I bought "Maps in a Mirror" about a year ago and was really moved by the Lost Boys short storie where Mr. Card writes as if his own son died. Then I picked up a copy of Lost Boys the book, while still being a very good book I found it not nearly as compelling as the short story version. Anyone else's thoughts on short stories sometimes being better than books?
Posted by Hone Melgren (Member # 7340) on :
If I had to sum up what i'm about to say it would be with the phrase :
"It's all in the Oreo's!"
No not as in the snak food - it's an analogy . In a book a writer has to set the scene completely in terms of characters , locations , props in other words _everything_ . You want a chair in that corner mr author . Well to stop the reader getting confused you have to describe the chair , what it's doing in the story and other such details . When you're writing a book you can often get bogged down in the details .
With short story though as a direct contrast the author doesn't have to do any of this . They can go for the centre of the Oreo first without having to deal with the other possible parts of the story . They can afford to go "well there was this chair in the corner" and introduce characters and story elements without too much development going on .
As for why OSC's development of the story being better in short story form than the book - maybe he's just simply a better author and was able to get to a better development of the story quickly without confusing the reader
Posted by Judas (Member # 7355) on :
I have the EG short story in my signed, great conditioned, 1985 copy of Analog - and it's not near up to snuff with how cool the real book is..
What?! Bragging? Nooo.. never. (is it so bad to want to feel special?)
Judas
Posted by Quimby2999 (Member # 7044) on :
Didn't Analog publish the EG short story in 1977? I'm pretty sure the novel came out in '85. But what do I know, that was before I was born. They could have re-published it in the same mag to commemorate the novel coming out or something.
Posted by Jqueasy (Member # 7085) on :
I liked the book a lot better. It had every thing the shorty had and more.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I also read the short story version in Maps in a Mirror first -- and it so disturbed and bothered me (as a parent, I guess) that I could never force myself to read the whole "Lost Boys" book -- even though I could tell from the beginning (which I did read) that it had a much different tone than the short story.
Farmgirl
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I'm not a fan of the middle of the Oreo. I think the whole thing works together as a package. I checked out Maps in a Mirror this past week and really enjoyed finally reading 100 deaths. Even though the title is somewhat exaggerated.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I like the book much better.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I thought the thinking it could be real is what made it so powerfull and in the book version you lost that. Even if it was disturbing to someone as a parent it touched you in a way that the longer book version wouldn't because the longer version never tries to pass it off as a true story. The reason for this is explained in maps in a mirror but it still makes the short storie more powerfull.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Mmmm, no. The book is more powerful to me because I care more about the characters after 3 hours than I possibly can in 10 minutes.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Good point but since we both stick to our decisions on wich we like better we can agree to disagree.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
They could have re-published it in the same mag to commemorate the novel coming out or something.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)