Comments on: In What Order Should You Read the Series?

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:27:16 +0000

Thanks. I was wondering whether to read chronologically or in order of publication. I was leaning more towards order of publication and you confirmed that for me. Great argument.

By: LE

LE — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:40:07 +0000

Being in my 60′s? I recently wanted to re-read the entire Dune collection to see if my particular attraction to this series has change or evolved. Recently, I purchased the series in eBook format. (my old paperbacks falling apart, no room for new). I have probably read the first 6 books 20 times over the years, however, have not followed through with Brian’s prequels. Figured it was about time to buckle under and read them all. Personally, my OCD reaction is to read first written to last. It is a problem as every time a new book (or movie for that matter) in a beloved series comes out; I have to read them all in sequence…again. Happily, tackling the first 6 books still evokes the same sense of excitement it did when I was in my teens. Virtually all the well thought out comments above, indicate the choice is moot, and personal. Fleshing them out with the pre-quels should be entertaining regardless of their philosophical or thoughtful impact. All of Frank Herbert’s books have been inspirational throughout my life, I am looking forward to deciding if Brian can, at least, tell a good story!

By: Anthony Zanos

Anthony Zanos — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:50:19 +0000

I’m currently considering in which order to RE-READ the Dune series, having read the originals as a teenager/20-something then discovering the prequels in my 30s. Now in my 40s, I am ready to once again enter the Dune universe. I’m thinking of beginning at the prequels just because it’s opposite to what I did originally.

The question equally applies to the Sword of Shannara series … Terry Brooks dropped the ball a little with the near-future series (I’ll forgive him for that as we were all ecstastic by the mere idea when we learnt they were going to be written), however having begun reading the new ‘prequels’ I believe the difficulty involved in reading the ‘original’ ones was necessary to endure – in return for the pure bliss of experiencing Terry return to his current form.

Anthony Zanos – Australia

By: Dune Scholar

Dune Scholar — Wed, 04 May 2011 14:44:47 +0000

The question of correct order is harder when all the books are consistent with each other – at that point you can read any of the books and still understand the essence of the story and the author’s intentions.

With Dune, however, the new authors have wildly different intentions – as evidenced by the radical changes brought about to Frank Herbert’s canon in all the new books, changes and errors both – and they’ve warped the essence of the (wildly popular) original Dune universe – both subtly and sometimes not subtly at all.

Reconciling the drastic changes in the Duniverse from the old series to the new is impossible, notwithstanding the attempts by KJA/BH to do so. If you care about the integrity of storylines, plots, settings, themes, etc… then the new books leave you shaking your head in bewilderment – even disgust and sometimes actual anger, bordering on rage. I don’t know that this same issue exists at such a level among fans of other works of literature (original Dune fans are not even allowed to mention or discuss these issues openly on the official fan site – an example of active censorship to maintain sales of the new books)…

I am aware, however, that some find the McDune stories entertaining nevertheless… good for them, I say. The LCD is a broad base, and appealing to that demographic will get you monetary successes, especially if from the back of such a critically acclaimed series as FH’s Dune Chronicles.

The irony is that Frank Herbert’s stated intention in writing Dune in the first place was NOT to cater to the LCD with pulp, but to write stories that required the exercise of critical thought and potentially inspired readers to deeply revisit what it means to be human… within the context of literary entertainment. This is demonstrably NOT what the new books do, or even aim for – to the chagrin of those whose lives were changed for the better over the past forty-odd years as a result of reading Dune.

By: Davor

Davor — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:56:28 +0000

Yes, the prequels and sequels the son and his friend are writing are sub-par to the original series, but they give satisfaction to us who wish for the show to go on. And why not? At one point I WAS bothered by the fact that they are milking his father’s ideas for all they’re worth, but I now realize that I’m happier with the fact that they are expanding for us the universe Frank Herbert so beautifully created. You could even think of it as approved fan-art (approved by whom… I know, but nevertheless).
Anyway, the reader should definitely start with the original books, probably without in-between books such as Paul of Dune and The Winds of Dune, and then, if they liked it, they can try the prequels.
I’ve read the originals, the Butlerian Jihad trilogy and The Sandworms of Dune (I wasn’t aware of the book Hunters of Dune at the time – I got a little pissed of when I realized and it put me off the last book – still haven’t finished it).
My current plan is to gather up all the books (gonna take time and money) and read them chronologically. And we’ll see where that goes…

By: hnu

hnu — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:35:53 +0000

I have published the Romanian edition of the first trilogy of DUNE prequels (the Houses books), with The Butlerian Jihad and the rest to follow soon. I would have never thought that these should be read before the original series and I’d never recommend to anyone that reading order. And I have always referenced these prequels to the original
I think that each series has, besides its fictional chronology, a specific inside logical order, which is, more often than not, the one in which the books were written (and not necessarily published, nota bene!).
And, reading DLE’s post it occured to me to try and remember another series, besides LOTR + The Silmarillion, where I’d recommend the fictional chronology over the writing dates as a reading order. Couldn’t find any on the spot, but there probably are some. And, as a coincidence, I was just thinking these last two days in which order I should publish the DARKOVER books… Any ideas there?

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:17:11 +0000

George: I’ve heard of people showing the Star Wars films in that order before. The way I saw it expressed was that films IV and V take place in the “present,” and then films I-III are a kind of flashback of Darth Vader’s, triggered presumably by the discovery that he has a son. Finally film VI wraps things up.

Not sure if I’d actually show someone the films in that order for the first time, but it’s an interesting idea.

By: George Pedrosa

George Pedrosa — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:51:19 +0000

Interesting topic, interesting article. I actually spent some time thinking to myself in what order my girlfriend should watch Star Wars. I decided to show her IV, and V first, so as not to spoil the Darth Vader revelation (and because they serve as a better introduction to the series), then I showed her I, II and III. It was interesting to realize that the revelation that Luke and Leia are siblings works better that way. She thought the other twin would die, and was very surprised when Padme named her Leia. Finally, I showed her VI.

The only problem was she thought that Return of the Jedi would be something of a Greek tragedy, with Luke finding out that his lover is his sister, and that would help bringing him to the Dark Side. Kind of a disappointment, I guess…

By: ET

ET — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:32:32 +0000

Good luck with that Colleen – if you find one, let us know! My ancient boxed paperback set is starting to wear out and the one time I trusted someone enough to loan them out… yep, didn’t get one back.

DLE, I think you’re right on the money, and your response neatly covers posthumous collaborations as well. That said, I agree that there are exceptions. I think there are probably a couple of long-running and wide-ranging series that can be read in any order (I’m thinking particularly of the Darkover novels here, and some of Heinlein, although I suspect others would occur to me if I wandered in the other room to scope the bookshelves.) I agree with you in principle about The Silmarillion, although it would be a bit of a slog to get to the trilogy reading that first.

By: Colleen

Colleen — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:07:12 +0000

Oh, gods yes! I have been combing the shelves trying to find Narnia books that are in the “correct” order – the one in which we are just as new to Narnia as Lucy is when she goes through the wardrobe for the first time. I actually wrote a similar (but less elegantly worded) diatribe on my own blog when I went to go see Prince Caspian. And I don’t think that all writers know what’s going to happen to their world when they set out with book 1 – even if they end up writing prequels. Prequels are meant to add richness and possibly even nostalgia to a collected body of work. Those self-referential tendencies that David Williams brings up are part of that. How much less would you enjoy them if you didn’t even know they were there? How much less moving is the wonderment of Narnia if you walk into the wardrobe knowing what you’re going to see?