Pacing novellas vs. short stories vs. novels

[Bubastes]

I'm thinking of trying out the novella form just for fun. I'm most comfortable with long short stories (8K to 11K words), and I'm learning how to write novels now. For those of you who like to write in different lengths, what differences do you find while you're pacing a novella vs. short story (and vs. a novel)? Does the subject matter you choose dictate the story length you end up with? If so, how?

I'd appreciate any other novella pointers you have. Thanks! I'm excited see what this length has to offer.

[MumblingSage]

The one time I ever wrote a novella, it started as an overly long short-story. During the rewrite phase, I made it into a overly-short novel by affecting pacing and adding various themes (yeah, the only way I could save this piece was to make it 'literary'. Odd experiance). Subject matter was part of it: the best way to tell this story was with a slower pace that didn't work for a short story, or even a novellette. More scenes, longer scenes, and a tendency for the plot to develop more slowly (one of the themes of the story was how difficult it is to change old habits, so I show the character trying and failing to change her behavior, and that takes up space).

As for pointers...well, they're harder to publish than it looks. Mostly through e-publishers, too. And I'm not sure how marketable they are. Overall, it's a fun experiance to write a novella, but I don't know how much good it does for the writing career.

What I liked best about this novella is that I got practice at writing and editing a book-length work without having the bulk of a novel. Again, this is mostly good for experiance, rather than the pocketbook.

[eqb]

The difference between novellas and short stories is that in a novella you have room for a more complex plot and backstory, even a subplot or two. At the same time, the plot itself needs to be more focused than a novel, with any subplots tied tightly to the main plot.

While it's not easy to get a novella published in print, it's definitely possible. Some magazines publish them. There are also a number of small press publishers in SF/F that specialize in novellas--PS Publishing, Subterranean Press, and some others. (My own novella just came out from PS Publishing and they did a fabulous job with production values.)

Other than those, you can try the e-publishers as Mumbling Sage mentioned.

[Jamesaritchie]

Well, a novella starts at 15,000 words for general fiction, and 17,500 words for SF and fantasy. The upper end is 30,000 for general fiction, and 40,000 words for SF and fantasy. That's a lot of room to play with.

But for the most part, pace isn't dependent on length. A short story can have a slow, gentle pace, and a novel can have a hectic, no chance to breathe pace.

Pace is more about what you say, how much description you use, the kind of story you tell, etc., than it is about length. The mor eroom you have, teh slower you can tell a story, but this certainly doesn't mean you have to tell it slowly, or even that you should.

[Sevvy]

I write whatever length the story requires, it's not really a conscious decision. However, I have noted that I am, at heart, a novel writer and that when I finish a short story I already have an idea of how to turn it into a novel. For me, the difference between these forms is that some story ideas are short story length, and others are novel length, and some are inbetween.

[FaeryInk]

I find with my novellas I like to make the story happen within a few days time. I believe in my first novella the story happens over 3 or 4 days. This really keeps the story going and keeps the pace fast.

I have trouble doing that with my longer works. But my three longer works are a YA about change and revolution, which takes time. I think it really just depends on the plot.

[Cathy C]

What I've discovered in my own writing is that short stories work best when there is ONE plotline---the primary plot. That allows you to focus your limited space on a depth of character that makes the story gripping. It's the crisis of the moment and everything else goes away in favor of the resolution.

In a novella, you've got room for one...maybe two subplots. You also have more TIME to deal with things. It allows the character's real life (and we, as the readers, have to believe that the character has a life before the story opens, and after it closes) to intrude on the crisis, but without really impacting the character's decision-making.

For a novel, you have a broader range of resources available. The subplots (and you can have as many as you can juggle effectively) have the opportunity to actually impact the character to the detriment of the main plot.

For example, let's say you have a house fire. That's your primary plot. In a short story, you deal with the fire and get the people out and either put it out or don't. The story is done. In a novella, you can expand outward to dealing with the insurance people coming and the loss of the valuables and finding the dog who ran off when the fire trucks arrived, etc. The subplots distract the character, but don't really interfere with the main plot---the fire. In a novel, all sorts of sundry issues can arise that truly make the character's life difficult, from their wallet and paycheck burning up in the fire (because they planned to deposit it the next day, and didn't grab the wallet before racing out into the night), checks can bounce at the bank, the fire investigator might find arson or drugs that a friend left in the character's house that they didn't even know about, etc., etc.

