posted
Something has happened to my WIP. It has taken off and outgrown what I wanted. I originally wanted to write a piece where mundane police find a murdered gnome. Loosley resembling a LAw and Order episode.
Now my antagonist has stolen the spotlight and the story seems more like the rise and fall of a crime empire. I wonder if I split the tale into two stories. One from the human cops viewpoint of discovering that a secret culture has been under their noses for years. And the other of how a immigrant gnome built and maintains a secret criminal empire over hundreds of years.
Of course I could try and weave the two together but then I lose my whole mystery feeling.
Do series work for short stories? or is this something better formatted for novels?
If what you had wanted was a story about a cop and his investigation of the killing of a gnome then you should consider beginning your story with a scene from that cop's POV--probably when he enters the crime scene. Then you can continue the story from his POV, revealing things about Olaf along the way through investigative interviews and the like.
Personally, I like the idea of an 'exposee' of the hidden lives of gnomes as told through Olaf's eyes. But, really, either one would work. But it would be tricky to do both.
Consider this--is this story so big that it can't be contained in a short story? Are we looking at the development of a novel here? My most recent short was very difficult to write because as it came it kept arguing with me that it wanted to be a novel. It probably will be someday. But my dilemma came in trying to decide what to cut and what to keep, what characters to emphasize and which ones to pass over lightly.
One big clue is the number of important characters. If the number is 3 or less, you could probably get away with a short. If it's more than 3 you might consider going with a novel. Also consider what you want to accomplish. A short story can only support 1 or 2 (3 maybe) points of conflict/resolution. If your story is screaming for more than that then it may want to be a novel. A novella, at least.
posted
There have been plenty of science fiction and fantasy writers who have written short stories that take place in the same milieu and involve the same characters. When they have written enough of them, those stories have often been compiled into short story collections, or even rewritten to some extent to make them into a novel (have you ever heard the term "fix-up novel"?).
So go ahead and write a bunch of stories in your milieu and about your characters. You are following a time-honored tradition.
posted
If that's the direction your wanting to go in try this.
Do the first short story about the detective and his partner with Olaf as a periphery protagonist. The write a second short story dealing with Olaf's imprisonment and tell his story from there.
But literary writers such as Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner have interrelated short stories. Hemingway has his Nick Adams stories, and Faulkner has his tales (comprising of novels, novellas, and short stories) of Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi. So yes, it IS a time honored tradition!
However, wasn't it Alfred Bester who said "the book is boss"? You can't predetermine your story--unless the story your writing is so simple that it can be predetermined. I think its best to begin a story with an idea of what it will be like while, at the same time, allowing the story to redefine itself while you're writing it. So the key that unlocked this story was a Law and Order style story. Now it's unlocked and you've found out it looks quite different. I believe the best way to kill your muse is to challenge this discovery and try to force your story back into your original idea.
[This message has been edited by Somerset (edited December 30, 2004).]
posted
Yeah. Besides, the endpoint of an episode of Law & Order is always a place of ambiguity (usually of a moral character, "we've enforced the law, but did we do the right thing?"). But the audience is asked to take the ambiguity seriously.
It has that in common with X-files, even though there the ambiguity was of different type, the underlying forumla was the same, even though the unanswered question is different ("Is the truth really out there?").
So the story you want to tell just didn't fit the model you attempted to use. It happens. In this case, you introduce the element of gnomes and trolls and so forth. So the reader could deal with an ambiguous ending where the main characters aren't sure or can't prove what really happened. That would be more like the X-files. Instead, you wanted to go with the Law & Orderish ending where the ambiguity is the morality of the legal status of these creatures. First off, you don't do a very good job of exploring the legal implications, and secondly nobody can take the question of whether our laws concerning gnomes are moral or just seriously until the idea that gnomes really exist is accepted seriously. Meaning not suspension of disbelief but real belief that gnomes as you describe them really exist.
It is one thing to believe that gnomes might exist, which is all you need to seriously care about the question of whether they exist or not. But it is totally different to believe that they do exist, which is what is needed to care seriously about whether gnomes are treated fairly by our laws.
posted
Do you enjoy these shows when you watch them? I mean are you analyzing the shows as you watch them? Or can you see patterns naturally?
I don't see the patterns naturally. I become very involved with the stories and almost zone out. It's why I watch them ot read. (Though I only watch maybe a show a week.) It's one of the reasons I have such a problem writing, it's hard for me to see the writings / techniques for the stories.
posted
I liked X-files a lot more than Law & Order. I could easily analyze either, though I'm working with a smaller data set for L&O. Part of the problem is that even though L&O is a pretty good show, they take themselves way too seriously. CC was looking at an audience full of people that wonder whether the truth is out there, and giving them stories that asked that question. L&O is looking at the audience in a completely different light, and while they aren't outright propagandists it doesn't take an especially sharp eye to notice that they have an Agenda.
On the other hand, having a goal in mind as they do, they don't run much risk of ever being utterly devoid of passion. So I think that the artistry of the show will remain pretty strong.
As for whether or not I'm enjoying them and seeing these patterns naturally or analyzing them, that question assumes that I'm a human. Humans have instincts that tell them how to relate to other humans and be emotionally involved with them. This activity is not usually conscious, and so you "naturally" see the artificially created events of the story, which is how you enjoy it. If you wanted to consciously analyze the story, you would have to distance yourself from experiencing it "naturally".
posted
The first thing I thought of was Mike Resnick's 'Kirinyaga' series. It was written as distinct short stories, but they intentionally follow an overall arc.
In his forward, Resnick actually talks about it being the most highly honored book in sci-fi history. Not because it received lots of awards AS A BOOK, but because so many of the individual chapters received separate awards. And I think the final book got a few good ones as well.
Jefficus
*Edited a typo.
[This message has been edited by Jefficus (edited January 21, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
