Historical Mystery Lovers discussion

"First Book Syndrome" is common in many series in which the first installment focuses on establishing the characters and the setting. This is particularly true of Fantasy and Paranormal books which require a great deal of world building.

Have you encountered this in historical mysteries? Does it affect your enjoyment of the book?

Do you prefer to read in order or are you willing to skip a first book to get to the meat of the story without all the world building?

I never read in order unless the summary of the first book interests me. If I read a first book in the series that doesn't interest me, the chances are that I won't read another in the series.

Maisie Dobbs is an example. It had far too much background about her life as a servant and not nearly enough about the mystery aspect. I'm glad that I chose to read it much later after I was already hooked on the series.

Shomeret wrote: "I never read in order unless the summary of the first book interests me. If I read a first book in the series that doesn't interest me, the chances are that I won't read another in the series.

[bo..."

That is a perfect example. Later books are great. The first was dreadful.

I may be in the minority, but I like the world building bit (A Burnable Book for example), especially in historical mysteries. I often find that the place and atmosphere are passive characters in some historical mysteries, and adds to the story (sometimes detracts from it, but hey, everyone like different things and I think we're better for it).

Character building is tricky I reckon. Some people do it really well quickly, others more slowly. Some authors, I find couldn't develop a character to save their lives and should just stick to the story and we get to know the characters by their actions (Robert B. Parker).

So, the first book syndrome, at least for me, is rarely the case. I often find it's the second book that falls flat. Kind of like in music, bands/authors have years to work on their first, so it's near perfect, but then are suddenly at the mercy of the dreaded deadlines and aren't equipped to cope. So they are plagued with the sophomore syndrome.

Other authors are just great at what they do (Steven Saylor) and it's not until they basically write themselves to the ground that they begin to lack.

Now if book one and two are not up to snuff, I'm out. Though, I tend to give latitude if it's a translation - I reckon sometimes, those require more on the reader's part to be more culturally aware. That's a whole other topic though.

I have to start with the first book. I can't start in the middle of a series. My brain won't let me. I live in fear of a huge spoiler. Hey, if that's the biggest fear I have, I'm probably doing alright.

Unless I find the first novel in a series a complete disaster, I like to at least give the second novel a try. I think it sometimes takes a second book for the author to hit their stride. A few examples for me include Dissolution and All Roads Lead to Murder: A Case from the Notebooks of Pliny the Younger. I wasn't blown away by either of those books but I continued with the respective series. Now I wait on pins and needles in the hopes of more books from either author.

I'm with you, Gretchen. I can't read a series out of order. I've done it a couple of times by accident and I could always tell that I was missing something. I don't mind world building because I like having a strong sense of the environment in which the characters live and operate. I also really enjoy watching the characters grow and evolve as the authors bring them along. Reading out of order ruins that character continuity for me - and also ruins the emotional continuity too.

@ Paisley - I so agree with you about the sophomore slump aspect of books.

Some characters had fascinating lives before they started solving murder cases. Some characters live in fascinating historical periods and I can't get enough of them. Then I will be delighted to read the first book. I think that A Morbid Taste for Bones, the first book in the Cadfael series, was the best. The mystery hinges on the background of the central character, and Cadfael is an extraordinary protagonist. Now there's an example of a series where I was happy to start with the first book.

I tend to read series in order since I joined goodreads. I used to just grab a book that interests me and read it and I rarely felt lost reading something. ETA: back then I mostly read light romance and detective type mysteries.

Sometimes I miss those days. In one series based group I tried to get a list going on series that could be read out of order but nothing happened with that.

In my reading experience, I've found that high fantasy, urban fantasy and anything with any paranormal aspect is probably best read in order as there is often an ongoing plot line. Cozies, a lot of romantic suspense, detective series and light romance often don't need to be read in order. But alas it has become a compulsion for me now.

I read in order, and I get very perturbed if I accidentally read one out of order. Laurie King's The Bones of Paris would have made so much more sense if I had read Touchstone first, but I didn't realize it was a series until I was over halfway through. Now, I tend to mostly order books from the library (though I'll still browse on occasion) and just pick them up, so I can keep better in order.

