I can use all of your wonderful input here. I’m publishing an article about the ordeal that my father’s family and entire community endured at the hands of the Nazis. It is a VERY long article and it will be published in 3 installments. The article flows as it is but I’m wondering if I should change anything due to the interruptions in the story. Meaning, should I refer to what happened in previous installments or ad anything to the beginning of segments 2 and 3 to bring the reader back to where the article left off? Or is it ok to just divide the article in places where there’s a slight pause in the story but leave the article as is. I’m not sure I’m being clear. Do you understand my question? If not, thanks for even trying.
Great question, Mommy’s Writing! I think I’d write it with a brief recap at the beginning of parts 2 and 3 so you can give your reader a refresh from last week and/or give anyone who didn’t read the previous installment(s) a chance to jump in with some more context. Sounds exciting!
As a reader, I think both ways could go. I’ve jumped into articles that were obviously split, and for whatever reason, found myself reading just one part of a longer piece. If there was a recap, then great, it definitely enhanced the experience. If there wasn’t, as long as each part was clear and interesting then it was fine as well.
If you know it’s being split, and you know where each installment will begin and end, make sure that the characters are identifiable in each part. For example, if you mention a family friend named Hans, who helped the Jews with food, in the first installment, then if you mention his name again in the second installment, you should introduce him again, for the benefit of those who haven’t read the first part.