Yes, this difference really came home to me when I published my novel The Wistful and the Good in serial form. To me, the heart of the difference lies in opening and closing. In a novel, each scene has an opening and a closing, but this is a minor feature. More importantly, each scene participates in the overall opening or closing of the novel. It is the grand opening and closing of the whole that is important. In a serial, there may or may not be an overall opening and closing of the whole thing, but what matters is the opening and closing of the individual episodes.
I think this is why the finales of so many beloved TV shows are so disappointing. They try to do a grand closing of an overall arc that has been neglected for years, or they realize the impossibility of doing so and kind of just hack it off raggedly. By the time they get to the end, it is far too late to pay the kind of attention to the grand arc that would be required to set up a satisfying closing of the whole series.
Nail on the head in terms of why TV shows can have disappointing endings - even when the final episode is actually a fine episode on its own merits. It's applying a film/novel-style ending to something which doesn't have film/novel-style structure.
That said, Game of Thrones had a very novelistic structure throughout the TV adaptation, but the ending still didn't work. Though in that case it was less to do with pacing or structure and more to do with a sort of thematic incompetence at the last moment.
Have to disagree there. T'was the execution which was the issue.
GRRM even stated at time of airing the TV show used his planned ending. It's only in later years he resorted to self-revisionism.
GRRM has stated HE DOESN'T LIKE FANTASY and set out to subvert fantasy tropes. We can see this early on: Oh, Ned Stark is the hero! Nope! Dead! Oh, Rob Stark will get his revenge! Nope! Dead!
The fans all started hoping Jon and Dany would marry and rule together, except for the fans hoping Tyrion would take the throne.
Which means that's exactly what GRRM would never ever do... Because his intent was to subvert expectation.
Bran - whose discovery of Jamie and Cersei's affair and attempted murder really is the inciting incident kicking everything into motion - ending up on the Iron Throne is exactly the type of "I did not see that coming and I don't think I like it" Martin pulled throughout the series.
It's the most perfect and utterly thematic ending the story could have, bringing the entire story full circle back to Bran (the trope of circular structure) in a subversive way (NO ONE thought - or wanted - Bran to end up on the throne) utterly consistent with GRRM's publicly stated aims.
When one remembers 1) GRRM hates fantasy, 2) and saw everyone hated the ending, 3) has said he doesn't actually enjoy the writing process (he prefers editing), 4) is busy editing the next volumes of the "Wild Cards" series, 5) and writing other projects, 6) after making millions off the TV work no one should be surprised he's never going to finish A Song of Ice and Fire. Why would he? We know the ending. We know half of the subplots in the books don't matter (Lady Stoneheart, anyone?). He made his money. He's got projects he likes better ("Wild Cards" goes back to the 1980's).
The conceit that “the person with the best story” gets to be leader is the most Fantasy Genre tropey thing imaginable, though. It’s unbelievably twee. That’s the bit hat didn’t work for me in the slightest.
Future post seed. Say more about this? “Structurally, the overall narrative is looser. It is designed to make it easier for readers to hop on board at any point, rather than always reading from the beginning as with a novel.” I think there are actually two (at least) different kinds of serial in the world (Coco Pops vs Muesli? No, I won’t add value judgement, they’re just different but I couldn’t resist the pun). There’s the type you mention: the episodic cop show or sitcom, where there might be a through arc (hmm, I think maybe Hill Street Blues might have been the first to connect a story in that way?) but it’s the week to week story that takes precedence. So you could indeed, drop in and get most of what was going on but maybe wonder why that one character is angsting about something over in the corner. Then there are the (usually) perfectly paced serials that are KDramas. Usually 16 episodes long (although 12 eps seems to be more common). They have their own structure, but are meant to be watched from beginning to end on a weekly basis, which means they usually always end in a story question or promise. (Like they (almost) always kiss for the first time in episode 8, the promise being you get to relive that kiss at the start of episode 9)
And thanks how I write my main serial, not as a KDrama, but offering the story question at the end of each episode and try to make sure something happens in each episode, but in all other respects though it is a novel/novella and is fully written by the time it starts serialising. I’m currently in the last third of book 2, book 3 is in edits and book 4 has bits written but the rest is all handwavey.
I have experimented with the episodic sitcom/serial form by writing a monthly series and even then I had to have a two partner because too much was happening in one place. Ahem. So maybe when that comes back from hiatus, it’ll be more like the old Doctor Who serials of three-four parts (like your Triverse). With a slow burn romance through arc because every one knows it’s all over when the leads finally get together. (Unless it’s a KDrama at which point you’re at episode 13 and the external plot and/or childhood trauma is going to hit the fan.)
I think it's really interesting that you mention the structure of K-dramas. When I think of serialising fiction, my reference is always anime, manga, k-dramas and webtoons/online comics rather than western-produced TV shows. I think places like Japan, China and Korea have been doing serialised storytelling really well for a very long time, so that's really what I have in mind when I'm writing my own serial fiction (I guess because I consume more of that stuff than anything else). I haven't really analysed how this structure works, but I'm definitely interested at looking into it further and seeing how it compares to the more western style and if there is any significant difference between the two... or what the similarities are in the shows that are most successful. Lots to think about!