In other words, you can heap more on the character in the length of space and still resolve what you need to resolve (and leave enough open that the reader walks away wanting more.)

Does that help any?

[astonwest]

I find that the subject matter definitely has a bearing on the length of the story. As an example, I was going to write about a 4,000-word story, but then it took off and is now double that with the end only barely in sight.

Setting also has a bearing. If you write a story which takes place all in one spot, the piece will more than likely be shorter. If you travel a lot of places within the context of the story, it undoubtedly will be longer.

[Jamesaritchie]

I firmly believe that pretty much any idea can be written at any length. A story is a story is a story, and as long as it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, writing it as a short story, a novelette, a novella, or a novel, is purely up to the writer.

I believe the only exception to this is the O. Henry type of story, which isn't so much a story as a quick lead up to a twist ending, but even many of O. Henry's stories have been turned into long movies, or have been rewritten into novels.

The question is never how can you tell a story, you can tell it any way you want, at any length you want, but how do you want to tell it, and where, as an individual writer, your greatest strength and interest lies.

The difference between a short story and a novel isn't the idea, it's how much of the story you choose to tell.

[Robert E. Keller]

If a writer takes a short story and turns it into a novel, the plot of the short story may not be enough to sustain a 300 page book, and an expansion of that plot may have to occur. Otherwise, you may end up with a bunch of filler and a slow, boring work of fiction.

Writing a novel gives you a chance to fully develop your characters, and that should be one of the first things you take a hard look at. You can start developing your characters right from the opening page, without worrying too much about word count. However, you want to write a gripping work of fiction, so don't let your pacing bog down. Keep the story moving, and keep things focused around the unfolding plot. Don't pause the story to describe things. Rather, describe them on the fly from your character's point of view, if you get my meaning. You have to think bigger now, and view the story as a larger entity in your mind. I like to do a chapter by chapter outline because it gives me a chance get a feel for the pacing and the amount of details I'm going to reveal. It also helps me evaluate the strength of each chapter and a number of other important things. Some people argue against outlining, though, so you have to make the call and decide who to listen to. But I think it's a vital process that can mean the difference between a strong novel and a weak one with choppy pacing and boring chapters.

[MumblingSage]

The difference between novellas and short stories is that in a novella you have room for a more complex plot and backstory, even a subplot or two. At the same time, the plot itself needs to be more focused than a novel, with any subplots tied tightly to the main plot.

While it's not easy to get a novella published in print, it's definitely possible. Some magazines publish them. There are also a number of small press publishers in SF/F that specialize in novellas--PS Publishing, Subterranean Press, and some others. (My own novella just came out from PS Publishing and they did a fabulous job with production values.)

Other than those, you can try the e-publishers as Mumbling Sage mentioned.

I keep hearing Subterranean Press mentioned, and I've found a few of their novellas at my library, but I've never found their submission guidelines anywhere. I was under the impression they were an invitation-only publisher or something. Or do I just have really awful Google-fu?

[eqb]

I keep hearing Subterranean Press mentioned, and I've found a few of their novellas at my library, but I've never found their submission guidelines anywhere. I was under the impression they were an invitation-only publisher or something. Or do I just have really awful Google-fu?

They don't have open submissions, but they do accept queries. Send them an email with a brief synopsis, and you'll hear back within a day, in my experience. (Sometimes faster.)

PS Publishing operates the same way.

[Jamesaritchie]

If a writer takes a short story and turns it into a novel, the plot of the short story may not be enough to sustain a 300 page book, and an expansion of that plot may have to occur. Otherwise, you may end up with a bunch of filler and a slow, boring work of fiction.

