Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

I have seen some series where a single character or maybe two from one series show up in a book or two in another series. These I would keep separate, with a link in the descriptions.

However, I would think in this case that the series should have been kept, as the author even lists them that way. In addition, it sounds like from your description, that the characters make more than just a cameo in the other series.

There's more than one series that's been done for--so I don't think it should have been deleted. More than one case where readers want to find by and/or authors want both published, chronological or suggested reading orders (particularly when author lists that way on their websites or in the frontpieces of books; I really think the author just might possibly be an authority on their own books for criminy's sake).

A couple of examples/precedents:

The White Dragon by Anne McCaffrey being #5 in the "Pern" series but #3 in "Dragonriders of Pern" series and #2 in "Pern (Chronological Order)" series -- which sounds exactly like how you did and explained/labeled/noted if you look at series at http://www.goodreads.com/series/49339... .

Oath of Gold by Elizabeth Moon is "The Deed of Paksenarrion" series #3 and "Paksenarrion" series #5; and the Paksennarrion series includes sub-series "Legacy of Gird" and "Paladin's Legacy".

I have more examples if needed.

Deborah (Debbie Rice) wrote: "particularly when author lists that way on their websites or in the frontpieces of books; I really think the author just might possibly be an authority on their own books for criminy's sake"

When the publishers started to suggest that the reading order for the Narnia books should be in internal chronological order rather than the original publication sequence it convinced me that neither publishers nor relatives of the author, nor perhaps the author themselves, have any clue about the best way to read a series. Authors already know the stories, they are not reading them for the first time.

I would not have deleted the series that is mentioned in the OP, but I might not have followed it either. Some series need to be read in parallel rather than in 'series' (no pun intended) like Niven's Ringworld and Worlds series which only really meet up in the last book which is the last book of BOTH series.

Even C.S. Lewis himself (not just publishers) said that the Narnia books should be read in chronological order. Just sayin'.

This happened to a series I created recently. I think a librarian with very strict ideas about what constitutes a series is foisting his or her opinion on GoodReads.

Lianne (The Towering Pile) wrote: "Even C.S. Lewis himself (not just publishers) said that the Narnia books should be read in chronological order. Just sayin'."

Yeah, but I still feel The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (the first story published) is a much stronger introduction to the series than The Magician's Nephew (the first story chronologically). Read in publication order, I already had a vested interest in the world and therefore found the story of its creation much more interesting than I might otherwise have. If I had read TMN first, I'm not sure I would have really found it as interesting.

Lianne (The Towering Pile) wrote: "Even C.S. Lewis himself (not just publishers) said that the Narnia books should be read in chronological order. Just sayin'."

That is why I said that the author themselves don't always get it right. If you use the reading order that Lewis is 'alleged' to have wanted you get all sorts of stupid contradictions between the books. Lewis was in a very good position to get the books numbered in ANY way he wanted. He NEVER did. Ever. The only hint that Lewis ever even considered a different order to the publication order is in one single, solitary, letter to a child.

Read the Wiki page, it has a pretty good take on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chro...

The Lewis letter to the child is nice and vague but the publishers printed response is that they "present these books in the order in which Professor Lewis preferred" (my bold). Stretching the evidence a little bit, I think.

All series are one-offs and have to be considered in that way. They are not religious tracts.

I've read the wiki page, and am familiar with the evidence.

Meh, I guess we all have biases, depending on the order in which we read them.

I can see that creating a new series for a different reading/chronological/published/author-suggested or whatever reason might not be needed. I don't think needed if just something an individual reader/fan/blogsite decided.

I don't see why we should delete such a series order if widespread among fan base or "authentic" source like book front, author, publisher, estate, etc. (possibly edit series titles or descriptions to clarify what series was about and put a link to main series and the alternate order it was created for; but, why delete?).

Not going out of my way to create; but, if someone else takes the time or is a fan of a series and has the information in frontspiece of a book on hand and wants to create a series for a specific reading order -- I'm not going to go around deleting.

Deborah (Debbie Rice) wrote: "...why delete?)."

It is what some people do. If the logs were better and were able to be searched then these problems might be reduced. Or not. Some people just do their own thing.

I agree with tweaking series descriptions and adding links.

I changed the series title to be less confusing (and probably less prone to deletion).

hee!