I’m relatively new to manga/anime, but have found it structurally fascinating. Back in the day I watched the big movies that made it to the UK - Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Princess Mononoke - but I never delved into the longer series. I’m still very much a beginner, but in watching Naruto with my son and also reading Attack on Titan, there are so many fascinating storytelling techniques at play which don’t tend to exist in UK/US stuff.
Ooh that would be awesome to do. I haven’t fully figured out the structure of the longer Chinese dramas as I don’t watch a ton of them and they take forever to get through. There have been a couple of KDramas now that I’ve turned to my hubby and gone “this feels very Western, doesn’t it”. But I couldn’t put my finger on how exactly.
when i write, everything plays out in my head like a TV show anyway, so writing in a serial format simply makes sense. something i found interesting while writing the first arc of my current serial (initially planned as a standard series of books) is all the content that i had initially planned, but cut, due to pacing issues and genre wordcount expectations.
I wrote the arc in novel format, but the book is heavily inspired by anime, which is typically separated into 10-13 episode runs, called "cours". so when i wrote the book, it has 3 "parts", with 13 dedicated episodes each.
this made writing the second arc tough, because there was SO much i needed to cover, but MORE content kept needing to be cut, and refigured, and characters kept doing their own thing which broadened/bloated the arc even further, and all the content i wanted to include from the previous arc just didn't fit anymore. i started feeling restricted by the "3-parts with 13 episodes each" format, even though it had initially felt right. the second arc just got way too big.
it took about 4.5 years to finish writing the second story arc, because there was soooo much overwhelm and overthinking involved. but late into 2024 when i decided to try approaching a serial format, instead of releasing the series in novel form, something clicked.
simon, i swear, it was like the clouds parted and the heavens sang. everything made sense. nothing needed to be cut, because there were no constraints anymore. there was just the story, the characters, and everything in between. i finished writing that book literally new years eve, 2024. it was (and still is) an incredible feeling.
the idea of writing live and incorporating reader influence sounds freaking magical, and i hope one day to get there. it must be such a ride for you! right now, i have about 1.5/2 years' worth of upload content.
Thank you for this, Simon — you are so good at defining this form!
My work is closer to the novel than the serial, which is intentional. I started with a nearly half-written novel I couldn’t stop starting over and over editing. I had to get it in front of eyeballs in order to move forward. About 22 chapters and the ending were written when I began, along with a structural outline I’m following now. Little details change as I go now that I’ve passed the pre-written chapters, but I’m always looking at the ending on the horizon. I think my serial novel is best begun at the start, but I do try to make each chapter entertaining and complete on its own (1500 - 2500 words).
Forgot to comment Monday. Then again, I was thinking near the end of the article you had inadvertently oversimplified things into a binary set of rules.
So I'd have said what JMS did, but five times longer and ten times more kindly.
Having met the man multiple times, yeah, he can definitely cut one down to size. He's done it to me as well. But the thing is there's no malice in it. He's "neuroatypical," so he just throws it out with no attempt to soften, but that's because "it is what it is."
I state that to contrast with a certain "neuroatypical" billionaire who uses his neuroatypical nature as a shield to cloak his malice.
Anyways, many of the basic points you made do work - it's just a more nuanced discussion than you had time and space for.
Well, none of it is supposed to be ‘rules’. I do state up front that YMMV and the story is the story. The question prompts at the end are there to hopefully help someone clarify in their heads what they want to do, rather than push them in a particular direction.
(Simon, I did say "inadvertent." Also, while you posted the JMS response, you didn't share YOUR Bluesky posting. Cramming nuance into 400-800 characters (if you went to two posts) is tough. Especially on a complex topic.)
...hm. Lots to unpick here and I think this is a really good piece.
I'd be additive by mentioning that there are elements to pacing in particular that novels can learn from serials. I'm a novelist who writes a little like a serialist; I'm aware that while (your point) readers have the novel and don't need a hook to come back, they for fuck sure do need a reason to keep turning the page in a world of near endless entertainment at near zero dollars 🤣
This exists in a state of tension with the concept of pacing. In neither medium can you have the race car in the red all the time; it exhausts the reader/viewer. So, they need to turn the page, or get the next serial instalment, but the writer needs to avoid too much adrenaline, causing the reader to want a cup of tea and a lie-down because it's all too fast.
I'm reminded of Rachel Aaron's two-bird minimum, the concept in brief is that each chapter needs to do two things. E.g., plot development, character development, pure action, pure sex, whatever. You have the things you want to deliver in your material and as long as you get two of these done, you're golden from a reader interest PoV. You can ease off the gas (otherwise you're just grinding metal, Ripley) of action if you do some character development alongside some lights-go-out other action.
Serials do this really well on screen by often mixing the mode frequently throughout the episode, with the overriding feature of progressing plot and character at the same time (adjacent to JMS's points).
All to true - it's easier than ever to put a book down and not come back to it. Especially ebooks, where the other digital distractions are just a tap away.
Love all those insights on pacing and the two-bird minimum. Spot on.
Thank you for writing this. I have been considering a serial for my substack and this has helped cement what I need to change from my normal writing to make it work.
