It is my brief experience that I get more votes if I post a story one chapter at a time rather than all at once.
What is the experience of others here?
It is my brief experience that I get more votes if I post a story one chapter at a time rather than all at once.
What is the experience of others here?
I've always posted two chapters each week (one on Tuesday, one on Friday) for my longer stories, mainly to keep the story as visible as possible. Reading a 250k+ word story all at once (to me) seems like a bit much for me; it might work for others whose attention span is better than mine.
My shorter stories (a single chapter) are posted piecemeal.
Posting over time seems to work better for me, and all my stories (particularly the multiple chapter ones) are finished before I start posting. (Writing as I go doesn't seem to work for me.)
The Outsider
Posting over time seems to work better for me, and all my stories (particularly the multiple chapter ones) are finished before I start posting. (Writing as I go doesn't seem to work for me.)
Pretty much the same for me though I only have the 1 story posted with many "in progress" lol
SunSeeker
all my stories (particularly the multiple chapter ones) are finished before I start posting.
I would love to be able to do that, however I would post nothing (some may argue that is the best outcome!). Sometimes posting is enough to spur me on to write a bit more of the story.
I think an important question is "Is it better to have a little than none at all?". It sort of feeds into the the similar question of "When should a story end?" because, technically, no story has an end (unless you obliterate the world).
"When should a story end?" because, technically, no story has an end
Every story has an end. There may be more stories if the world isn't obliterated, but each one ends.
I base that on the typical structure of a story. Plot equals conflict and when the conflict is resolved, the story is basically over. New conflict = new story.
Now mini-conflicts are created and resolved throughout the story, but when the overarching conflict is resolved, the story is done.
I base that on the typical structure of a story. Plot equals conflict and when the conflict is resolved, the story is basically over. New conflict = new story.
Now mini-conflicts are created and resolved throughout the story, but when the overarching conflict is resolved, the story is done.
I just see that as a chapter, not a story. If you go to the shops, buy some stuff, return home, you could argue that overarching conflict is resolved, the story done. however, no overarching conflict exists in singularity. There are consequences, there is fallout. What happens to the items you bought?
You can travel to a volcano, throw in a ring, but it doesn't end there. There is going to be consequences. You can ignore those consequences and claim it's the end, but it isn't. It's as The Outsider says, "It's not finished, only abandoned". There is going to be repercussions to throwing that ring in the volcano, it's going to change many lives in perpetuity. Where do you stop telling the story?
The stop point is normally the interest of the author. Some stories continue on far beyond the point that is good for them (case in point 'The lost fleet' by John G. Hemry. An interesting premise that quickly became tedious with repetition. By 'eck, there is a lot of repetition.) Interestingly, I've noticed similar comments from others here with reference to some of the 'greats' on this site, which they argue just recycle the same few ideas repeatedly. Granted, I have never read the works in question, as the length of them puts me off. My personal opinion is that you can't write that amount without repetition of plot.
I would say that the true skill of a writer, is knowing when to stop.
You can travel to a volcano, throw in a ring, but it doesn't end there. There is going to be consequences. You can ignore those consequences and claim it's the end, but it isn't. It's as The Outsider says, "It's not finished, only abandoned". There is going to be repercussions to throwing that ring in the volcano, it's going to change many lives in perpetuity. Where do you stop telling the story?
Why did he throw the ring into the volcano? If the conflict in the plot is about the protagonist's internal struggle with a choice between the desire to be all powerful with the ring or to destroy it to save the world, when he throws the ring into the volcano the conflict is resolved and the story is over. That conflict is "man vs self" (rather than "man vs man" or "man vs nature" or one of the others).
How others are impacted by him destroying the ring is another story. In that story, him throwing the ring into the volcano would be the inciting incident that would set the conflict for that story in motion. That could be a "man vs society" story or a "man vs man" story. Depends on the conflict.
Here's an article from Oregon State University. It's not the best article on the subject, but check out the example with the 15-year-old girl.
https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/wlf/what-conflict
Your volcano analogy (a direct reference to LOTR), yet strangely arguing against the story itself.
