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.
I think there are actually two classes of questions that might both be asked as "reading order" questions:

1. Questions about linked series of books (or plays, poems, etc.). These are the types of reading/viewing order questions we're used to seeing on SFF. For these it's clear that there is some factual basis for answers that's verifiable in some way (e.g. publication order, chronological order of events within universe, etc.).
2. Questions that might also be phrased "where do I start with author X?" (Or genre Y, or national literary tradition Z, etc.). These are cases where there's not necessarily a "within universe" connection between the works, but the prospective reader is simply trying to figure out how to tackle a monumental body of work and get a good introduction to its themes and tropes.

Now, for case #2, a lot of "primarily opinion-based" bells might be ringing there. But I believe that, at least in some cases, a well-researched answer could be supported by evidence. For example, if the question were asking for a reading order of Shakespeare's plays, an answer might provide an overview of which plays are typically covered in an Intro to Shakespeare course, based on a sampling of college syllabi.