3 ms·
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 str
by 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 agoPeople 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 agoYou 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.
- wolverine876 3y ago> We're not talking about You're not talking about it and assuming others are the same. That's the risk of giving advice, especially with certainty - you never know the other people, their priorities, needs, or what they are thinking about.
- albedoa 3y agoMods, how much of this shit do I have to flag before you take action.
- andrewflnr 3y agoJust being a dumbass is not really flag-worthy. That's what downvotes are for.
- wolverine876 3y agoDismissing people as dumbass is flag-worthy - and actually dumbass. :)
- albedoa 3y agoNobody is "dismissing" you as anything. You have self-identified.
- djur 3y agoI agree with you on this. Chronological, or chronological with omissions (perhaps with later backfill), is always a good choice. With Discworld I can see people choosing to read just subseries. (I read Discworld completely out of order and it was fine, but I'm not going to argue that it was _better_.) There may be some odd exceptions. If someone came to me and said "I want to see if Star Trek is something I'm interested in" I wouldn't tell them to start at the beginning of the original series, nor would I recommend viewing any single series from the start. I could see a "tasting flight" approach to the franchise where you bounce back and forth between the series... but even then I feel like you'd want to keep some degree of production-order structure within the individual series.