But subconflicts are not typically not constrained by chapters, but tend to flow concurrently throughout the story. It's the whole external vs. internal threat issue, as the external threats are what drives the story, while it's the protagonist's internal conflicts which highlight how they're coping with the ongoing conflict and the choices they're being forced to make.
Thus, a story typically has a single external conflict, while the various internal conflicts arise 'as needed' to keep the story interesting. Especially as any character can have their own internal conflicts, not just the central protagonist.
But yes, you can beat any story to death by continually pushing the same agenda over and never, never successfully resolving it. And I've given up on many authors who just can't get over one repeated issue, as it does get fairly tedious relatively quickly.
Your volcano analogy (a direct reference to LOTR), yet strangely arguing against the story itself.
And IIRC, on the LOTR reference, in the end Frodo didn't throw the ring into the volcano.
My recollection without looking it up: Frodo hesitated and in that moment of hesitation Golum(? on the spelling) bit off Frodo's finger that had the ring on it. Then Sam pushed Golum off the ledge into the volcano while Golum had the ring.
But subconflicts are not typically not constrained by chapters, but tend to flow concurrently throughout the story
I would say, that is the sign of a good writer.
My feelings exactly, as once the main conflict ends so does the story, while minor (mostly internal) conflicts don't affect the overall story in the least (the whole external vs internal conflict thread).
The protagonist can worry about their part in the story as much as they want, without impacting their mission in the story, as that's as much self-inflicted guilt as it is feelings of worth.
Now mini-conflicts are created and resolved throughout the story, but when the overarching conflict is resolved, the story is done.
This is not true for some stories.
Have you ever read S.M.Sterling's Trilogy about the lost island of Nantucket? (Island in the Sea of Time, Against the Tide of Years, On the Oceans of Eternity)
First of all, the overarching conflict – created by the transition of the isle of Nantucket from the twentieth century to the Bronze Age – is still not resolved at the end of the third book.
Second, there are many subthreads in the plot which end abruptly without resolve at the end of the third book's last chapter. Those ends look like cliffhangers to me, suggesting the trilogy should be at least a tetralogy or even a pentalogy.
Others of his single novels (Peshawar Lancers, Conquistador) don't end their story arc, they imply sequels he never wrote.
HM.
don't end their story arc, they imply sequels he never wrote.
That's typical nowadays for streaming serials. How unfulfilled do you feel when the next season doesn't happen because the show is cancelled?
My comment was based on the typical literary structure of a story:
1. Story = plot. To have a plot, you need conflict where the protagonist wants/needs something and the antagonist is in the way.
2. Something happens (inciting incident) to create the conflict and set the story in motion.
3. The conflict is resolved (plot's climax), basically ending the story.
4. After the conflict resolution, the story moves into the denouement or falling action. This ties up loose ends.
Does every story follow that structure? Of course not. But I believe it's a good structure. And a satisfying one for the reader.
That's typical nowadays for streaming serials. How unfulfilled do you feel when the next season doesn't happen because the show is cancelled?
That's why I haven't seen anything on TV for nearly 10 years. I'm German and live in Germany. Some serials never made it to Germany, some were cancelled prior to the US cancellation. An extreme case is "The Avengers".
The Series started in Germany with its fourth season but the episodes were aired in Germany out of order, 9 even first omitted and finally aired more than thirty years later!
Same with the fifth season, aired out of order and 5 omitted which were first aired more than 30 years later!
Some episodes of the sixth season were aired in Germany in 1970, but the other 23 were first aired in 1999! source: German Wikipedia entry
But back to the five books of S.M. Sterling, they are from 1997-1999, 2002 and 2004. I like the books, but am dissatisfied by the missing sequels.
HM.
I like the books, but am dissatisfied by the missing sequels.
In the context of this discussion, a sequel is different. The 3 Jason Borne novels aren't a novel with two sequels. They are a trilogy. The main conflict is Borne needing to know who he is and if he's a killer or a good guy. That conflict is not resolved at the end of Book 1 (or Book 2). The main conflict isn't resolved until the end of Book 3 in the trilogy where he learns his real name and his past. Only then can he have peace.
A sequel is what happens AFTER the main conflict is resolved. It's a new story that is begun with a new conflict.
