posted
So, heres the topic: Short Stories, One-shot Novels, Trilogies, or Sagas.
Which do you prefer? Why? I've never heard of a consistantly good Saga. Trilogies are okay, publishers love them because they are shoo-ins for profit. One shot novels are hit and miss, but I prefer this medium above all others. Short Fiction is good when I have 3-4 minutes to spare and no more.
Can a good saga be derived from a single short story? There is no such thing as a good saga.
Can a good sequal be made to a one-shot novel?[i.e. 1984, War of the Worlds] Yes, but not if they continue the story. They can exist in the same milieu and continue character development lines and be done very well.
Can a Short Story convey as deep a background as an epic saga? Or even a Trilogy? As an epic Saga, yes because most of those are so over developed that they end up back where they started -- and the ride was never worth it. As a trilogy? You didn't specify well done trilogy so yes, I have read very powerful, very deep shorts and very empty trilogies.
posted
Let me clarify that I may be using the wrong word when I say Saga. I mean any series of 4 or more books[The Ender Saga, for instance. A Song of Ice and Fire. The Anita Blake Series. So on and so forth.]
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured you meant anything longer than a trilogy.
Now a series of stand alone novels in the same milieu... thats something completely different.
Like the Anita Blake books were good, fun reads when they were stand alone novels, but when she carried it into a saga where the connecting plots were dominant over the intrabook plots, they became tripe.
Its very difficult to maintain a series where the reader can care about the ultimate outcome of the series as well as the outcome of the given book.
Lord of the Rings, for example is not a trilogy. There are two books: The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. They just broke up the second book because it was too darned long, but it is one story in three parts divided primarily by page numbers.
[This message has been edited by pantros (edited June 29, 2006).]
posted
>>> Lord of the Rings, for example is not a trilogy. There are two books: The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. They just broke up the second book because it was too darned long, but it is one story in three parts divided primarily by page numbers. <<<
Hoorays! Hoorays!
I get so sick of people trying to claim it the other way around "Oh it's 6 books" it's 1!
Thank you![sorry, slightly off-topic]
Anyway, I agree - but I also think of Star Trek(though not a book) as an Epic Saga, and honestly I think it's good as both stand-alone episodes and when you're watching the overarcing storyline. Granted, now, that Star Trek also has the nasty habit of dragging plot to other ST series...
But in the end, I feel pretty much the same. I think it can be good any way it's done, but just as fast can be horrible. The best series I've ever read started as a short story.
But that's me, Mark
[This message has been edited by MarkJCherry (edited June 29, 2006).]
posted
I personally tend to shy away from trilogies. As soon as I see that I start to think "formula..." and get all worried about hack writing, etc.
(That said I have read some highly enjoyable trilogies, especially those of Tad Williams-though he tends to write trilogies of four books (no seriously) so maybe those are sagas).
My main love is the novel but I have also recently discovered a love of novellas and novelettes. Short stories generally don't do it for me--they're often more about a thought, or evoking a feeling, and rarely have the full story arc I look for in my fiction--but that's purely a personal thing.
posted
1. Short Stories, One-shot Novels, Trilogies, or Sagas. Which do you prefer? Why?
Sagas. If I like the milieu, plot, writing and the characters, I don't want the story ever to end. That's not to say any writer has never faltered during a saga, burned out along the way, but I can often forgive them.
Though, I prefer it if I discover a saga after most of the series is complete. If I had to wait several years between books, I might forget quite a bit between. Like the last Ringworld book. I couldn't read more than a few chapters because I didn't remember much of the previous story. I felt I would have to reread the entire series to enjoy. But now, I'm in Book 7 of the Wheel Of Time, and loving it.
2. Can a good saga be derived from a single short story? Ender's Game sound familar?
3. Can a good sequal be made to a one-shot novel?[i.e. 1984, War of the Worlds] It can, though it might take a talented writer.
4. Can a Short Story convey as deep a background as an epic saga? Or even a Trilogy? Not to my personal satifation. There are some short stories that are haunting, that'll stick with me. Depending on the emotions they stirred.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited June 29, 2006).]
posted
I find I prefer one-shot sagas; that is, long novels. If it's good enough to keep my interest, then I don't want it to end, but neither do I want it to drag what ought to be one novel into a trilogy, or quadrilogy (if that's even a word).
For example, Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule was an excellent stand-alone fantasy, in that it was self-contained, with a clear beginning, middle, and end, and few (if any--it's been many a year since I've read it) loose ends. Its sequal was equally entertaining, but then he let it get out of hand, and turned the series into a neverending saga. He just wouldn't let the characters go, I think. I stopped reading at Pillars of Creation, and I never looked back (though I may one day reread WFR, when my reading list is empty, and I've nothing new to fall back on).
--Cris
[This message has been edited by cvgurau (edited June 29, 2006).]
posted
I like short stories, and I like them on the short side of stories. I like my novels short, too, and single-volumes. I hardly ever read multi-volume epics. I'm glad people who enjoy them get to read them, but with very rare exceptions, I prefer the economies of shorter works.
posted
It doesn't matter...though it takes less time to read five thousand words than it does to read five hundred thousand. It depends on the work, and how compelling it is.
I was a little late in realizing the precise difference between novels and short stories---I think I realized it when I read Heinlein's "The Green Hills of Earth" collection, and noticed when I got past the first "chapter" that new characters were introduced and the old characters disappeared. I must have been nine or ten. Somehow nothing I'd read before had brought the difference home to me.
posted
I enjoy short fiction and novels. I've spent a lifetime in a short story, and moments reading a novel--at least that's the way it feels sometimes. As long as the story is compelling I'm not worried about the form.
I sometimes wonder if the reason that people think that short fiction isn't as compelling as novels is based on length. Not that you can pack more into a novel, but that you can read more short stories in the amount of time it takes to read a novel. I mean, if you read F&SF maybe one of the stories will really strike a cord with you. But if you read ten novels, although you might be engaged, do all ten really strike a cord? Or is it just one?
I find that the more good short fiction I read, the less patient I am with novels that don't deliver.
posted
I mostly read novels, but I'm fascinated with authors who pack more punch per square inch (probably because my writing likes to slip the leash and ramble). Kurt Vonnegut Jr. can put more meaning into a sentence than some writers can put into a decalogy. On the other hand, stories strong on character need to be longer, so do most stories that pull you into another world, and I do hate to run out of reading material.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
