The increasing trend in "serial" books.

[ApK]

I'm the instant gratification type. I don't even like waiting a week (never mind a summer hiatus) for the next episode of my favorite TV shows.

I would typically not subject my self to a serialization except under extraordinatry circumstances (ie, I REALLY want to).

I really enjoyed, for example "A Traders Tale" by Nathan Lowell, which was originally presented as a serial podcast, but I didn't discover it until the whole story was available at once. I'm not sure I'd have followed through with it week to week, even though it was a well structured serialization.

And half my family has given up on Maryrose Wood's "Incorrigible Children of Ashton Place" series. WAY TOO LONG between books, and, worst of all, no end to the series (and therefore no resolution to all the questions) in sight.
It's one thing to have series involving the same world or the same characters (Vorkosigan, Jack Reacher, Star Wars, etc.) but I want to know a (satisfying) ending awaits.

[DrNefario]

I'm happy to see some experimentation with form. As far as I'm concerned it depends on how satisfying the pieces are. If they really are self-contained episodes in a larger arc, then that's fine.

Isn't this more-or-less what happened with Wool, and wasn't The Martian also originally published in small chunks?

It gives authors a chance to test the waters before committing to a long novel. And readers too.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Isn't this more-or-less what happened with Wool, and wasn't The Martian also originally published in small chunks?

It gives authors a chance to test the waters before committing to a long novel. And readers too.

I haven't read Wool yet, but I just finished "The Martian" and it was awesome. ("Fear my botany powers!") Can't wait for the movie, but have no idea how it will translate.

I don't know about Wool, but The Martian, as a series of log entries, was specifically designed to be posted online in pieces, as it originally was (there is an interview with the author on some podcast where he discusses it.)

I'm not sure if I agree with you about the testing the waters idea, because crafting for a serial should be very different than crafting for a long form. I'd think a short story or two would make a better test before committing.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

It gives authors a chance to test the waters before committing to a long novel. And readers too.

Testing the waters won't fly under the Kindle serials program.
They insist the story be finished because what you buy is a subscription to the full story.

For testing the waters, the author has to go through regular KDP and take their chances on their own. Which some have done. Releasing single episodes at $0.99 and full season bundles in the $5 range. Works well for everybody under KU. But even there, shorting the reader an ending will cost them bad reviews.

Experimentation is good, but experimenting at the reader's expense isn't something Amazon encourages.

[Mort1997]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

I would not buy any books in that forrmat. I like to have a complete story to read. I don't mind series, bUt episodes is too much.

Totally agree with this statement. As soon as I see a book is a serial I move on to look at something else. But I am the same with TV programs (but with TV I usually record the series and then watch it).

[theducks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I find the long-book (novel) serial format—where the gap between installments can be measured in years—to be much more disruptive and frustrating than a short-format serial where the gap is reduced to a months (or even weeks). But make no mistake; I dislike them both. It's just that the intensity of my dislike isn't based on the length of the installments; it's based more on the length of the gap between them. For instance; John Scalzi's Human Division serial (a couple of chapters weekly) cheeses me off much, much less than GRRM's ASoIaF serial (huge incomplete novels separated by years and years).

This
I remember waiting years to hear about 'Ruth"

[Fbone]

What am I to assume when I see all 8 "episodes" published and uploaded into KDP on the same day?

Or when each monthly "episode" is spaced out over 8 months but costs $1.99 each?

[Victoria]

Normally, i wouldn't have much sympathy for this strategy. However, i've recently read that Sharon Lee & Steve Miller kept the Liaden dream alive via serial releases, after losing their publisher.

If they hadn't been able to keep some food on the table this way, the series would have stopped at 2nd or 3rd book, instead of the wonderful 17 novels and 3 books of short fiction we now enjoy.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by Fbone

It's just a way for authors to take advantage of Kindle Unlimited.

Maybe that is increasing the popularity of the practice but it was started long before KU existed. I think the main reason it was originally done on the Kindle was to keep the author fresh in people's minds. This way a single author could have a release every month or so versus a release every 6 months to a year. Most I have seen also have an omnibus version for each "season" when they get to what would normally be the end of an individual novel.

[FizzyWater]

I pass.

I know of two authors who re-released full-length novels as chunked up "serial" stories. (That's not to say all do it, but just to say I have seen this method used purely as a way to get more money from their backlist).

No thanks.

[delph]

I've read one serially released story. I actually read the first couple of pieces as they were released, then got the other three or four all at once. The price was comparable to what I would have paid for the entire thing as a new novel, so that didn't bother me. I got distracted between serial releases, and it wasn't until another novel in the (multi author) universe was released that I remembered that I hadn't finished it. I probably wouldn't embark on another serial until entirely finished. I just prefer reading the story at one shot instead of in chunks as released.

[Pulpmeister]

This is how Charles Dickens worked: his vast novels were sold in magazine parts, and he definitely took notice of feedback from readers and others. He was publishing as he wrote, so if things went awry with the public reception, he could sort it out in the next installment. And he often did.

What's old is new all over again.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

This is how Charles Dickens worked: his vast novels were sold in magazine parts, and he definitely took notice of feedback from readers and others. He was publishing as he wrote, so if things went awry with the public reception, he could sort it out in the next installment. And he often did.

What's old is new all over again.

Not just Dickens. Magazines were the primary vehicle for the initial publication of novels in mid 19th century England. Primarily because it was the only way that most people could afford them. Books were very expensive, and this was before the widespread opening of libraries. Magazines were the "cheap paperbacks" of their day.

[Apache]

And not just England. In France Alexandre Dumas also published this way.
Apache

[theducks]

Many of my now favorite authors books were first read by myself as a Serial in the pages of Analog:
Anne McCaffrey
Robert J. Sawyer
Frank Herbert
George R. R. Martin
Vernor Vinge

and many, many more