I love this exploration of serial vs novel. I'm intrigued by the possibilities of a serial on Substack and will be going through Simon's previous posts that talk about it. It's so heartening that Substack exists, to allow us to create and share and stay out of the fray.
Simon, thanks for a super clear explanation on the difference between writing and publishing a serial vs a standard novel. What I particularly liked was the thought process and design differences needed for each delivery method. A serial and a novel are the same but very different in both the structure and the reader experience. This certainly gives people some great starting guidelines and things to think about before beginning one project or another.
Solid post. I enjoy all forms of storytelling, and I've dived into them all so far, but in the last five or so years, I've begun to lean into serials. I love short stories, but sometimes they just aren't long enough to deliver the story. A novel is more of a production, and I like the seat-of-the-pants aspect that I can get with a serial, especially if I'm writing it on the fly, as I have with most of mine. It's a fun way to push myself, I think, and it's enjoyable because I'm a pantser, and I wanna see what happens as I roll along.
I've had some wild successes with serials already. My 30+ episode noir murder mystery, Just Right, which I just posted about is finished (posted on my website), and I loved how it ended. And the serial from 10+ years ago that five other friends and I wrote with absolutely no script, Dorothy: Locked & Loaded, is getting another run here on Substack and my website. It's 150 episodes and took two years, but it was a lot of fun.
I'm still writing novels, and I have several in the works, but I'm also writing side story mysteries based on the main character for my mystery series. These are serials of 6-12 episodes, and writing both helps me learn about my character and how she interacts with the world. Plus, it's just fun. The novel is planned out; the serial is mostly a whim. I can do both simultaneously, and I never lose tone because it's the same character.
So, yeah, two very different exercises, and both a lot of fun.
Such an interesting post, Simon. The night before I read this, my wife and I were watching "Discovery of Witches" and she said, "You know, I know this makes no sense, but it feels like the pacing in this show is both too fast and too slow at the same time..."
It’s hard to pin down. I think it might be due to these shows being very plot-driven and plot-heavy, but also having to spread that plot over more episodes than is necessary. But there’s not enough episodes to actually take a breather and inject, say, a character-focused episode. So you end up in this space of sort of breathless tedium.
As JMS pointed out, it’s not to do with the number of episodes — there have been plenty of incredible shows with shorter seasons. But we do seem to have a lot of people making shows for streaming services who don’t quite get how to structure a serial.
As another example (here I get controversial), there have been three TV/Film adaptations of Dune. Of the three the Sci-Fi channel miniseries was, by far, the most faithful to the original novel. The Lynch version the least faithful, with the Villeneuve version being in the middle.
Of the three, the Lynch version is by far the best - in terms of being concise (2.5 hours vs 6 or 9), actually being entertaining, and clear visual storytelling. The Sci-Fi channel and Villenueve are boring - so boring, in fact, I didn't bother with Villenueve's part 2. Frankly, Lynch had the best cast - with the exception of Kyle Mclaughlin and Sting being very obviously more than a decade too old for teenaged Paul and Feyd. On the other hand Jürgen Prochnow is a compelling Leto while William Hurt and Oscar Isaacs are just... There.
Villenueve put the Atredies, Harkonnans, Sardukar, and Fremen all in dust colored, segmented armor, meaning in large battle scenes I, at least, didn't immediately distinguish between factions at a glance. Lynch had the Atredies in a distinct, crisp miliary uniform, Harkonnans with huge shoulder pads, Sardukar in black hamzat suits with glowing green face plates and Fremen in still suits with catchpockets mirroring muscle groups. Identifiable at a single glance, all of them. (Sci-fi also distinguished factions with clean designs, I just happened to not like them. The Fremen looked like Robin Hood's Merry Men.)
One could say the same about two Conan movies - Schwarzenegger in the 1982 vs Jason Momoa in 2011. The 2011 movie was much closer to Robert E. Howard's stories. The 1982 version is the superior movie.
But, in the first paragraph I noted that adaptations work "up to a point." Here I'll get quite snarky and controversial and pick on Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Jackson and Fran Walsh made all kinds of little changes. Most I agree with. Most help the films flow along (example: Book Gandalf, "You must leave the Shire immediately! No later than September!" (six months away) Movie Gandalf: "You must leave the Shire immediately!" *shoving bag into Frodo's hands).
But all that are "cool details." If your adaptation breaks the core themes then it's a bad adaptation. Tolkien himself wrote that "The Scouring of the Shire" is the most important part of the book. That, in some ways, the entire trilogy is a prequel to "The Scouring of the Shire." The Scouring is all about "how the big things happening far away affect the little people at home," and showing how the Hobbits are changed by life experience. Merry and Pippen - the young troublemakers - step up as military leaders. Sam - the humble gardener - also steps up as a leader, and becomes mayor. Frodo...is broken. He gave all he had, and has no more to give to save his own home... While Frodo has the respect of Kings far off, the Shire has no acclaim for him. It's the culmination of everything before. So Jackson cut it (which also makes the Mirror of Galadriel sequence in Fellowship pointless) for *checks notes* run time.
Less slow motion jumping on a bed in Rivendell, and cutting a couple more false endings, and some the interminably long battle at Minas Tirith would have made room for this.
