Hacker News Reader

Comment by zem | Hacker News Reader

one of the most interesting points, though the writer didn't spend much time on it, was how the serialised nature of some of the famous older novels meant everyone was much more likely to be reading them at the same time, and how serialised television fiction plays the same role today. i'd add to that novel series like harry potter - it wasn't just that the first book was wildly popular, but that as the series progressed it swept up more and more fans who were waiting together for the next book. standalone novels don't have that sort of forcing function, and it doesn't seem to work for multiple books by the same author (e.g. no one talked about dan brown's novels after 'the da vinci code')

View on HN

Two thoughts:

1. Certain standalone authors had that strength. Stephen King certainly did in the 80s-90s.

2. I think this is why certain fiction series tend to have very strong followings. Regardless of the HBO Series, people were hungry for "Dance with Dragons" when it came out.

The internet certainly helps with TV series. Much of the popularity of "LOST" was the skillful manipulation of that popularity by the production. Compare "LOST" with "Heroes" (poor quality rapidly squandered popularity) and "Firefly" (utter failure to leverage the growing fandom.)

Also, related to series you have a few film directors who command some of that strength. Tarantino comes to mind, though it's an interesting example because there's a sort of common universe underlying the movies. However as you go more niche/cult you'll probably find small communities who wait dearly on the author's next work, be it a film or a book.

and don't forget webcomics! they're an episodic medium with, in some cases, a surprisingly strong following.

i think the first time i experienced it was with robert jordan's "wheel of time" novels. before that, my friends and i used to wait eagerly for each new discworld book, but that was mostly a matter of "yay, new pratchett". with wheel of time, we were suddenly waiting to see what happened next, which is a very different feeling.

Tim Parks (the author of the OP) has been doing a series of extended blog posts for the NYRB on the practice of reading (http://www.nybooks.com/contributors/tim-parks-2/?tab=tab-blo...).

They are uniformly excellent. They are distinguished by their honesty and lack of posturing.

For instance, this piece addresses how changing reading habits (more short intervals of time, possibly interrupted) are changing how we can appreciate longer fiction:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/jun/10/reading-str...

And here's a great piece on reading parts of books -- even excellent books -- putting them down when you've gotten enough:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/mar/13/why-finish-...

" one of the most interesting points, though the writer didn't spend much time on it, was how the serialised nature of some of the famous older novels meant everyone was much more likely to be reading them at the same time"

Hmmm… I thought that the point being made there wasn't so much the serialisation, but the delivery mechanism. The newspaper then, and the television now, is in everybody's home. It's not something special that needs seeking out.

I wonder how much longer TV will play that role, considering Netflix's strategy of releasing whole seasons of their shows at the same time.

Add to that DVRs even for broadcast shows and, generally, much more fragmented audiences in general. To a first approximation, there is no longer the equivalent of the ability to have a general shared cultural experience the morning after a network broadcast airs to the degree it was in the days of Seinfeld, for example.

There are some exceptions. Something like Game of Thrones comes close--at least among certain subcultures and groups. But it's much more diffuse and less immediate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com