Mary: Harry Dresden's Love Slave wrote: "I tend to read series in order since I joined goodreads. I used to just grab a book that interests me and read it and I rarely felt lost reading something."

In my pre-Kindle days when I was limited to what was on offer at the used book store, I often read out of order and always felt that I was missing something if it wasn't the first in a series.

Now I'm obsessive about reading in order because I really hate spoilers and need to have the world building and character development from the beginning. I'm the same with TV shows.

If a historical mystery is a success as a historical novel, even if there's not much mystery element present (as with Maisie Dobbs), I'm just fine with it. (I'm a fan of good world-building, generally, I think.) I'm certainly willing to give other volumes a fair chance.

The first volume *has* to be a success at at least one of its genres, though.

I do prefer to read the first book in a series & continue from there, but not always possible. A couple of series that I have read randomly from are Donna Leon's Commissario Bruenetti & Peter Tremayne's Sister Fidelma. In both cases, I saw one of their books at the library & read it. I then went back to read the first books, but haven't carried through with the whole series. The 'too many books, too little time' is probably the main reason. Plus, I usually read them from the library or find some at used book stores. Some series are so long, you have to be pretty dedicated to get through them; and willing to spend some money.

I really prefer to read books in order. As many have mentioned earlier, I like to have all of the background and enjoy the often secondary story of the characters as they evolve. Two exceptions for me were Maisie Dobbs when I read the first book near the end because my library didn't get it until much later. In that case it felt like a flashback and I found I really liked it. It filled in so many details to her other books. Another series I read out of order is the Roosevelt mysteries by Elliot Roosevelt. I don't mind reading them out of order because I think I already have the background of the main characters and the author really doesn't give them a background story (building their relationship in order for them to latter marry for example). For all of my other series' I read them in order and now if my library gets a book that I think sounds really great but it is the third or fourth in a series (I hate when they don't have the first in the series) I will do interlibrary loan to get the earlier books.

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "The first volume *has* to be a success at at least one of its genres, though. "


Good point. I agree with this too. Good world building just enriches a story but it can totally be the saving grace for me if the plot is a little light.

Patricia wrote: "Plus, I usually read them from the library or find some at used book stores."

It is difficult to read in order when the library and UBS selections are random. Before getting my Kindle I mostly read what I could get my hands on and it was hardly ever the first in a series.

Veronica wrote: "Good point. I agree with this too. Good world building just enriches a story but it can totally be the saving grace for me if the plot is a little light"

Agreed!

I always read series books in order, since the building up of character and world over time is one of the biggest draws for me in any sort of story (and why I tend to read a lot of series fiction, I love coming back to the same characters and world over and over). I'll hold off starting a series if I can't get the first book and, if by some weird fluke, I end up with a book out of order, I wont read it until i'm up to it.

It's true that some series take a while to get going though. The J.D. Robb books were much like that - The first books are ok, not bad mysteries, but not wonderful either... after a few books however, as the full cast begins to get established, it blossoms in to one of the greatest book series i've ever read.

So, because of that, I always give any series at least 2 or 3 books before deciding on whether it's worth it - unless the first book is so incredibly terrible that I can't bear the thought of continuing, which is a thankfully rare thing.

Paul Doherty was one where I disliked the first book, but continued through several others just in case. Unfortunately, they continued to exhibit the same problems book after book.

I prefer to read the series in order but its not a necessity. I have occassionally read a book and felt like I wad missing something and found out it was a series, then I get the first one to get the backstory. I like getting to know the characters and where they are from. You get a sense of you they are. I as well read at least 2 books in the series to know if I will continue on, unless I absolutely hated the first one.

I'm in the "Read Them In Order" camp, even researching an order to a series if the author says there is no order. When left without an authorial order, or a fan derived one, I default to publishing chronology. Then, I at least get a similar experience as original fans of the series.

I hate spoilers and in the past when I've jumped to a later book and it's like: "Why was she here? What business did she have, placing flowers on the grave of my beloved side-kick..." NOOOOOO!!! What happened!?? GAHHH!! SIDEKICK IS DEAD!!?? Yep. As punishment for skipping around, that's why.

That said, I've been doing it again and haven't been stung too bad. Since I've started writing myself, I have another layer of enjoyment reading a good story that takes the sting out of my misdeeds.

