 |
| I'll hop... as soon as I finish this..... |
This week's question comes from Christina at The Paperback Princess: "If you find a book that looks interesting but is part of a series, so you always start with the first title?"
Yes --the story usually makes more sense to me if I read them in order. I once read a bunch of Patricia Cornwell books out of order, and it was pretty confusing. I enjoyed the stories, but if an author has a character refer back to something, or someone, it makes more sense if I know the previous story. And speaking of series --- I sometimes have to be careful to not completely gorge myself. What I mean is: In the past, I've discovered an author/series and pick up a whole bunch of the books and read them right away ... and then feel like I've overeaten, so to speak. So what I do now is start with the first and second book, and then see how it goes.
Happy Hopping, everyone!!!
Posts
4 comments:
Totally agree! I "overate" two James Patterson series for so long, I'm still feeling the hangover :D
I LOVE your header! It's so awesome! The birds and the whole abandoned, Gothic feeling is cool!
Thanks for stopping by! I hope you have a great weekend!
depends on the author and the series.
something like Terry Pratchett, where each book ususally stars a different character, you can read the first book in the series to learn the world, then bounce around a bit.
but just about everyone else, I better be starting at the beginning!!!
http://lusbookblog.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to comment!
Please note that I am officially designating this blog an award-free zone. Thank you!!