I am a straight through reader by preference. I'll often start out of order, with whatever book I run across, but if I like it I generally go back to book one. That relies on them being more or less the same in tone, though, and doesn't always work -- I recently discovered and now adore a series I'd missed for years because the one I ran across first was an atypical exploration of a loose end in the universe. I appreciate each book standing on its own if that can be done, but there does come a point where I become impatient with attempts to make book seven of a nine book epic accessible to a new reader -- usually because the exposition has become clumsily obtrusive and repetitive to the straight-through reader and still probably insufficient for the skip-around one.

I am a straight through reader by preference. I'll often start out of order, with whatever book I run across, but if I like it I generally go back to book one. That relies on them being more or less the same in tone, though, and doesn't always work -- I recently discovered and now adore a series I'd missed for years because the one I ran across first was an atypical exploration of a loose end in the universe. I appreciate each book standing on its own if that can be done, but there does come a point where I become impatient with attempts to make book seven of a nine book epic accessible to a new reader -- usually because the exposition has become clumsily obtrusive and repetitive to the straight-through reader and still probably insufficient for the skip-around one.

Excellent posting, and one of my real pet peeves in romance novels, I have to say. I am both an avid reader, and writer. I started writing because so many of the books I read, especially the series romance, were so unsatisfactory in terms of characterization. The whole point of a novel is to have your main hero and/or heroine go through a series of life-changing events, and in the case of romance in particular, to fall in love, and for us to have some inkling that they are committed enough to each other to be able to live happily ever after through a series of challenges as well. What often happens, though, is the couple gets lost in a Shakespearean-comedy type cast of characters, and the romance then becomes so watered down, that you really wonder who is the central couple in the novel. Pairing off a whole bunch of couples is also trite and cliche. You can't possibly do justice to all the characters in the space of 65-100,000 words if you take that take, and it cheats the reader and leaves them feeling disappointed. If they feel cheated, they will not buy another book. The trouble with LONG series is that some of the earlier ones can go out of print, leaving the reader who comes into it in media res hanging. Every novel in a series should be able to stand alone, and if there are overlapping characters, they should do or say enough to give background, or support, without taking over the whole of the story. As in real life, we are judged by whom we associate with; so too in novels, the hero, or the villain. No character is ever in isolation, but nor do we need a Cecil B. DeMille cast with details not relevant to the main narrative thrust. Above all, the first and last novels in a series should never try to do too much to set up or finish the series. They get too far away from the central characters when they do that. Finally, all writers really need to pay particular attention to their endings. A lot of novels by the more popular writers tend to have a really unfinished feel to them, like they are mere 'product' racing onto the shelves. Since I also work in publishing, I know the series sells big and sells well, especially in romance and mystery. But most of us read for the characters, not the plot. The same character over and over in several novels needs to grow. Linked novels will have a few select main characters, but, as in the example of romance, each will find their own love in a standalone book. In an epic, it will mainly be narrative unless we see very clear character development, and that is the difference between a great classic novel, and one which is just churned out for action and entertainment. So by all means, authors can continue to produce series, but always keep their main character in focus at all times. Even if they are off-stage, so to speak, mention them, have characters think about them, have their actions and process of change central to the novel. Sorcha MacMurrough The Rakehell Regency Series

Interesting taxonomy. I'm so firmly in the 'straight through' camp that I had a bit of a hard time mentally granting the other groups existence on the 'a significant population of people routinely does this' level.

To me, there's so much out there worth reading that, if a particular series's starting-off point is unavailable, I'll just go with stand-alones or other series where I can begin at the beginning.

Of course, a different contrast from your reading style plays a big part in my choices -- I reread books only rarely, and almost exclusively after a delay of several years from the initial reading. If I try to read a book I've read within the last, say, 4-5 years, I tend to get bored within the first few chapters because the details are still too fresh in my memory. (This applies largely to movies, TV, and other forms of plot-based entertainment as well.) As such, if I am going to get full enjoyment out of a series novel, I have to have all the context the first time through. Thus, my straight-through modus operandi.

Of course, this means I place very little value on stand-alone-ability. If an author can't massage the context into the book in a reasonably graceful fashion, I'd rather it just be left out. Asking people to start at the beginning just isn't all that bad. It would be even less bad if bookstores were more rigorous about always having book-ones available, but that's a rant for another day.

Note: testing formatting with this comment, forgive if it comes out poorly.

I have to say I'm a very mixed-up reader, because I've employed every series reading strategy mentioned! I used to be a more straight-through reader. However, in more recent years I don't hew strictly to that line any more. I feel, now that I'm past my first half-century, there are far too many books and way too little time for me to stick with a series straight through. I tend to skip around more, find more standalones, and will try a new book even if it's the 5th or 6th in a series. If it makes sense to me, I'll find others. But I don't necessarily feel the need to read them in order. If the content of a series tries to dictate that sort of reading, I'm more likely to not bother. And I read a LOT. I read at least 3 prose books a week, and a minimum of 50 graphic novels a month (generally more like 60-75). Umm, this is Tuesday, and I've already read 3 prose books starting with Sunday ...