To go forward with a pencil or to look back with a scissor?

billyf027 · Dec 16, 2006

Would you ever make major cuts in a story. For example I have some short stories rejected about eight times or so. They are each a little over 4,000 words long. Some writers told me, a story over 3,000 words will almost never get published. Would it be worth my time to go back and cut these stories or just move on to new writing. Thus, keep submitting them the way they are.
Any advise would be appreciated.
Thank you.

Scarlett_156 · Dec 16, 2006

Would you ever make major cuts in a story.

Yes.

Siddow · Dec 16, 2006

Why don't you just take one of them and give it a try? If it CAN be done, it SHOULD be done.

Do that, and write some new ones.

Jamesaritchie · Dec 16, 2006

billyf027 said:
Would you ever make major cuts in a story. For example I have some short stories rejected about eight times or so. They are each a little over 4,000 words long. Some writers told me, a story over 3,000 words will almost never get published. Would it be worth my time to go back and cut these stories or just move on to new writing. Thus, keep submitting them the way they are.
Any advise would be appreciated.
Thank you.

Of course I'd make cuts. I have many times. But if you're talking print magazines, 3,000 words is NOT a terribly long story, and whoever told you that longer stories almost never get published simply had no clue what they were talking about. 3,000 words is actually below average for print magazines, and I can't remember the last time I had one that short published.

But you should alway scheck guidelines and read teh magazine. This is how you know what length they want. It's the only way you can know.

bsolah · Dec 16, 2006

I make cuts to my stories all the time, depending on what shape my first draft is in. If there's a scene that doesn't move the story forward, I cut it.

But at the same time, if there's something that's not clear, I will rewrite and expand.

pdr · Dec 16, 2006

Yes, of course...

we all do. First you have to write your story then you shape it.

I like to send my stories, after their print publishing is over, to the radio. The radio story slots need a time frame which is usually 12-14 minutes, that is between 1800 and 2000 words. I have to cut most of my stories to fit.

greatfish · Dec 17, 2006

Only make cuts if your story actually needs it. If you think your story is complete the way it is, don't change anything, find a new publisher for it. I really feel that you should not compromise your work just because a magazine has a word limit, especially if there is nothing wrong with the content of the story.

Pike · Dec 17, 2006

True but if the same general opinion comes back from mulitple editors then it could be time to slice and dice. We all have to make choices with our writing. I've trashed sections of stories then realized a better way to fill the sudden void or wrap additional work around it to give the piece more impact. That's just part of writing; sculpting it until the finished product perfect (In our opinion).

Jamesaritchie · Dec 17, 2006

greatfish said:
Only make cuts if your story actually needs it. If you think your story is complete the way it is, don't change anything, find a new publisher for it. I really feel that you should not compromise your work just because a magazine has a word limit, especially if there is nothing wrong with the content of the story.

Making cuts for length does not mean compromising your story. This is an attitude that stops far too many writers from getting published.

"Nothing wrong with the content" has nothing at all to do with length, and is really a meaningless phrase. The main thing wrong with content is there's often too much of it, and if you can't cut while still maintaining a story with good content, you probably didn't have a very good story to begin with.

greatfish · Dec 17, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
Making cuts for length does not mean compromising your story. This is an attitude that stops far too many writers from getting published.

"Nothing wrong with the content" has nothing at all to do with length, and is really a meaningless phrase. The main thing wrong with content is there's often too much of it, and if you can't cut while still maintaining a story with good content, you probably didn't have a very good story to begin with.

By that logic I could cut the whole story if it was good enough.

It's true that a short story is about brevity, and in the ideal story every single line would carry significance, but if you've reached a point where every last word is important to the overall effect of the story, then you should stop cutting. A story that has no extraneous words or lines at 6,000 words will not carry the same effect if it has to be cut down under 3,000 words.

PeeDee · Dec 17, 2006

All stories are, to some degree collapsable. If you can't get 10% of the story out without the whole story falling apart, then you're just not trying hard enough. Not every story needs to lose ten percent, but quite a lot of stories aren't hurt at all by losing it anyway.

PeeDee · Dec 17, 2006

greatfish said:
By that logic I could cut the whole story if it was good enough.

It's true that a short story is about brevity, and in the ideal story every single line would carry significance, but if you've reached a point where every last word is important to the overall effect of the story, then you should stop cutting. A story that has no extraneous words or lines at 6,000 words will not carry the same effect if it has to be cut down under 3,000 words.

You don't leave material just because it's good. Certainly, it should be good if you're getting paid for it. Every damn word. What you're not being paid to do is wander around in the thickets. You're being paid to tell a story, a short story, and that means that you tell the story. Everything else, including interesting but unnecessary scenes, are extraneous. They don't call it killing your darlings because it's easy.

greatfish · Dec 18, 2006

PeeDee said:
You don't leave material just because it's good. Certainly, it should be good if you're getting paid for it. Every damn word. What you're not being paid to do is wander around in the thickets. You're being paid to tell a story, a short story, and that means that you tell the story. Everything else, including interesting but unnecessary scenes, are extraneous. They don't call it killing your darlings because it's easy.

Exactly, so once you've eliminated all extraneous scenes you will be left with all the necessary scenes, the scenes you would not want to remove for the sake of the story's clarity.

As I said before, if your story has been narrowed down to this point, and I'm going to assume it has since you've been submitting them for publishing, then you should not remove another line just because a publisher you sent them to has a word limit. If that is the only reason they're being rejected, then submit them to someone who allows longer stories in their publication.

To go forward with a pencil or to look back with a scissor?

billyf027

Scarlett_156

asdf

Siddow

I'm super! Thanks for asking

Jamesaritchie

bsolah

AW's Resident Commie

pdr

greatfish

Pike

Chivalry ain't dead

Jamesaritchie

greatfish

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

greatfish