I’ve had one rule while writing my three serialised novels, which can be found over on Wattpad: once a chapter was written, it was ‘official’ and could not be altered. This meant that if I accidentally blundered into a plot hole or narrative dead end, or had a character that turned out to be superfluous, I had to roll with it and find a solution within the text going forward. I wasn’t allowed to go back and edit the earlier chapters to apply a post-hoc fix.
To do otherwise felt like it would cheat the readers, most of whom would not be aware of the edit and would continue on in blissful ignorance. Committing to the story as laid down, week-by-week, is part of the fun and the challenge of serialised writing.
(none of this applies when the manuscript is taken and re-published elsewhere, for example as an ebook. This usually involves a full end-to-end edit and can end up very different from the initial serialised run)
Sticking to this rule is needed for most serials, I think, as it represents something of a pact with the reader: thanks for reading, I promise not to cheat. That said, a couple of tangential recent examples have made me wonder whether there might be room for deliberately malleable projects that have uncertainty and change built in.
Quietly updating streamed TV
A couple of weeks back rumours swirled that Disney+ had updated the final scene of their serialised show Wandavision. Already a show with mystery and wackiness aplenty, the suspicions were that the setting of the final scene - a log cabin in the woods - had been altered, with trees moved around and a tantalising, shimmering shape descending from the mountains. “It’s Doctor Strange!” exclaimed a chorus of excited Marvel fans.
Whether it was a visual effects error, a versioning mix-up or a deliberate updating (potentially to bring the appearance of the setting in line with the upcoming Doctor Strange movie sequel), it absolutely captured viewers’ attention and sparked a thousand excited theories. Rather than feeling that it was a sneaky, underhand move, the subtle tweaking of the scene was considered to be an intriguing final twist in a show that was built on unexpected reveals.
All of which got me wondering: what if this was taken further? To take a show like Wandavision, a show which was highly meta and spent as much time deconstructing the history of the sitcom as it did with superhero hijinks, to play with the internal ‘canon’ of the show in real time, messing with viewers’ memories of prior episodes, would be an unsettling and daring extra rug pull.
It would also encourage additional viewings, to identify and analyse the changes as the show mutated over time. This is something that could be achieved easily on platforms like Wattpad. Discoverability is an issue, still - without an intensely engaged audience, sneaky changes to existing chapters probably won’t be noticed, which might rather defeat the point. Announcing them more overtly would seem to miss the point. Perhaps it would be less about the story shifting beneath the feet of specific readers, and more about delivering an evolving experience to subsequent readers, or people who are re-reading?
Talking of re-reading…
I’ve been replaying the Mass Effect games since their recent remaster. I hadn’t played the first game since its original release back in 2007. There’s a critical point halfway through when you have to choose between two members of your team, to decide who lives and who dies. That decision ripples out through the rest of the game and the sequels, with the decision remaining in place. One character is wiped from the story entirely.
On my replay, I’ve deliberately chosen differently to my decision back in 2007. It’s a sharp tangent in the story and the experience of playing the game, like a tangent universe breaking off from the original. My memory plays tricks on me, confused by the survival of a character whom I barely remember from that first play.
Which got me thinking about serial fiction (because this is how my brain always works). Is there space for a blend of serial fiction and interactive fiction? I’m not talking about a total commitment to IF, as there are plenty of studios and writers already going all-in on amazing interactive experiences (see: Inkle Studios). But key branching points in an otherwise linearly-told story could be fascinating.
For example, imagine an online serial (eg on Wattpad) with a pivotal scene a third of the way in. A big decision the protagonist makes which will influence the rest of the story. What if that decision is partly handed over to the reader? To take the Mass Effect example, what if the reader is allowed to choose who lives and who dies, in that specific moment? The story doesn’t need to provide any other reader decisions - it’s not a game, or a '‘Choose your own adventure’ - but having a single, pivotal branching moment could be pretty interesting.
The consequence would be a writer having to then write two versions of the same story, branching off from that decision. That’s a lot of work. But it could significantly deepen reader investment, if they feel they’ve had a hand in what is unfolding - even if it’s only that one decision. In romance novels there’s often conflict created by the protagonist having to choose between two potential partners, with audiences rooting for one or the other: leaving that decision to the reader could be compelling stuff.
This may well be something that has already been done - let me know if you’re aware of examples!
I don't think what you discuss has been done much with serialized fiction, other than an occasional gimmick (death of Jason Todd "Robin" in Batman comics in the 80's).
(It's bothering me because I've SEEN the show I'm about to discuss and can't remember the title or author, but I think it has to be Harold Pinter or Tom Stoppard...)
I remember a stage play constructed with branch points. Throughout the play several scenes could go one of two directions. Some later scenes had multiple "entry points," where two or more earlier scenes could branch into the same later scene. I BELIEVE the play had a total of 128 iterations. The gimmick, of course, being one could attend multiple times yet see a different take on the story. The theater I saw it at "only" did four of the iterations, and that's enough to make the actors have to stay on their toes. The play could be filmed so all iterations could be viewed, of course. This would "out-'Black Mirror'" "Black Mirror's" "Bandersnatch" episode.
