posted
Does anyone remember that Animaniacs bit, Good Idea, Bad Idea, where a skeleton man would play out some pretty funny good and bad ideas? (Like skiing in the winter--ooh, fun--as oppossed to skiing in the summer--the man falls down a steep hill, hitting large rocks and falling apart.)
Well, anyway, that's the basis formy subject title. I just thought I'd mention that.
In any case, my real reason for posting is this: I can sometimes come up with some pretty (pardon my French) badass ideas for short stories and I try to write them out to the best of my abilites (finishing them as often as not--I wish I could say the same for my novels ), but when I'm done, after I've given the story some time to cool, I realize that there's more to it. Much more. So much more, that it can be fleshed out into a good-sized novel. Now, my question is this, should I scrap the short story and go for the gold, or should I stick with the mini? Can I/Should I do both?
I realize that OSC did something like that with Ender's Game, but the novel came years after the short story, and was written only because he didn't think the Ender character was fleshed out enough to use for his Speaker for the Dead novel. Ender's Game, the book, was written so we could have a better idea of what he went through in Battle School, and why he turned out the way he did in SFTD (if I remember correctly, that is, and I may not be).
Can I publish both, working the sh. st. to be some kind of prologue? (for some reason, I really like this idea)
I'd appreciate your input, Chris
[This message has been edited by cvgurau (edited May 16, 2003).]
posted
I'd say posting that message to this board was a good idea, cvgurau, because you answered your own question.
If a short story doesn't feel finished to the writier then it probably won't feel finished to the reader. If it does feel finished but you still have unused ideas, then you can either come back to it later or write another story. There's no wrong answer here.
posted
Some of the best advice I've heard is that an aspiring writer should write -- hear me now! -- 50 short stories before worrying about publication and before writing a novel. Here's the rationale: a novice has too much to learn -- how to tell a story, develop believable characters, write dialogue, write description, write lucid and poetic prose, etc. -- to be worried about the world of publication, and moreover the novice doesn't have the skill to write a good novel. (Yes, I know, there are exceptions -- Tad Williams, for example. But writers of the quality of Hemingway and Faulkner spent years perfecting their craft writing short stories.)
If you have a short-story that would make a good novel, that's great! But don't start working on that novel until you have 50 short stories under you belt. Try to make each one different. Write in first person, write in third; write in a terse Hemingwayesque style, write in a verbose style; lean heavily on characters, lean heavily on description; write SF, write adventure, write literature; write, write, write, and at the end of 50 short stories, you'll be a better writer and, consequently, you'll be able to write a better novel.
I've been writing on and off since I was 10, and just recently I've made a commitment focus on writing. I started my 50-story countdown only a few weeks ago. I have 48 left. There's a great deal of freedom in accepting that I'm in a learning stage. And this truth, which is preached by the great writers, seems to have been forgotten: writing is a craft, the craft must be learned, and learning comes during a period of apprenticeship. So I would encourage you to be an apprentice for a bit longer. The fact that you posted this topic shows that you still are.
Hope this helps.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited May 16, 2003).]
I just started writing seriously and I have 2 short stories under my belt...but I am 52. I don't know if I can write 48 more stories before I die or lose my mental capacity. I started a novel and I am having a blast writing it. I think I might just as well finish it, even if I don't know what I am doing.
First, 50 stories doesn't take that much time. If you can write 1,000 words a day, it takes between 5-7 days to write a short story. That's two weeks shy of a year if you write a story a week. But even if you need some down time in-between stories -- let's say 2-3 days -- you're still only looking at one-and-one-half years at the most! And if you only write 500 words a day, you're still only looking at about two-and-one-half years. It takes double that to get a college degree!
Second, 52 is not old!
Third, it seems to me that the older one is the quicker one is able to write good, quality stories. You have a lot of experience -- you have years of reading under your belt, you have met a lot of people and been to a lot of places. You have a lot to draw from. The young writer -- say, the college student -- has such a myopic understanding about life that unless he is exceptionally gifted (as Rudyard Kipling or Ernest Hemingway was) his stories are going to be pure entertainment at best or, as C. S. Lewis would say, egotistical castle-building at worst.
I think it was Damon Knight who said that he'd encourage a young writer to put off writing until he or she was in his or her early thirties.
But all of this advise should be taken that as all advice should -- with a grain of salt. OSC has his own opinions, John Gardner has his, Stephen King has his. Each says something different, so you need to follow that advise which resonates with you. Personally, I find the idea of taking up a period of apprenticeship very intriguing. You may not.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited May 16, 2003).]
posted
LOL--ok 50 short stories? Hmmmm---I have only written one "short" story. And it was 22,000 words--and part of a larger work but published in serial form.
A person needs to perfect the craft---I think I have done that in the form of 5 novels. More words, or equal to the 50 short sotries.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