Writing a novel gives you a chance to fully develop your characters, and that should be one of the first things you take a hard look at. You can start developing your characters right from the opening page, without worrying too much about word count. However, you want to write a gripping work of fiction, so don't let your pacing bog down. Keep the story moving, and keep things focused around the unfolding plot. Don't pause the story to describe things. Rather, describe them on the fly from your character's point of view, if you get my meaning. You have to think bigger now, and view the story as a larger entity in your mind. I like to do a chapter by chapter outline because it gives me a chance get a feel for the pacing and the amount of details I'm going to reveal. It also helps me evaluate the strength of each chapter and a number of other important things. Some people argue against outlining, though, so you have to make the call and decide who to listen to. But I think it's a vital process that can mean the difference between a strong novel and a weak one with choppy pacing and boring chapters.

I hate plots and plotting, and I can honestly say I think outlined novels are almost always weak and, worse, predictable. Only one writer that I enjoy reading outlines his novels, and he does so very, very lightly, the entire outline taking up only a couple of paragraphs. This is certainly true for me, but others think differently.

Process does affect product, however, so I think one great test to see which type of writer you really are is to take a look at the writing methods of your three favorite novelists. There's a reason you like their novels, and if they outline, you should probably try outlining, as well.

I did this with a dozen of my favorite writers, and as I said, only one is a very skimpy outliner. The eleven others all work without an outline.

I've tried this experiment with all sorts of writers and readers, and while there are always a percentage of corssovers, it amazes me how not only writers, but readers fall into one group or the other.

I'm grasping at something I don't quite understand here, but I think that it isn't that outlihning or not outling is wrong, or that either produces bad work, but that it isn't the writing, but the particular group of readers that determines the "quality" of a novel written either way.

For me, plotting just doesn't work, and I fall firmly into the Ray Bradbury Stephen King camp where this is concerned.

"Plot is the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice." --Stephen King.

Bradbury is more gracious.

Remember: Plot is no more than footprints left in the snow
after your characters have run by on their way to incredible
destinations. Plot is observed after the fact rather than before. It
cannot precede action. It is the chart that remains when an action
is through. That is all Plot ever should be. It is human desire let
run, running, and reaching a goal. It cannot be mechanical. It can
only be dynamic.
So, stand aside, forget targets, let the characters, your fingers,
body, blood, and heart do.
--Ray Bradbury

I think this because of the kind of writer I am. Writing a short story or a novel without planning, plotting, or outlining is as easy and as natural for me as anything I've ever done. It just works without being work. It always has, right from the start, and long before I had a clue how other writers went about it.

But I've learned that it may be primarily because I'm also that type of reader. Very nearly all the writers I most love reading are non-plotters, non-outliners. As I said, there's always a percentage of crossovers, but I've seen so many readers I've tested fall into one camp or the other that I can't believe it's mere coincidence.

I'm not sure of meaning, except that, perhaps, just as we tend to write what we most enjoy reading, it might be a good idea to try writing the same way our favorite writers do.

[Robert E. Keller]

I hate plots and plotting, and I can honestly say I think outlined novels are almost always weak and, worse, predictable. Only one writer that I enjoy reading outlines his novels, and he does so very, very lightly, the entire outline taking up only a couple of paragraphs. This is certainly true for me, but others think differently.

Process does affect product, however, so I think one great test to see which type of writer you really are is to take a look at the writing methods of your three favorite novelists. There's a reason you like their novels, and if they outline, you should probably try outlining, as well.

I did this with a dozen of my favorite writers, and as I said, only one is a very skimpy outliner. The eleven others all work without an outline.

I've tried this experiment with all sorts of writers and readers, and while there are always a percentage of corssovers, it amazes me how not only writers, but readers fall into one group or the other.

I'm grasping at something I don't quite understand here, but I think that it isn't that outlihning or not outling is wrong, or that either produces bad work, but that it isn't the writing, but the particular group of readers that determines the "quality" of a novel written either way.

For me, plotting just doesn't work, and I fall firmly into the Ray Bradbury Stephen King camp where this is concerned.

"Plot is the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice." --Stephen King.

Bradbury is more gracious.


Remember:
Plot is no more than footprints left in the snow
after

your characters have run by on their way to incredible
destinations.

Plot is observed after the fact rather than before. It
cannot precede action. It is the chart that remains when an action
is through. That is all

Plot ever should be. It is human desire let
run, running, and reaching a goal. It cannot be mechanical. It can
only be dynamic.
So, stand aside, forget targets, let the characters, your fingers,
body, blood, and heart do.
--Ray Bradbury

I think this because of the kind of writer I am. Writing a short story or a novel without planning, plotting, or outlining is as easy and as natural for me as anything I've ever done. It just works without being work. It always has, right from the start, and long before I had a clue how other writers went about it.

