Printed books numbers

[Lissou]

Not sure if there has been any threads about it already... if there has, I've missed them. Sorry. They must have been drowned in the midst of the 3 or 4 themes everybody starts a thread about.

I want to state that I'm not complaining here, just giving my opinion and I thought it might be interesting to share opinions.

As you might or might not know, the books are numbered 1 (DCF), 0 (oOoPC), 2 (NCFtPB), -1 (SoD) and 3 (WaXP) so far.

I wrote them in this order for a reason: it's, IMO, the right order. The order in which they should be read. And, well, Rich seems to kinda agree on that, he does say so in his introductions. Reading them in the numerical order (-1, 0, 1, 2) spoils things for 1 and 2.

So I'm actually wondering why they were numbered that way, and what you guys think about it. Do you agree with that? what would you have done?

My opinion is Rich numbered the chronologically, in the order of the action taking place, without thinking of the order of the reader. Or maybe, in the order they might be read for someone who's read the archives already. Or maybe he saw he didn't want to break the rythm of the story by putting prequels in between compilations and just made them kinda symetrical (kinda, because there wouldn't have been a 0 otherwise).

But I'm not happy with that. I mean, I'm not angry, or sad, or anything that big, I'm just annoyed that my books line on the shelf in what looks like the wrong number. But if I put them in the right order, I have to either tell my friends (or future kids) who want to try to story "oh wait, start with 1, then 0, then 2, then -1...) and might lose their readership. Or maybe they'll think "the author knows better then you, dan't ya think?" and start with Start of Darkness, and I think it's not a good thing.
Or I could tell them "oh, okay, but read it on the internet first. You won't have the bonus strips so you'll have to read the books again, but at least you'll read the prequels before the compilations, so it evens out.".
But I doubt they'd be OotS virgins if they read webcomics. I have lots of friends who don't read on screens because it hurts their eyes, or because they don't like it. I myself started reading OotS only when I bought the 4 books that were available to try the comic. I started reading it online only after I was convinced.

Now, you'll ask me, did you start with SoD? Well no, I didn't, because I was warned not to. It didn't stop me, but I still think it might stop some people.

Anyway... I don't think Rich can change anything, and I don't know if he would want to or, for that matter, should do so. But that's what I think about the numbers. I think he made a mistake there, and I would have done it differently.

So I thought about what I would have done, and I can think of two things. First option, making "oOoPC" number 1.5 and "SoD" number 2.5. It fits with DnD in a way and you know where to put them. Of course the problem is, what if you get two prequels in a row? Then you're screwed.
And there is option 2: giving them completely different sorting symbols. Either A, B, C... or HS1, HS2... (HS stands for "Hors-série" in French, it means a book that's not in the continuity of the series but related to it, like the prequels book are. I'm not sure what the English word is).
The problem with that second optin is that even though you know to start with the actual series, you don't necessarily know when to read the "out of series" ones. It's really only half a problem if you read the whole compilation books first, though: after all we all read the whole archive, either live or after the fact, before we read the prequel books (for those of us we did). It's obviously made so you can read it that way. But there might be minor spoiler.
I think I would probably have chosen the letter option (or HS option), after consideration. And then added in the beginning of the book "this out of sequence book is best read between books so and so".
By beginning, I mean something like the inside cover or something... Or maybe on the back of the book.

Anyway, I was thinking about all that, and I thought maybe you guys had other ideas of how to do it? Or maybe you think Rich's way was the best? In both cases, please give your opinion and explain why you hold it.

Also feel free to talk about equivalent situations in other series.
For instance, I think Star Wars should be seen in the order 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, as otherwise the end of number 3 spoils the whole first trilogy. I think the 1,2,3,4,5,6 order would have been perfectly fine if they hadn't revealed in the end of 3 that Amidala had given birth, that they were twins, a boy and a girl, which name she gave them and where they went to be adopted.
I'm also annoyed when people put "The magician's nephew" as the first book in the Narnia stories, as it was meant to be read like 7th or so and when read first spoils the real first one, "The wardrobe" (I sortened the title :P).

[Szilard]

I wouldn't have read it 1,0,2,-1,3 as you suggested, I would go 1,2,0,-1, and then read it on the internet, and then 3 comes out. People usually read the actual story before the prequals anyway.

As for the Star Wars thing, if I had to introduce anyone to it, I would do 4,5,6,1,2,3 or maybe 4,5,1,2,3,6.

And Magicans Nephew was meant to be read first.

[AceOfFools]

I would start with book one no matter how the books are arranged on the shelf. Always start with the first one.

That being said, I don't think the "spoilers" that one would get from reading SoD before book 0 before the main comic would ruin the story, and are far less likely to turn people off than the brick of rules jokes that is the first book. Really, I'd start people on book 2 or SoD to show off Rich's storytelling and characterization, rather than his ability to make rules jokes that don't age well.

Incidentally, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was written and released first, and was numbered 1 for many years. There's a set so numbered thus on a book shelf at my mother's house. It was only in the early 90s that I saw that they changed the order.

[Chronos]

I'm of the opinion that the proper order to read a series of books (or watch a series of movies, or whatever) is almost always the order in which they were released. Just think, if some other order were "correct", then those folks who started the series before they were all released would be screwed out of the opportunity of getting the "right" experience from the books. So, if I were reading the OotS books from scratch, or advising someone else to, I would read 1,0,2,-1,3...

