I only read in order if it's a series or has a recurring character. With every thing else, I take a scatter approach. If I really like the author, I may go back and read earlier works. The Greatest Hits approach is subjective, and I refuse to be told I have to read certain books first. I do what I want!

I do both. I enjoy seeing a writer grow from one book to the next. Of course, there are some authors I only truly love one of their novels. It's like they put everything they had in that one book and everything else is just trying to get back to that special place. For those cats, I do greatest hits, hoping to find another hidden gem.

I guess I'm more of a scattered type, unless it's a series. Though I've read some authors works in order (yours for instance) mainly because I read the first one when it came out and have been following ever since.

Disagree about The End of the Affair, but anyway be sure to read The Tenth Man, an easily overlooked classic by Greene (seriously, he even forgot he wrote it!).

I think it depends on the author and if you're reading a series with a recurring character. It's not necessary to read Connelly's Harry Bosch series in order, but I found it rewarding to follow Harry's growth as a character and Connelly's growth as a storyteller reading the series in order from book 1. I feel the same about John Connolly's Charlie Parker series.

For an author like Stephen King, where to start I think can be determined by what era you're interested in reading. I say 'era' because personally I feel there's an evolution to his writing every 10 years or so. Novellas and novels from the 70s have a different feel than Misery, Tommyknockers, and IT. The early 90s books like Dolores Claiborne, Rose Madder, and Gerald's game are vastly different than anything that came before.

Definitely a "read them in order" kinda gal. It's cool to see how both the author's writing and the characters/universe of the particular series evolve. For Pratchett's Discworld series, for example, it took him three or four books to settle into his own narrative voice and find the voices of the characters. It's weird now for me to go back to the very beginning because the whole feel of it is off. Death speaking in contractions always throws me off!

I always give a longer running series those first few to get going.

I suppose that I tend to read both ways. If it's a series, then I usually have to read it in order (I'm kind of OCD like that!), I don't like to miss out on the character development. If it's random books, then I can read in whatever order presents itself to me. It kind of drives me nuts working at the library when we've only got a couple of books from a series, & they are the later ones from a series, I usually end up hitting used book stores until I can find the beginning books.

With older stuff I tend to only read whats regarded as the best of. If it's a series I'll read the first one and based on that I'll either continue or jump to something else. And authors I'm just discovering that are new with only a few books out, I'll read the most recent one.

If it’s a series I always go in order. With everything else, my approach is rather disorganised. My first read is usually the „pleasure read”, and what entertains me on a particular day/week depends on my mood and not on chronology. I often revisit books or authors that I find exceptional, though, and on the second go I might switch to the publishing order to see how the writer’s style developed during time. I never feel guilty for cherry-picking my way through the greatest hits first, however. I always think it would be a waste to read a good book at the wrong time, and therefore not being able to appreciate it the way it deserves to be, just because I feel the need to stick to a predefined order.

I just read whatever book grabs my attention the most, regardless of popularity or the year it came out. Unless it's a book series and chronology is necessary for the stories coherency.

I've found that I read less when I've made rules for myself, so unless it's a series I read what appeals to me most. I used to try to read in order, but then found myself taking forever to read something I wasn't really enjoying. I also used to force myself to finish something before I could read anything else and basically found myself not reading at all if I wasn't into something.

Once I gave myself permission to put something down I wasn't enjoying, I started to read a lot more and sometimes even went back to the other book later.

I have recently gotten back into reading big time been 10-15 years since I've done serious reading. And I have gone into read in publication order mode, Stephen King, Anne Rice, Lisa Jackson, Beverly Barton, Lisa Gardner, you, Stuart Woods and some other not so big authors. I know some have characters that show up in multiple books and in most cases they can be read as stand alone novels, but my mind will not let me do it that way. Makes it easier to decide which book to read next just have to figure which author I am going to pick.

I got on a Larry McMurty jag and read (listened to) his Lonesome Dove series both ways. First, in the order they had been published and, after a few months or other things, in the chronological order of the series. I found that both ways worked for me.

BUT. The second time I read it, I did know where the series was going. So, I"m not sure how much effect that had on my perspective. I did find it interesting to follow the characters developement that way.

AND. Time-hopping is a frequent tool writers use to create a good story. "Here's where we are and who we are talking about. Now, I'm going to give you backstory to tell you how we got here." YOU know that trick,. :-) Reading in order of publication seems to fit (follow?) that device.

I think when you read books in a series, it's kind of like reading A book in a looseleaf binder. You have the option of taking it apart and rearranging the order if you want to. And, ultimately, it is your reading experience so you can do it how you choose.

I find reading both ways interesting and informative when the series is engaging enough to read more than once.

I tend to read in publish order. That's what I've done with your books. A lot of what I read are "series" books, so I read the next book in the series when it comes out.

Read what interests you at the time. With Stephen king I just randomly pick two misery and Christine, chose Christine as I had seen parts of the movie a few times. But otherwise just choose one tha sounds good at the. Time

I completely get you, and I'd do it too if I wasn't such a slow reader in the first place. I get distracted way too easily and often struggle to get through a book at all if it doesn't draw me in immediately.
So I just read the books that sound interesting to me. But if there's a sequel I'll read it regardless of the quality...unless it's actually way too much to read.

I do find myself with this issue as I work through Stephen King's work. But now that I'm dedicated to finishing his work, I honestly just bounce around. For 2019, I decided to make a list and just sorted by page number. I think it just depends on what strikes your fancy. I'm sure the author doesn't care (in most cases, anyway.) Unless it's a series, obviously, you probably want to read those in order.