8 Réponses2026-07-25 17:23:04
I'd actually suggest a slight variation for new readers. Read 'The Faithful and the Fallen' straight through. Then, take a break with the first 'Bloodsworn' book, 'The Shadow of the Gods', as a palate cleanser. It's a different setting and tone, and it's brilliantly paced. After that, go back and tackle the 'Of Blood and Bone' trilogy. This way, you avoid potential series fatigue but still get all the connected lore from the Banished Lands saga in the right order before the sequel trilogy.
2 Réponses2026-07-25 02:52:40
Is the prose in 'Malice' noticeably rougher than in Bloodsworn? I don’t want to start there if it’s a slog. I’ve been burned by debut novels before.
4 Réponses2026-07-04 03:16:44
John Gwynne's books are a fascinating mix of standalone series and interconnected worlds. His most famous works, 'The Faithful and the Fallen' and 'Of Blood and Bone', are directly linked, set in the same universe with overlapping characters and timelines. 'The Faithful and the Fallen' lays the groundwork, while 'Of Blood and Bone' explores the consequences generations later. It's like peeling back layers of history—you see how actions ripple through time.
However, his newer series, 'The Bloodsworn Saga', is a completely separate world inspired by Norse mythology. No shared characters or places here, just the same gritty, visceral storytelling Gwynne excels at. If you're diving into his work, I'd recommend starting with 'The Faithful and the Fallen' to fully appreciate the connections before jumping into 'Of Blood and Bone'. The way he weaves fate and legacy across these books is honestly masterful.
7 Réponses2026-07-25 23:51:09
I see a lot of people saying to start with the Bloodsworn Saga because it's newer and maybe more accessible. I strongly disagree. Reading 'The Shadow of the Gods' first would rob you of the deep appreciation for how Gwynne's writing has evolved. You'd miss the foundational themes and the sheer scale he builds in the original quartet. Start at the beginning, with the classics.
5 Réponses2026-07-26 06:15:44
I read them out of order by accident (library availability) and wouldn't recommend it. I started with 'A Time of Blood', was utterly confused, then read 'A Time of Dread', was less confused but still missing pieces, then finally read the first quartet. When I re-read the sequel trilogy, it was like a different set of books. The series order is a puzzle where the first quartet gives you the picture on the box. Trying to assemble the sequel trilogy without that picture is possible but frustrating and you'll miss the big image.
6 Réponses2026-07-26 17:37:58
It's a direct match, just with a generational skip. The events of books 1-4 ('The Faithful and the Fallen') precede the events of books 5-7 ('Of Blood and Bone') by over a hundred years in-universe. So the publishing order follows the timeline. The coolest part is seeing how names and deeds from the first series become religion and legend in the second. 'Bloodsworn' is its own contained timeline for now.
4 Réponses2026-07-26 00:16:11
My partner asked me this same question yesterday. I just handed them my copy of 'The Shadow of the Gods' and said, 'Start here. Trust me.' Sometimes you don't need a detailed essay. The book sells itself by the end of chapter one. The visceral, immediate hook of Orka's quiet strength and Varg's desperate flight does all the work. The order becomes self-evident because you'll need to know what happens next. So, start here. Trust me.