Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Hi,

I was editing some books when I realized that there is a new rule where, if a book is part of a series, it is followed by parentheses with the series name and the book's order in the series (e.g.: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter, #1). I was wondering what "qualifies" as part of a series and what doesn't. Do companion books have the parentheses attached on them as well? I was about to edit The Tales of Beedle the Bard and add "(Harry Potter Companion Book)" or something of the like, but I was wondering whether this would be legitimate to do so.

Also, what about books that have only one sequel? Would the sequel include parentheses that state something akin to "(Sequel of [Title of First Novel:])"?

Thanks! :D

Putting the series info after the title is not particularly a new rule. I think you have to play each case by ear.

I hadn't thought about The Tales of Beedle the Bard, but I guess it might make sense to put "(Harry Potter)" after it. I wouldn't put "companion book", just indicate it's part of the Harry Potter universe, but not a numbered part of the series. Other opinions?

I would never put "(Sequel of...)". You might put "(xxxx, #2)" where xxxx indicated something about what it is following...the fact that the "series" only has two books doesn't change the logic.

Oh, ok. Thanks! I thought it was an official rule since it stated under the title on the editing page that if it was in a series you would have to do that.

I think for now I'm going to do just as you said to do for those two cases. Unless...there are other opinions and/or objections? :D

The example under the title form is the suggested format for adding series info. Some of us lobbied for that example because people were adding series info in so many different formats. For most series, that's what is preferred.

But for something like Harry Potter books, it's okay just to say (book #1) after the title because the series name is part of the book title.

I agree with Michael that (Harry Potter) would work for the book you asked about. But I don't think saying (Harry Potter Companion) would be wrong either.

Also for sequels, using the typical format would be best. Saying (Sequel of...) can look kind of messy. If there isn't a series name, I know some people will just use the name of the first book, or a shortened version of the name as a series name.

What about this "series?"

There's two companion books and an upcoming sequel that will have the characters from both of the first two companion books. The author is calling them the "moon books."

Life As We Knew It

The Dead and the Gone

This World We Live In

I'm curious about what other librarians think given bookbutterfly's starting this thread. I wouldn't have thought to link these three except that this author has many other books and readers might not know that these "go together." I can think of other examples, some that really are all sequels, for other authors. I've always left these alone and not tried to link them as series, but it would be helpful if some librarians expressed their opinions about this example and others.

Thanks.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I guess it might make sense to put "(Harry Potter)" after it. I wouldn't put "companion book", just indicate it's part of the Harry Potter universe, but not a numbered part of the series. Other opinions?"

Teh internet apparently ate my post earlier, but I was trying to say exactly that.

Lisa, according to the book URL for the third one, the author is indeed naming these the Moon Crash trilogy, so I would say that editing the three books to add that information is valid.

Whenever there are connected books, whether the author officially labels them a series or not, I try to add series information. It's really helpful to GR users looking up info on books to see that, hey there's a book connected to this one!

I think another important thing to mention is that it is a good idea to add series info to as many editions of the book as possible. A lot of times I see librarians only add it to the most popular edition. Which, a large majority of the time will be fine. But if someone enters and ISBN search for a less popular edition, they won't see that the book is part of a series. So I always try to label most of the editions.

Cait,

Thanks!

Yes, I manually added that third book and included that URL but I wasn't sure since the first two are companion books, so they're not numbers 1 & 2. However, the 3rd one is #3. The first two could be read in either order but the 3rd one should be read after the first two.

How would you label them? Life As We Knew It was published first and The Dead and the Gone was published second.

Opinions?

Lisa, in the absence of any author input, I'd label them in publishing order.

I've seen several reviews by friends of mine that begin, "I didn't even know that this wasn't the first book in the series until I logged onto Goodreads with it...", so I'm a believer in series labelling! :)

I've seen several reviews by friends of mine that begin, "I didn't even know that this wasn't the first book in the series until I logged onto Goodreads with it...", so I'm a believer in series labelling! :)

I agree.

What would you do about an author like Tom Clancy? There is a chronological order to his Jack Ryan series but that is far from the publishing order. I just took a quick look at him and it don't seem like any of the books in this series are labelled as being a part of that series.
My take on it is to label them chronologically ... Any other takes on this?