The whole "external conflict" typically changes or evolves in each subsequent sequel, as typically the antagonist simply changes tactics, increasing the story tension. That's typical, but does't change the whole external/internal conflict scenario.
In short, each novel/story is driven by the external conflict, wrapping that conflict when the book ends, while the larger series conflict continues, as each conflict needs to be dealt with separately.
I fail to understand your logic.
If you have only 1 chapter and post it, how can you split it into more than one chapter.
I you split your original chapter before posting it, then you would have a multiple chapter story.
I might have misstated how I post stories (which wouldn't be surprising these days).
Single-chapter stories are posted in their entirety; multiple-chapter stories are posted chapter-by-chapter (one chapter on Tuesdays, and one on Fridays until they are fully-posted, though all stories are complete before I post.)
I get more votes if I post a story one chapter at a time rather than all at once
You definitely get more reads so I guess more votes is a natural outcome of more reads.
It's not just more reads, it's more frequent reads, so readers pay more attention to the story over time, checking in more frequently for updates, which directly affects the seeing and then those voting on the story as it unfolds.
Thus posting thrice a week would have a bigger impact that posting once every three weeks would, despite it being the exact same number of posts. It's all about keeping the readers actively engaged and gaining the most visibility for the story. As I've given up on many story which post on an unsteady or inconsistent basis. After a while, I just stop caring about the story is the author isn't committed to it themselves.
Whether by design or simply a function of the site, posting chapter by chapter elicits more comments, more conversation, and probably more votes. The ability to ask the author a question publicly definitely generates more interest in my experience. Also, posting chapter by chapter gives space for the reluctant readers to step up and ask or comment.
If you want your readers to engage with you, chapters are a proven method.
Plus, with those HUGE single chapter story, especially the ones which keep getting updated, I end up completely losing my place, and subsequently think "Screw it", as if I have to double back and reread the entire story just to figure out where I left off, it just ain't worth the trouble.
Computer refreshes, memory issues or paging issues are all factors in those extended, slow-posting single chapter updates.
I used to prefer using the New Story listings for stroke stories, but now, I won't touch ANY of them, due to those issues.
That's always been true here, as if you post the whole story in one pass, then it only appears in your feeds or … one day. If you post once a week, then you only pick up the readers checking their feeds on that particular day.
Yet, if you post a couple of days a week, your followers grow, and those views attract other readers. It's a self-fulling fantasy. It's about building interest, feeding the hunger for a story, rather than simply teasing readers only to leave them hanging for more.
Of course, the converse of that it not to give the readers everything they want, instead it's best if you feed them in small installments, feeding the very hunger which drives your readers, making them work for their story fixes.
If every chapter is both a struggle and a victory, what's left? You leave feeling exhausted rather than challenged. In those cases, it's all about pacing, tease, reward, yet keep both the carrot and the stick close at hand to keep them actively reading.
Sadly, there aren't that many stories doing that for me anymore. :( Now I'm down to checking only once every two to three weeks, rather than every day.
And today when I checked, I checked at the usual time (9:30a.m. EST) and nothing posted all day long (they were all dumped at 6AM EST).
Again, making readers eagerly wait for the optimal time is a part of the reward.
The downside to posting by chapter, piecemeal, regularly, is if everyone did it, the front/second page churn would be so great, that people would miss your chapter amongst the plethora of other chapters and quickly lose interest in your story simply because it's not visible.
This could lead to the situation, that some writers become so fixated about front page visibility, that they start submitting shorter and shorter chapters in order to keep their story at the top.
Case in point, look at the current front page for serials. Bob Watergate has a story that is 12KB long and already on it's second chapter. Steven Jay has a 94KB story on 18 chapters. Sci-fyTy1972 has 183KB over 32 chapters spread over two months- I don't believe for a minute that many of those chapters could not have been amalgamated into less.
Seriously, how many pages is 6KB? 1200 words? That's barely a page. That's not a 'chapter' it's basically spam at this point.
Yep, I hate those 'tiny' chapter posts. The older writers are more committed to longer, more serious posts you can really sink your teeth into. The newer, less experienced authors tend to prefer multiple short chapters with minimal content. Quite aggravating.