Poll: Do you LOVE or HATE serialized ebooks?

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Yes, I am pushing a definition of serial that fits what this thread is about, and not one so outrageously broad that anything that ever has any sort of sequel suddenly is called a "serial."

But this argument uses a very narrow, very specific definition that does not actually encompass what "serials" are, nor does it even wholly contain the scope of the concern (i.e. "problem") in Mark's own words.

For example, Mark's original post here stated:

"Most serials I see range from 800 to 2,000 words. Charles Dickens, for example, serialized his stories by releasing chapters or chunks over time in a series, as he wrote them.

Would you rather purchase a complete book in one fell swoop, or do you prefer to read individual serialized installments?

At Smashwords, we're torn on this issue, and we feel compelled to clarify our policies. We generally try to let the author publish their ebook their way, yet on the other hand we don't want to see a 100,000 word novel divided into 100 ebooks of 1,000 words each."

Okay, fair enough. Seems reasonable, especially if authors are expecting to get paid for every 800-2,000 word chunk. I doubt THAT particular business model is going anywhere.

But on Teleread.org, he stated:

"The topic is on my mind today because when I woke up this morning and looked at the Smashwords home page, it was dominated by five installments of a single ebook, each about 10,000 words.

The other day, I asked another author to stop posting his series of 2,000 word ebooks.

At Smashwords, we have a strict policy of only publishing complete, finished works."

Those are two VERY different things...both serials, both germane to the conversation since they both come from the same person, who runs the company in question.

Now, would I bother with 1,000 or 2,000 word chapters? Probably not. No way I'd pay for those. I'd think from a promotional standpoint, better to post on a blog, promote to build your name and then sell the finished book, a la Scott Sigler's approach.

But 10,000 word novellettes? I personally think that's a perfectly valid form.

More to my argument, what about traditional serials, in the way they have historically been presented in comics, radio and screen: on-going stories, with arcs (a few episodes, a few weeks, a season), but with no set ending.

For example, the text-only version of say, X-Men 200...i.e., on ongoing, serialized story, released one "chapter" at a time, but each chapter ranging from 10-30,000 words (which I'd imagine a prose version would run), no set conclusion, just an ongoing story...or a text equivalent of a soap opera...some soap operas have run for more than 50 years. Most definitely serials by any definition of the word...and yet, not so handy as a single contained work.

[iaefai]

I think the poll is missing one critical answer - those that will read them and complete books.

Now onto the first thing that crossed my mind: Some of the best books in the science fiction and mystery genres have been serials.

An example of Sherlock Holmes was given, which is probably fair. Not being around at that time, I don't know if what I have seen of stories were split up or not. But what I remember about his stories is that each one seemed to basically be a short story that could stand on its own, with a little bit of context perhaps.

Asimov's Foundation 'trilogy' started out as a serial. Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles is most definitely a short story collection format, but has so much in common with a serial.

Were Asimov's and Doyle's serials sold on their own initially? No. They were sold as part of a publication. In fact, they are very much like the original Doctor Who.

I would submit that a serial format is not a bad thing, but individual stories may not be the great method of doing it. I would suggest collections, magazines, or other collations would be better suited.

But at the same time, I would not want to discourage the serial author.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

For example, the text-only version of say, X-Men 200...i.e., on ongoing, serialized story, released one "chapter" at a time, but each chapter ranging from 10-30,000 words (which I'd imagine a prose version would run), no set conclusion, just an ongoing story...or a text equivalent of a soap opera...some soap operas have run for more than 50 years. Most definitely serials by any definition of the word...and yet, not so handy as a single contained work.

No, I wouldn't want that. Any idiot can start a story. It takes skill to finish one. I don't conciser a novel to be just a comic without pictures-- I conciser it to be a discrete thing.

With any form of fiction, if you haven't planned the end from the very beginning, it shows-- badly. Take for example BSG as you have mentioned-- after a while, the writers had no idea where they were going, wrote themselves into corners, and had to come up with stupid crap that was an insult to the writing in the first couple of seasons.

Comics and soap operas attempt to stay fresh by having new characters coming and going all the time (and both genre have many, many resurrections from death.) But a piece of prose that rambles on like that without end? That belongs on the bottom of a bird cage.

[DaringNovelist]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Comics and soap operas attempt to stay fresh by having new characters coming and going all the time (and both genre have many, many resurrections from death.) But a piece of prose that rambles on like that without end? That belongs on the bottom of a bird cage.

Um, excuse me? There's a ton of open ended series fiction out there. Everything from Tony Hillerman to Agatha Christie. Or sf series like Miles Vorkosigan, or the Liaden books. (Many of those kinds of series actually have cliffhanger hook from book to book, too.) Family sagas.

That's not rambling or unplanned - but it is open ended. As with a TV series.