But I've learned that it may be primarily because I'm also that type of reader. Very nearly all the writers I most love reading are non-plotters, non-outliners. As I said, there's always a percentage of crossovers, but I've seen so many readers I've tested fall into one camp or the other that I can't believe it's mere coincidence.

I'm not sure of meaning, except that, perhaps, just as we tend to write what we most enjoy reading, it might be a good idea to try writing the same way our favorite writers do.

I don't know--you might be right in a sense. I don't plot my short fiction. But for me, a chapter by chapter outline works wonders for my novels at times. I can write a novel without plotting it, but I feel that's the same as playing a D&D adventure that's just made up by the Dungeon Master right on the spot. I find it's usually a disaster. And although I enjoy many of Stephen King's novels due to his raw talent, sometimes the lack of outlining really shows through--very strongly. This happens when some things are introduced and go nowhere (most likely because he forgot) and the plot just sort of falls off a cliff. The Gunslinger series is an example of an entertaining series that could have been way better (for me, at least) if it had been more carefully plotted from start to finish. A plotted novel need not be weak or predictable. It just depends on how it's plotted. I'll admit that I don't always outline every chapter. I outline when the story begins to bog down or I feel it's getting weak and predictable. So what does that tell you? I use outlining to avoid the problems you accuse it of creating! But perhaps that's just me.

[Robert E. Keller]

Two of my favorite writers are big on outlining. J.R.R Tolkien did tons of outlining, and Terry Brooks, from what I gather, likes to outline his novels in detail before writing them. Oh, and there's J.K. Rowling, who I've heard plots out the Harry Potter books before writing them. I heard she has been mildly successful, too. :) Are their books weak and predictable? I don't think so, personally. Again, I also think Stephen King would produce better books in some cases if he outlined. But his raw talent usually makes for great fiction regardless.

I'm guessing I don't do as much outlining as any of those fantasy writers, as I often like to see where things lead so I can pick up on moments of inspiration I might otherwise miss (which may in fact be an irrational concern on my part). But I've done outlining for each of my three novels, and I'm certain to outline parts of the next three. This is simply due to experience, to understanding what works best for me.

[Jamesaritchie]

Two of my favorite writers are big on outlining. J.R.R Tolkien did tons of outlining, and Terry Brooks, from what I gather, likes to outline his novels in detail before writing them. Oh, and there's J.K. Rowling, who I've heard plots out the Harry Potter books before writing them. I heard she has been mildly successful, too. :) Are their books weak and predictable? I don't think so, personally. Again, I also think Stephen King would produce better books in some cases if he outlined. But his raw talent usually makes for great fiction regardless.

I'm guessing I don't do as much outlining as any of those fantasy writers, as I often like to see where things lead so I can pick up on moments of inspiration I might otherwise miss (which may in fact be an irrational concern on my part). But I've done outlining for each of my three novels, and I'm certain to outline parts of the next three. This is simply due to experience, to understanding what works best for me.

I think you're missing the point. It isn't about being successful or unsuccessful, you can be wildly successful either way. Outlined novels can be bestsellers, and so can non-outlined novels. But they will, I believe, appeal to different readers. It isn't about quality or lack thereof. To a lot of readers, the Harry Potter books are poorly written, weak and predictable. To many others, the books are wonderful. Different groupds of readers see the books in different ways. I love the writing, but don't tell me you didn't see the end coming very early on.

But they aren't outlined in the way you're talking about outlining. As I understand it, J. K. Rowling simply knows what's going to happen in the next book, and how the series will end. She outlines, but not in a tight, chapter by chapter manner. I could be wrong, but it doesn't matter.

And I can't read ten pages of Terry Brooks. For me, his books are as predictable as anything I've ever read.

But the point you're missing, I think, is that it's about the readers, not the books. I firmly believe outlined novels and non-outlined novels are different. Neither is necessarily better than the other, either can be wonderful or horrible, but each will, on average, appeal to a different group of readers.

