# Reading a series in chronological or published order?



## Martin OHearn (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm reading Talbot Mundy's multi-hero series--the Yasmini/King/Ramsden/Chullunder Ghose/Jimgrim books. As originally published in the pulp magazine _Adventure_, after a few novelettes and novels centered on the Princess Yasmini comes _Guns of the Gods_, subtitled _A Story of Yasmini's Youth_. It's an origin story. I've seen the series listed with this as the first to read. But the narration explicitly assumes you've read the previous book, _King--of the Khyber Rifles_. There's even a plot contrivance in _King_ that _Guns_ spoils if you read the two in chronological, and not published, order.

Do you read a series in order of internal chronology? The elephant in the room is C.S. Lewis's Narnia series. Some time after the original publication, Lewis himself declared that they should be read as they occur in the world of Narnia's timeline; the books are numbered that way now. I can't see it. _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe _ introduces the reader as well as the protagonists to Narnia; the books that take place earlier in Narnia's history don't come with the connection to our world that the trip through the wardrobe brings.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I'd say published order. In published order, you're following the development of the characters and the world they live in. The first book in publication order introduces the characters.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

This is something that drives me absolutely bonkers. I am a certified OCD series in order reader.  . I have to always read a first in a series, even if they are just barely connected. Otherwise I might get hives.  

But then there are some authors that do what you describe, not only is it a series, but they write it out of chronological order.    . Whyyyyyyyyy.

One of those for me is Joanna Bourne. She has a 5 books series out that always gets great reviews. I didn't touch it for the longest time because of the reading order. The author recommends to read it as she has written. But that would been that book 3 actually happened before book 1. So one of the main characters in book 1 is old and bald, yet he is the hero of book 3 because it goes back in the time line. Oh no. No no no. I can't even.  

So I read book 3 first as its the first in chronological order. But because I am so confused about the other books and their order, I have not yet read the others. I literally now have no clue which one is next. I might not bother at all anymore. That is how much this bothers me. But then I did say I am OCD about that. 

But I really hate it. I like things to happen in order of how the time goes by. I don't want to read about characters that are old or grown up and then read a later book with them as kids or young people. That is as bad as reading the end of a book first.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

Atunah said:


> This is something that drives me absolutely bonkers. I am a certified OCD series in order reader. . I have to always read a first in a series, even if they are just barely connected. Otherwise I might get hives.


I am the same way. I go to "StopYoureKillingMe.com" to get the full list of books by an author - copy it to a file on my laptop - and mark each one as to whether I've read it or have it... I wish there was a way to sort books on the Kindle (easily) by publish date - that would make my life a lot simpler!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I generally read in published order.  Which is usually also chronological order. . . . but it doesn't particularly bother me if a later published book is a 'prequel' as long as it makes sense.  For example if it's a sort of 'story in a story' where a character we know NOW is telling about an event earlier in their life.  

I do though, generally, prefer to have the characters mature forward in time -- you know, like people do. 

So, for example, it might be fun to have a story that goes back to show, say, how a MC met a minor but significant character, maybe as a short story.  But a whole novel would be harder because part of the point is to have the character develop.  So it's harder, as a reader, to go back for a longer story and accept that the confident, assured person the MC has grown into was once ever an insecure kid.  OR the writer writes them as still confident and assured -- but then that's not realistic if you go back and read the actual first novel published.

In other words, after 10 books, it's hard to write the character again the way they were in the 1st book.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I am reading the Sackett series right now by Louis L'Amour.  I went to his website and got the list of the best order to read them so they are in chronological order.  I have no clue as to how they were published.  
Now on the Jack Daniels series (JA Konrath) I am reading them in published order.
On the Will Cannon series (Larry Hill), I am just reading them in no particular order.  His Tex Waco set is the same way.
Laurell K Hamilton's Anita Blake series was read in both chronological and published order because that is how she wrote them.  Well till the typos and the sex scenes got outrageous.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 7, 2010)

Published order. That's the way I've read and preferred to read the Vlad Taltos series (by Stephen Brust).  

In general, I think authors write the content of the novels to fit the works published, even if the chronological order of events doesn't match the same sequence. 

In addition, if I'm reading a series, I don't want to wait until it's 'all published'. That could mean years of waiting. Not such a big problem with ebooks, since they don't go out of print like paper editions.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Before the internet, I read series as listed in the cover, most often publication order. (Plus I was so OCD as a child that that was how I arranged them on my bookshelf.) Now I search and see what the author says. Still, it depends on the series. I agree that _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ should be read first. Honestly, it is the only one I truly enjoy. I'd never read them if I had started with _The Magician's Nephew_. On the other hand, Marion Zimmer Bradley prefers you to read her Darkover series in publication order. I read the first one, couldn't finish it. Folks I trust highly recommend the series, but I haven't tried another yet.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I generally try to read in internal chronological order. Sometimes it isn't very easy to figure that out, however. I don't get really upset if I don't get them all in order, though.


Mike


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

TWErvin2 said:


> Published order. That's the way I've read and preferred to read the Vlad Taltos series (by Stephen Brust)....


This is the only series that comes to mind for me where this was any sort of issue for me. While I still lean toward publication order for this, I can also totally relate to reading it in chronological order.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I like to read them in publication order.  I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.  If an author has been writing a character for five books, I think it's very difficult to write a character in a way that is believably before the other books in the series.

Betsy


----------

