on breaking pub order

[jazzfish]

When reading a non-chronological series I tend to be a Strict Publicationist.

That is, I have a strong preference for reading books in the order they were published, rather than in internal chronological order.

If that didn't help: go look at your copies of The Chronicles of Narnia. (What do you mean, you don't have your own copies? Fine, go look at the library's copies.) If you're unfortunate enough to have an edition published in the mid-nineties or later, the first book is The Magician's Nephew. If you have an earlier edition, the first book is The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. LWW was written first, but the events in MN take place before the events of LWW, and for reasons that don't need exploring at this juncture the publisher sorted them into chronological order in the mid-nineties.

There's a whole long rant I do about why this reordering is not only WRONG but a CRIME AGAINST LITERATURE. For these purposes just take it as a given that I believe in reading books in the order they were written, rather than in the order in which events in the books occur.

---

So: when reading a non-chronological series, especially for the first time, I tend to be a Strict Publicationist.

Later-written prequels tend to only be interesting by the light they shed on later events in the series; volumes that jump ahead make for interesting speculation of the 'how are they possibly going to get character X to point Y?' variety. Then you have authors like Mr Brust who enjoy messing with chronological readers, as in Dragon which takes place before and after Yendi, or Tiassa which takes place at a wide variety of times possibly including no time at all. (Note to self: reread Tiassa and determine whether it is actually the best of the Vlad books.)

I may have found a point at which I'm willing to break that.

I read the first three books of A Song of Ice and Fire shortly before the third one came out in paperback, because that was supposed to coincide with the release of the fourth one and the timing seemed good. Ha. As You Know, Bob, when George R.R. Martin got to being three years late on A Feast for Crows his publisher said "just send us what you've got already," so he chopped it in half by geography and sent it off. Then he published the other half five years later as A Dance with Dragons.

The half that made up FfC was the half I was less interested in. I figured I'd just wait until the other half was out and read them both then. Trouble is, it's been long enough (eight ten bloody years) that I have only the vaguest recollection of the first three books, and I'm not ready to commit to a reread of the whole series every time a new one comes out. So these, like Harry Potter, have fallen into the "I'll read them when he's good and done" bucket.

Meanwhile, via zarfeblong, joenotcharles claims to have solved the Feast / Dance problem. He's gone through FfC and DwD, chopped them up, and stitched them back together in what, he claims, is an ordering that makes sense and is paced better so you're not abandoning half the characters for six hundred pages. It has the downside of needing to haul two big-ass books around instead of just one, but by then perhaps everything will be electronic anyway.

I find this an intriguing enough concept that I think I shall try reading it/them like this. In another ten or fifteen years, whenever GRRM finishes the series.

Comments

[rbandrews]

I knew about the Narnia thing, but the edition I have (bound into one volume when the first movie came out) has Lion first. Probably because it's the one they made the first movie out of.

[jazzfish]

Huh, good to know! I *think* the one-volume I read when the movie came out wasn't like that, or maybe it just sorted them weirdly. I heartily endorse this turn of events.

[rbandrews]

There were two of them, I had my choice of scary-lady or lion. I thought the only difference was the covers (I chose lion) but I may be wrong.

[aamcnamara]

I've got the internal-chronology set of Narnia--but then, I was a child in the mid-nineties. (:

[jazzfish]

... acceptable, but only just. I INSIST THAT YOU START SEARCHING USED-BOOKSTORES FOR A PROPER REPLACEMENT SET IMMEDIATELY. :)

At one point uilos had a hardback set numbered in chrono order. Harsh words were exchanged over my tendency to shelve them in the RIGHT order, which was not the NUMERIC order.

[aamcnamara]

The only books I own two copies of are Garth Nix's Old Kingdom trilogy, bought when I was utterly obsessed with them in middle school.

Hah. I am somehow unsurprised by this.

[notyourwendy]

I blame the SFBC.

[rbandrews]

Actually I am just totally wrong. I checked last night and you're right, The Magician's Nephew is first. How stupid.

[jazzfish]

Argh. Very.

[fadeaccompli]

My brother had a box set of the Narnia series that ordered them by publication number. And this used to drive me batty, once I was old enough that I'd heard all the stories through and knew what order they went in; when I inherited the set, I'd reorder them all into internal chronology order, and fuss quietly to myself about the fact that I couldn't exactly read The Horse and His Boy in the right place unless I stopped in the midst of another book to pick it up.

I still read series in internal chronology order whenever possible, a few matters of prequels on series I'm just coming to aside. ...except for the Vlad Taltos series, because, seriously, madness. That gets publication order all the way through.

[jazzfish]

Huh. okay. My argument against (for Narnia) is mostly that Magician's Nephew reads like a prequel: it spoils some of the mystery in LWW if you read MN first, and the tone is just off from the rest of them. I have no real opinion on HHB.'

Out of curiousity, if you were to decide in a fit of madness to reread all of Dragaera, would you start with Jhereg or Phoenix Guards (or Brokedown Palace, since I guess that's 20-30 years prior to Jhereg)?

[fadeaccompli]

My family used the Narnia series and The Hobbit on a sort of rotating track of books read out loud to the whole family at night, for years and years. So I honestly can't remember when I first heard any bit of any of the stories, though sometimes I can remember when I first read some of it myself. Spoilers just...didn't apply, that way. But coming to them brand new, I can see the value in publication order.

