I made a comment on a post on Kyle's site, and it got so long that I might as well put it here, too. Read this first: Ordering Narnia. Then my response:

When we bought the boxed set 4-5 years ago, they were in chronological order. But we did some research and read them in the order they were published. I think it was the best way to go. But keep in mind that The Magician's Nephew, the first book chronologically, also gradually introduces the reader to the world of Narnia through the eyes of a child. There's plenty of mystery and suspense. Lion is still the best intro and Nephew is better as a back story.

I agree with most of what you're saying. Another example. When I was going to read some Tolkien for the first time I was about 15. I asked someone which book comes first and they told me it was The Silmarillion. But don't start there, they said. Start with the Hobbit. But I was 15 and I knew everything, so I started with the first book chronologically. I plowed my way through, but needless to say, I wasn't interested in any more Tolkien for a great while. Someone at Truman introduced me to Tolkien properly and I read The Hobbit and the trilogy with great relish. Later I came back to the prequel and enjoyed it more for what it is, a history and a back story.

Somewhere along the line we became interested in telling and hearing stories in the order that they happened. But the best stories have always been told out of order. I'm reading Odyssey now and it's all out of order. Tolkien was the same way, as is Harry Potter.

Would history books be more effective if they took this same route? You could introduce the reader to the current world and make each history lesson a tangent that gives a bit more of the back story.