You can certainly write a wildly successful novel either way, but I do believe you'll be better off using the method your favorite writers use. Just because one writer can write very well by outlining does not mean another can, and just because one writer can write very well by not outlining does not mean another writer can. You can't copy J. K. Rowling's writing method with much success unless you love the books J. K. Rowling writes. She isn't you, you aren't her, and your readers will also be a different group. If you don't like reading the Harry Potter novels, using teh same method to write your own doesn't make much sense.

The trouble, I think, is when writers try to intellectualize the process, attempt to determine which method to use based on logic, rather than on instinct.

What I'm saying is that it's best to find out early which method will work for you, not for a writer whose books don't please you, and doing so is seldom something you can answer by logic. I'm convinced just about all of us will write better if we're writing the kind of book we most like to read, and in order to write that kind of book, I think the method used to write it is probably the best method to use yourself, whether that method is outlining or not outlining. It's certainly the best method to try first.

And outlining is not all of a piece. Chapter by chapter outlining is not the same as two paragraph outlining, and two paragraph outlining is not the same as that used by many outliners, which is to abandon the outline completely when the story looks better in a new direction the writer never considered when writing the outline.

Though I will disagree about Stephen King. I think he's as good as it gets, and if you don't have an ample supply of raw talent, you're going to fail miserably no matter which method you use. Using an outline doesn't add talent, and, in fact, probably takes more talent than not outlining.

[Robert E. Keller]

James Ritchie,

You might be right about outlined/non-outlined novels appealing to different groups of readers. It's an interesting theory. And I agree you should read and enjoy what you write.

For whatever reason, Terry Brooks seems disliked by a lot of writers. But I tend to read his books without the same critical eye I use when doing critiques. I've read nearly all of his books so far, and I've found them quite entertaining.

True, you need plenty of raw talent. But I think in Stephen King's case (he is one of my favorite writers, by the way), he could benefit from outlining some of his books. On the other hand, if your theory is true, his style of writing without outlining appeals strongly to his readers--with the exception of myself, at least--so changing that would not be a good idea.

So it appears you're saying writers like me might benefit by adopting a set method of outlining (or lack thereof) and sticking with it in order to write stuff that appeals to the same readers that our favorite novelists appeal to. Again, it's an interesting concept, and you could be right. I do a lot of outlining in my books, and at least three of my favorite fantasy writers and primary sources of inspiration do heavy outlining.

I must also mention that earlier I said I didn't outline my short fiction, but that's not entirely correct, come to think of it. Lately, I've been outlining my heroic fantasy stories. I have two from a series planned out in detail. This is a new development, so I would say that perhaps I'm delving deeper into the outlining bit--which would make sense considering the fantasy writers I draw inspiration from.

[astonwest]

I tend to rough outline most of my short stories...if I didn't, my stories would ramble while they tried to get from beginning to end.

[MumblingSage]

I guess I outline, if by 'outline' you mean "Writing a list of key events of the story, in order, with occasional lines of dialogue". I think of it more as a progress marker, so I see about how far I am from the end of the story. If I didn't write those key events down, I probably wouldn't forget them, but I like having them where I can see them for psychological comfort. Stories which I thought out beforehand are generally better than ones I made up as I went along. On the other hand, I'm a Stephen King fan who was very impressed to learn he writes without outlines. It seems to work well for him, but I just can't imagine doing something like that.

[Robert E. Keller]

I feel it's important to note that I do some outlining in my head rather than in written form. I'll simply think a scene through and then write it out. Anytime a writer thinks ahead, he or she is outlining. Does Stephen King think ahead at all? If he does, then he is indeed outlining his novels and short stories to some extent.

Thinking of it that way, I probably have actually done outlining in my head for nearly every piece of fiction I've written, except maybe for some of the flash and micro stories. Are there any writers out there who don't think ahead at all but simply make up every short story or novel completely on the spot as they go along? I'd be surprised if there were, but maybe I'm due for a surprise. Otherwise, I see thinking ahead as no different than writing an outline--it's just done in the brain instead of on the screen. And if I'm going to be honest with myself, I realize that by thinking ahead I do indeed outline most everything I write. So that's something for writers who claim they don't outline to ponder.

