Short Story, Novella, Novel?

[Susan Boulton]

A good novel is only as long as it needs to be. Longer length in a story provides more room for complexity, character/plot development and multiple subplots, not unnecessary wordage.

I agree, I have been told this many times as well as "it takes as many words as it takes to tell your story."

I do worry about word count, but inside I know that within reason a word count can be brought down or added too. The question you should ask your self is by adding or taking words away, what effect will it have on your story? Strengthen or weaken?

 

[jallenw]

I haven't been active here in a while because I'm still working on a large novel project, but seeing this post I had to come out of hibernation to add my $.02.

As someone who has always focused on the large when it comes to writing projects I can say that it doesn't matter what the length of your story is, each word has got to be there for a good reason or it should be cut out of the story, because it is only getting in the way of that story. Novels aren't necessarily more "verbose" or "wordy" than short stories. Overly verbose writing is also called bad writing. A writer needs the same economy of words for a novel as they do for the shortest story. A novel that "sprays words out" with only a few of those words being important to the story is a BAD novel. A good novel is only as long as it needs to be. Longer length in a story provides more room for complexity, character/plot development and multiple subplots, not unnecessary wordage.

Did you leave this out of what I said when you quoted me on purpose?

Of course, it takes time, discipline, research, dedication, and a healthy amount of insanity to write anything.

Of course each word must be necessary to the story, but with novels you don't have to choose between two different ways to say the same thing. You can just use both back-to-back. With short stories, you have to choose the best of the two.

In a short you might say something like:
Bob was sweating bullets. He'd never been so afraid.
In a novel, you might extend it to something like:
Bob wiped the fat beads of sweat off his forehead with his shirtsleeve. He thought he might vomit from sheer terror.

As with all my examples, these are rough draft quality, but you get my point.

Peace,
J. Allen Wentworth

 

[James Carmack]

I'd pay good money to see you write a novel with the same sense of word economy you use for a short short.

 

[dragoncd]

You know, this continues to be an interesting post. I read a book this weekend called "Dummies guide to Writing a Novel" or something like that. A number of novelists were interviewed - famous ones at that. (At least commercially successful - but usually fiction). 4 out of 5 said that they did not write short stories because they were such a unique and different type of writing.

So in my mind - the take away from this is that just as there are pitchers, infielders, outfielders in baseball; there are those in writing who are good at the short story, novella, and novel. I guess you have to try to write each to get a sense for what you are good at. I don't know if it is fair to say that beginning writers should start out with a short story, then write a novella and then a novel. They might be bad at short stories, but the next Stephen King at novels. Just a thought.

 

[James Carmack]

I recommended starting with a short story because they're comparatively easy. Yes, the neophyte in question may be novel material, but it's a little cruel to say "Write 60,000 words and we'll see if you're any good." It's not like writing one or the other closes off your options.

The disciplines are very different, I agree, but as a matter of practicality, I think it's best to cut your teeth on a nice little 10-20 page piece. I'm not saying a newbie can juggle a cast of a couple dozen and several plot threads right out of the chute, but you don't usually toss someone learning to swim into the deep end.

It's up to the person himself to decide what he wants to do. Advice is just that: advice, not an order. Now, those of us giving advice generally think we've got an idea of what we're talking about, so apologia and debate are welcome, but none of us have the be-all end-all answer for everyone in all times and all places. (Not that I feel anyone's asserting that.)

 

[wynnyelle]

In a short you might say something like:
Bob was sweating bullets. He'd never been so afraid.
In a novel, you might extend it to something like:
Bob wiped the fat beads of sweat off his forehead with his shirtsleeve. He thought he might vomit from sheer terror.

As with all my examples, these are rough draft quality, but you get my point.

Peace,
J. Allen Wentworth

Which one to use would depend on how fast you want to pace the story--not how long the whole story is. Some stories do better with a faster pace, some with a slower one, and I have found that this is not correlated with the overall length of the story.

 

[wynnyelle]

I'd pay good money to see you write a novel with the same sense of word economy you use for a short short.

For me, 99% of writing is rewriting, and a large percentage of that is cutting out the "fat" of the story--any unnecessary wordage. It doesn't matter if I'm working under a size limit or not. If two sentences can be consolidated into one and still carry the same weight and meaning, I do it.

 

[AgentRustyBones]

I think it also depends on what you like to read as well as what you would like to write.

I personally don't enjoy short stories all that much--never have. If I really like the style of the story and the character(s) of the story, I want more than a short story has to offer, both as a writer and a reader. If I don't like the style or the characters, then I wish I hadn't read the thing...

