Short little scenes?

[Celia Cyanide]

I have a lot of short little scenes in a my novel. I do, of course, have a lot of longer ones too. But I noticed that I have a lot of scenes that only last 1-3 pages before I need to break.

What is your opinion of this? Is it a symptom of writing too much flash fiction? Does it work in a novel? There are just several scenes that I feel need to be there, but I don't want them to go on for too long. I don't think I should keep writing it when I only wanted to project that moment. What do you think?

[katiemac]

Short scenes can work to speed up the pace of the novel, especially if you're working with action and thriller. It's certainly not wrong, in any respect, and scenes are only as long as they need to be.

Still, if you're concerned about it, you might consider looking at how much "show" there is in these scenes as opposed to "tell." Compare these scenes with your longer ones to see if something's missing.

[maestrowork]

It's hard to say, without reading your ms. There's nothing inherently wrong with short scenes. The problem arises if you're rushing through the scene or if you worry too much about plot and not enough about characterization. Thrillers tend to have shorter scenes. It's all about pacing.

[reph]

Maybe the border between one of your scenes and the next is too rigid, if that makes sense. Would a smoother blend between scenes alleviate the choppiness you're asking about? I have in mind the difference in effect between an abrupt cut in film editing and a dissolve.

[SeanDSchaffer]

The way I look at it is, if the story needs a short little scene, then give it a short little scene.

As a reader, I much prefer shorter scenes to long ones. My reason is that I like to have small chunks of story to read at a time, instead of long, drawn-out scenes that seem to go on forever.

In my opinion there is really nothing wrong with short scenes, or for that matter, long scenes, but what really matters is what the story dictates.

I hope this helps.

:)

[mesh138]

Nothing wrong with short scenes. For example, one that sticks out in my mind is the old man who loses the dog who he'd beat every day in Albert Camus' "The Stranger." It's not that important to the story, but I like that part. Also, read "LEss than Zero" by Bret EAston Ellis. EAch chapter is like a page long.

[zornhau]

Short scenes are fairly standard in thrillers. They work best when alternating between antagonist and protagonist viewpoint when they are working against each other but not in direct physical conflict, e.g. chasing each other across Europe.

[Celia Cyanide]

Thanks to everyone who responded. My story is not a thriller, but I think I want it to have the same feel as one. The stuff I was working on over the weekend was about a young guy who gets caught throwing something in a dumpster behind his house. Another character has reason to believe he killed someone, and people think he's crazy. But as it turns out, he's just a bit weird, and he didn't kill anybody. I was writing a short scene of the other character watching him carry the object to the dumpster, a short scene of of him going back up to his aparment and then getting arrested, and a short scene of the cops opening up the dumpster, which cuts off right before it is revealed what the thing is. Then it goes into a much longer scene that reveals what it is, and why he dumped it there in the middle of the night.

I guess I was wondering about it because my story is pretty character driven, and not much of a thriller, so it didn't feel right. But I guess it fits, because I want it to have that kind of pacing.

Katie and Maestro, good points. Show don't tell, and character development are two things I am going to be asking about when I have friends critique my pages. Thanks.

Mesh, I really liked Less Than Zero, but for some reason I hated the fact that some of the chapters were only a page long! I'm going to put them in as scene breaks, not separate chapters, because that little technicality annoys me for reasons I cannot put my finger on :)

[stupidmansuit]

I've seen books/authors use even a few sentences of a chapter every few chapters, and have seen the author/book pull that off. So, I think it all depends (I've seen it not pulled off, too).

[brinkett]

I guess I was wondering about it because my story is pretty character driven, and not much of a thriller, so it didn't feel right. But I guess it fits, because I want it to have that kind of pacing.
My stories are also character driven and many scenes are only 1-3 pages (sometimes less). I don't think there's a "rule". If it works....

[aweis]

I make my scenes as long as they need to be. On occasion I'll notice a scene dragging on and losing some momentum or not fulfilling it's intent. Then I'll go back and rework it and tighten it up. As long as each scene serves its purpose, then the size really isn't a consideration.

[Celia Cyanide]

Very good point, aweis! "Size doesn't matter" is a cliche that's true!

[zornhau]

Ah, but there is a potential trap: you end up with a series of scenes, none of which contain conflict.

[SpookyWriter]

Ah, but there is a potential trap: you end up with a series of scenes, none of which contain conflict.



I think this is an interesting thread. Mainly because I think, could be wrong, but several scenes could exist within a chapter. Or should there be just one scene in a chapter that continues in a subsequent chapter?

Where is the conflict in a story with many short scenes? Shouldn't the conflict be described within the context of the overall story?

Just wondering out loud.

[brinkett]

I think this is an interesting thread. Mainly because I think, could be wrong, but several scenes could exist within a chapter. Or should there be just one scene in a chapter that continues in a subsequent chapter?

There's no hard and fast rule about how many scenes should be in a chapter. Whatever works.


Where is the conflict in a story with many short scenes?

In regards to Zornhau's comment, I think the potential trap of having a series of scenes without conflict exists whether you write short scenes or not. I don't believe that every scene has to have conflict, but that's my personal opinion. And conflict can exist within a single sentence--the length of a scene has nothing to do with it.

[Linda Adams]

On the other side of short scenes, it's important to make sure they aren't so choppy that they knock the reader out of the story. I ran into a book with a lot of scenes like that. Contrary to what the author probably intended--make the story seem to move fast--it actually made the story difficult to follow.

