|
|
lissibith (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} lissibith) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank, |
...
*Puts on tl;dr rantypants*
Would you read breaking dawn and not read the first books of the Twilight Series first? And if you read the book would it stand on its own the same way it would if you read the series in order. If you don’t like reading things in order, why would you read a book that is clearly part of a series of books, that requires the reader to read other books in order to fully appreciate the story being told. You are a silly woman for writing a blog like this and not expecting critique.
...
YES! Yes, if I were inclined to read Twilight and Breaking Dawn were the only book available at the library or on my friends' throwing away pile or whatever, I'd totally read it first.
I read the second Harry Potter book first. The THIRD Dark Tower book first. I not only didn't start at book 1 in Discworld, I didn't even start with the first book of the particular series I was reading in (the Night's Watch). And they've all become major favorite books of mine. Circle of Magic? The Princess series from Hines? McGuire's Toby Daye books? I think I start fewer series with book 1 than I do in other places.
I've also started with book 3 of True Blood, and book 11 (heaven help me) of the Mary Russel books. And while these books didn't grab me, they were still understandable as complete works which explained within their covers everything I might need to know to understand that particular volume.
I just... I don't get this idea that a book should not be expected to stand more or less on its own.
*Puts on tl;dr rantypants*
Would you read breaking dawn and not read the first books of the Twilight Series first? And if you read the book would it stand on its own the same way it would if you read the series in order. If you don’t like reading things in order, why would you read a book that is clearly part of a series of books, that requires the reader to read other books in order to fully appreciate the story being told. You are a silly woman for writing a blog like this and not expecting critique.
...
YES! Yes, if I were inclined to read Twilight and Breaking Dawn were the only book available at the library or on my friends' throwing away pile or whatever, I'd totally read it first.
I read the second Harry Potter book first. The THIRD Dark Tower book first. I not only didn't start at book 1 in Discworld, I didn't even start with the first book of the particular series I was reading in (the Night's Watch). And they've all become major favorite books of mine. Circle of Magic? The Princess series from Hines? McGuire's Toby Daye books? I think I start fewer series with book 1 than I do in other places.
I've also started with book 3 of True Blood, and book 11 (heaven help me) of the Mary Russel books. And while these books didn't grab me, they were still understandable as complete works which explained within their covers everything I might need to know to understand that particular volume.
I just... I don't get this idea that a book should not be expected to stand more or less on its own.
Post a comment in response:
