Reading a series out of order

Most of us have probably had the experience of starting to read a good book, only to realize partway through that it's not the first book in the series. What do you do? Stop immediately and RUN to your nearest bookstore to get the first one? Keep reading and continue on from there in the series, never looking back? Finish that book, then get the first book, and re-read your current book when you get back to that spot in the series?

I got into the Dennis Lehane Kenzie & Gennaro series and the Pendergast series from Preston & Child this way. In both cases I finished the book I had then went and bought the ones that came before it. Fortunately they were all easy to find. I'd have been totally bummed if they were more obscure. Also lucky there were only a couple previous books in each case. To come in say, at the end of the Prey series by John Sandford and be compelled to buy like 15 older books...that would be a pain.

yup, I did the same as Bookmarque.

I usually finish the book then get the others when I can. My mind has compartments I think where I store things

When that happens to me, I put the book down and drive to the library.

I'm the same as Ginny, I'm way too pedantic to start a series half way through. Though that same pendantry means I have to read books in publication order and NEVER chronological order if it differs!

I have a number of books on my TBR pile that aren't firsts, and I'm trying to get the earlier books before I start them. This is not conducive to the reduction of Mt. TBR.

I often research my reading (and at the SF bookshop if the price tag says 3:"name of book" I know it's #3 in a series) so I can only remember this happening once. That book - reMix - was good on it's own but a bit weird and I never got to really understand everything until I had read the previous two (in order, lol).

I did decide to read the Culture novels (Iain M Banks) out of order, and I really don't think it matters much - they're more of a suite than a series, truly, and the internal chronology doesn't follow publication order but rather jumps around.

I made the same decision for Julie Czerneda's Trade Pact books, which I started with the prequels, written after the original stories. I'm still not convinced it was the right decision...

I try and read series in order, except for those like the Culture, where the books aren't so closely linked that it matters. If I realise I've bought/borrowed book 2 without having read book 1, it's back to the library/store or onto amazon :-)

I've picked up a lot of second books in a series (often through Early Reviewers) that you can more-or-less understand what's going on without reading the first book, but I didn't like them enough to go back and start from the beginning. And because I didn't go back and read the earlier book(s), I can't truly say if it's because really didn't like the story at all or just because I didn't understand all of what was going on.

I still don't care enough to go back and read the first books in those series, though.

However, when I was reading one of Robin Hobb's series, I mistakenly checked out the third book instead of the second book from the library and once I realized this (due to ((massive spoiler)) that was mentioned in the prologue) I stopped reading and got the correct book. But I didn't enjoy it as might as I might have, because I was sitting around waiting for ((massive spoiler)) to happen, and it didn't happen until near the end of the book. A mark against the people who say spoilers don't hinder enjoyment of a book. Ugh.

On the other hand, when I first picked up High Wizardry, the third book in Diane Duane's Young Wizards series, I didn't realize for several years that it was part of series, even though there was a lot of stuff going on that I didn't entirely understand. I enjoyed it enough that I didn't care about the stuff I didn't understand and I assumed that if I reread it enough I'd figure it out eventually.

So, generally it's annoying when it doesn't say "Book 1 of the Thus-And-Such Series" on the covers of books...but at the same time I may never have found what is now one of my favorite series and authors if it had.

Edit: Wow, that was longer than I realized :) Also, as Busifer says, these days I tend to research books before I buy them and so I usually know what the first book in a series is.

Like other posters, I prefer to read books in order. I've noticed that a fair number of books on my TBR pile or my "started-but-for-some-reason-never-finished" pile are the second books of series where I haven't read the first. From that, I'm assuming that I don't enjoy being dropped in the middle of things.

However, it all depends on the series, doesn't it? Some series are tightly plotted, others are just strung together with few common threads, other than the same main character.

I haven't read a series out of order since as a kid I discovered a Dr. Doolittle book and enjoyed it before looking for others, in order or otherwise.

The few multi-volume works that I have read more than once, I will start with any given volume and proceed forward in order. This is mostly the Lord of the Rings, the Deryni books, and the Dune books.

I suppose it depends.

Many of my mysteries, I simply read in whatever order I can find them, assuming I like them enough to read more, then, if I liked them enough to save, I'll go back and read them in order after I've collected them all.

With my Pratchett books, I very quickly (after about the first four) decided to read them in order of the various characters (the Guard books, witch books, Death books and so on).

Some authors, I've either been given or loaned from the beginning and so that was easy.

Bujold I'm sort of collecting so I can read them in order, though I have my doubts about whether that is necessary or not, since the first book I read was pretty far into the series and I felt neither lost nor upset about it.

Butcher I was warned with dire warnings to read them from the beginning and happily someone gave me all of them in ebook format, so I am doing just that. I think for that series it is important to read them from the beginning.

I don't buy or borrow books on impulse very often, so accidentally starting in the middle of a series doesn't really happen to me. Before I start a new book/series I usually look it up on LT, Amazon and/or Wikipedia. If at all possible I will read a series in publication order or at least in the internal chronological order, mostly because I absolutely hate spoilers.

I refuse to read a series out of order, even when it supposedly doesn't matter. I screwed this up last year, when I accidentally read book 3 of the Garrett, P.I. books before book 2; they had just gotten arranged wrong on my shelf. My enjoyment of the second book was lessened, I think, even though it shouldn't necessarily have been.

depends when I notice - and to some degree on the series, as above, some are distinctly more readable out of order than others...

If I notice before I've bought it, I'll put it back and wait till I find the beginning of the series (books shops if you always stock the first few of a series I'll buy a lot more books from you!) - IF I remember, I'm sure I frequently forget I'd ever heard of it.