Thus, despite all the good work done - and there is a LOT of good work done in that trilogy, to the point where it's difficult to imagine a better series of films - at the end the adaptation totally misses the point and throws out what the CREATOR said was the true main theme. Everything else is allegory supporting the Hobbits fighting to take back their home.
(But I still love those movies.)
(Hey, I could have done my breakdown on how Chris Nolan totally fucked up Batman.)
Yes, your phrasing sums it up, and I normally LEAD with something like that before using an example...
I am, of course, confronted with the reality that, by this standard, I now have to backtrack and acknowledge despite Lynch's Dune being the best MOVIE of the batch, it's also a "failed adaptation" as - at the end - Paul EMBRACES his role in prophecy, rather than spend his whole life fighting against it.
Still not as bad as "I, Robot," which - to be fair to the writer - was created as an independent property which the studio forced into being an "Asimov adaptation" as the studio was about to lose their option. All that happened was the title and adding the names "US Robotics" and "Susan Calvin" to the script. As a detective story with robots it's a solid movie. As an "Asimov adaptation" a bad joke.
Another excellent post, Simon. As always, on-topic and written with comprehensive clarity. You're great at turning into concrete what generally just floats around in my head with serialised stories.
As you know, I've been publishing my debut novel in serial form, using the opportunity to create its third (and hopefully final!) draft. I'm half-way through its 100 chapters (which were scenes in Scrivener), with a steady twice-weekly cadence. I think I've managed to achieve decent 'episodic' endings for about 90% of the chapters, but I feel the shorter ones (<1000 words) might leave readers short-changed. In addition, taking a year to read/remember a ~120k word book is a big ask. From a personal writing perspective, it's also been too easy to just review, lightly edit and click 'publish'.
I am currently writing novel #2 in the same overarching series as #1, but I'm not sure I want to serialise it – even in 'real-time' – once the latter concludes. Too many hooks to tie into #1 and also a plotted #3 novel. It means little chance to deviate creatively, as you describe in your post, and I think this element attracts me most to writing for a purer serial format.
So, with a new and different challenge in mind, you've got me re-thinking 'Option 2': real-time writing an original episodic series in a wholly different universe. A short story I wrote last year might be just the seed I need. Addressing the psychology of deviating from my natural plotter de-risking tendency to veer into pantser territory then becomes the key ask I require of myself. I'll also need to avoid this initiative becoming a procrastination excuse for novel #2's completion!
Thank you, as always, for your help in enriching my brain and prompting me to write better and publish more.
Thanks, Johnathan. Asking readers to remember a long-form serial is indeed a challenge and a bit of an issue at the moment, when you factor in Substack publications being a bit awkward for chapter navigation.
Try writing ~290k words over three years. I have literally no idea if anyone has any idea what's happening in Triverse, but as long as I'm enjoying it I'm good. :) My next project, though, will absolutely be shorter!
I wouldn't ever describe myself as a pantser, even though I write as I go. I have a very clear map and compass, but it's those navigational tools which enable me to sometimes stray from the path - knowing that I can always find my way back.
Simon: A lot of this really hits home—particularly because I'm two episodes into serializing [or episode-alizing] a novel I first drafted in 2010 (with several more complete drafts since then)
Presenting the novel in weekly installments, rather than a whole manuscript, gives me, and the characters, the opportunity to re-inhabit, rather than just repeat, the story. It’s almost as if they, too, get to reflect on what happened in the last episode—and the previous draft of the whole novel for that matter—and make sure that, going forward, they stay aligned with who they are, what they are learning/understanding and why they are here. Plus the timing/juggling of background stories, is different.
If that suggests the boundaries between writer, characters, and readers are getting more porous well, welcome to my world!
While my episodes don't work completely as standalones, I'm helped by the fact that the novel is basically picaresque. At the beginning a guy has a stroke and realizes he's the Buddha so, as the story progresses, so does his illness (for an overall story arc) and most episodes focus on how specific friends and family deal with his terminal illness as he deals with his brand-new Buddha nature (and the Buddha deals with this new incarnation he has to manifest through). All of these scenes have their own arc. So if you get the basic premise you can pretty much dive in anywhere.
All of which is to say it's great to read what you've written and realize there is a community of other writers out there wrestling with the same (fun) challenges I am.
Simon, you have a knack of getting to the heart of an issue, breaking it down and presenting it simply and coherently. You've explored and answered many of the questions I had in this area. Thank you.
Yes, this difference really came home to me when I published my novel The Wistful and the Good in serial form. To me, the heart of the difference lies in opening and closing. In a novel, each scene has an opening and a closing, but this is a minor feature. More importantly, each scene participates in the overall opening or closing of the novel. It is the grand opening and closing of the whole that is important. In a serial, there may or may not be an overall opening and closing of the whole thing, but what matters is the opening and closing of the individual episodes.
I think this is why the finales of so many beloved TV shows are so disappointing. They try to do a grand closing of an overall arc that has been neglected for years, or they realize the impossibility of doing so and kind of just hack it off raggedly. By the time they get to the end, it is far too late to pay the kind of attention to the grand arc that would be required to set up a satisfying closing of the whole series.
