A bias when you recommend not reading in published order

I've never actually seen anyone do this for anything except Discworld.

I always recommend reading books in published order, even if there is a later published prequel; the first book was designed to be read without the information in that prequel, the prequel was designed to be read once you know what happens later, why screw that up?

Skipping books only makes sense if they are not all in a series, but rather the same universe; for example I'm reading the old Shadowrun novels now and I'd recommend skipping the first 3 because they are pretty crap, have nothing to do with the later novels and do not do any essential world-building.

Your Dresden Files reference is apt for me as I'm currently trying to get through the first 3 Dresden books based on everyone saying "they get amazing from book 4!" and I'm finding it a bit of a slog (book 2 in particular was hard).

However I completely understand your point about the character growth and backstory, would Summer Knight have the same impact if I just jumped straight to it? I don't know.

Sometimes a series is a set of standalone stories. If the 4th book in the series is particularly good, it can make you want to learn more about a character's background, in which case your own curiosity will make the previous 3 novels even better. The Dresden Files started out like this, but that structure kinda dissolved later in the series. The Vlad Taltos novels...you can definitely just pick a book and start, in my opinion. Brust plays fun games with the timeline anyway (which I love). It isn't fantasy, but the only series I actually strongly recommend starting in a later book is the Harry Bosch novels by Michael Connelly. Don't try to read the books that take place before cell phones became commonplace, go back and read them later. I can't explain it except to say you feel the same frustration reading the earlier books that you feel when you forget your cellphone and have to go without it for a day. Much better to read those when your love of the series is more powerful than the frustration level.

For the love of all that is good, read Narnia in the published order. I don't know why every publisher puts them in chronological order. They aren't nearly as nuanced or well-paced that way.

I have a quick little story from Orson Scott Card I'd like to share. First heard this on Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing or Geek's Guide to the Galaxy.

Basically OSC and his editorial team (editor, beta readers) decided to remove the opening few chapters from a book. They thought it would be best to start closer to the action.

And as far as they knew, it worked much better. It was a tighter story and they were happy with it.

However, upon publishing, the story fell flat with fans. Why? Because OSC and all those who had read the first chapters already had those in mind, and the important character development there meant that while they could enjoy the story from a later point, fans who were reading it for the first time were lost.

It was an important lesson for them to be wary of their own bias when cutting chapters, since while you can remove it from the text, it's harder to remove it from your mind.

I'm acutely aware of many of the strengths and weaknesses of one of my favorite authors (Michelle West) and wish that there was one easy starting point. She recommends that new readers start with the most recent, but left to my own devices, I'd actually ask a lengthy q and a to try to ascertain what really would be the best starting point, as each reader honestly does have different preferences.

I've recommended all three series as entry points depending on the request and reader, and worry more than I probably should if I gave too much info, too little, focused on the wrong thing, etc. It's just that the original entry point is mid-90's, and while not bad, doesn't do the writer nearly as much justice as her later works do. And for example, say the reader is looking for strong female characters, this isn't an example of that, despite the writer being the best writer of strong female characters that I've ever found. So do we point newbies to what they want, or tell them to start reading hundreds of other pages first?

On the other hand, committed fans are often unable to imagine someone not being a completist or doing things "by the book," so to speak. With regards the Malazan series, there is a potential reason why some readers might be better off starting with Deadhouse Gates--Gardens of the Moon can be very off-putting, and a lot of readers never read further. Some readers are better off reading Deadhouse Gates, because it's more likely to get them hooked on the series, and then backtracking to Gardens of the Moon. And besides, GotM isn't really all that necessary as background for DG anyways.

Stress here, of course, is on "some." I agree there are tangible benefits for reading that (or any) series in order. Most of the time, I do read series in order, because I'm also one of the aforementioned "completists." One exception is Iain M. Banks' culture series, but while there are numerous references to Consider Phlebas in later books, there's no other major incentive for reading the series in order.

Unless you have actually, literally also began that series somewhere other than at the first book, how can you be sure that your recommendation will work?

Frequently because I have started somewhere other than the first, or have talked to people who have. Plus, you can get a feel for these things, just as with anything else. After all, I don't know for sure that publication order will work for them, but I can certainly make an educated guess by weighing up the pros and cons of each.

For most things, I do actually recommend publication order. Where not, there's usually some reason for it. Eg. that the first few are significantly worse in quality, sufficient to put some people off, or in a different style that I know the person I'm recommending to won't like.

If you tell someone to jump straight into book four, they will have a different experience

Even when this is the case, and that difference is actually negative, there can still be good reasons to recommend it. Eg. if the first few are likely going to put off the person from even reading that far. A slightly different experience is still better than missing out completely on an experience they'd enjoy.

Honestly, you can get a LOT out of The Dresden Files read out of order. I started with Small Favor and read the rest as I found them, then started on the new one (Turn Coat at the time) when I caught up. It's still one of my favorite fantasy series. I wouldn't worry about their order to much as long as you don't start with Changes or anything after that.