Series

There may already be a way to do this, but I'll be damned if I've figured it out...

I think we need to have something or someway to distinguish between dependent and independent series. Allow me to explain; there are some series, which you can read individual books singularly or completely out of order and it makes absolutely no difference (e.g. Goosebumps, Women of Faith, Eyewitness, Dear America, etc). However, there are other series where you're kind of screwed it you don't get them in order because you miss a lot of plot details (Harry Potter, Twilight, Series of Unfortunate Events, Animorphs, etc).
Maybe we could have "series" for the books that more or less need one another, and "collection" for the books that can operate independently.
Just a thought...

There is a field on the right side (in the green box) called Series Description; you could put a note in there to the effect of "Should read in order" or "Stand-alones in a shared universe" or whatever; would that do what you want?

It would work, except that no one uses it. Truth be told I doubt most people have ever even noticed that field (I certainly didn't). Although now that I've seen that, I suppose a little check-box that says "should read in order" or "stand-alones" would be perfect.

Generally this is done by Series order.

The Harry Potter books for example have a specific order that is identified as Book 1.

Other series although listed in order don't carry the Book 1 as part of the description, which generally means they are less dependant on reading order, and more of a list of works in the series.

But that are a lot of series where that isn't the case. For instance Goosebumps: anyone who has ever read Goosebumps can tell you order means nothing, but the series is listed with order numbers on LibraryThing. Also the Redwall series: I've been told that it's fine to read it in any order, but LibraryThing also lists these with an order.

feel free to edit them then.

The numbers are probably publication order.

I would say that the description is the best place to note that the series can be approached in any order.

> 1

But surely it is often merely a matter of opinion as to whether a series is "dependent" or "independent". I know people who have quite happily read single volumes of series which other people wouldn't have dreamed of reading without having read earlier books.

Where is the line between "better appreciating" a series and "being screwed"?

This strikes me particularly today as I have recently read a comment from someone who read and enjoyed Gaudy Night without having read either of the preceding Wimsey-Vane books.

Don't use collection; that's going to be for something else, someday, they keep telling us!

Agree with Lilithcat, and I was coming on to say just that -- many of the so-called "independent series" it may in fact be desirable to read in designated order -- to follow the writer's development, for example. Series which are written out of order, the author may want you to read in publication order rather than series internal chronology. So it all depends on one's criteria.

And of course LC is absolutely correct that some people would be fine picking up Harry Potter #4 and nothing else, or 4, 6, 1, 7, 3, 5, 2 in that order. People who have no preference & therefore need no criteria.

I think that a checkbox would be overprogramming here, and the description field is absolutely the correct place for this. A checkbox would surely be inadequate in many instances, and entirely irrelevant in many others. So you'd need to describe it anyway. Maybe a better way to address your concern is to make the description field more prominent.

I agree with lilithcat and lquilter. There are several series that would be borderline. Mysteries and thrillers are a great example. You don't have to read Daniel Silva's Gabriel Allon series in order - each book stands on it's own - but in each book of the series you learn just a little more about Allon and the other characters. I read a lot of thrillers, and most of them work this way. Personally, I prefer to read them in order, but (for example) my mom doesn't care.

I prefer to read a series in order, but I have kind of a related question....
In a series, I like to put in the main characters and the location, but there have been a few anthologies in the middle of the series that have made that intersting.

Is there or can there be a way to put character and place information in the CK area to connect it to the rest of the series without adding the information to others series that may be a part of the anthology also, example:
http://www.librarything.com/work/1535050
all of the people and places show up in both series lists now, can the () (or something like it) make it only go to the related series? Should those () have the series title in it instead of the story title?

Does the way I worded this even make any sense to anyone? I know what I am trying to say I just don't know if I am expressing it right.
Let me know please :}

You are describing a situation where a collection of short stories has stories from more than one series? So when someone enters the characters from all the stories, they get applied to all the various series? Oh, dear ...

I'm afraid that until we get story-level records, this may not be possible (there is some talk of establishing "part-of" or "included-in" and "includes" relationships, but that's probably a long time away.

you understood me, yeah :) Thanks for the info, I just thought I would ask.

I like the idea, but it would be a little tricky, and so I agree with most of the naysayers above. For example, what about a series like The Boxcar Children that I used to read. The first 19 books by one author, and the first few definitely trying to have an order. Then in the last few years the last 75+ books have no chronology at all and could easily be read out of order. How would you indicate "Read these first, but then feel free to read out of order"? I agree, comments box would be best