Nail on the head in terms of why TV shows can have disappointing endings - even when the final episode is actually a fine episode on its own merits. It's applying a film/novel-style ending to something which doesn't have film/novel-style structure.
That said, Game of Thrones had a very novelistic structure throughout the TV adaptation, but the ending still didn't work. Though in that case it was less to do with pacing or structure and more to do with a sort of thematic incompetence at the last moment.
Have to disagree there. T'was the execution which was the issue.
GRRM even stated at time of airing the TV show used his planned ending. It's only in later years he resorted to self-revisionism.
GRRM has stated HE DOESN'T LIKE FANTASY and set out to subvert fantasy tropes. We can see this early on: Oh, Ned Stark is the hero! Nope! Dead! Oh, Rob Stark will get his revenge! Nope! Dead!
The fans all started hoping Jon and Dany would marry and rule together, except for the fans hoping Tyrion would take the throne.
Which means that's exactly what GRRM would never ever do... Because his intent was to subvert expectation.
Bran - whose discovery of Jamie and Cersei's affair and attempted murder really is the inciting incident kicking everything into motion - ending up on the Iron Throne is exactly the type of "I did not see that coming and I don't think I like it" Martin pulled throughout the series.
It's the most perfect and utterly thematic ending the story could have, bringing the entire story full circle back to Bran (the trope of circular structure) in a subversive way (NO ONE thought - or wanted - Bran to end up on the throne) utterly consistent with GRRM's publicly stated aims.
When one remembers 1) GRRM hates fantasy, 2) and saw everyone hated the ending, 3) has said he doesn't actually enjoy the writing process (he prefers editing), 4) is busy editing the next volumes of the "Wild Cards" series, 5) and writing other projects, 6) after making millions off the TV work no one should be surprised he's never going to finish A Song of Ice and Fire. Why would he? We know the ending. We know half of the subplots in the books don't matter (Lady Stoneheart, anyone?). He made his money. He's got projects he likes better ("Wild Cards" goes back to the 1980's).
The conceit that “the person with the best story” gets to be leader is the most Fantasy Genre tropey thing imaginable, though. It’s unbelievably twee. That’s the bit hat didn’t work for me in the slightest.
you make a brilliant obvservation here!
I would also add that the serial format aligns better to screenplays for episodic television. The emotional beats transfer well between those mediums.
Future post seed. Say more about this? “Structurally, the overall narrative is looser. It is designed to make it easier for readers to hop on board at any point, rather than always reading from the beginning as with a novel.” I think there are actually two (at least) different kinds of serial in the world (Coco Pops vs Muesli? No, I won’t add value judgement, they’re just different but I couldn’t resist the pun). There’s the type you mention: the episodic cop show or sitcom, where there might be a through arc (hmm, I think maybe Hill Street Blues might have been the first to connect a story in that way?) but it’s the week to week story that takes precedence. So you could indeed, drop in and get most of what was going on but maybe wonder why that one character is angsting about something over in the corner. Then there are the (usually) perfectly paced serials that are KDramas. Usually 16 episodes long (although 12 eps seems to be more common). They have their own structure, but are meant to be watched from beginning to end on a weekly basis, which means they usually always end in a story question or promise. (Like they (almost) always kiss for the first time in episode 8, the promise being you get to relive that kiss at the start of episode 9)
And thanks how I write my main serial, not as a KDrama, but offering the story question at the end of each episode and try to make sure something happens in each episode, but in all other respects though it is a novel/novella and is fully written by the time it starts serialising. I’m currently in the last third of book 2, book 3 is in edits and book 4 has bits written but the rest is all handwavey.
I have experimented with the episodic sitcom/serial form by writing a monthly series and even then I had to have a two partner because too much was happening in one place. Ahem. So maybe when that comes back from hiatus, it’ll be more like the old Doctor Who serials of three-four parts (like your Triverse). With a slow burn romance through arc because every one knows it’s all over when the leads finally get together. (Unless it’s a KDrama at which point you’re at episode 13 and the external plot and/or childhood trauma is going to hit the fan.)
I think it's really interesting that you mention the structure of K-dramas. When I think of serialising fiction, my reference is always anime, manga, k-dramas and webtoons/online comics rather than western-produced TV shows. I think places like Japan, China and Korea have been doing serialised storytelling really well for a very long time, so that's really what I have in mind when I'm writing my own serial fiction (I guess because I consume more of that stuff than anything else). I haven't really analysed how this structure works, but I'm definitely interested at looking into it further and seeing how it compares to the more western style and if there is any significant difference between the two... or what the similarities are in the shows that are most successful. Lots to think about!
I’m relatively new to manga/anime, but have found it structurally fascinating. Back in the day I watched the big movies that made it to the UK - Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Princess Mononoke - but I never delved into the longer series. I’m still very much a beginner, but in watching Naruto with my son and also reading Attack on Titan, there are so many fascinating storytelling techniques at play which don’t tend to exist in UK/US stuff.