Books written out of chronological order become much more difficult. Narnia has this issue, which is why there are multiple "official" numbering systems for it (the original numbering was based on the published order, but later on publishers started rearranging them chronologically). The Vorkosigan books by Bujold are all over the place. Stephen Brust's Vlad Taltos books are not only written out of chronological order, the author purposefully wrote one book so that it takes place both before and after another book, just to make it difficult for those who insisted on trying to read them chronologically.

Also, if people insist on chronological order for books, it can get very complicated when authors write side books focusing on other characters or events which are parallel and simultaneous with other books.

I personally tend to lean toward the order books are published as the official numbering to use, unless there is a *very* good reason to use an alternate order. You can't always rely on writing order: sometimes books are written in one order but published in a different one. In the Clancy example, Patriot Games was written first, but published later (he couldn't get it published until he had hit it big later on), thus they were actually written chronologically but published out of order. (Later on, Clancy wrote at least one book which was a prequel to other characters; I gave up on his writing awhile ago so I haven't kept up).

For books where the order is unclear or variable, for now I'd just put the series name without any number at all. (This can be particularly useful for books set in a common universe but don't necessarily make up a strict series). If you feel you have to put a number (and there is no clear system), use order published.

Part of my wishlist for series implementation is that they will somehow allow multiple parallel numbering systems, as well as unnumbered books. I can picture some series where you might have things like:

Published order: 1 2 3 4 5
Chronological Order: 4 5 1 2 3
Omnibus 1 (Books 1-3), Omnibus 2 (Books 4-5)
Book X = related to series, but unnumbered

And it'd be nice to somehow manage to show all of these order within the series.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I personally tend to lean toward the order books are published as the official numbering to use, unless there is a *very* good reason to use an alternate order."

Amen. In many cases the authors (Orson Scott Card and Anne McCaffrey come to mind) also suggest reading the books in publication order, rather than chronological. (It tends to make the retcons easier to understand. And swallow. ;) )

I do get your point, Not the Michael, but I think that in the Clancy case there are a rather easy to follow chronological order that follows Jack Ryan's career - and the ones I've read are better if you read them in that order because otherwise some things make less sense...
I don't know - I'm not sure what I think would be the best solution to this chaos.

I've read all the Clancy books, and I'd say keep them labeled in order by published date.
The gradual 'reveal' of everything about the character is part of the growth of the series, I think.

Unless the author says otherwise, I vote for publishing order.

You have to remember that when authors write books, they're almost always writing with respect to what's already been published. So when an author writes a book that takes place in the past relative to other books, they're usually not thinking "You know, the other books will make so much more sense if the readers read this one first". They're usually more focused on "How can I make this interesting so that even though readers know what will happen since they've read the future books, there are still cool and unexpected twists in this one."

Personally if I am starting an already established series, I do prefer chronological order.

Hm, I'm a bit more for chronological order. I know Diana Wynne Jones's Chrestomanci Series has a confusing order (like the Chronicles of Narnia), and I bet that she, or any other author that published books in a series in the order they're "supposed" to be in, would put them in chronological order. But that's just my opinion. :)

bookbutterfly wrote: "Hm, I'm a bit more for chronological order. I know Diana Wynne Jones's Chrestomanci Series has a confusing order (like the Chronicles of Narnia), and I bet that she, or any other author that publis..."

I agree.

bookbutterfly wrote: "I know Diana Wynne Jones's Chrestomanci Series has a confusing order (like the Chronicles of Narnia), and I bet that she, or any other author that published books in a series in the order they're "supposed" to be in, would put them in chronological order."

Does she specify a series order anywhere? If she does, that should clearly take precedence as long as there isn't series information printed on the actual books.

bookbutterfly wrote: "I bet that she, or any other author that published books in a series in the order they're "supposed" to be in, would put them in chronological order."

I'll take that bet. Many authors prefer their books to be read in publication order.

The only series of hers that I've read is the far shorter Dalemark series. So I can't opine personally on the best order to read the Chrestomanci books. However, her site lists them in this order:
Charmed Life, The Lives of Christopher Chant, Witch Week, The Magicians of Caprona, Mixed Magics, Stealer of Souls, Conrad's Fate, The Pinhoe Egg. I think that's publication order, no?

If a series I am starting does have a prequel, I will read that first as I do prefer sometimes to read in chronological order. But it all depends on the series.

Just as an "FYI", I added "(Harry Potter)" to two editions of Beedle the Bard. :D