Cliffhangers only work if the material is so compelling the consumers are more enticed than POed.

They are a high-risk strategy, mostly successful when the material is already successful.

It often takes years to become an overnight success.

One book does not a career make. Do aspiring actors get a part in one movie or TV show and expect it all to come their way? Do musicians put out one single and expect to sell a million?

Actors act. Musicians play. Writers write, and keep writing, until they give up or something happens. That something can range from modest sales and local recognition, up to stardom for those with the luck to catch fire. I don't say skill because skill is not the big determinant of success. It's (first and foremost) persistence, plus luck, with the caveat of a certain at-least-average level of skill and writing quality, plus luck, plus serendipity, plus timing, plus luck, plus persistence. And more persistence.

Using the music industry as an analogy, there are millions of skilled musicians, but only thousands making a living from their music, and perhaps only hundreds of real "rock stars" (regardless of musical genre) at any one time. And some of those stars aren't really all that good, musically. They simply catch on and get popular (lucky).

But most won't.

Also, "newsletter swaps" might mean different things.

Swapping the email lists is a no-no, no different from any other email list sale or transfer against regs or laws.

Many times when people talk about newsletter swaps, they are talking about a "you promo my book in your newsletter, I'll promo yours" type of deal, which is not in any way illegal, and is only shady if (for example) false claims are made, such as lying and recommending books as if one has read them when they never have.

I have a newsletter, and I recommend books that I or my spouse have actually read and meet our standards. I've turned down recommendations or swaps from authors that, despite being "known" and selling books, the book in question did not for some reason meet our standards.

It seems like ebook prices are stuck. Inflationary pressures should push them upward over time, but there is downward pressure from competition, oversupply, and digital goods trends. So they seem to be stable over the last 10 years, more or less.

Seems like 3.99 or 4.99 are the sweet spots. If you go above the psychological $5 mark, things change. Some can do it, some can't.

So this is blocking the series page function?

I know Blasty does this already, for a subscription price. I can't comment on how well it or any other sevice works, but the question of reinventing the wheel always comes up.

Pretty sure it's completely legal, just as a journalist or historian can write things about people in the present day or history.

The key is to pay attention to libel and/or defamation laws in the markets you're selling in. The USA sets a high bar for libel or defamation suits, but the UK for example sets a lower bar--and some countries make it easy indeed to be sued for some form of damage to public image or whatever. That's really the key. I am not a lawyer, but I know of no case in which it's illegal on its face to merely write about someone. Plenty of tell-all books have been written without their subjects' (primary and lesser) consent, and there's little they can do except try to sue.

Do a search on Amazon books called "Blood Ties."

Then forget it and move on. Unless the genres are very similar, nobody but a few cranks will notice or care.

Now if something gets big enough, it will be trademarked. For example, you can't call your books Harry Potter or Star Wars or Fifty Shades of anything because those have been trademarked, which usually happens when book sell a zillion.

Until then, use the title you like. As said above, titles are not copyrighted in the USA, though they are in some nations' laws.

Extrapolating trends linearly will always be wrong, and wildly wrong over the long term. Doing so makes for interesting dystopian fiction, but as has been said by Yogi Berra and others, predictions are hard, especially about the future.

The real world does not work linearly. Black Swans appear and cause shifts, then a new normal emerges for a while. Factors small and large come into play from all directions. All systems involving millions (or billions) of people are mathematically chaotic.

The problem isn't in proposing or discussing trends. The problem is in expecting any trend to continue indefinitely. Railroads in North America exploded in importance in the 1800s, showing exponential growth--until the near-simultanous advents of powered flight and the automobile caused railroad growth to plateau and eventually be relegated mostly to moving freight.

Similar things can be said of many disruptive technologies and delivery modes, such as digital books. They burst on the scene, grow exponentially, then plateau or even decline as conditions and technologies change. There's only ever 100% of anything, and going from 0% to (say) 50% is exponential growth, but going from 50% to 60% is not--and that item seldom if ever approaches 100%.

The Kindle-led ebook disruption seized 30-40%-ish of the overall English-language book market within five years (quibble about the numbers depending on how you figure it, but that's ballpark) but the growth from then on has been slow and incremental. KU disruption seized 30-40%-ish of the EL digital market (more in genre fiction, less in other areas) and growth from then on has been slow and incremental. Mathematically, all of these things create growth curves that look very similar--a big rise, then a plateau and slow growth toward some limit.

It takes generations to cause technologies to be functionally obsolete, and even then, the old stuff lingers in specialty markets. We still have horse breeders and races, buggy builders, fine mechanical watches, blacksmiths with hammers and anvils, black powder enthusiasts, people who knit and craft, leatherbound print books--etc etc. Nothing ever reaches 100% and many things never reach 90% market share. And, within the greater market there are niche markets that change the numbers. One author may seem unable to gain a tiny percentage of a huge market and fail to sell, while another may gain a big share of a tiny niche and sell plenty (and by sell I mean generate income, including KU or any other future method of monetizing IP).

"The sky is falling. Prove me wrong. Discuss."

SSDD

Weird. Comments have often been very helpful.

I doubt it is being abolished for the reason given. Rather, comments sections have turned into flame wars from time to time, so they're probably just turning them off just like many Yahoo articles no longer support comments the way they used to.

Like many things taught in lit classes, character arcs are aimed at high literature. High lit seldom sells. Sure there are exceptions--LOTR comes to mind--but genre fiction is not primarily about character arcs. In fact, arcs can destroy a series if the arc undermines the fundamental "certain something" that made the series great. Like, if sexual tension between two protagonists is a primary part of it, they can't seal the deal by for example getting married--at least until the end of the series--without risking losing that certain something.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy had little or no arc until the movies. They are frozen in time, as are Hercule Poirot, Sherlock Holmes, Beaver Cleaver, Gilligan, the A Team, the Quantum Leap guys.

Not to say genre fiction can't have arcs. B5 comes to mind, and streaming and binge-watching series today, there are many more arcs. But there are still relatively changeless characters even as others have arcs.

Think of an arc as an ingredient that is sometimes prominent, sometimes absent.