Book Blogger Hop is a weekly event hosted by Jennifer at Crazy-for-Books. It is a great way of discovering new blogs and meeting fellow book bloggers, talking about books and authors and sharing our love for literature.
Last week Jennifer proposed a challenge for the hoppers. We had to find one new blog we really wanted to follow, try to get to know the blog and its writer and contribute five comments to five different posts.
I failed at the challenge completely, shame on me. I have very little time to spend blogging and reading other blogs (far less time I would like to have) and, in addition I had such a bad cold last weekend I hardly managed to turn on my computer. Still, it sounds like a bad excuse. So, I only visited a few blogs by the hop, but I did not find anything that would hook me to “actually” follow, which was the real purpose of the challenge, anyway. I posted 3 comments to two of the blogs I already follow, but that’s all. However, even if the challenge was a disaster for me, I stuck to the principle to follow a blog for real or not at all.
This week’s question is “If you find a book that looks interesting but is part of a series, do you always start with the first title?”
MY ANSWER:
Sometimes I just miss the fact that the book is a part of a series and I start with the book I came across even if it is not the first in the series. I did that this September, when I was hooked on a book, having no idea that it is a part of a series. I was well into the book before I find out it is a sequel, but I read it through. Now, I am waiting to get the first book from the library and then I will review both.
Yes, it happens sometimes that you get sucked into a book and discover only later on that it's actually a sequel in a series. It's happened to me too, but if I know a book is a part of a series, then I start with the first installment. Which series did you start?:)
ReplyDelete@ Irena: I "started" (with the second book titled The Book of Love, the first is The Expected One) The Magdalene Line series by Kathleen McGowan, quite heretic stuff, but there is a lot of truth in it, too, so it hooked me. I actually reviewed it but lost the review when my PC broke down, so now I'm going to re-read it but in I want to start in the right order this time. Otherwise, if I know a book is part of a series, I start with the first book, too.
ReplyDeletehttp://tributebooksmama.blogspot.com/2010/11/book-blogger-hop.html
ReplyDeleteHello I am hopping over from the blog hop. I like your blog and am now a few follower. I like to start with book one of a series I don't want to miss key factors etc. Glad I stopped by.
ReplyDeleteThe World of Book Reviews
I can dive right into the middle of a book series if the series' story
ReplyDeletedoesn't run chronologically.
That is to say, if each novel in a series is a stand-alone story (like Lee
Child's Reacher novels) then I don't feel the need to start with book one.
On the other hand, a series of books (like Richard Hatch's Battlestar
Galactica novels) can't be read out of sequence since each new book builds
upon the story of the previous entry in the series.
Happy Book Blogger Hop Friday!
Howard Sherman
http://www.howardsherman.net
I was too lazy to do the challenge, although I still managed to comment on a number of blogs - just not the same one. Oh well. I always find lots of fun blogs through the Hop (like yours!). Anyway, have a wonderful weekend!
ReplyDelete