Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike Miller's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts