Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: James Lewis (---.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)
Date: 06-08-08 13:00
Hello all:
I frequently run into new writers who will start off with a monstrous project such as a novel without writing short stories or articles first. IMO, that's somewhat backward.
I believe--and this is just my opinion--writers should tackle short stories first before novels (same with articles before a non-fiction project). Short stories must have the same elements as novels--a hook, tight writing, start, middle, ending, etc). When complete, the writer researches magazines or anthologies to send the story (editor names, submission guidelines). Inevitably, rejections will come.
This scenario will prepare the writer for the "mountain," which is a novel. The steps of writing and publishing a short story is basically a mini-version of writing novels. Writing short stories not only improves writing skills, it prepares writers for the business side (i.e. rejections, researching agents/publishers, etc).
If not that, at least it gives the writer publishing credits for a query letter.
What do you guys think? Should novelists tackle short stories first before writing a novel?
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: Steinbecks Toaster (---.mia.bellsouth.net)
Date: 06-08-08 13:48
"To each, his own," said the old woman as she kissed a cow.
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: A.L. Sirois (155.91.28.---)
Date: 06-10-08 08:46
I can't say what one "should" do, but I can say that I started out with short stories. After I'd sold a few of those I began thinking about a novel, but it didn't really get kicked into gear when a number of other young writers in the workshop of which I was a member embarked on book-length projects. Peer pressure forced me into the mix. Now, many years and seven or eight novels later, I feel fairly competent. In fact, my inamorata (also a writer, and a contest winner to boot) is currently reading my second novel, written circa 1980, and really likes it. She would certainly tell me if she didn't! (And in fact she says that parts need work -- no surprise there! The sucker is 28 years old!) So apparently I had a decent grasp of the task even then. But I would not have had that grasp had I not written a ream of shorter works first and has a basic understanding of character arc, pacing, etc.
Everyone is different, but that's my side of the coin.
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: Ce Ce (---.clt.bellsouth.net)
Date: 06-10-08 17:20
Some writers just naturally write novel-length stories; forcing those writers to write short is potentially a recipe for disaster.
I know. I can't write short to save my life. Never could.
Honestly, of all the novelists I know personally, not a single one started out writing short stories or any form shorter than a novel.
If you have short story ideas and want to write them, cool. But never think you have to "practice" on a shorter form first, or "walk before you run," or any of the other fairly meaningless cliches.
Find your natural pace, and that will likely determine the length of your work.
One size never, ever, ever fits all.
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: A.L. Sirois (155.91.28.---)
Date: 06-16-08 08:48
Obviously I do not agree with Ce Ce on this. Without wishing to say that she's stuffed absolutely clean full of wild blueberry muffins, I'd have to simply state "Your milage may vary." :-) I am a firm believer in mastering the craft a step at a time. My abovementioned inamorata is currently working on her second novel. Prior to us hookingup she had never really written any short works. Yet here she was, stalled, p!ssed off about it, and depressed. I suggested that she tackle some "flash fiction," using her skills as a poet to craft some short pieces of fiction. She liked that idea -- and now, a few months later, she has not only completed three short stories varyingn in length from 250 to 5000 words, she's working on two others and is whaling away once again on her novel. She claims that she has a) gained confidence from completing smaller tasks (the stories), and b) learned a thing or two about how to construct dramatic sequences and story arc. Plus she has stuff now to submit to magazines and contests, which of course helps with marketing herself.
So... your milage may vary.
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: Atlantic Beach (---.185.48.12.Dial1.Washington2.Level3.net)
Date: 06-16-08 11:10
I started out writing short stories because of the investment in time and because a novel felt too daunting. Also I needed someone out there to affirm me as a writer. I still need little successes and am grateful any time any publication wants my work. In the early '90s and while I was still in an MFA program I sold 2 stories in a day, one to a slick and the other to NPR, which paid less. Since then the short story market has greatly diminished. Women's mags, REDBOOK and the like, stopped publishing short fiction, so I've gone on to the personal narrative essay or CNF, which I also teach.
I teach some incredibly talented adults, but sometimes I get people who declare they're writing a book yet struggle to write a decent sentence much less a paragraph. They always bring to the workshop more pages than allowed and claim after their critique that if we read more we would understand what they're doing. These would benefit from trying to write flash fiction or a 1000 word personal narrative.
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: Ce Ce (---.clt.bellsouth.net)
Date: 06-16-08 16:49
One size never, ever, ever fits all.
My version of "Your mileage may vary." :-)
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: Anthony Ravenscroft (---.240.240.209.modem.dynamic.cptelecom.net)
Date: 06-16-08 23:40
If I were to compare the answers from Sirois & CeCe, I'd have to say that both answers are correct, merely looking at it from different ends of the tunnel.
CeCe, you're looking at published novelists. Because of that, you leave out a much larger percentage of novel-first writers who never made it to publication, probably because (as ABeach & ASirois point out) they'd never had practical experience at maintaining a single story arc, much less multiple layers.
I don't think that publication of shorter works is necessary, but those works should be able to pass muster. I started out writing op/ed (opinion & editorials) for a big college paper, where 250-450 words was the norm. I moved up to longer analysis pieces (1500-2500 words). A decade later, when I sat down to write a 75,000-word nonfic book, I discovered that I was readily able to create dozens of articles in a linear progression, each building somewhat upon what came before, & creating an overall "story arc." I doubt I could have done this if I hadn't learned -- with the help of some very tough editors -- to first explicate a single topic.
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: Carl Purdon (---.static.networktel.net)
Date: 06-20-08 08:02
I've never had anything published so take this for what it's worth....
I hate writing short stories and have never been good at it. Last year I decided to force myself to do it and actually turned out one that I really like, another that I think would pass muster, and a third that is decent. When I returned to my novel I found that I had learned volumes about how to construct a story.
|
|
Re: Tackle the mountain or small hills first? |
Author: Nan Hammond (---.nagasaki.ocn.ne.jp)
Date: 08-21-08 01:41
I disagree.
I cannot write short stories. I will not write stories. They are...unfinished. I do hover write novels. Lovely long mountenous novels. Oh the joy!
*frollics with butterflies and daisies*
|
|
Sorry. You need to Join WritersNet and activate your account to post a message.
It's quick, easy and free. All we need is a valid email address and the name you wish to use here .
|
|
