Question: The purpose of this question is to get a clear policy about [reading-order](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reading-order "show questions tagged 'reading-order'") questions. 

There have been instances where reading order questions have been closed because ["there doesn't seem to be any connection between the different... novels"](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/788/what-order-should-i-read-thomas-pynchons-novels-in#comment2330_788), such as the question [What order should I read Thomas Pynchon's novels in?](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/788/what-order-should-i-read-thomas-pynchons-novels-in) This creates problems because it's not exactly clear what qualifies as a connection between the different novels. For example, the question <https://literature.stackexchange.com/q/1783/111> isn't about books in the same series, but some community members have argued that the question is on-topic because the books revolve around a common theme.

What is the criteria for whether reading order questions are on-topic?

Answer: 
Reading order questions are a chance for us to offer practical, experience-based advice on how best to approach specific sections of the material this site is about. Obviously they should adhere to [good subjective](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/), of course, and should support their solutions clearly by explaining why and how the suggested reading order is a good one. But I'm honestly kind of baffled at the pushback against having questions that are so well-fitted to this site.

In the interests of [optimising for pearls, not sand](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/), we would expect these questions to specify why the querent suspects the reading order of that particular group of works is non-obvious/non-trivial. To avoid collecting answers that aren't actionable solutions to the querent's problem we would close such questions as unclear or too broad--same as with any other kind of question.

And to be clear, reading order is not reading recommendation. Asking the order one should read a set implies that one has already chosen to read the set--so it's not [shopping](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/158809/244929) and the primary reasons shopping questions are bad (both open-ended and quickly dated) don't transfer.

We just have to expect the same level of quality from reading-order questions and answers that we do from every other subjective question, and this will become a small but valuable subset of our site's content.
All of them should be on topic.
===============================

Look. Most [reading-order](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reading-order "show questions tagged 'reading-order'") questions are by people who *don't know anything about the books*. They want to know how to read them.

Let's take a few examples.

If someone wants to know what order to read [rick-riordan](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/rick-riordan "show questions tagged 'rick-riordan'")'s books1 then great - they're all in the same universe, and there is a good order to read them in.

However, if someone wants to know what order to read [william-shakespeare](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/william-shakespeare "show questions tagged 'william-shakespeare'")'s plays, which *don't*, AFAIK, have a specific order, then **post an answer that says that it doesn't matter**.

Essentially, [reading-order](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reading-order "show questions tagged 'reading-order'") questions want to know how to read them. If there is a specific answer, perfect! Tell them what order. If, however, there *isn't* a specific answer, then also perfect! Tell them the answer - that it doesn't matter.

---

1[Blatant self promotion.](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/715/in-what-order-should-rick-riordans-mythological-series-be-read-to-make-the-most/717#717)