Video games, as discussed, allow branching narratives. Even the PS1 shooter "Colony Wars" had seven endings and a branching mission structure, depending on how you played the campaign.
TTRPGs are, of course, the ultimate branching serialized fiction. A GM can lovingly construct a scenario/campaign, only to have PC actions mess up the plan. TTRPGs are, obviously, different from fiction as each player contributes to the story. But, TTRPGs can influence and inform fiction. Having to (as GM) adapt to how players muck up your plans forces one to stay flexible and adapt - useful when you're writing a story and one of your characters gets insistent. Here I evoke Babylon 5 as JMS has stated Londo was intended to kill Emperor Cartagia until Vir started shouting from the back of JMS's mind, "It should be me!"
TTRPGs can also provide or inspire organizational tools for the writer, i.e. the "Personality Matrix" I wrote up as an "alignment" system trying to avoid the Law/Chaos, Good/Evil" axes. The Law/Chaos, Good/Evil" system still had uses.
(Side note, I don't supposed you've ever read the one "book" of my Cutlass TTROG narratives I sent you? I sent you one of the highlights of the campaign, but, as a narrative, I was tickled and thrilled about how one particular viewpoint character lovingly evoked one of the Ref's PCs as an example of all that was noble and good, only for our GM to reveal said character had been our antagonist for the past several missions. Totally accidental foreshadowing. Total surprise to the players. In the battle that followed, I decided my PC would always take "psychological attacks" - "Swaggering Techniques" like "Repartee" - until injured and forced to fight back.
Cutlass has 20 "Swaggering Techniques" which interact in a "Paper-Rock-Scissors" manner. The winning Swagger in a round removes the losing Swagger from the character. Losing all your Swagger means you are soundly defeated. "Charismatic Style" - using weapons in a showy manner to intimidate your foe - loses to "Repartee." Assume one guy is flourishing his sword, while the other calmly delivers a one-liner. 'Daring Pistol Fire" beats "Repartee," as the character taunting the other gets shot for their trouble. Swaggering combat is used for PvP or special boss battles, while regular combat is dice rolling. Swaggering PvP has that nice element of looking at your own Swaggering, and trying to guess what your foe has, and picking something to beat what you think the foe is going to do. Always good to learn "Better Valor." "Run like hell" at least usually allows escape.
In this battle Lord Baileigh (me) kept winning with Repartee vs whatever attacks Bartholomew Diaz (Red) attempted. When writing the narrative this became a lot of fun with Baileigh attempting to reason with his "old friend," while the other active PCs - none of whom had traveled with Diaz - were trying to kill him.
But I digress...)
I think, as you've described, in general, changing/revising a serial manuscript should be avoided, unless correcting an obvious error pointed out by a reader. Mostly because one generally doesn't read a book, but skip back from Chapter 25 to Chapter 4.
However, what you describe about having a "pivotal moment" with reader feedback might work. The caveat (as I see it), is you'll have to either "take a week off," for the vote (if you release on Friday, readers have until the following Friday to opine, then the chapter influenced releases the Friday after that), or you commit yourself to writing both iterations in the same week, knowing one version is consigned to the bin.
In some ways its like writing for TV - which IS a serial format. We'll "Babylon 5" again and note JMS's "trapdoors," which needed to be used when actors left the show requiring rejiggering. Production doesn't stop when Stephen Furst is offered a sitcom lead - time to reassign Vir as Centauri Ambassador to Minbar. In the case of "Spartacus: Blood and Sand," the tragic illness and death of the lead actor meant the entire second season was a Spartacus-free prequel.
In the case of a branching literary work, you, as author, control when/where to allow branches, and aren't forced to rework things because of possible issues with dozens of other people, so, as long as your story beats for the main narrative are clearly worked out, I see no reason why it wouldn't work out. Just more effort on your end, but it's only effort you've planned for. Not an emergency situation because Michael O' Hare is having a breakdown. Sheridan served the same story function as Sinclair, but his different personality and backstory meant his character moments were unique, but his story functions got the plot where it needed to go. The Shadow War was gonna happen. The ISA would still rise. The major difference is "War Without End," happened in season 3 instead of at the end of season 5. Whether it's Sheridan or Sinclair, the branch point is whether or not B4 is sent back in time to become the Minbari Starbase, or destroyed by the Shadows in 2254. The branch is event-based, not character-based, despite character influences on events.
Sheridan got to go "Beyond the Rim." Sinclair would have been seen, as Valen, teaching his son to fish. Within the different character actions the larger war and rebuilding themes happen anyway. Whether it's Sheridan or Sinclair as protagonist, B5 is still blown up in 2282 so it's military tech isn't stripped by Raiders and salvagers.
Character and plot intertwine, but are still separate things. Mostly.