Reading a series out of order

[Andrew]

Reading THE LIKENESS has got me thinking about reading a series out of order versus reading it in order. I read IN THE WOODS a long time ago but it turns out I don't remember much so I may as well not have read it at all.

I've got a couple thoughts:

1. Not all series are created equal. If a series is a continuing story, you wouldn't dream of reading it out of order, but if it's more episodic (i.e. here's some more stuff that happened to these characters) it might not be such a big deal. Which kind is this?
2. The publisher chose not to market this as a series. Why?
3. Sometimes doing things out of order is fun. With a series like this I don't mind starting in the middle, then if I have a chance to double back there's a flash of recognition when something I didn't understand is explained, or even if I don't double back the previous stories have an air of mystery/mythology about them. Remember the sense of dislocation you had when you saw Star Wars the first time and the scroll said "Episode 4"? Everything that came before took on this prehistoric, mythic status (and then of course the reality didn't measure up). I feel the same thing whenever Cassie mentions Operation Vestal. It feels sort of mythic and mysterious.
4. I don't remember much from the first book and don't feel like I'm missing much. Those of you who read the two books back to back, did it add a lot to your enjoyment of THE LIKENESS?
5. The mystery genre has a ton of series, but very rarely do you need to read them in order. Maybe Doyle started this with Sherlock Holmes. The convention is that each mystery is self-contained for people who just want to pick up one book at random, but the writer puts in little references to earlier books to reward the hardcore readers who stuck with the whole series.

[JeffKamin]

Let's talk about it tonight. Love the thought process here.