Scholarly Chronologies and Reading Out of Published Order

Redland

There are some Bond scholars who have attempted to make specific chronologies of the events in Bond's life. Sometimes these chronologies work outside of the published order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Fictional_chronologies

I've been doing a read through of all the novels. The first eight I had already read, so I basically read them as is, but decided to read the For Your Eyes Only stories in the chronology found above. To be totally honest, I think Fleming's order is more satisfying and has a much better arc.

I am still tempted to try the experiment again. I have not read the last 6 books before, so I want to do it right the first time. According to the chronologies (when they differ, I opt for Griswald), I should read Octopussy, Living Daylights, and Property of a Lady (in that order) after Thunderball. Would there be any harm in this? I'm assuming this would be okay, besides I'd be reading those in the order they appear in the book, I would just be reading that book 5 slots earlier.

After that, I have to deal with the conundrum that there is a gap of time after chapter 5 of Majesty's where 007 in New York and The Spy Who Love Me are alleged to have taken place. This seems like a fun experiment: to end up reading one whole novel in the middle of another. Would anyone strongly warn me against this?

I think ending with a novel is probably stronger than ending with short stories, so I'm resolved that my goodbye to bond should be YOLT and Golden Gun.

Please note I have not read Thunderball through the end of the Fleming series, so keep your suggestions spoiler-free if you please!

Thanks!

Barbel

Reading in that order does produce a minor continuity issue, in that

Mary Goodnight is introduced to us as Bond's new secretary in OHMSS, while she's already established in that role in "Property".

Not a huge problem, of course, since

she remains insignificant to the plots until TMWTGG.