Short stories as part of a semi-cohesive collection, like the Thieve's World series, were enjoyable (especially early on, when that series was good), but there again, each story was more like a chapter in a larger piece of work.

Not all novels need to have multiple story lines to work.

My advice (for whatever that is worth)...is to figure out what you like to read most of all...and then try your hand at whatever that is. If you really enjoy epic, multi-book fantasy series, there's absolutely no reason that the first thing you try to write (and sell) can't be the next Wheel of Time or Song of Ice and Fire series.

If you find you don't have the patience or desire to write something so big, scale back, and try for a single story novel.

But the key is to be true to yourself. It would be a very rare author/writer who pulled off a successful career writing stuff that they didn't really enjoy reading themselves.

 

[wynnyelle]

I recommended starting with a short story because they're comparatively easy. Yes, the neophyte in question may be novel material, but it's a little cruel to say "Write 60,000 words and we'll see if you're any good." It's not like writing one or the other closes off your options.

The disciplines are very different, I agree, but as a matter of practicality, I think it's best to cut your teeth on a nice little 10-20 page piece. I'm not saying a newbie can juggle a cast of a couple dozen and several plot threads right out of the chute, but you don't usually toss someone learning to swim into the deep end.

It's up to the person himself to decide what he wants to do. Advice is just that: advice, not an order. Now, those of us giving advice generally think we've got an idea of what we're talking about, so apologia and debate are welcome, but none of us have the be-all end-all answer for everyone in all times and all places. (Not that I feel anyone's asserting that.)

Every story I ever wrote or tried to write turned out long. And I don't consider myself a "wordy" or overly descriptive writer. It's just that every time I conceive of a story, I go into enough complexity with it that it's going to take at least 50,000 words to tell it. Back when I was younger, those stories tended to be shorter, novella sized; my most recent work {7 years ago and listed on fanfiction.net--written with original characters, though} came to just over 160,000 words, squarely in the 'novel' size category.

I've just never been cut out to write short stories. Even back when I had to write shorter pieces of fiction for school assignments, they read more as chapters or pieces of chapters from a larger story.

Apologies to anyone I may have offended with my opinions here. I'm just speaking from experience, and for me, economy of words has always been important even for long works. It will continue to be equally if not more important with the current piece I have been working on for the past 6 years.

 

[wynnyelle]

My advice (for whatever that is worth)...is to figure out what you like to read most of all...and then try your hand at whatever that is. If you really enjoy epic, multi-book fantasy series, there's absolutely no reason that the first thing you try to write (and sell) can't be the next Wheel of Time or Song of Ice and Fire series.

I'm currently attempting to write a large novel or series; how big it ends up all depends on how long it needs to be...however I am going to try to avoid--no, not try, I -will- avoid--the pitfalls of certain series like Wheel of Time. IMO that series became disorganised, sprawling and discombobulated--three traits of a bad story. Rather than just trying to pile one novel on top of another, such series really need to be planned out in their entirety and treated as one big novel, which Robert Jordan clearly didn't do. Again, this is just my opinion.

Whether or not my work becomes successful remains to be seen, but it will be fun to write. ^_^ Which is why I write to begin with.

 

[Tony Williams]

Rather than just trying to pile one novel on top of another, such series really need to be planned out in their entirety and treated as one big novel.

Not necessarily - it depends on the type of world you are creating.

If you create your own universe, you can set a whole series of stand-alone novels within it, without having to plan them all out in advance. For instance, look at Asaro's Skolian Empire series: the books are not written in a chronological sequence, but hop about the timeline and between characters.

 

[AgentRustyBones]

I'm currently attempting to write a large novel or series; how big it ends up all depends on how long it needs to be...however I am going to try to avoid--no, not try, I -will- avoid--the pitfalls of certain series like Wheel of Time. IMO that series became disorganised, sprawling and discombobulated--three traits of a bad story. Rather than just trying to pile one novel on top of another, such series really need to be planned out in their entirety and treated as one big novel, which Robert Jordan clearly didn't do. Again, this is just my opinion.

Whether or not my work becomes successful remains to be seen, but it will be fun to write. ^_^ Which is why I write to begin with.

I agree with you there. I merely noted George R. R. Martin and Robert Jordan because they are both 'current' in the really, really long fantasy series. I guess Terry Goodkind is the same way--but I haven't read any of his stuff.