[Jamesaritchie]

Right now, this is just a theory of mine, based on my own reading habits, and those of a fair number of other writers and readers I've tested.

I think it's simply best to try the method your favorite writers use because I am positive that process affects product.

You have to try one method or another first, and there's always time to try a different method later.

Part of writing is producing a book that sells, of course, but I think you also have to factor enjoyment into the equation. I'd give up writing before I'd write extensive outlines, simply because I hate the process of outlining.

I not only write better by not outlining, I have one heck of a lot of fun doing so. Enjoyment should always be part of the process. Life is simply too short to spend it doing something you don't enjoy, or even to spend time doing something you do enjoy in a manner that you hate.

[Robert E. Keller]

Part of writing is producing a book that sells, of course, but I think you also have to factor enjoyment into the equation. I'd give up writing before I'd write extensive outlines, simply because I hate the process of outlining.

I not only write better by not outlining, I have one heck of a lot of fun doing so. Enjoyment should always be part of the process. Life is simply too short to spend it doing something you don't enjoy, or even to spend time doing something you do enjoy in a manner that you hate.

I agree. Except that I enjoy outlining. I like the feel of organizing my chapters or scenes and studying them for predictable plot elements or flaws. Sometimes, in spite of my best efforts, the outline is weak in areas because it doesn't translate well into the actual story--in which case I will stray from it during the writing of that story. But generally, I know when I have a good outline, and I get a sense of satisfaction from that. For me, when the outline is detailed and solid, the book or story is as good as finished (aside from any on-the-fly changes I might make). I just have to add the colors to the drawing, so to speak.

[Ruv Draba]

I think that pace is set by scene-length and the ratio of action scenes (where a character tries to do something) to reaction scenes (where a character works out what to do), and how a character occupies its time. To a lesser extent it's set by the pace of beats within a scene too, but I think that the scenes themselves carry more of the pacing-load.

In terms of occupying its time, at any moment, a character will spend its time doing, relating, or thinking but not normally more than two at once. Doing tends to be pacier than relating, and relating tends to outpace thinking.

Most shorts I've read throw a lot of effort at thinking, sometimes almost to the exclusion of anything else. So they tend to be slowest per scene... which may be just as well because authors tend to polish their expression more in shorts, so you can savour the lines.

Novellas often do two of the three in detail, and make the other cursory... so a detective novella may focus on thinking and doing, but be cursory on relationships, or a low fantasy novella will be full of doing and relating but have very little thinking in it, or a literary novella will be full of thought and relationship but not much will actually happen. So you can get novellas that feel pacier than any other form -- low fantasy, adventure and western novellas are an example. Or they can sometimes read slower than novels -- e.g. some of Ian McEwan's shorter works.

I think that it's not so much subject-matter but treatment which shapes pace. If you count the number of major characters and the number of scenes and factor in whether it's more a thinky, feely or doey sort of work, I think you can get a feel for pace. Major characters each need their own through-line, so the more characters you have, the slower their arcs will track. And if they're thinking their way through their arcs, it'll be slower still. And if you have fewer scenes then more has to happen in each scene to progress the arcs, so things will tend to feel pacier.

That's my theory anyway.

[Jamesaritchie]

I agree. Except that I enjoy outlining. I like the feel of organizing my chapters or scenes and studying them for predictable plot elements or flaws. Sometimes, in spite of my best efforts, the outline is weak in areas because it doesn't translate well into the actual story--in which case I will stray from it during the writing of that story. But generally, I know when I have a good outline, and I get a sense of satisfaction from that. For me, when the outline is detailed and solid, the book or story is as good as finished (aside from any on-the-fly changes I might make). I just have to add the colors to the drawing, so to speak.

Enjoyment, is I think, a sign that you're doing something the best way you can for you.

I'm tempted to try a particular kind of chapter by chapter outline, simply because a friend of mine thinks I'll like it.

You write down the numbers one through twenty-seven, and write a single sentence, not to exceed twenty-five words, for each chapter.

He sold his first novel this way, and the outine took a single day, the writing less than a month. Now he's dared me to try it, so I may just give it a shot.

[sunandshadow]

Personally I think of a novella as being the same plot-size as a movie or single-volume graphic novel, I think looking at those two media could give insight into the pacing of novellas.