If I notice before I've started reading, I'll add it to the 'midway through series' pile (I should tag these !) and wait till I've tracked down the start of the series - this is more compelling than above, and will usually occur at some stage

If I don't notice till I'm reading it, than I'll pause, curse, and carry on. Depending on whether I enjoyed it or not, I'll either track down the rest and re-read them in order, or not.

memory was my first introduction to Bujold. Nowhere did it say it was #15 of a series!

I will re-read series out of order though, usually jumping in at my favourite point, or a couple of books before the latest installment. Sometimes switching between published and internal chronology for the reading order.

Busifer uses an interesting descripation, suite rather than series, making a distinction between books than should be read in order and books where it isn't important.

I can think of one series however that should not be read in order, the Narnia Books, the first one Magicians Nephew is dreadful, the best one is the Lion, the witch and the wardrobe which was written first and that the book readers should and mostly do start at.

17 - Janientrelac
The Chronicles of Narnia should be read in publication order, not chronological order (the way they number them now), imho. I'm pretty passionate about that, and try to educate people to whom I sell them, too. :P

I research series before I read them. I have to read things in their proper order. Like someone else said, I don't pick things up too impulsively, so I'm not often surprised.

I agree with both Janientrelac and jenreidreads that the Chronicles of Narnia should ALWAYS be read in publication order, not chronological order. However I wouldn't say the Magician's Nephew is a 'dreadful book' only that it is a sort of afterthought on Lewis' part, in order to give an explanation to the readers of how his world came about. It would seem to be a dreadful book if you had never read any before and started with it, it just wouldn't make a lot of sense. This is my main argument about people reading books/ watching films that are prequels first, if they are not already familiar with the originalls, it is not just being pedantic, the author is expecting you to be reading them with prior knowledge so they will make lots of references that would go over your head if you don't.
I accidentally read Fever Crumb by Philip Reeve, the first in a trilogy of prequels to his Mortal Engines quartet, before I read the originals. Big mistake. I realise now how much more emotional I would have been at the transformation of a certain character in FC that is later in the quartet, I feel I really missed out on that.

I agree about reading Narnia in publication order. The internal chronology isn't what matters, it's the development of certain ideas . . . and the surprise of meeting old characters later is half the fun of the books. But I do think it's interesting how *glum* the series seems when you read it in chronological order. All the happy books are at the beginning; they gradually get gloomier and gloomier in their outlook until the Last Battle, when it all falls apart. I'm sure it's a comment on how Lewis saw modernity.

I've only done this once, with the Dresden Files. I read Death Masks first and, while I was able to follow what was going on, I felt like I was dropped into the middle of something with no context. The person who recommended the series originally (whose name I've forgotten) asserted that you could read the series out of order and not miss anything (this was before Changes), which, in a sense was right, but its ignoring the world building Jim does over the course of the series, not to mention Dresden's development as a character.

I read Son of the Shadows about a year before I nabbed a copy of Daughter of the Forest. I almost read The Harper Hall Trilogy out of order, starting with Dragondrums. I don't know anyone who's actually read the Sweet Valley Twins books in order. The first one I read was Jessica and the Brat Attack. Order doesn't really matter with that series, though. The book always starts off with a description of both twins, the plots are simple, and there are no fewer than 3 Halloweens and 2 Christmases in their sixth grade year. I haven't read it myself, but fans had a field day tearing Sweet Valley Confidential to pieces for its plot holes and inconsistency.

"I don't know anyone who's actually read the Sweet Valley Twins books in order."

Hi, nice to meet you.

I've just started reading The Sharpe series. I'm completely out of order and I've decided that since the books were published in their own order, but the events in the series take place in a totally different order, that I'm just going to say "pbth" to my obsessiveness and pick up whichever one I damn well please that happens to be available at the time.

They read so quickly it seems a shame to get picky about it.

My father and I both love Martha Grimes and when we started reading her it was entirely out of order, so we've taken to reading through the complete set in order about once every three years.

23: Always a pleasure! :) The first book was published a year before I was thought of, and by the time I was reading them, they were up to book 90. I picked up my first copy from Goodwill for 25¢ and returned for more, attempting to read them in order.

Wow. I'm glad it's not just me! :)
I hate it when I start a book and realize it's part of a series. Doesn't happen too often as I usually look very carefully to see if it's part of a series and if I discover it is, I put it down and try to find the first one.

And I agree with many of you on the Chronicles of Narnia: publication order! I do have to admit I've read The Last Battle. One of these days .......

I've only read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I'd kinda like to read them in the story's chronological order. Any benefits to reading it one way or the other? Any particular cons? I'd love to hear everyone's opinion.

There are strong arguments both ways, but the publishing order usually wins out:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle
The Horse and His Boy
The Magician's Nephew

(I'm not sure about the order of the last three)

It puts them out of chronological order, but it does put them in a somewhat logical order of introducing concepts, plot devices and chronology.

Rozax - Well, it's up to you but most people seem to agree publication order is best. you have to understand The Magician's Nephew was written last as an afterthought, it is a prequel to explain where things came from and how things came about but it is not the strongest story really the real joy is to read and recognise all the little references and think 'oh so that's why it's like that!' if you read it first none of that will mean anything to you.

I generally prefer publication order, for any series, as that is how characters and story evolved in the mind of the author. Internal chronology, with due respect etc, often has a certain level of "disconnect" as to writing style, maturity of the universe, and character development and importance.

I too prefer to read things in publication order, but if I liked the series and plan a reread, I will then try to follow the internal chronology.