I think maybe you're getting the genre mixed up with the skill of the artist. You know what, there's a lot of rambling, stand alone works that belong at the bottom of a birdcage too.

I have to go back to this: Such works have to be properly labeled, so people know what they are getting.

Camille

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DaringNovelist

Um, excuse me? There's a ton of open ended series fiction out there. Everything from Tony Hillerman to Agatha Christie. Or sf series like Miles Vorkosigan, or the Liaden books. (Many of those kinds of series actually have cliffhanger hook from book to book, too.) Family sagas.

Fine, let's just agree that we will never agree on the meaning of the terms "open ended" or "serial" and drop it.

(Edited to add-- I was thinking that you were that other guy. But I still will not conciser a series of complete, self-contained novels to be a "serial.")

[DaringNovelist]

ardeegee:

We're not so much trying to disagree with you, as get you to see that there is a HUGE gray area between what you define as a serial and what you define as not a serial.

Because if you're going to ban something, it's not about the worst things in the category, but about where you draw the line at the edges.

I'm going to mention one gray area thing and see if you understand why serial fans are upset: The TV shows CHUCK and BURN NOTICE. Yes, each episode has a plot that is resolved within the hour. However, the whole series also has a big story arc, and pretty much every episode ends with a cliffhanger on the overall plot. Very often it's an aggravating cliffhanger, about issues that are really important - like whether a certain character is really a secret assassin out to kill the others. The plot of each episode is forgettable. The overall series story is ongoing, and open ended, like a soap opera. Sure, it's planned - season to season - but nobody can predict whether the fans can keep the network from canceling it at any time.

Most mystery series these days are like this in a more mild form - the story of each book tends to outweigh the arc of the series a little more, but the series arc is what people are reading for. But there are many sf series that are more like CHUCK - where the story plots are supporting the series arc.

I personally plan to write a novella series like this (four novellas per "season" or book, each with their own story, but combining to a larger story) . Are you saying that these should be banned because some clown who never wrote anything before decided to publish a rambling book snippet by snippet?

Camille

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DaringNovelist

We're not so much trying to disagree with you, as get you to see that there is a HUGE gray area between what you define as a serial and what you define as not a serial.

No, there isn't. There is a huge disagreement between what I define as a serial and what you define as a serial, but there is no gray area to me within what I define as a serial. To me, a "serial" is: a longer work broken up into shorter segments for periodic publication that, at the end of the run, will be assembled into a single novel for publication. That isn't gray area, that is simply excluding everything else-- including TV series, series of novels, and comics-- from that definition. You may prefer to stretch the word until it is meaningless, but I choose not to.

Are you saying that these should be banned because some clown who never wrote anything before decided to publish a rambling book snippet by snippet?

I never, for one god damned minute, have said anything should be "banned." Stop trying to shove your words into my mouth. The question was "would you buy this"-- not "should we ban this." A "banning" is their own business decision that they will make for their own economic reasons.

[oldguey]

Question? Where would literature be without experimentation? I remember reading serials as a young pup. They were mostly comics. Didn't newspapers publish them to keep readers? I would hate to see this writing form go to the wayside, but there needs be a few sideboards in place.

1. They should be offered as a special category.
2. The story should be submitted in its entirety before being serialized.
3. The number of serializations should be specified and the potential reader so advised.
4. The price per serial should be commensurate with what the book's price would have been if purchased as a whole.

P.S. Your poll is a bit skewed. It is either yes or no. You offer no choice in the gray area such as: I have read serials and I might read serials.

[DaringNovelist]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

No, there isn't. There is a huge disagreement between what I define as a serial and what you define as a serial, but there is no gray area to me within what I define as a serial. To me, a "serial" is: a longer work broken up into shorter segments for periodic publication that, at the end of the run, will be assembled into a single novel for publication. That isn't gray area, that is simply excluding everything else-- including TV series, series of novels, and comics-- from that definition. You may prefer to stretch the word until it is meaningless, but I choose not to.

I never, for one god damned minute, have said anything should be "banned." Stop trying to shove your words into my mouth. The question was "would you buy this"-- not "should we ban this." A "banning" is their own business decision that they will make for their own economic reasons.

But that's what this thread is about - Marc Coker wants to know if he should restrict serials on Smashwords. You may not be talking about that, but that's damned well what WE'RE talking about.

It is important to come to terms with "what is a serial" even outside of that. Most serials don't fit in your definition of a serial. So do you want the rest of us to change what we call them?

This isn't just a theoretical argument about semantics - this is a discussion to decide on specific actions. It's important to work these things out.

You have good and valuable input here, but now that we're in this "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" loop, it ceases to be helpful to those of us who have to make choices.

Camille

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Ugh. Fiction by people who lack the talent to create their own characters. Pass.

You mean like Shakespeare?

