![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Game Of Consequences
Aug. 21st, 2006 11:01 pm25 Jul 06
Miles Errant - Lois McMaster Bujold - Baen Books, 2002
* * * *
Any series in which the books are not written and published in the chronological order of their internal timeline presents the reader with a problem. Should they be read in the sequence in which the author wrote them, allowing one to appreciate the development of their ideas and style, or in their chronological order, with the story unfolding in a natural way? Is it better to read, say, the Silmarillion before the Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings? What about the Alliance/Merchanter/Union chronicles of C.J. Cherryh?
Obviously it depends on the author; I wouldn’t recommend anyone coming to Tolkien for the first time to start with the Silmarillion (has anyone ever tried?), and with Cherryh the books are sufficiently distinct that the order in which they are read doesn’t really matter. But with the Vorkosigan sequence, in my view, there is really no argument. One of its great joys is the way in which the plot of each chronologically succeeding novel results from the consequences of Miles’ actions in the preceding ones. This game of consequences makes reading the series in timeline rather than written order much more satisfying, and the fact that Bujold has taken the trouble to publish the earlier Vorkosigan novels in compendia suggests that she thinks so too. Quite remarkably (given that they were composed at such different times) the stories gathered in each compendium also share a common theme - in this case the deep psychological reasons for Miles’ bifurcated personality as Vor lord and mercenary captain - which is explored from a different angle in each one. The connections between the stories are so clever that one would almost have thought she had planned the whole sequence from the outset.
( Read more... )
Miles Errant - Lois McMaster Bujold - Baen Books, 2002
* * * *
Any series in which the books are not written and published in the chronological order of their internal timeline presents the reader with a problem. Should they be read in the sequence in which the author wrote them, allowing one to appreciate the development of their ideas and style, or in their chronological order, with the story unfolding in a natural way? Is it better to read, say, the Silmarillion before the Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings? What about the Alliance/Merchanter/Union chronicles of C.J. Cherryh?
Obviously it depends on the author; I wouldn’t recommend anyone coming to Tolkien for the first time to start with the Silmarillion (has anyone ever tried?), and with Cherryh the books are sufficiently distinct that the order in which they are read doesn’t really matter. But with the Vorkosigan sequence, in my view, there is really no argument. One of its great joys is the way in which the plot of each chronologically succeeding novel results from the consequences of Miles’ actions in the preceding ones. This game of consequences makes reading the series in timeline rather than written order much more satisfying, and the fact that Bujold has taken the trouble to publish the earlier Vorkosigan novels in compendia suggests that she thinks so too. Quite remarkably (given that they were composed at such different times) the stories gathered in each compendium also share a common theme - in this case the deep psychological reasons for Miles’ bifurcated personality as Vor lord and mercenary captain - which is explored from a different angle in each one. The connections between the stories are so clever that one would almost have thought she had planned the whole sequence from the outset.
( Read more... )