Hi, I’d like to hear from other book readers, people who are more well-read than I am on if it is a good idea to try and read an author’s bibliography in release order (excluding series because I’ll always try and read them in the order they came out). Or do people just pick an authors best books in any order they prefer? I think I am a bit too perfectionist about trying to do this as I feel I am missing out on many other authors by trying to ‘complete’ an author before I move onto another.
If anyone has any thoughts on this I’d love to hear from you!
by JatorBee
12 Comments
I need to read them in order. The characters growth is important. The author’s order is important to me
I don’t see how reading them in chronological publishing order would be relevant or produce a particular result.
Sometimes an author’s first work is their best; sometimes it’s a later work. Quality isn’t linear.
Many authors only have one or two truly great books. In any intensely creative endeavour, it’s hard to catch lightning in a bottle even once, let alone repeatedly.
Exhaustively reading all of an author’s works often leads to disappointment.
I often notice that sometimes the best way to read something is out of order, but hardcore fans like the “purity” of reading it in publication order.
The biggest example I can think of is Discworld.
I can’t really see much reason to do it. It feels like needless pigeon-holing.
This isn’t to say I think ignoring timing/era of an author is recommended. For instance choosing to read a set of Stephen King’s books from his addiction era would meld more together and then reading a block of something post-accident would be another. You can see his style change much like you would observe a difference in the Beatles’ *A Hard Day’s Night* and *Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band* but I also think you would be silly to say you have to get through the former in order to listen to the latter.
Also, sometimes an author’s earlier work is their lowest in quality. Michael Crichton wrote novels under a pseudonym but they’re pulpish and lower grade of some thriller or mystery than what you get out of reading *Prey* or *Jurassic Park*. I don’t think I would’ve been able to give a damn about getting to JP if I had to first read through his worst stuff first.
Unless the books are connected there is really no need to go in order. You may not even want to read all of an authors’ book.
While I would prefer to do everything in order (it can be an interesting way to view a writer’s progression at their chosen craft), it just takes too much effort. Too much stuff to read, too much chance in what comes across your path.
I don’t think it matters when it’s stand alone books
I would just read what most interests you.
I always try to read an author in order. I like seeing an authors style, and sometimes his philosophy, develop. The exception to this is if a book is recommended, I’ll read it. If I like the book, I’ll start at the beginning.
I think the only time I would do this would be in cases where I was deliberately setting out to read an author’s entire corpus. However, I never really do that. In most cases, even if I am interested in reading multiple works from an author, I don’t really worry about release order.
For books in a series, some of which are prequels published later but taking place earlier, I never know whether to read them in published order or chronological order
I read the Riyria series in chrological order, but now I’m reading The World of 5 Gods in publication order. I’d read that the author said Riyria was good either way and I read it’s best to read the other series in publication order.
For me, sticking with one author is too limiting. I read according to genre/subject, and usually alternate between 1) long, detailed history or biography and non-fiction and 2) shorter fiction novels related in some way to the subject. I keep a long running wishlist of books that are outstanding (based on reviews or recommendations), so I always have an easy go-to when choosing the next read.