Mystery/Thriller Reading Friends discussion

What if a series has a prequel, but the author doesn't reveal that it's a prequel until the end? Would you want to be told that the book is a prequel and should be read first even though it's spoiler information? How should a RIO be introduced to this series?

Shomeret:
Good question. I tend to look toward the chronological order that the books were written (which might not be published order) to guide with a read the prequel first or not question. Examples where reading the back story later worked best for me: George Pelecanos provided back story to Derek Strange in a later book, Hard Revolution; Lee Child provided back story to Reacher in a later book, The Enemy; Karin Slaughter did it with the Sara Linton books in Indelible .
I felt like I got more out of the back story later in each case above as a way to get to know the characters better, much in the same way we fill in the blanks with new people we meet and get to know more about them. That said, I don't mind reading a prequel later in the reading order.
;) Of course I don't mind reading out of order anyway, an off shoot from listening to library audio books or for years just grabbing the first book off the shelf at the library that caught my fancy, not worrying that others may have preceded it. I enjoy catching up later.

I guess it would depend on the type of spoiler information. If by reading the prequel you're given information that detracts from the plot of a later book, I wouldn't want to read it first. If the prequel merely adds information (think of the 3 Godfather movies as an example of how going back in time only explained but never detraqcts from the plots), then I'd probably want to read it first.

The prequel adds information. You learn things about the MC's background that wasn't previously revealed. But the book wasn't published as a prequel. I only knew that it was one when I got to the end and realized then that it had to be taking place before all the previous novels. Someone who hadn't read the series before, however, wouldn't notice that the scene at the end means that it's a prequel.

I hate them. I get mad when I see them. I read them but really don't pay attention to them. Or at least that is what usually happens because if I talk about the book afterwards if my sister read it and I didn't get something she will say didn't you read that in the beginning. I think it ruins the rest of the book. Hate knowing how it will end in the beginning.

let's see... a prequel by definition is published later in an ongoing series and takes place before the earliest known action in the series, correct? I'd find it a little disconcerting to be reading a novel and find out at the end that it was a prequel. But as
Dan said, I only really care if something is revealed in the book that will spoil other plots. It's hard to imagine that happening, since it does take place before any of the other books.

The only example I can think of is the Reacher book Ann mentioned, and that only added background, didn't really impact my enjoyment of future books. It might have explained a characteristic of Reacher, or something he alluded to in other books, but that's not a spoiler.

Now I can imagine feeling manipulated if the author only revealed at the end that it was a prequel, but it's hard to say out of context.

Dan said, I only really care if something is revealed in the book that will spoil other plots. It's hard to imagine that happening, since it does take place before any of the other books.

You're right, Carol. The only thing I can think of is a character's idiosyncracy that drives a plot but wouldn't have the same affect if explained in a prequel. (And that would only apply if you read the prequel before the other books). One other factor: Readers who read the prequel first would have a different viewpoint than readers who had read the series and then read the prequel last.