In fact, I ran across a review for a thriller by Douglas Preston that was relatively short and filled with a lot of short scene/chapters. One of the reviewers commented that with the length of the book, the space at the beginning of the chapter, and the space at the end of the chapter, that the book was actually not worth the cost because it was shorter than it looked!
James Patterson both gets praise for his short scenes, but he also has a lot of people who don't like them.

[zeprosnepsid]

I was flipping through a Murakami book a few weeks ago and I seem to remember that his chapters were also a couple pages long in a lot of cases. And he writes pretty character driven stories.

I think the moral of the stories here is do whatever works for you. If you're writing chronologically, wait till you get past those scenes and then read a chunk of it (before and after) and see how the pacing feels.

If it's a first draft then just write it and don't worry about this stuff till later.

Good luck to ya.

[emeraldcite]

I've seen a couple of 100 word Patterson specials. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Do what comes naturally and it can always be edited later. I've done some 30 page chapters and I've done some 300 word chapters. What works, works.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

"Size doesn't matter" is a cliche that's true!

phew....

in regard to scenes i think you have to differentiate between scene length and scene size.

a scene can be big (for the story) and small (as in length).

its the big for story that matters over the length.

[PeeDee]

I think it just depends on the rythm you're hearing in your head as you're writing, and also the feeling you have sitting in your stomach as you're writing the scene. Sometimes, I'll have a chunk in a scene that just goes on and on, and I start feeling more and more uncomfortable with it. Usually, I wind up chopping the whole stupid thing down to a few sentences, or the like.

THen again, I've had scenes that should've been short, which instead turned into long and happy things.

I don't think it matters how many scenes you have in a chapter. One scene-per-chapter, sure, if it's comfortable. Have a dozen. Tell the exact same event from two different points of view. What the hey.

(My favorite example is a chapter from Stephen King's second Dark Tower book, The Drawing of the Three, in which one of the chapters consists of "CHAPTER IV: shuffle" and that's it. It's just how the beat went in his head.)

[williemeikle]

I remember reading a while back that A E Van Vogt ( a prolific SF author back in the middle of the 20th Century, now almost forgotten), worked out his books beforehand in short scenes .... 4 characters, 20 scenes each at 800 to 1000 words to a scene and he had a book.

Some of Dean Koontz's early work seems to me to have been written in a similar fashion.

I've just finished working on a YA Fantasy novel and I purposefully tried to keep scenes down to the 800 - 1000 word length. I got into a rhythm where I knew when to build to the scene end, where to fit in the cliffhangers etc. it worked pretty well in what is a fast paced dialogue and action driven book. I enjoyed writing it as well, as I could do a scene a night and see that I was getting somewhere.

Willie
http://www.willie.meikle.btinternet.co.uk (http://www.willie.meikle.btinternet.co.uk/)

[PeeDee]

Back at the dawn of time and all known history, when I wrote my first couple of short stories (on paper; in pencil. Good lord.) I always made very sure that each page ended in a major cliffhanger, sure to keep people reading.

Of course, this was before I bothered with the whole paragraph business, so no one but my long-suffering mother had to read any of this stuff.

Some of Isaac Asimov's stuff has a bit of a short-scene-with-cliffhanger! pacing to it, because things like the Foundation novels were originally short stories done through all manner of magazines. The story had to grab you, but be part of a larger work.

I think it's okay, but I'm sometimes iffy about it. If I read a book with short scenes, one after another, stab-stab-stab....It can get really annoying. It's like having the world's greatest swimming pool, and you can stick your legs in it. You get to feel the warmth, sure, you can feel the currents, yeah...but you've still only got your legs in.

Also, you have to pull them back out into the air every thirty seconds or so.

But that's only sometimes. As with all things, done well, short scenes keep you moving, keep you feeling like the writer isn't just throwing a story up into the air, he's juggling the damned thing, and he's juggling you too. It can be exhilerating.

So, I guess there's the goal... :)

[zornhau]

In regards to Zornhau's comment, I think the potential trap of having a series of scenes without conflict exists whether you write short scenes or not. I don't believe that every scene has to have conflict, but that's my personal opinion. And conflict can exist within a single sentence--the length of a scene has nothing to do with it.

It's worse with short scenes because your fiction can seem (to you) to have movement, and the scenes aren't long enough for you to get bored writing them.

It's the difference between:

1 Short scenes that could one day make a conflict:
Protag sets of the school disco aiming to finally chat up his sweetheart.
Protag's Dad abducted by rogue CIA operatives.
Iraq: an army patrol sets out...
The author could fool himself that what he's writing is dynamic, but really these are conflcit-free stand-alone incidents. It's like walking down a line of chess games and glimpsing a handful of unrelated moves. There's no conflict because there's no counter move.

2 Short scenes that make up a conflict:
Protag sets of the school disco aiming to finally chat up his sweetheart.
Antag sets of the school disco aiming to chat up Protag's sweetheart
Protag arrives at disco to find Antag and Sweethart in clinch, and leaves
Sweetheart escapes clinch and goes after Protag.
Protag meets class slut and snogs her...
Each scene is internally conflict-free, but forms one move in a conflict. This is like sitting down and actually watching several moves in a chess game. It's interesting watching a knight land in a new square because of the way the move relates to the positions of the other pieces.

[PeeDee]

I wanna write a story with a hero named Protag and a villian named Antag...!