I lost interest in both writers after about two and half books each. I finished the third of each each series, but haven't touched anything that followed--I just have no interest in such works--although I might have been if they could have stuck with one main character and told the stories through their adventures. But...such was not the choice that either of them made. I don't think any of them are suffering from my lack of interest...

Doug
aka Agent Rusty Bones

 

[Merancapeman]

Actually, I "started out" (I put that in quotations because, previously, I thought I could start by writing a novel. I started around 20 novels before realizing that all I wanted to do at the time was just plain write for fun) by submitting a short story to a website. They later returned saying the website was shut down, but they recommended sending it to a cousin of theirs who was an author. Funny thing is, and the stupid part about it, I did not follow their advice, and I don't know what happened to my story. The next thing I DID do was send a novella to the L. Ron Hubbards contest. Contests are a great way to start. However, I recieved notice they got it, but never a notice on whether I lost or not. Chances are that I did because it's long past the quarter. Anyway, I'm still trying to write my book, but in between I'm coming up with new ideas for stories, writing them down, and writing other things like poetry. Just do what your heart tells you, man. Practice it, flourish in it, just do it as often as you can, and don't make plans for it. Writing is a lot like love. Lust fades, and the love remains, if you get my analogy. The desire to write precedes the need to write, so once you start you'll know soon enough just how badly you need it. Of course, me and my writing are going through a slightly bad seperation, but I don't think it will end in divorce just yet.

 

[wynnyelle]

Not necessarily - it depends on the type of world you are creating.

If you create your own universe, you can set a whole series of stand-alone novels within it, without having to plan them all out in advance. For instance, look at Asaro's Skolian Empire series: the books are not written in a chronological sequence, but hop about the timeline and between characters.

Stand-alone novels in a series are just that: stand-alone novels. They don't continue an unfinished story from a previous novel although they can add to its world. The main distinction is that you can pick up any one of these novels and read it without having to read any of the others. In series like Wheel of Time you have to start at the beginning, just like with any one story, and it is this kind of "series" {really 'volumes' would be a more appropriate word} that I refer to when I say that they need to be planned out in the same way that one would plan out a novel or any story for that matter.

At the risk of going off-topic I will say that it's amazing what some writers can get away with in terms of sloppy series just because they've made a name for themselves.

 

[wynnyelle]

I agree with you there. I merely noted George R. R. Martin and Robert Jordan because they are both 'current' in the really, really long fantasy series. I guess Terry Goodkind is the same way--but I haven't read any of his stuff.

It's this kind of series {in other words, really long novel broken up into volumes} that I'm attempting myself right now. Only I'm trying to lay out the whole thing from start to finish before I complete the final draft.

 

[Tony Williams]

Stand-alone novels in a series are just that: stand-alone novels. They don't continue an unfinished story from a previous novel although they can add to its world. The main distinction is that you can pick up any one of these novels and read it without having to read any of the others.

Yes, although on reflection the Skolian Empire series is a kind of hybrid. Some of the novels do follow directly on from each other (and it helps to have read the previous one), others are prequels, others take minor characters from a previous story and feature them in the next. An interesting mix.

In series like Wheel of Time you have to start at the beginning, just like with any one story, and it is this kind of "series" {really 'volumes' would be a more appropriate word} that I refer to when I say that they need to be planned out in the same way that one would plan out a novel or any story for that matter.

I agree in principle, although I suspect it might be harder in practice. My characters have a habit of taking over the plot and leading it in unexpected directions, so there's no point in my producing detailed plot outlines.

At the risk of going off-topic I will say that it's amazing what some writers can get away with in terms of sloppy series just because they've made a name for themselves.

Absolutely. I suspect that once they've hit on a successful formula, they come under pressure (perhaps from themselves, perhaps from their publishers) to continue churning out the sequels for as long as they sell, as they have a guaranteed market for them. Most long series seem to peter out into disappointment.

 

[James Carmack]

Yeah, the pitfalls of long series have been demonstrated countless times in the past. On the one hand, you think, "It should've ended here while it was still good." On the other hand, you think, "Yeah, it's starting to drag, but think of all the good stuff that's happened that we would've missed out on?"

There are some merits to an organic development to the plot. You get a more "natural" story with less risk of the plot developments coming off as too contrived, but then you've got continuity issues galore and a storyline that tends to get away from the author. More often than not, under such circumstances, the ending is imposed on the author, leaving the readers with a sour taste in their mouths.

I would argue for the middle approach. Plan out the major plot points, have a clear idea of where to end it, but remain flexible enough to adapt to any unforeseen, organic developments that come about. Gives you the best of both worlds.