I should imagine the authors that have taken the time to build up a good historical background and story arc are delighted when readers read their series in sequence - otherwise why read a book from front page to back? But having said that there are definitely some series, like Donna Leon's, where it doesn't seem to matter that much: the children are a bit older or a bit younger, that's really all, and the beautiful city lives on.

There are some series where the books almost function as stand-alones despite having the same characters. In the mystery genre, series that are more heavily focused on the procedural elements, rather than the private lives of the characters, of the story come to mind. Even so, I still prefer to read them in order. ;-)

Agreed, Veronica.
Even if the focus is less on the character's lives, there are often minor references to events in previous books that make me feel as if I'm out of the loop if I haven't read in order.

I prefer to read series in order. I prefer to read the book in chronological order for the series, which may or may not be chronological order with respect to the publishing dates.

My mother-in-law does not see any reason to read them in order and often gives me random books in series, which annoys me because I then have to go find the books that precede the gifts and sometimes it's years before I can get around to reading the book she gave me!

Lynn wrote: "My mother-in-law does not see any reason to read them in order and often gives me random books in series, which annoys me because I then have to go find the books that precede the gifts and sometimes it's years before I can get around to reading the book she gave me! "

I have a friend who does that and I often end up giving the books back to her unread because I just didn't have time to read the first ones.

I like to read the books in order. If I happen to start with one partway through and I like it, I'll go back. It didn't bother me at all that Maisie Dobbs was full of information about her past. I loved that. I like the "historical" part of historical mysteries, so I don't care if the mystery takes a back seat.

Here's the weird thing about me as a mystery reader - the least interesting part of the book for me is "who done it". I often don't remember that about a book. What I like is an interesting setting and compelling characters, preferably who develop from book to book.

Robin wrote: "Here's the weird thing about me as a mystery reader - the least interesting part of the book for me is "who done it""

That's interesting. I'm a plot driven reader so the mystery is often the most important part for me and the character development is secondary.

That's why I've never reread Agatha Christie, after I read a lot of them in early adulthood. The characters are there to serve the plot and Poirot never changes. But I've reread Dorothy Sayers, who develops her characters a lot more. (Lord Peter is my literary crush!)

I think I agree with you, Robin, though I’ve never seen it so clearly expressed before. I’m not about the perp either; I have to enjoy the journey. It’s one reason I don’t love procedurals.

In a different genre, I once had a doctor who exclaimed impatiently to me that Jane Austen wrote only one book and you always knew what was going to happen. The same could be said to a degree about mysteries. It was only belatedly that I thought to answer that it’s not about the destination, it’s about the journey.

Robin wrote: "That's why I've never reread Agatha Christie, after I read a lot of them in early adulthood. The characters are there to serve the plot and Poirot never changes. But I've reread Dorothy Sayers, who..."

Love to hear a bit of praise for Dorothy L. Sayers and the lovely Lord Peter! I thought I was almost on my own these days. And yes, they certainly bear lots of rereading.

I like mysteries and historical fiction equally, so if the book is a success at one or the other, I'm fine with it.

Lord Peter is an old friend.

Lord Peter makes a cameo appearance in the 3rd Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes book, A Letter of Mary. He is only identified as their friend Peter who had a hard time in the war and is a book collector, but his description identified him. I assume he couldn't be identified by his full name since, unlike Sherlock, he probably isn't in public domain.

As far as the original subject of this thread, authors may not know that they will be writing a series, as their first book may not sell. I think some of them go into more detail about the detective in the 2nd book. Lord Peter is an example here. Clouds of Witness tells us much more about Peter and his family than the actual first bookWhose Body?.

He's referred to in both the first novel (and I think also the second? not as clear to me), as well, though very indirectly and only in passing. He actually appears (though unnamed) in the third, where he does Mary a favor.

I also suspect unnamed because most of the Wimsey stories are clearly not public domain in the US. (Whose Body I'm not sure about, given it's publication date, which is right on the border. A kindle copy at Amazon is not free, but it is pretty cheap, at least at the moment. So is her masterpiece, Gaudy Night.)

I cut the author some slack regarding the first book where the series setup is as important as the actual plotting. Moreover, I also give them the benefit of the doubt that a character may grow.