may not be exactly 100.000% true, but it's close enough that you can just stop thinking about it and read in publication order unless you're given a very strong reason. The author, editors, and publishers would have to screw up very hard for publication order to not be viable, and for something else to be optimal either requires extraordinary writing ability (it's hard to refer to books that aren't written yet, the arrow of time being how it is), or for the series not to have been very good to start. The major exception I can think of is something like Discworld where they're all pretty independent, i.e. barely a series at all in the sense we're talking about, but once you start talking about one of the sequential sub-series, you're back to publication order mattering.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  People say these things with such confidence; where does that confidence come from? It's amazing, but not confidence-inspiring. I've read/seen much art, in books and other mediums, that don't match your description. I find some things are much better if I skip the beginning and come back to it later, if I still think it's worthwhile. > you can just stop thinking about it and read in publication order unless you're given a very strong reason How can you advise - maybe even instruct - people so confidently, without at all knowning them, their purposes, and also what they are reading - which could be anything in the world! Must I read the collected works of Milton in order? The Bible? The Art of Computer Programming? History? Literary porn - can I skip to the good part or do I need to read it all in order? When I see such certainty, I don't think 'who could know that much?' but 'who could think they know that much?'
  - andrewflnr 3y ago
    You want to compare "the collected works of Milton", the Bible, and TAoCP to the Chronicles of Narnia? We're not talking about arbitrary collections of books, we're talking about fictional works with strong continuity between them in setting and events, among other criteria. But if it's not that good, yeah, go ahead and skip some parts. I did account for that case, but whatever. This is entertainment, not deep moral truth.

Not every story is written that way. Also, it's not necessary that everything make sense; sometimes there are higher priorities. Sometimes, it's just not worth the time to read it all.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

>> later books always assume that you've read the earlier ones, even if editors do their best to try to avoid this, but earlier books never assume you've read the later ones. > Not every story is written that way. This is... clearly untrue?

wolverine876 3y ago
I don't know about you, but there's much more to the world than what I know.
- simondotau 3y ago
  Sure, but even so I’m reasonably sure we can rely on the linear nature of time. Whether or not the publication of prequels was premeditated, it still rings true that the cultural artefact is always publication order.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    But you are not at all required to follow some prior linear order in the linear order of your own time. If I want to smelt steel, I don't need to learn to smelt bronze first. What rings true is the eternal best advice: think for yourself.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I don't really buy that. An author may have planned out the entire story, but later decides to write and release later parts of the story first, and earlier parts later, as prequels, but not include an assumption in the prequels that the reader has already read the earlier-published works. I don't know how common this is, but I don't think I'd be willing to assume this has never happened.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > An author may have planned out the entire story, but later decides to write and release later parts of the story first, and earlier parts later, as prequels, but not include an assumption in the prequels that the reader has already read the earlier-published works. Still untrue. The author is going to include whatever information they possess in whatever work they create. If the prequels are written later, they will rely on information from the earlier works, whether the author wanted them to do that or not.
    - davkan 3y ago
      I wouldn’t be surprised if I learned that a majority of books in series have been written with the idea in mind that some readers are coming in fresh. That does not mean that a book is free from having followed the prior works. An author cannot change the frame of reference they were operating within when they authored a work. That’s the reason the “cultural artifact” is the publication order. If we set aside books in a series that were written and edited to completion concurrently and published staggered, then i don’t see how an author could possibly publish a book while managing to entirely circumvent the reality that they have knowledge of the previous books they have written and do not have full knowledge of the ones they have not, no matter how hard they may try.
  - partomniscient 3y ago
    >I’m reasonably sure we can rely on the linear nature of time. I'm not even sure about that, perhaps we can rely on our linear _experience_ of time, but we can't determine which is the correct version of two billiard balls colliding if we're shown the forwards and the backwards versions. Assuming time is linear is convenient, but I don't think its provable or outright definite.
kelnos 3y ago
Is it? I mean, are you willing to assert that literally every single multi-work story was written with successive works assuming the reader has read previous works? Sure, I'd expect that to be the most common case, by far, but asserting that's the only case would seem to be impossible, unless you've read (or at least are familiar with) literally every multi-work story ever written in all of time. I don't think anyone can claim that.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  Of course. That is the only possibility. What the author intended to do is not in question; the question is what actually happened.

andrewflnr 3y ago

It may not be exactly 100.000% true, but it's close enough that you can just stop thinking about it and read in publication order unless you're given a very strong reason. The author, editors, and publishers would have to screw up very hard for publication order to not be viable, and for something else to be optimal either requires extraordinary writing ability (it's hard to refer to books that aren't written yet, the arrow of time being how it is), or for the series not to have been very good to start. The major exception I can think of is something like Discworld where they're all pretty independent, i.e. barely a series at all in the sense we're talking about, but once you start talking about one of the sequential sub-series, you're back to publication order mattering.

wolverine876 3y ago
People say these things with such confidence; where does that confidence come from? It's amazing, but not confidence-inspiring. I've read/seen much art, in books and other mediums, that don't match your description. I find some things are much better if I skip the beginning and come back to it later, if I still think it's worthwhile. > you can just stop thinking about it and read in publication order unless you're given a very strong reason How can you advise - maybe even instruct - people so confidently, without at all knowning them, their purposes, and also what they are reading - which could be anything in the world! Must I read the collected works of Milton in order? The Bible? The Art of Computer Programming? History? Literary porn - can I skip to the good part or do I need to read it all in order? When I see such certainty, I don't think 'who could know that much?' but 'who could think they know that much?'
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  You want to compare "the collected works of Milton", the Bible, and TAoCP to the Chronicles of Narnia? We're not talking about arbitrary collections of books, we're talking about fictional works with strong continuity between them in setting and events, among other criteria. But if it's not that good, yeah, go ahead and skip some parts. I did account for that case, but whatever. This is entertainment, not deep moral truth.