For all of Dragaera--which I am indeed hoping to do at some point in the vaguely near future!--I'd probably start at the Phoenix Guards, because it's one of my favorites, and use it as momentum to plow through the last two prequel books that I find kinda hard going, then pick up with Jhereg on in publication order.

[blaisepascal]

I tend to be a Strict Publicationist, but I'm willing to bend if there is evidence of authorial intent otherwise. (e.g., Patriot Games was written before Hunt for Red October, but Tom Clancy was unable to sell it to a publisher until after Red October. He wrote it first, tried to sell it first, and it is chronologically first; I take that as enough evidence of intent to classify it as the first Jack Ryan book.)

With Narnia, I have not heard of such an intent, so LWW will be Book 1 for me. (Note, I don't know if I actually read it in that order, as I seem to remember having MN first, but I knew I was reading them out of order)

Sometimes this can be difficult to tell: imagine an author who publishes a short story A, serializes a novella B, gets novel C accepted by a publisher, expands B into a published novel B', and finally stories A, D, E, F, and G are published in an anthology, with all of A, B, B', C, D, E, F, and G being set in the same universe with the same characters (think Miles Vorkosigan or Tales of Known Space more than Song of Ice and Fire)? What is the "strict publication order"?

[diadelphous.livejournal.com]

This isn't really the point of your post, I realize, but I think I may be the only person on the planet who was more interested in the Feast for Crows storylines than the ones from Dance with Dragons! I'm a weirdo.

I was fortunate in that I resisted ASOIAF for long enough that I was able to pick up with ADWD right after I finished AFFC, but this intertwined version of the two sounds kind of interesting. When GRRM released the next book eight years from now or whatever, I might try rereading them that way. Because honestly I've already forgotten most of ADWD.

[jazzfish]

I can respect that. It's kind of a grey area for me, since I assume there was some editorial revision involved in the process of putting out Red October. So, I'd probably continue to read them in pub order, but I wouldn't object to reading them chronologically. eBear's Edda of Burdens is the same way (B written and occuring before A but A published first; then there's C which is a direct sequel to both), and reading those in written/chronological order worked but wasn unsatisfying.

Narnia: in the mid-nineties Lewis's stepson and executor, Douglas Gresham, dug up a letter Lewis had written to some kid. The kid had asked "which order should i read narnia in?" and Lewis replied, "well, whatever order you want. for instance, you could read them in chronological order." Gresham took this as "you should read them in chronological order," and since then they've been published as such. Bah.

And, yeah. Sometimes one just throws up one's hands and reads chronologically. Or in whatever order things come to one.

[jazzfish]

Huh, okay. As I recall the storylines I was interested in were, in descending order: the Wall, Arya, Daenerys, Jaime Lannister, Catelyn (mostly due to the cliffhanger), Sansa (because seriously, wtf mate).

If you do a reread when he releases the next book, let me know how it goes!

[blaisepascal]

With Narnia, I distinctly remember finding MN first, and feeling that there was parts of the story I didn't get until I had read LWW. I feel it is decidedly a case of a prequel which assumes you've read the chronologically later books first.

Discworld is an interesting case. While the books were written and published in (roughly) chronological order, each book is written to be mostly stand-alone. Given the change in writing skill between The Color of Magic and, say, Guards! Guards! even, it's hard for me to suggest that people read them in Strict Publication order.

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

Blast.. I know I found/shared a link a while back about the problem with internal-chronology vs publication order, but now can't find again; the general gist was that the prequels were written, in effect, as supplmental info for the establish stories -- they were not (generally) written as standalone novels that establish what needs establishing at the correct time. Viewed another way, if you read a prequel first, you aren't emotionally invested in the characters as you would be if you'd read the books in published order.

[jazzfish]

Discworld reading order: AHAHAHAHA oh dear. Yeah, Discworld is the exception that proves the rule. It's more like four or five interlinked serieses. And my memory does not fail me: there are at least three different suggested reading orders online.

[jazzfish]

YES. Very muchly so.

[selki.livejournal.com]

Of course LWW is best read first.

[jameshroberts.livejournal.com]

I'm a strict publicationist as well (like that word btw). This actually gets me into trouble when there are multiple series (serieses? serai? syria? seroses? What's the proper plural of series?) set in one universe; I'm compelled to read the whole lot in the order they were published.

An example is Asimov's Robot, Empire, and Foundation novels. Or Lackey's Valdemar which had multiple trilogies coming out at a time. (Actually, I never finished with those.)

In a break with this, I once read the Lord of the Rings chapters in the order they chronologically occurred. So Books I and II (Fellowship) are read as presented, but you have to chop up Books III-V and the beginning of VI. It was an interesting experiment, but it doesn't really work.

[jazzfish]

YES. I am equal parts baffled and angry at the mid-nineties reordering.

[jazzfish]

I don't really count Asimov as a single uber-series, despite the super-retcon of Robots & Empire. I'm happy to read those in individual serieseses.

Valdemar had multiple serieseses going at once? Must have been after I gave up on them (I think the last thing I read was the third Winds book).

In general I'm okay with reading a single series even if other serieses are interleaved. Something about expecting each series to be its own story, I think.

That... sounds like a very odd way to read LotR. :)

[plumbob78.livejournal.com]

The plural of "series" is "series."

[jazzfish]

But where's the fun in that? :)