Ooh that would be awesome to do. I haven’t fully figured out the structure of the longer Chinese dramas as I don’t watch a ton of them and they take forever to get through. There have been a couple of KDramas now that I’ve turned to my hubby and gone “this feels very Western, doesn’t it”. But I couldn’t put my finger on how exactly.
thanks for another great article, simon!
when i write, everything plays out in my head like a TV show anyway, so writing in a serial format simply makes sense. something i found interesting while writing the first arc of my current serial (initially planned as a standard series of books) is all the content that i had initially planned, but cut, due to pacing issues and genre wordcount expectations.
I wrote the arc in novel format, but the book is heavily inspired by anime, which is typically separated into 10-13 episode runs, called "cours". so when i wrote the book, it has 3 "parts", with 13 dedicated episodes each.
this made writing the second arc tough, because there was SO much i needed to cover, but MORE content kept needing to be cut, and refigured, and characters kept doing their own thing which broadened/bloated the arc even further, and all the content i wanted to include from the previous arc just didn't fit anymore. i started feeling restricted by the "3-parts with 13 episodes each" format, even though it had initially felt right. the second arc just got way too big.
it took about 4.5 years to finish writing the second story arc, because there was soooo much overwhelm and overthinking involved. but late into 2024 when i decided to try approaching a serial format, instead of releasing the series in novel form, something clicked.
simon, i swear, it was like the clouds parted and the heavens sang. everything made sense. nothing needed to be cut, because there were no constraints anymore. there was just the story, the characters, and everything in between. i finished writing that book literally new years eve, 2024. it was (and still is) an incredible feeling.
the idea of writing live and incorporating reader influence sounds freaking magical, and i hope one day to get there. it must be such a ride for you! right now, i have about 1.5/2 years' worth of upload content.
Publishing serials was a 'parting of the clouds' moment for me, too. Transformed my writing!
Thank you for this, Simon — you are so good at defining this form!
My work is closer to the novel than the serial, which is intentional. I started with a nearly half-written novel I couldn’t stop starting over and over editing. I had to get it in front of eyeballs in order to move forward. About 22 chapters and the ending were written when I began, along with a structural outline I’m following now. Little details change as I go now that I’ve passed the pre-written chapters, but I’m always looking at the ending on the horizon. I think my serial novel is best begun at the start, but I do try to make each chapter entertaining and complete on its own (1500 - 2500 words).
Do you still have that 22-chapter buffer, or has that eroded as you've gone along? I always start with the best of intentions... :)
It’s eroded. I’m still coming up on parts of chapters I’ve already written, but the are fewer as I go and one I threw out entirely 😂
Yep, that sounds familiar. I had a lovely 20 chapter buffer on Triverse, which lasted not very long at all…
Forgot to comment Monday. Then again, I was thinking near the end of the article you had inadvertently oversimplified things into a binary set of rules.
So I'd have said what JMS did, but five times longer and ten times more kindly.
Having met the man multiple times, yeah, he can definitely cut one down to size. He's done it to me as well. But the thing is there's no malice in it. He's "neuroatypical," so he just throws it out with no attempt to soften, but that's because "it is what it is."
I state that to contrast with a certain "neuroatypical" billionaire who uses his neuroatypical nature as a shield to cloak his malice.
Anyways, many of the basic points you made do work - it's just a more nuanced discussion than you had time and space for.
Well, none of it is supposed to be ‘rules’. I do state up front that YMMV and the story is the story. The question prompts at the end are there to hopefully help someone clarify in their heads what they want to do, rather than push them in a particular direction.
(Simon, I did say "inadvertent." Also, while you posted the JMS response, you didn't share YOUR Bluesky posting. Cramming nuance into 400-800 characters (if you went to two posts) is tough. Especially on a complex topic.)
...hm. Lots to unpick here and I think this is a really good piece.
I'd be additive by mentioning that there are elements to pacing in particular that novels can learn from serials. I'm a novelist who writes a little like a serialist; I'm aware that while (your point) readers have the novel and don't need a hook to come back, they for fuck sure do need a reason to keep turning the page in a world of near endless entertainment at near zero dollars 🤣
This exists in a state of tension with the concept of pacing. In neither medium can you have the race car in the red all the time; it exhausts the reader/viewer. So, they need to turn the page, or get the next serial instalment, but the writer needs to avoid too much adrenaline, causing the reader to want a cup of tea and a lie-down because it's all too fast.
I'm reminded of Rachel Aaron's two-bird minimum, the concept in brief is that each chapter needs to do two things. E.g., plot development, character development, pure action, pure sex, whatever. You have the things you want to deliver in your material and as long as you get two of these done, you're golden from a reader interest PoV. You can ease off the gas (otherwise you're just grinding metal, Ripley) of action if you do some character development alongside some lights-go-out other action.
Serials do this really well on screen by often mixing the mode frequently throughout the episode, with the overriding feature of progressing plot and character at the same time (adjacent to JMS's points).
All to true - it's easier than ever to put a book down and not come back to it. Especially ebooks, where the other digital distractions are just a tap away.
Love all those insights on pacing and the two-bird minimum. Spot on.
Thank you for writing this. I have been considering a serial for my substack and this has helped cement what I need to change from my normal writing to make it work.
I love this exploration of serial vs novel. I'm intrigued by the possibilities of a serial on Substack and will be going through Simon's previous posts that talk about it. It's so heartening that Substack exists, to allow us to create and share and stay out of the fray.