 

[Ajax Torbin]

There are some merits to an organic development to the plot. You get a more "natural" story with less risk of the plot developments coming off as too contrived, but then you've got continuity issues galore and a storyline that tends to get away from the author. More often than not, under such circumstances, the ending is imposed on the author, leaving the readers with a sour taste in their mouths.

I would argue for the middle approach. Plan out the major plot points, have a clear idea of where to end it, but remain flexible enough to adapt to any unforeseen, organic developments that come about. Gives you the best of both worlds.

i agree totally. even here now i have a timeline sitting in front of me, events that i want to happen, conversations to have, ect, ect, BUT i don't let that cramp the initiative as i write. to 'go with the flow' as it were. the important thing is to have an idea of where to go, but to not let that interupt the arc of the story.
one of the things i do is plan the backgrounds for things, the who, what, why; the history. so when i need some reason [for a thing/action], or just exposition, i look at my notes.
also, i work backward from a point, this is happening, what events would bring us here, what would bring these characters here, how would you get them do do this?
and remember, writing is an art, if you force it, or try to add to many rules, it clogs up the works and becomes dry, barren, devoid of feeling.

~Ajax~

 

[wynnyelle]

Yes, although on reflection the Skolian Empire series is a kind of hybrid. Some of the novels do follow directly on from each other (and it helps to have read the previous one), others are prequels, others take minor characters from a previous story and feature them in the next. An interesting mix.


I agree in principle, although I suspect it might be harder in practice. My characters have a habit of taking over the plot and leading it in unexpected directions, so there's no point in my producing detailed plot outlines.


Absolutely. I suspect that once they've hit on a successful formula, they come under pressure (perhaps from themselves, perhaps from their publishers) to continue churning out the sequels for as long as they sell, as they have a guaranteed market for them. Most long series seem to peter out into disappointment.

Because of the size of my project I'm finding I have to at least hash out the basic plot before I can begin on it. I've discovered that the longer the story the more I need to outline the structure of it.

Another example of a hybrid-type series is the Pern series by Mccaffrey {although I dislike that series for the most part--that one gets so bad that later books break "rules" and "facts" laid down by the earlier ones!}

The pressure to churn out mediocre work will thankfully never be something I come under because I have never and will never write for the money. I have always done it as a hobby, and I honestly don't care whether I ever make a penny from it {although it would sure be nice!} That said, if I were offered a contract on my current series I would be able to deliver quite a few volumes without any pressure, I think.

I could just never let myself deliver any kind of work, written or no {I also do art} that I didn't feel was my best effort. I guess I'm too much of a perfectionist but my creative works are the one thing I really take pride in. I'd rather turn down a contract than put my name {or pen name} on any book I'd written that I knew was mediocre or even just not up to the same level of quality of the work that came before it.

 

[wynnyelle]

Yeah, the pitfalls of long series have been demonstrated countless times in the past. On the one hand, you think, "It should've ended here while it was still good." On the other hand, you think, "Yeah, it's starting to drag, but think of all the good stuff that's happened that we would've missed out on?"

There are some merits to an organic development to the plot. You get a more "natural" story with less risk of the plot developments coming off as too contrived, but then you've got continuity issues galore and a storyline that tends to get away from the author. More often than not, under such circumstances, the ending is imposed on the author, leaving the readers with a sour taste in their mouths.

I would argue for the middle approach. Plan out the major plot points, have a clear idea of where to end it, but remain flexible enough to adapt to any unforeseen, organic developments that come about. Gives you the best of both worlds.

I have actually written out a very fragmented first draft of most of my story, but there are tons of plot holes and just empty spaces that haven't been written; what I generally like to do is write some scenes "on a whim" and work them into the story to keep the story from becoming too formulaic.

By structuring and writing the whole thing as though it's just a very large novel {and not a multi-part series} I'm going to see if I can avoid the running-out-of-steam syndrome that afflicts the later volumes of so many long series. Theoretically, the later parts of the series would become the most suspenseful ones since the whole plot will be building up to the ending. I feel that this project will be experimental in this regard. I don't know if it's ever been attempted before, although it probably has been. I guess I'd just rather work on one big story than a bunch of smaller ones.

To me, continuity issues are just inexcusable. They're outright flaws; if the story were a building, they would collapse it. They bother the hell out of me when I catch one in any series. And in nearly all cases I've seen, they could've been avoided just by rereading it and doing some reworking.