That said, I don't have any problem with the numbering the Giant has chosen. The natural inclination isn't just to mindlessly apply the mathematical "less than" operator to the books, and read the "least" number first. The natural inclination is to read book 1 first. The existence of zero and negative numbers in the labeling is a signal that something's up with the ordering of those books, and I think most people would be able to figure out that they're prequels, which were written later.

[Lissou]

[...]That said, I don't have any problem with the numbering the Giant has chosen. The natural inclination isn't just to mindlessly apply the mathematical "less than" operator to the books, and read the "least" number first. The natural inclination is to read book 1 first. The existence of zero and negative numbers in the labeling is a signal that something's up with the ordering of those books, and I think most people would be able to figure out that they're prequels, which were written later.

You know, I guess you might be right. People would ask, either way. So it's a bit like the HS/letter option, really.
I actually feel better about sorting them in the numerical order now. I might do it :P

And book 1 starts with an introduction of the characters, not with strip 1, so it's not lots of rule jokes in a row. Plus, I hadn't played any DnD in my life and I still read book 1, enjoyed it and understood a lot of it. You don't need to know the rules to understand the fact that when people roll "move silently", rolling a 4 makes them loud. So that joke and many others were really understandable.
The first strip wasn't, but as I understand it, a lot of people who play DnD don't get it either. It just shows that the strip wasn't supposed to become a stand-alone story.
Also, it's explained in the book if I'm not mistaken.

Oh, and to reply to someone else: no, I don't think reading the presquels first really spoils the story, but some revelations are not revelations anymore. Also, there is a part of -1 that explains a part of 0, so if you read -1 before 0, it doesn't work that well for that, either.
I also think it really shifts the story. -1 focuses on the villains, most of the Order don't even appear at all. Starting with that, IMO, makes you see the story as their story, and you might end up frustrated to have to follow the adventures of a group of adventurers instead of seing the villains all the time (I surely am, but I'm a Redloack fangirl so I couldn't get enough of him anyway).

It might also make the story too complex from the start. When reading Start of Darkness, you already know a lot of things about the universe, and even the characters, even if you see them earlier than the ones you know. You're expected to know these stuff, and I do think it's harder to really follow if you don't.
Not to mention the prequel books are a collection of chapters that can seem completely random. It switches from one character you don't know to another character you don't know. It would be confusing I think. I know I get confused by book that start this way, jumping from the story of one character to another, and you don't know why it's related. When you've read the series, you know why it's relevant to see the stories of all Order members, or Redcloak's and Xykon's stories.

Anyway, I do think the right order is almost always the one in which it was written, unless it was planned so much that they can start wherever (like how they film movies) but then they wouldn't first release it in the wrong order, would they?

Thanks for your insight, though, I think maybe you're right that a "-" sign would be enough for the people to wonder about it. They'd know it can't have been written first, or it would be called "1".

[NerfTW]

Incidentally, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was written and released first, and was numbered 1 for many years. There's a set so numbered thus on a book shelf at my mother's house. It was only in the early 90s that I saw that they changed the order.

The "new" ordering made no sense, as Aslan is introduced (to the reader) in Wardrobe, but "The Magician's Nephew", the "first" book, simply introduces him with no explaination.

As for the OOTS numbering, I think it's very clear to anyone that "-1" is probably not the first in the series, and the forward very clearly states when it should be read.

Book 0, on the other hand, doesn't spoil anything at all, except the letter, and that was almost a throwaway comment in the online comic itself.

[Firestar27]

I would say 1,2,0,-1,3. In OTOOPCS, Rich said that he expected the reader to have already known about Haley's letter from Tyrannia. This occurs in book 2, No Cure for the Paladin Blues.

[NerfTW]

I would say 1,2,0,-1,3. In OTOOPCS, Rich said that he expected the reader to have already known about Haley's letter from Tyrannia. This occurs in book 2, No Cure for the Paladin Blues.

Yeah, I got that part wrong. Why did I think it was in the dungeon?

[ref]

Yeah, I got that part wrong. Why did I think it was in the dungeon?

0 was printed before 2, but after we saw the letter, since the strip was moving on in the net, which makes timing somewhat fuzzy.

[Lissou]

0 was printed before 2, but after we saw the letter, since the strip was moving on in the net, which makes timing somewhat fuzzy.

I made the same mistake, I think. I guess it shows that they don't have a very clear best time to be read, as OtooPCs could be read around the middle of book 2.

I guess that's one of the things that happen when you convert a webcomic to print :P Another thing being converting some things into pages...
Like, double pages, if you don't calculate it right you can't have them as a double page unless you leave a blank page, or add a page of bonus or commentary.
And of course, Roy's falling, we don't know how it was dealt with but it's definitely best suited for online reading I'd say. But that's already another topic.

[Totally Guy]

I'm also annoyed when people put "The magician's nephew" as the first book in the Narnia stories, as it was meant to be read like 7th or so and when read first spoils the real first one, "The wardrobe" (I sortened the title :P).

Oh, I get it now! Why did no one tell me sooner? That confused me for ages. Up until now.

[Lupy]

I think that they should be read: 1,2,0,-1,3 honestly, so that no spoilers are given.