Simon, thanks for a super clear explanation on the difference between writing and publishing a serial vs a standard novel. What I particularly liked was the thought process and design differences needed for each delivery method. A serial and a novel are the same but very different in both the structure and the reader experience. This certainly gives people some great starting guidelines and things to think about before beginning one project or another.
Solid post. I enjoy all forms of storytelling, and I've dived into them all so far, but in the last five or so years, I've begun to lean into serials. I love short stories, but sometimes they just aren't long enough to deliver the story. A novel is more of a production, and I like the seat-of-the-pants aspect that I can get with a serial, especially if I'm writing it on the fly, as I have with most of mine. It's a fun way to push myself, I think, and it's enjoyable because I'm a pantser, and I wanna see what happens as I roll along.
I've had some wild successes with serials already. My 30+ episode noir murder mystery, Just Right, which I just posted about is finished (posted on my website), and I loved how it ended. And the serial from 10+ years ago that five other friends and I wrote with absolutely no script, Dorothy: Locked & Loaded, is getting another run here on Substack and my website. It's 150 episodes and took two years, but it was a lot of fun.
I'm still writing novels, and I have several in the works, but I'm also writing side story mysteries based on the main character for my mystery series. These are serials of 6-12 episodes, and writing both helps me learn about my character and how she interacts with the world. Plus, it's just fun. The novel is planned out; the serial is mostly a whim. I can do both simultaneously, and I never lose tone because it's the same character.
So, yeah, two very different exercises, and both a lot of fun.
Such an interesting post, Simon. The night before I read this, my wife and I were watching "Discovery of Witches" and she said, "You know, I know this makes no sense, but it feels like the pacing in this show is both too fast and too slow at the same time..."
Nailed it!
Glad it’s not just me! :)
It’s hard to pin down. I think it might be due to these shows being very plot-driven and plot-heavy, but also having to spread that plot over more episodes than is necessary. But there’s not enough episodes to actually take a breather and inject, say, a character-focused episode. So you end up in this space of sort of breathless tedium.
As JMS pointed out, it’s not to do with the number of episodes — there have been plenty of incredible shows with shorter seasons. But we do seem to have a lot of people making shows for streaming services who don’t quite get how to structure a serial.
I think it might be bc they are trying to be faithful to the book, but overlook that a book needs to be adapted to a new medium.
Same thing happened w some of the Harry Potter movies. They followed the book at the expense of the movie.
It’s called an adaptation fir a reason….
An interesting point. And correct up to a point.
As another example (here I get controversial), there have been three TV/Film adaptations of Dune. Of the three the Sci-Fi channel miniseries was, by far, the most faithful to the original novel. The Lynch version the least faithful, with the Villeneuve version being in the middle.
Of the three, the Lynch version is by far the best - in terms of being concise (2.5 hours vs 6 or 9), actually being entertaining, and clear visual storytelling. The Sci-Fi channel and Villenueve are boring - so boring, in fact, I didn't bother with Villenueve's part 2. Frankly, Lynch had the best cast - with the exception of Kyle Mclaughlin and Sting being very obviously more than a decade too old for teenaged Paul and Feyd. On the other hand Jürgen Prochnow is a compelling Leto while William Hurt and Oscar Isaacs are just... There.
Villenueve put the Atredies, Harkonnans, Sardukar, and Fremen all in dust colored, segmented armor, meaning in large battle scenes I, at least, didn't immediately distinguish between factions at a glance. Lynch had the Atredies in a distinct, crisp miliary uniform, Harkonnans with huge shoulder pads, Sardukar in black hamzat suits with glowing green face plates and Fremen in still suits with catchpockets mirroring muscle groups. Identifiable at a single glance, all of them. (Sci-fi also distinguished factions with clean designs, I just happened to not like them. The Fremen looked like Robin Hood's Merry Men.)
One could say the same about two Conan movies - Schwarzenegger in the 1982 vs Jason Momoa in 2011. The 2011 movie was much closer to Robert E. Howard's stories. The 1982 version is the superior movie.
But, in the first paragraph I noted that adaptations work "up to a point." Here I'll get quite snarky and controversial and pick on Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Jackson and Fran Walsh made all kinds of little changes. Most I agree with. Most help the films flow along (example: Book Gandalf, "You must leave the Shire immediately! No later than September!" (six months away) Movie Gandalf: "You must leave the Shire immediately!" *shoving bag into Frodo's hands).
But all that are "cool details." If your adaptation breaks the core themes then it's a bad adaptation. Tolkien himself wrote that "The Scouring of the Shire" is the most important part of the book. That, in some ways, the entire trilogy is a prequel to "The Scouring of the Shire." The Scouring is all about "how the big things happening far away affect the little people at home," and showing how the Hobbits are changed by life experience. Merry and Pippen - the young troublemakers - step up as military leaders. Sam - the humble gardener - also steps up as a leader, and becomes mayor. Frodo...is broken. He gave all he had, and has no more to give to save his own home... While Frodo has the respect of Kings far off, the Shire has no acclaim for him. It's the culmination of everything before. So Jackson cut it (which also makes the Mirror of Galadriel sequence in Fellowship pointless) for *checks notes* run time.