Surely you didn't think he CREATED Romeo and Juliet, did you?

I remember reading Bonfire of the Vanities as a serial in Rolling Stone about twenty years ago. I think Wolfe made some changes between the serial and the final book (which I bought).

Also, I learned that if you're going to publish a serial, WRITE IT ALL FIRST. Then if you get hit by a bus, presumably the publication can continue.

[magraham]

BTW - Come on Mark Coker - This poll was slanted more like a politician's. It reminds me of the old leading question that we (attorneys) laugh about at seminars on leading questions: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

The responses here don't include the obvious -- how about - I'm willing to give serials a try OR I'd read a serial?

The responses shape the results. It looks like this poll is coming out the way it was designed to!

[BillSmithBooks]

I don't know if Mark's not including "Hey, I'll give it a try...all I care about is a good read" was trying to push voters to pick a side or just an oversight. I don't think forcing people to pick a side is the best way to go since obviously, an awful lot of whether or not you read something often comes down to "it depends."

Being "that other guy," I guess Ardegee and I are going to have to disagree on what a "serial" means. He has a very narrow definition.

I chose the much broader definition which is historically accurate as per the Wikipedia definition and as is commonly thought of in publishing and other media. Kind of like "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" from Mr. Clinton lo those many years ago.

Adegee said:

"I never, for one god damned minute, have said anything should be "banned." Stop trying to shove your words into my mouth. The question was "would you buy this"-- not "should we ban this." A "banning" is their own business decision that they will make for their own economic reasons."

Yes, that is true. But, as Mark stated, the poll was put up to decide if such works should be restricted from Smashwords, so banning is on the table.

Adegee also added:

"No, I wouldn't want that. Any idiot can start a story. It takes skill to finish one. I don't conciser a novel to be just a comic without pictures-- I conciser it to be a discrete thing.

With any form of fiction, if you haven't planned the end from the very beginning, it shows-- badly. Take for example BSG as you have mentioned-- after a while, the writers had no idea where they were going, wrote themselves into corners, and had to come up with stupid crap that was an insult to the writing in the first couple of seasons.

Comics and soap operas attempt to stay fresh by having new characters coming and going all the time (and both genre have many, many resurrections from death.) But a piece of prose that rambles on like that without end? That belongs on the bottom of a bird cage."

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah, some serials are trainwrecks...just like some regular novels and short stories and TV series are.

And some serials are brilliant.

It's like condemning rock and roll for not being classical instead of appreciating it as its own genre and for its own merits.

And yeah, BSG had its fair share of disconnect...but what do you expect from a writing crew that was groomed by working on Star Trek: TNG and DS9, the dullest shows in the universe?

Again, just wow.

[nomesque]

Just one clarification, folks.

Serials are already 'banned' from Smashwords. If it's part of a book, like a chapter in your standard novel, it's considered unacceptable. What Mark's asking isn't "Should we ban?" but "Should we STOP banning?".

FWIW, I think there IS a grey area here. A group of 10k word stories could be considered parts of a serial book, or as a series of short novelettes.

I don't consider something like my Maisy May ebook - 30k words, about 1/3 the size of a regular novel and Book 1 of 3 - to be a problem for Smashwords. I'm certain that it's NOT the sort of 'serial' they have an issue with. However, the sort of thing I publish on my blog IS - 500-2000 word chunks of story still being planned out and written.

[DaringNovelist]

Thanks, Nomesque. That's a relief.

I didn't mean to upset Ardeegee - because we agree on a lot. But given that publishing is changing so much, and that there is so many cool things we do now, it's really good to nail down definitions and opinions.

Regardless of whether Smashwords bans or un-bans them - I don't think that "whole novel cut into chunks" style of serial would work with the Smashwords model. That model is suited to periodicals, and subscriptions. (Now if Smashwords were interested in dipping into the subscription model, it might make sense.) The comic book model seems more appropriate.

Camille

[cfrizz]

I think that most people know the difference between a say 1 chapter a month for 7 months with the final end to the story being complete with the 7th chapter as a Serial, vs complete books with a beginnings, middles & ends that happens to have multiple books but each book is complete within itself as a Series.

I have quite a few Series right now including Fern Michaels Sisterhood series, Laurell K Hamilton's Anita Blake & Merry Gentry series. All continue with the story & characters, but because each book is complete in itself, if they stopped now I wouldn't feel bad.

This could easily happen with the Sisterhood series since Fern Michaels is quite old & while she might have the end of the series planned out, no one knows if they've been written yet.

But the posting of 1 or 2 chapters at a time just to draw things out is aggravating as hell & I don't read them since I've been left hanging too many times when reading a good fan fiction story & then it never got completed.

So to pay money for that kind of a story to possibly end up stuck with it not being finished would set me off big time!