I find that reading series in order, especially if the writer
is relatively new, gives me the benefit of watching the
writer evolve as well as the characters. Several series that
I have followed from the beginning, such as Barry Eisler's
Rain series, Lee Child's Reacher series, and Declan Hughes's
Ed Loy series, have shown developing maturity of the writers'
technique, plot, and character development. And I believe
that this evolution makes sense. On a couple of occasions, I
have inadvertently read a series out of order and found that
I had been spoiled by reading a writer's later work
first.
Pat Lee
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "J.C. Hocking"
<jchocking@...> wrote:
>
> I will always read a series in order if it's at all
possible.
> Actual chronological detail and progression isn't
necessarily
visible in the stories themselves, but you are usually
getting a slightly updated approach by the author to his or
her material.
> Sometimes this is negligible or non-existent, say in
very prolonged
series, but even then what the author brings to the books
will evolve. Shell Scott's adventures might have almost no
chronological connections from one to the next, but you can't
tell me that 1950's Case of the Vanishing Beauty doesn't feel
different than 1975's The Sure Thing.
>
> I try not to be obsessive about it, but the only
time I'll read a
series out of chronological order is when I find that the
early stories are so weak that I'm tempted to quit, and there
are people I respect telling me the books get much better
later.
>
> John
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Jun 2008 EDT