For the part in which you discuss your Labyrinth series (which I love like chocolate):
You met the intentions mentioned. That series was very much the case of, 'If you haven't read book one, or book two, book three and book four will confuse you...mind the gaps, young Skywalker.' I will forever love that tale of two broken brothers trying to get a little less broken.
For the section that talks about series type in general:
You have a point. Some authors I read and re-read for just that reason. Some authors who do plenty of stand alone ones do some series like this as well, which I suspect that, for them, it's a lot like play writing; half the work and nearly as fun.
I will present the argument of a third, or perhaps the literary version of type 1 intersect type 2. Which would look complete different in Python IDLE but that's besides the point.
There is a combination of both in which shared elements from both types occur. I will name Andrew Vachss, who writes hard crime noir, and, due to his experience as a lawyer who represents children who are suspected of being abused, his writing has a particularly harsh, real-world perspective.
He has a series he ended some time ago, called the Burke series. In many ways, they are a classic example of type 2; you could, due to the internal messages his writing is meant to convey ("Protect the child, society, or don't be surprised when said child grows up to be douche outlaw"-My words, not his), we could read, say, book five, and not feel driven by any particular force to find books 1 through 4.
However, if you read the series as a collective, in order, you fill in numerous blanks. The author does snippets of memory of the main character, Burke, in his later novels, particularly in his final novel of said character, Another Life, however, it doesn't fill in all the blanks.
For instance, as a character etched into the pages, you can, towards the series, find it perfectly acceptable that he will never be serious about any one woman and is in love with a woman who would never have him. You could read books 5-9, say, and take that one at it's word.
Or, you could read Flood, Strega, Blue Belle, Hard Candy, and Blossom and understand why this is such an internal/external understood fact: Burke is, save of course, his time with his family of choice, going to die alone. You even understand why it seems like such a part of him and why it was a subconsciously made choice that became what I like to call background-running conscious; it's just always present. You also understand some other things; his rage, and his pathology.
You get more pieces with which you can fill in those gaps. If you don't read the whole series, or you read them out of order, you still get value from those books, even if he isn't what I'd call Tolkien level literature. But if you did treat them like the Labyrinth series and read in one order, from the beginning, the rest of the series makes a lot more sense, and gives a better empathetic response, than if you had treated them as any other "mystery model" series that ended with just a few loose ends trailing off for the next installment.
To sum up ridiculously long post (too much caffeine); type 1 intersect type 2 is possible. I will say it doesn't occur as often as the symmetric difference of type 1 and type 2, which you described awesomely, but it may grow. It may be an awesome type 3 model when it grows up :)
no subject
You met the intentions mentioned. That series was very much the case of, 'If you haven't read book one, or book two, book three and book four will confuse you...mind the gaps, young Skywalker.' I will forever love that tale of two broken brothers trying to get a little less broken.
For the section that talks about series type in general:
You have a point. Some authors I read and re-read for just that reason. Some authors who do plenty of stand alone ones do some series like this as well, which I suspect that, for them, it's a lot like play writing; half the work and nearly as fun.
I will present the argument of a third, or perhaps the literary version of type 1 intersect type 2. Which would look complete different in Python IDLE but that's besides the point.
There is a combination of both in which shared elements from both types occur. I will name Andrew Vachss, who writes hard crime noir, and, due to his experience as a lawyer who represents children who are suspected of being abused, his writing has a particularly harsh, real-world perspective.
He has a series he ended some time ago, called the Burke series. In many ways, they are a classic example of type 2; you could, due to the internal messages his writing is meant to convey ("Protect the child, society, or don't be surprised when said child grows up to be douche outlaw"-My words, not his), we could read, say, book five, and not feel driven by any particular force to find books 1 through 4.
However, if you read the series as a collective, in order, you fill in numerous blanks. The author does snippets of memory of the main character, Burke, in his later novels, particularly in his final novel of said character, Another Life, however, it doesn't fill in all the blanks.
For instance, as a character etched into the pages, you can, towards the series, find it perfectly acceptable that he will never be serious about any one woman and is in love with a woman who would never have him. You could read books 5-9, say, and take that one at it's word.
Or, you could read Flood, Strega, Blue Belle, Hard Candy, and Blossom and understand why this is such an internal/external understood fact: Burke is, save of course, his time with his family of choice, going to die alone. You even understand why it seems like such a part of him and why it was a subconsciously made choice that became what I like to call background-running conscious; it's just always present. You also understand some other things; his rage, and his pathology.
You get more pieces with which you can fill in those gaps. If you don't read the whole series, or you read them out of order, you still get value from those books, even if he isn't what I'd call Tolkien level literature. But if you did treat them like the Labyrinth series and read in one order, from the beginning, the rest of the series makes a lot more sense, and gives a better empathetic response, than if you had treated them as any other "mystery model" series that ended with just a few loose ends trailing off for the next installment.
To sum up ridiculously long post (too much caffeine); type 1 intersect type 2 is possible. I will say it doesn't occur as often as the symmetric difference of type 1 and type 2, which you described awesomely, but it may grow. It may be an awesome type 3 model when it grows up :)