# Which order? *The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 27 Apr 2003* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Nigel Price *27 Apr 2003, 20:55* Oren asked... >> I have a quick question. Would it be >> terrible if I read the Short Sun >> sequence after finishing the New Sun >> one? Or must I read the Long Sun in >> between? It's up to you, but I really think that you'll get much more out of it if you read the books in sequence and read Long Sun before Short Sun. They are intimately related. To do it the other way round would be like reading _Urth of the New Sun_ before _The Book of the New Sun_. Once you start reading Short Sun, you'll want to go off and read Long Sun anyway, so why not take them in order in the first place? Or let me put it another way. Long Sun is brilliant, so why miss out on a treat? Nigel --- ### Gareth Jelley *27 Apr 2003, 20:58 · follows Nigel Price* > From: "Nigel Price" > Once you start reading > Short Sun, you'll want to go off and read Long Sun anyway, so why not take > them in order in the first place? This is true, and I do indeed want to read the Long Sun now I've started on the Short Sun; but the other point I'd make is that 'On Blue's Waters' is a beautiful novel in its own right, and reading it without any other knowledge of 'Urth' wasn't detrimental (for me, at least). The quality of OBW as a really marvellous work of literature, in its own right, shone through, and it never felt incomplete, as a novel. If that makes sense... And this, I think, is what was at the heart of my devil's advocacy :o) Best, G. ---