Less slow motion jumping on a bed in Rivendell, and cutting a couple more false endings, and some the interminably long battle at Minas Tirith would have made room for this.
Thus, despite all the good work done - and there is a LOT of good work done in that trilogy, to the point where it's difficult to imagine a better series of films - at the end the adaptation totally misses the point and throws out what the CREATOR said was the true main theme. Everything else is allegory supporting the Hobbits fighting to take back their home.
(But I still love those movies.)
(Hey, I could have done my breakdown on how Chris Nolan totally fucked up Batman.)
Wow, that's quite an analysis! I think this phrase captures the main point: "If your adaptation breaks the core themes then it's a bad adaptation."
Novels and movies are different mediums and need to be used to their best advantage in service of the heart of the story.
Yes, your phrasing sums it up, and I normally LEAD with something like that before using an example...
I am, of course, confronted with the reality that, by this standard, I now have to backtrack and acknowledge despite Lynch's Dune being the best MOVIE of the batch, it's also a "failed adaptation" as - at the end - Paul EMBRACES his role in prophecy, rather than spend his whole life fighting against it.
Still not as bad as "I, Robot," which - to be fair to the writer - was created as an independent property which the studio forced into being an "Asimov adaptation" as the studio was about to lose their option. All that happened was the title and adding the names "US Robotics" and "Susan Calvin" to the script. As a detective story with robots it's a solid movie. As an "Asimov adaptation" a bad joke.
Another excellent post, Simon. As always, on-topic and written with comprehensive clarity. You're great at turning into concrete what generally just floats around in my head with serialised stories.
As you know, I've been publishing my debut novel in serial form, using the opportunity to create its third (and hopefully final!) draft. I'm half-way through its 100 chapters (which were scenes in Scrivener), with a steady twice-weekly cadence. I think I've managed to achieve decent 'episodic' endings for about 90% of the chapters, but I feel the shorter ones (<1000 words) might leave readers short-changed. In addition, taking a year to read/remember a ~120k word book is a big ask. From a personal writing perspective, it's also been too easy to just review, lightly edit and click 'publish'.
I am currently writing novel #2 in the same overarching series as #1, but I'm not sure I want to serialise it – even in 'real-time' – once the latter concludes. Too many hooks to tie into #1 and also a plotted #3 novel. It means little chance to deviate creatively, as you describe in your post, and I think this element attracts me most to writing for a purer serial format.
So, with a new and different challenge in mind, you've got me re-thinking 'Option 2': real-time writing an original episodic series in a wholly different universe. A short story I wrote last year might be just the seed I need. Addressing the psychology of deviating from my natural plotter de-risking tendency to veer into pantser territory then becomes the key ask I require of myself. I'll also need to avoid this initiative becoming a procrastination excuse for novel #2's completion!
Thank you, as always, for your help in enriching my brain and prompting me to write better and publish more.
Thanks, Johnathan. Asking readers to remember a long-form serial is indeed a challenge and a bit of an issue at the moment, when you factor in Substack publications being a bit awkward for chapter navigation.
Try writing ~290k words over three years. I have literally no idea if anyone has any idea what's happening in Triverse, but as long as I'm enjoying it I'm good. :) My next project, though, will absolutely be shorter!
I wouldn't ever describe myself as a pantser, even though I write as I go. I have a very clear map and compass, but it's those navigational tools which enable me to sometimes stray from the path - knowing that I can always find my way back.
That's a good analogy. You might fly by the seat of your pants to reach a fictional space you want to explore, but you still know your way back home!
Simon: A lot of this really hits home—particularly because I'm two episodes into serializing [or episode-alizing] a novel I first drafted in 2010 (with several more complete drafts since then)
Presenting the novel in weekly installments, rather than a whole manuscript, gives me, and the characters, the opportunity to re-inhabit, rather than just repeat, the story. It’s almost as if they, too, get to reflect on what happened in the last episode—and the previous draft of the whole novel for that matter—and make sure that, going forward, they stay aligned with who they are, what they are learning/understanding and why they are here. Plus the timing/juggling of background stories, is different.
If that suggests the boundaries between writer, characters, and readers are getting more porous well, welcome to my world!
While my episodes don't work completely as standalones, I'm helped by the fact that the novel is basically picaresque. At the beginning a guy has a stroke and realizes he's the Buddha so, as the story progresses, so does his illness (for an overall story arc) and most episodes focus on how specific friends and family deal with his terminal illness as he deals with his brand-new Buddha nature (and the Buddha deals with this new incarnation he has to manifest through). All of these scenes have their own arc. So if you get the basic premise you can pretty much dive in anywhere.
All of which is to say it's great to read what you've written and realize there is a community of other writers out there wrestling with the same (fun) challenges I am.
Very interesting and thought-provoking column - pertinent to my ongoing fiction writing project. Thanks for the insights.
Thanks for reading.
Simon, you have a knack of getting to the heart of an issue, breaking it down and presenting it simply and coherently. You've explored and answered many of the questions I had in this area. Thank you.
Thanks, Mark. It’s because I spend way too much time thinking about all this stuff. :P